Re; The Brown Bunny

So we speak of viable art? The ground we tread is slippery, as there is really is no way to define the "viable art" that Eagleton speaks of. I believe that is what makes art truly beautiful. You can't put a formula on it. You can't say X=Y because X is continually shifting and changing with every step we take as new sensual information is continually filtered in. The world is never the same from second to second no matter comfortable that would make us. People grieve, laugh, die, move, fight all the time. The world doesn't doesn't stop moving merely because some pretentious bastard feels that his ideals are the only ones. 

Art is fluid.

When my father said "first you have to know the rules before you can break them", he was speaking of intentional straying to make a point. The beauty of artists of all genres is that the good ones, I mean the excellent ones, the ones who make history are the ones who know the rules of convention but choose to warp and twist them into something new. By this warping comes the only true creation. As there is no such thing as pure, candid creation because we live in a continual sensory world that allows for modification but not the creation of matter.   

I agree The Brown Bunny was embarrassing, dull, and painful.  I also believe that many of Wes Anderson's films are a bit much (I know I will probably get crucified in class tomorrow for saying that). But hell, both Anderson and Gallo are both making an impact that I have yet (or never) to make.