Alexey Guzey on Tyler Cowen: What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.
It’s a lucky man who wakes up to find that his particular talents are needed for the age’s greatest projects. A few happy generations bounced around Europe living anonymously on the cutting edge of building cathedrals. For a few years, the best and brightest were optimizing ad delivery on the internet. Not all ages are equal. Still, it must be exciting to be where the action is.
Simmel had a nice analysis about how style and fashion are only possible in a money economy, if you're keen to connect this with the monetary side of the blog!
I most certainly am interested. I previously was ignorant or probably forgotten the range and depth of Simmel's insights and I've been an admirer of Chicago School of Sociology, great place to evaluate Summers's post. Well done.
"Simmel, similarly, points to the existence of fashion as a particularly modern phenomenon. With the division of labor no longer necessarily tied to social class, and therefore outward class distinctions now being unnecessary to enforce, means–ends rationality now frequently grounds aesthetic choices in an ethic of authenticity. I dress the way I do, not in order to signal my subjection to the enforcement of an external community, but in order to express some internal facet of individuality (and indeed, authenticity is closely related to the aniconism and aritualism that we have argued money also make possible: see e.g., Keane 2002). Individual choice in the expression of visual signals, along with more fluid group affiliation, become possible precisely because these signals are no longer bearing the burden of organizing the division of labor."
That Buñuel quote is awesome! Have you read Walter Murch's In the Blink of an Eye? He spends some time reflecting on the symbiotic relationship between sleep and dreams and argues that film editing works partially because it mirrors the disjointed, fragmented nature of our dreams.
I momentarily bristled when you said that The Godfather was probably the last great epic film of the classical era, but then I realized that a movie like Goodfellas explicitly departs from that "classical" style and has more in common with Lynch and Godard. Apocalypse Now reveals some of the exhaustion of Coppola's methods and is only saved by its source material. Megalopolis might point towards a complete collapse of his talent---but I haven't seen it yet and it might years before I feed my insomnia to watch that. The reviews have been gruesomely entertaining.
Good points. I guess it would be more accurate to say that The Godfather was a sort of peak, and that while there were other excellent films of this style, none quite reached that peak. And as you note, even Coppola moved in a more mannerist direction. (I actually like Apocalypse Now quite a bit.)
Goodfellas is excellent, my favorite Scorsese film.
I don't watch a lot of TV but this year I finally got around to watching Twin Peaks which had been near the top of my to-watch list for, like, decades. I watched both series.
It was pretty good but frankly I was a bit underwhelmed. Maybe it's because I had very high expectations, Lynch's Lost Highway probably being my favorite movie of all time. I thought it would be more like Lost Highway and a little less like a soap opera.
Maybe though, it's because the world evolved. If I had watched Twin Peaks in 1990, it might have blown my mind. Maybe Twin Peaks is the original and Lost Highway is just mannerism.
Afterwards, I re-watched Lost Highway to see if it was me that had changed. I hadn't seen it in more than a decade. Maybe I was misremembering how good it was. But no, it's still a masterpiece. It aged perfectly.
To be clear, it is only the episodes directed by Lynch that I rate so highly. The series drags some in the first two seasons, as most of the episodes are directed by others. In addition, it has been copied so much that it no longer seems so novel.
I'm reminded of the book, The Invention of Science. That book attributes the invention of science and the emergence of its contingent of geniuses to a number of developments with two prominent ones being the invention of the printing press and the discovery of the New World. The former made it possible to create a community that could learn from, replicate and comment on each other's work. The latter undermined the authority of the old beliefs, thereby freeing up the avenues of research.
As an aside, the invention of gunpowder led to a technological arms race. The compass led to the age of discovery. Paper and printing led to an intellectual revolution. All four were Chinese inventions. Talk about IP theft!!
I only saw Wilt as an old guy, so I'll have to take that guys word for it. But in the videos, he doesn't have Giannis's agility or handle.
Funny point about China. I wonder if Wilt would have developed his agility if he had a bunch of other athletic 7 footers making it harder to get open shots. But I guess to your point, he was less skilled, even if only simply because he didn’t need to be more skilled and it may have no effect on whether he was a greater player.
