We're here in sunny Arizona preparing for the live show tomorrow where I just came across this (belated) review of the Gravity art show from when it was in New York! I think one of the really interesting parts of this film has been the distinction people make about Gravity in regards to film and art...it never occurred to me how different the art world and film worlds were until now, or even that there were such things for that matter!
Sometimes I feel like the art world is a bit hesitant to sort of herald something they haven't seen before as opposed to the film world which seems hungry for something new. Film is so hungry for something new that most festivals won't program things unless they are a premier, a syndrome that Jem Cohen briefly mentions in this brilliant article about the accountability of those consuming film to those who make it in our digitized world. The art world on the other hand seems to want some kind of art historical reference or a large following before they are willing to really start clapping- everyone wants that new painting to be influenced by that old one with a trusted audience! I feel like both models make it hard for a larger audience to be able to have access to new film and art. Both models also make it hard (as Jem also points out) for those making the film and art to make a living.
I have no idea if I am imagining these art and film world distinctions- it could just be the jet lag and the Arizona heat talking- but it does seem like there is a sort of a staleness in art and film lately each restricting viewership in their own way. Ok, ok I'll stop film/art ranting now! To the sunscreen and the Art opening/Film screening! (And maybe the Nap?)