Yeah, James !

I can't recall which lecture it was, but once the class got into a huge discussion about the movie Avatar. In retrospect it must have been the lecture on the avante garde, because James Cameron is so astonishingly uncreative.

"The avante garde intends to shock viewers out of thier complacency and wrestle with the conventions of bourgeoise art and mortality"

- Duchamp. The urinal artisan.

The most expensive movie of all time with a budget of $237 million, Avatar has been compared to the epic likes of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Avatar was said to “employ a new generation of special effects”, and it showed at the box office as it proved to be the highest grossing film of all time in North America. Cameron originally wanted to start filming after his 1997 film Titanic, but he reckoned the worlds state of technology hadn’t caught up to his vision yet.

When the world was ready, Avatar was released for traditional 2D projection, as well as 3D formats such as RealD, Dolby, XpanD, IMAX 3D and even 4D - a marketing term that describes an entertainment presentation system combined with 3D film with physical effects in the theatre that occur in sync with the film – in Korea, the leading multiplex chain CJ-CGV used more than 30 effects during the movie, including moving seats, sprinkling water, lasers, smells of explosives and wind.

Despite the larger than life proportions, negative feedback managed to seep through the praise. Some critics contended the film was “big and dumb”, while others criticised the plot for being trite, such that viewers may as well analyze a beach ball.

One can’t deny Avatar is technologically epic, but the film triggers me to ask the question: is the grandiose sense of entertainment more important to us than intellectual content?

Does narrative die at the hands of these larger than life blue people on the big screen?

I think Avatar is one of the first films that demonstrate the new craze of 3D. The stereoscopic era of motion pictures dates back to the late 1890s, but was relegated to a niche in the industry due to obtrusive mechanics. In 2010, 3D films have reached a point in production which has granted enormous mainstream acclaim. Coinciding with developments in digital media and high definition, 3D may be as significant a technique in film as the introduction of colour.

Is 3D film avante garde? or is it avant garde's anti thesis - fun, visually stimulating, not necessarily thought prokovoking?

I don't have an answer to this yet. But when I do ... I will write James Cameron a letter immediately to propose a collaboration on his next film to take over the art world as we know it. Because if there is anything that was ever avante garde in this universe, we can trust that is was certainly Titanic, in all its loud and romantic glory.

(that was a joke.)