Not only has the new space been exhausted, but the economics have fundamentally changed in a way that no longer supports pop music *groups*. There apparently won't even be any viable new entrants to outdo the Beatles, let alone Radiohead. In many of our lifetimes, we have witnessed the beginning and end of an art form. Given the economics of cinema, we may be seeing the same thing there (movie theaters are barely hanging on, and the 2 hour film format doesn't seem to make the same sense for streaming as it does for theatrical releases). We may already have just about all the great pop/rock music and maybe even all the great films we're ever going to have (just as our stock of great symphonies, jazz, paintings, poetry also seem to be about complete).
Good points. I am surprised how many great novels continue to be written. The novel appears to be an exceptionally rich art form, with many possibilities.
"We may already have just about all the great pop/rock music and maybe even all the great films we're ever going to have (just as our stock of great symphonies, jazz, paintings, poetry also seem to be about complete)."
Scott Sumner: "I am surprised how many great novels continue to be written. The novel appears to be an exceptionally rich art form, with many possibilities."
That's a great answer - I noticed the novel hadn't come up in this post - but I would go further and suggest that we should apply the lessons of this post to other art forms.
On film, a first guess about the "have all the great films been made" question, based on Scott Sumner's view of paintings, is a resounding "no." If the history of film goes like the history of paintings, about 400 years or so from now, some future Sumner is going to be making a post on films that includes sentences like these:
"My favorite painters are Velazquez and Vermeer...."
"If limited to one painting per artist, I'd add works by Piero Della Francesca, Titian, Tintoretto, Rubens, Rembrandt, Goya, Turner, Cezanne."
So maybe this future fellow will pick 3 directors from the 1920-1980 period, and then his two all-time favorites are going to be coming along roughly in the 2050 - 2150 period.
Of course films are like novels, they tell stories, so maybe it will go more like the novel, a steady supply of excellence for a long time. Then again, the novel didn't begin with the creation of a massive novel industry churning out titles, so maybe not. Then again, rich people in the 19th century had entire rooms of their houses devoted to storing books, not to mention their own version of Netflix, so there was certainly a decent output of product even back then. (I have no idea, obviously).
Great post. Of course, we could all pick our own favorite artists/directors and you've picked outstanding ones. If I do say so myself.
I would say that the "mannerist" style in movies started much earlier, certainly with the New Wave, Bergman, Bunuel etc but likely even earlier with Lang....Sure, I'm using "Mannerist" even more loosely than you were (e.g. Bunuel is surrealist?) but movies have provided a forum for personalized, "non-realistic" styles since their inception.
Yes, it's true. But the difference is that the standard style was not yet exhausted. What's different since 1980 is that almost all the great stuff is mannerist. Farhadi might be the best non-mannerist working today.
What do you think about TV? Is it a derivative form of art to film, or an independent medium? I ask because I think Mad Men is the best TV show ever produced, and it was made recently and long after TV was first invented. Even highly-regarded shows like The Sopranos or The Wire seem quaintly unsophisticated by comparison. I do think Netflix has ruined TV though. While I loved the first couple of seasons of Babylon Berlin and Dark, almost everything streaming TV produced now seems dull.
Very good question. I see TV as a writer's medium, whereas film is a director's medium. In general, good TV shows are not good in a visual sense, they are good because they have good dialogue. So in that sense it's a different medium, more like theatre.
One reason I like Twin Peaks is that it's more like film than TV. As far as The Kingdom, I saw it at the movie theatre back in the 1990s.
I've never seen Mad Men. All I know about it is that great line "I don't think about you at all."
Mad Men is known for its spectacular visual sense (I agree few TV shows are), as well as its writing. Pretty much every episode has multiple shots as perfect as Hopper paintings.
I think few knowledgeable basketball analysts today consider Wilt Chamberlain the greatest basketball player of all time, even in the sense you mean here. While it is true that averaging 50 points a game is inconceivable in the modern NBA, that is more about how the game has changed than a sign of his relative dominance.
What was unique about Chamberlain's game was his high-volume scoring per game. But if you look at his points scored p/36 minutes or p/75 possessions, his highest scoring seasons are all-time great, but not at the top. And his true shooting percentage is relatively average when compared to the other top volume scorers in NBA history.
You might think that his ability to take such a heavy load offensively, by playing more minutes and more possessions would make him more valuable than more modern high-volume players even if they are equally good or even better on the basis of rate statistics. But this is just not reflected in his team statistics. During his highest scoring years his teams were average offensively (in the year he average 45 points per game) or just good (when he averaged 50). If he really was so much better, and taking such a big load of the offense, you'd expect to see a bigger impact on his team's offense.
