A Filmmaker's Guide to: Aestheticism

In this chapter of ‘the filmmaker’s guide’ we’re actually going to be learning about literature and film together. I understand that many of you are sitting in university during difficult times and finding it increasingly hard to study and I understand that many of you who are not at university or not planning on it are possibly stuck of what to do, need a break or even need to catch up on learning film before you get to the next level. This guide will be brief but will also contain: new vocabulary, concepts and theories, films to watch and we will be exploring something taboo until now in the ‘filmmaker’s guide’ - academia (abyss opens). Each article will explore a different concept of film, philosophy, literature or bibliography/filmography etc. in order to give you something new to learn each time we see each other. You can use some of the words amongst family and friends to sound clever or you can get back to me (email in bio) and tell me how you’re doing. So, strap in and prepare for the filmmaker’s guide to film studies because it is going to be one wild ride.

Aestheticism

A movement which began in Europe during the 19th Century and mostly started and manifested in France became one of the most widely recognised philosophical theories of the turn of the century to come. If you've ever seen the MGM Studios Logo with the lion encompassed by a banner reading 'ars gratia artis' then you've already experienced aestheticism for that banner is the battle cry for the cause. It means: art for art's sake. Concentrating solely on the beauty rather than the deep and alternative meanings for art, aestheticism focused on the appeal of the appearance of the medium's work whether that be literature, art, film or design.

Walter Pater, a philosopher, drew on this in his groundbreaking essays "Studies in the History of the Renaissance" and swiftly was followed by the liked of Oscar Wilde and his novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray". The works of Flaubert, Evelyn Waugh and A.C Swinburne have often also been cited as great literary works of the aesthetic movement.

But how does this work in film?

Films often have their own 'aesthetics' and auter cinema especially. These can include aesthetics that are genre-specific such as darkness and the gothic going hand-in-hand with horror or the sepia toned streets of London to go alongside a Victorian Detective Drama. However, to see aestheticism in its full degree in a film, you would need to focus on the fact that the aesthetic may be far more beautiful than it is meaningful. Is it designed to distract us? Is it designed to catch our eye for a reason other than the story itself? Does it contain anything symbolic that is often missed upon first glance?

The paradox of aestheticism on screen is that it should be appreciated solely for its beauty but then again, it wouldn't be there if it didn't mean anything at all.

Normally, we deal with films which present the overtly decorated and the overtly decadent styles in which we see no meaning, but instead a representation of what would be considered a status symbol: beautiful, rich or even a religious favourite. However, the paradox is that the aesthetically pleasing surrounding now has a meaning attached to it, so it is no longer just aesthetically pleasing. Is it still a part of aestheticism?

Yes.

Why? Well, because that is exactly it. The filmmaker wants to distract you by focusing your attention on the beauty of the artwork rather than its symbolic value. Yes they do have a deeper meaning, but as Oscar Wilde said in the preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray", 'those who look beneath the surface do so at their peril.' It is really up to the viewer to analyse beneath the surface of the beauty, but to appreciate the beautiful thing should be the first reason to view it in the first place. Let's have a look at some films you could watch in order to analyse this further:

- Caravaggio (1986) dir. by Derek Jarman

- The Great Gatsby (2012) dir. by Baz Luhrmann

- The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) dir. by Albert Lewin

So, how does that go again?

1. Aestheticism = the appreciation of the beauty of the work over the work's deeper meaning

2. In literature = studied and critiqued by Walter Pater, Oscar Wilde, Evelyn Waugh, Gustave Flaubert etc.

3. In film = The filmmaker creates an artistically beautiful film to mislead us into an appreciation of the beautiful whereas, the message within may be something far darker. We look beneath the surface at our peril

Further Reading: