SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After years of searching and consideration of locations in L.A. as well as San Francisco and Chicago, George Lucas has finally found a home for his $1 billion Museum of Narrative Art:
Lucas is to create, at his own huge expense, a museum in Los Angeles that not only shows off his collection of art along with relics from his films but makes an argument about art's purpose.
It is to be called the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. In its very name it thus restates the most original thing about Star Wars, that Lucas brought storytelling back to cinema. Can he restore the narrative impulse to modern art – and would that be a good thing?
When he praises narrative in art, Lucas clearly doesn't mean a cathartic performance by Marina Abramović or a historically evocative film by William Kentridge. His collection of over 10,000 items stresses painters and graphic artists whose work is highly accessible. That master of folksy American scenes Norman Rockwell features among his treasures, as does the brilliant comic book art of Robert Crumb. Lucas also collects the work of NC Wyeth, who illustrated boy's adventure books with exciting images of derring-do.
Put all this together with his Star Wars memorabilia and you have a museum that is likely to elicit scorn from art world snobs. Tate Modern or MoMA it ain't. Instead, it's an honest personal vision of what art should be like – and Lucas may be vindicated, just as he was when Star Wars entranced the world four decades ago.
It is expected to open by around 2021. There is some overlap with the Motion Picture Academy's upcoming museum.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 15 2017, @06:04AM
I'm all for pluralism in art, and I wish Lucas well. I'll criticize the "art world snobs" too. But I'm not even sure what to make of claims like in the summary:
It is to be called the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. In its very name it thus restates the most original thing about Star Wars, that Lucas brought storytelling back to cinema.
Huh? I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the original Star Wars movies, but I recognize a lot of great things about them as well as their influence. But does anyone seriously believe that ALL of "cinema" had somehow forgotten to tell stories before George Lucas created Star Wars?? I mean even the previous year before Star Wars brought us stuff like Rocky. Even if you want to claim that Hollywood had stopped making so many "epic" films in the 1970s, that was arguably a backlash against the overburdened epics that were a dime a dozen from the late 1950s through most of the 1960s. (There's only so much Ben Hur, and Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago that one can take before you start seeing crap like The Fall of the Roman Empire.) And yet even with that, the 1970s still had stuff like the Godfather (along with "Part II"), which is pretty darn "epic" as far as film series go.
I wouldn't nitpick this detail in the summary, except that it's trying to pin a lot on this claim -- namely that Lucas has some sort of special insight into "narrative art" that apparently the rest of the world doesn't. I like some of Lucas's stuff a great deal; I find other stuff mediocre. But the idea that he single-handedly saved cinema from... not being able to tell stories?? I'm not buying it.
Oh, and by the way, we don't tend to have "museums" of "narrative art," because they instead traditionally occupied the canonic stations in English classrooms and theatres. What percentage of theatres still foreground traditional repertoire like Shakespeare? They ARE museums of "narrative art," or as close to an equivalent as we have. How many of us are asked to read canonic novels in high school English class and college Literature classes? Again, those are museums of narrative art. Unlike paintings and sculptures, the experience of an entire drama or novel takes time to digest, so rather than visiting a museum and browsing through the "wares," we traditionally ask aficionados of "narrative art" to take some time and actually, well... experience the NARRATIVE.
Again, this is NOT a criticism of this project or having a museum devoted whatever Lucas's conception of "narrative art" is, or even an objection to an entire museum devoted to Star Wars memorabilia. I'm sure that would be a meaningful experience to many people. But the populism here is misplaced -- educated "art snobs" don't snub narrative art. To the contrary, they force more of it down the throats of the general population than most visual art snobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @07:03PM
Star Wars would have sucked if it was only Lucas.
What Lucas managed (although I question his own hand in it!) was bringing together a diverse group of people who could MAKE CINEMA MAGIC. If you go look at Star Wars for instance, the storyline itself isn't that interesting or spectacular. What made it interested and spectacular was the actors, the set designers, the model designers, the costume designers, the prop designers during handles from a handheld light (flash?) into a lightsaber, or a mauser into a DL44. The wizards who became ILM creating the special effects for the lightsabers and blaster bolts. Mark Hamill's believableness in interacting with the droids like it was the most natural thing in the world. Carrie Fisher's fiery personality. Or Harrison Ford's roguish demeanor which gives way to caring about others even at the risk to his money, ship, or himself.
All of these things were what made Star Wars great in the Cinema. And in the 20 years after it was the extended universe that kept it great, some by LucasGames some by WestEndGames, some by independent authors. Together they provided the sort of narrative breadth and mythos one might attribute to the works of Homer, or the Bible, or Ramanyana. Lucas claims as some magical super person are just as believable as Trump's similiar claims. The only reason either made it to where they were or lasted as long as they did is because of the backs of common folks who turned out to be giants. And both have the egos to claim it as their own success while ignoring how little of the overall work they themselves did. Having said that, few people memorable in history have done otherwise, except for a single moment or two of their lives, immortalized in a store or picture or interview, and just as often forgotten until many years later when they next made the news whether due to death, criminal charges, or a where were they now showing just how bad their life had been because nobody had bothered to pay attention.