This muted offensive impact from his early highest scoring seasons is likely part of why he changed his game so much as he got older and became more of a passer/playmaker. Arguably he was actually a better offensive player then, but also more ordinary as a scorer, and so someone that can more easily be compared to other great offensive players.
Good comment. FWIW, my ranking has generally been that Jordan had the highest peak and LeBron had the greatest total career, with Kareem being third. I discounted Wilt because the league was garbage back then.
I've been watching the NBA since 1968, and I've seen an amazing jump in the quality of play, which is still ongoing. I'd say 50% or 60% of the most talented players of all time are playing right now. I follow the Bucks, and when I think back to the 1970s and 1980s, there wasn't a single 6'11'' player with even 75% of the athleticism of Giannis. They were lumbering dinosaurs. (Although I'm told that Wilt was very athletic when he was young.)
Bill Walton was 6'11". He was by far the best player, the key player, on what was, for about two seasons in the late 1970's (until Bill Walton got hurt), by far the NBA's best team. Giannis is at least 33% more athletic than him?
Maybe Giannis is - my perception of the relative talent levels of the two eras is quite different, but I don't have a strong opinion on this question. (I don't credit my own perception of things much - my memory on a lot of topics tends to be suspect). My one reason for thinking maybe not, after taking a bit of a look at some stats, is that Giannis doesn't block so many shots. (He seems to stand out, statistically, more as a rebounder). But of course Milwaukee might be using him primarily as a perimeter defender....
Walton was a great center, but a very different player from Giannis, who is essentially a wing. I recall he was insanely good in one of his NCAA finals games.
Think of Giannis as the only big man in NBA history with the agility and handle of a guard. That's what allows him to get to the rim, which explains why he's the only guy in modern history to shoot over 60% while scoring over 30 PPG.
He's also a good passer and an excellent defender and rebounder. Unfortunately, he's recently been injury prone, especially in the playoffs. (A problem for athletic big men--jumping puts a lot of strain on the body. Walton, Embid, Zion, etc.)
"Giannis is at least 33% more athletic than him?" Yes. He's like a 6'11'' Russell Westbrook.
In the Mood For Love is generally the highest rated.
My favorite painters are Velazquez and Vermeer, so all ten would be by those two artists. Off the top of my head, the list would probably start with The Maids, The Spinners, and the Rokeby Venus, all by Velazquez. Top Vermeer paintings would be things like The Art of Painting, Girl With the Pearl Earring, View of Delft.
If limited to one painting per artist, I'd add works by Piero Della Francesca, Titian, Tintoretto, Rubens, Rembrandt, Goya, Turner, Cezanne. Not sure which ones.
If I could ever get back to Europe and spend 100 hours in the great museums, I'd probably find lesser known works that I like better than the classics.
There's also an apples and oranges problem of comparison. How to compare great works by a Japanese artist like Hokusai with the great works of Western painting. I can't really do that. It's like trying to compare films of two undeniably great but radically different directors. Very hard to rank.
I think SBF is one of the tech guys I had in mind that don't really understand art. He's right that there are probably writers more talented than Shakespeare, but none greater.
I've never really appreciated any David Lynch or Lars von Trier movies. I don't think I've ever enjoyed an "artistic movie" like those. (Maybe Parasite counts?)
I'm willing to give it another try though.. Where should I start? What should I be looking for as I watch?
Parasite reminds me a bit of Kubrick films---an artistic film that has fairly broad appeal to the general public.
With Lynch, don't worry so much about the plot. Look at how he presents the scenes. You might start with the first episode of Twin Peaks. He brilliantly portrays various people gradually becoming aware that something horrible had happened to Laura Palmer, but not being sure. Blue Velvet is another one that's more straightforward than Mulholland Drive.
The conditions that allow and promote the flourishing of human beings natural desire to reach towards their self understood horizons are always worth investigations. And I really enjoyed your riffs on the influence of mannerism on Films.
But I want to address your challenging invitation to develop Market Monetarism.
Alexey Guzey on Tyler Cowen: What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.
It’s a lucky man who wakes up to find that his particular talents are needed for the age’s greatest projects. A few happy generations bounced around Europe living anonymously on the cutting edge of building cathedrals. For a few years, the best and brightest were optimizing ad delivery on the internet. Not all ages are equal. Still, it must be exciting to be where the action is.
