Why do people say they cannot describe why they like this movie — and for the record, I don’t –? I can describe exactly what it is. Strip away all the garbage and you are left with a picture of space itself. The experience is exactly like what you would get by gazing into the night’s sky and pondering the connection of man and universe. The movie just forces you to do that for nearly three hours. You fill in the void with your own dreams. That’s all. Some people fall asleep instead.

The creepy artistry sticks with you a while, but in terms of methodological novelty — and I use that term lightly — John Cage’s 4’33″ from 1952 predates it by 16 years.
(Read the article)

Comments(0)

It is often said in certain situations that it is the thought that counts, but in fact, it is the amount of some limited resource expended that counts.

Are humans beyond such crassness? I submit that they are not, and to keep them pleased, expend we must.

Certainly that resource is not necessarily as transparent as money, but all the same. After all what is one born with? One is born with time, which is a limited resource. It doesn’t matter if one converts time into money at an exchange rate known as a salary or one converts time into effort at an exchange rate known as physical ability, so long as one is not superman, these exchange rates are finite, and thus the output is limited as well. One must wonder if it isn’t the finitude of the resource (time) that ultimately creates value and if it isn’t the transfer of value that pleases. If so, what can we conclude about even the most benign and thoughtful gestures? That they are merely purchases with a portion of one’s lifetime pool of resources?

There is some kind of corollary to this along the lines of time maximization as a life algorithm, but I don’t have time to think about it.

Comments(0)