By Kubrick. Cult classic and masterpiece, it's opposite the complexity of e.g. Soderbergh's Schizopolis. That's definitely part of its appeal, in a "less is more" kind of way. A lot like classic poetry is supposed to be; or at least like I learned in school - mostly classic studies, the context and foundations to modern stuff.
But being so simple, it's much less likely to be something only a single author could have come up with, assuming all authors' works are not-random at all -- that something as complex as Schizopolis is non-reducible. Or as non-reducible as possible. That there's no filler to it, that every element from tiny to over-arching, is there for a purpose. Again as per an old rule of thumb - like St-Exupery said "perfect when nothing left to remove".
So the simplest cogent piece of art would be that most likely for another author to come up with.
Not to take away from the quality of 2001 the movie itself, but only from fandom's blind hype, considering the above and considering the coincidence of 2001 and this old russian movie (and maybe also considering that Kubrick hated technology), it's kinda hard to seriously consider 2001 as some divine inspiration. As some sacred stroke of genius, more sacred than any other stroke of genius in the history of film.
A great movie nonetheless.
This struck me while looking for info on Spielberg's Interstellar (apparently pushed back a couple of years for some reason) on imdb.com. There's this comment section where lots of people repeat something I've heard countless times (and admittedly entertained myself) from lots of SF fans: that 2001 will never be equaled, etc. That Spielberg is delusional if he's expecting as much in making Interstellar. Pass the salt.
But being so simple, it's much less likely to be something only a single author could have come up with, assuming all authors' works are not-random at all -- that something as complex as Schizopolis is non-reducible. Or as non-reducible as possible. That there's no filler to it, that every element from tiny to over-arching, is there for a purpose. Again as per an old rule of thumb - like St-Exupery said "perfect when nothing left to remove".
So the simplest cogent piece of art would be that most likely for another author to come up with.
Not to take away from the quality of 2001 the movie itself, but only from fandom's blind hype, considering the above and considering the coincidence of 2001 and this old russian movie (and maybe also considering that Kubrick hated technology), it's kinda hard to seriously consider 2001 as some divine inspiration. As some sacred stroke of genius, more sacred than any other stroke of genius in the history of film.
A great movie nonetheless.
This struck me while looking for info on Spielberg's Interstellar (apparently pushed back a couple of years for some reason) on imdb.com. There's this comment section where lots of people repeat something I've heard countless times (and admittedly entertained myself) from lots of SF fans: that 2001 will never be equaled, etc. That Spielberg is delusional if he's expecting as much in making Interstellar. Pass the salt.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram