More galvanizing (what, no copper?), than Muschamp's shallow fantasy
was the lead movie-hype article in Sunday's NYT which examined
how technology is transforming filmmaking -- from the bottom up,
with editors and FX and other little-known specialists using tools
the stars and producers know squat about. (Which reminds why
the CAD-jockies will eventually dominate the archie-profession
over the purblind intellectuals and sclerotic credentialists.)
Sorry I don't recall his name, that's the point, eh, but he drew a
comparison between the change from frescoe painting to oil, circa
1499, he says. With the intorudction of oil painting what once
required a collaborative endeavor came to be one an individual
could control. He contemplated a filmmaker doing everything
with digital tools now done by a large-peopled collaboration and
expensive infratructure.
He also compared the hegemony of upper-class opera at the end of the
19th century with the earliest hand-cranked kinescopes beloved by
poor immigrants, and wondered what conceit of today will still be in force
a century from now and what technology will turn it into a niche obsession.
He claims that collaborative arts are different from and more beneficial
than those produced by individuals, opining that individuals with too
much control go insane from lack of counterbalancing input by others --
and suggests that is what has happened to painting (Van Gogh a
bellweather). Ouch.
He says that going to a movie theater is superior to seeing a movie
at home. The people engathered affect the experience -- again too much
individual control at home onanizes the aesthetic. For that reason
he says to not expect movie theaters to disappear anytime soon --
thanks to the stigma of the porn booth.
What's striking about the fellow's argument is how similar it is to that
of the cathedral builders, grand systems builders of all stripes, who
cannot conceive of becoming extinct, to be known only through
simulacral world monuments (hooray for archeology's Dreamworks),
even though they avidly ape the graven images of their predecessors
to solidify transiency.
The people need each other (and us to properly shepherd, shelter
and shame them), he lies, architecturfally, cathedrally.
Hell, even the itinerant cathedral-builders stole stuff from one job for
the next, simpered "only for you m'lord," seducing their IP-thieving
paylords. "Paper" hoots at Cardinal Nellie Spellbound's hissy at
having to cut a ten-foor train to three by Papal order against
excessive vulgarity -- like Beauvais's overreaching collapse.
was the lead movie-hype article in Sunday's NYT which examined
how technology is transforming filmmaking -- from the bottom up,
with editors and FX and other little-known specialists using tools
the stars and producers know squat about. (Which reminds why
the CAD-jockies will eventually dominate the archie-profession
over the purblind intellectuals and sclerotic credentialists.)
Sorry I don't recall his name, that's the point, eh, but he drew a
comparison between the change from frescoe painting to oil, circa
1499, he says. With the intorudction of oil painting what once
required a collaborative endeavor came to be one an individual
could control. He contemplated a filmmaker doing everything
with digital tools now done by a large-peopled collaboration and
expensive infratructure.
He also compared the hegemony of upper-class opera at the end of the
19th century with the earliest hand-cranked kinescopes beloved by
poor immigrants, and wondered what conceit of today will still be in force
a century from now and what technology will turn it into a niche obsession.
He claims that collaborative arts are different from and more beneficial
than those produced by individuals, opining that individuals with too
much control go insane from lack of counterbalancing input by others --
and suggests that is what has happened to painting (Van Gogh a
bellweather). Ouch.
He says that going to a movie theater is superior to seeing a movie
at home. The people engathered affect the experience -- again too much
individual control at home onanizes the aesthetic. For that reason
he says to not expect movie theaters to disappear anytime soon --
thanks to the stigma of the porn booth.
What's striking about the fellow's argument is how similar it is to that
of the cathedral builders, grand systems builders of all stripes, who
cannot conceive of becoming extinct, to be known only through
simulacral world monuments (hooray for archeology's Dreamworks),
even though they avidly ape the graven images of their predecessors
to solidify transiency.
The people need each other (and us to properly shepherd, shelter
and shame them), he lies, architecturfally, cathedrally.
Hell, even the itinerant cathedral-builders stole stuff from one job for
the next, simpered "only for you m'lord," seducing their IP-thieving
paylords. "Paper" hoots at Cardinal Nellie Spellbound's hissy at
having to cut a ten-foor train to three by Papal order against
excessive vulgarity -- like Beauvais's overreaching collapse.