A certain parallelism of life. A community of thought. A rivalry of aim. And money to fuel it all.
Simmel had a nice analysis about how style and fashion are only possible in a money economy, if you're keen to connect this with the monetary side of the blog!
I most certainly am interested. I previously was ignorant or probably forgotten the range and depth of Simmel's insights and I've been an admirer of Chicago School of Sociology, great place to evaluate Summers's post. Well done.
Chapter 6 ("The Style of Life") of The Philosophy of Money. Or my paper :) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00191-023-00844-4
"Simmel, similarly, points to the existence of fashion as a particularly modern phenomenon. With the division of labor no longer necessarily tied to social class, and therefore outward class distinctions now being unnecessary to enforce, means–ends rationality now frequently grounds aesthetic choices in an ethic of authenticity. I dress the way I do, not in order to signal my subjection to the enforcement of an external community, but in order to express some internal facet of individuality (and indeed, authenticity is closely related to the aniconism and aritualism that we have argued money also make possible: see e.g., Keane 2002). Individual choice in the expression of visual signals, along with more fluid group affiliation, become possible precisely because these signals are no longer bearing the burden of organizing the division of labor."
Thanks a lot. Now I have to skim or reskim Simmel
That Buñuel quote is awesome! Have you read Walter Murch's In the Blink of an Eye? He spends some time reflecting on the symbiotic relationship between sleep and dreams and argues that film editing works partially because it mirrors the disjointed, fragmented nature of our dreams.
(I actually wrote a bit about it here: https://www.roughcuts.blog/p/why-does-editing-work)
Thanks, I greatly enjoyed that post.
Ah thank you, and I yours!
I momentarily bristled when you said that The Godfather was probably the last great epic film of the classical era, but then I realized that a movie like Goodfellas explicitly departs from that "classical" style and has more in common with Lynch and Godard. Apocalypse Now reveals some of the exhaustion of Coppola's methods and is only saved by its source material. Megalopolis might point towards a complete collapse of his talent---but I haven't seen it yet and it might years before I feed my insomnia to watch that. The reviews have been gruesomely entertaining.
Good points. I guess it would be more accurate to say that The Godfather was a sort of peak, and that while there were other excellent films of this style, none quite reached that peak. And as you note, even Coppola moved in a more mannerist direction. (I actually like Apocalypse Now quite a bit.)
Goodfellas is excellent, my favorite Scorsese film.
I don't watch a lot of TV but this year I finally got around to watching Twin Peaks which had been near the top of my to-watch list for, like, decades. I watched both series.
It was pretty good but frankly I was a bit underwhelmed. Maybe it's because I had very high expectations, Lynch's Lost Highway probably being my favorite movie of all time. I thought it would be more like Lost Highway and a little less like a soap opera.
Maybe though, it's because the world evolved. If I had watched Twin Peaks in 1990, it might have blown my mind. Maybe Twin Peaks is the original and Lost Highway is just mannerism.
Afterwards, I re-watched Lost Highway to see if it was me that had changed. I hadn't seen it in more than a decade. Maybe I was misremembering how good it was. But no, it's still a masterpiece. It aged perfectly.
To be clear, it is only the episodes directed by Lynch that I rate so highly. The series drags some in the first two seasons, as most of the episodes are directed by others. In addition, it has been copied so much that it no longer seems so novel.
If you found The Anxiety of Influence interesting I cannot recommend highly enough The Burden of the Past on the English Poet by Water Jackson Bate.
Thanks for the tip
I'm reminded of the book, The Invention of Science. That book attributes the invention of science and the emergence of its contingent of geniuses to a number of developments with two prominent ones being the invention of the printing press and the discovery of the New World. The former made it possible to create a community that could learn from, replicate and comment on each other's work. The latter undermined the authority of the old beliefs, thereby freeing up the avenues of research.
And WIlt Chamberlain was a great athlete:
https://medium.com/@gavin.ray/wilt-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-athlete-of-all-time-and-its-not-even-close-1e169af3aad0
As an aside, the invention of gunpowder led to a technological arms race. The compass led to the age of discovery. Paper and printing led to an intellectual revolution. All four were Chinese inventions. Talk about IP theft!!
I only saw Wilt as an old guy, so I'll have to take that guys word for it. But in the videos, he doesn't have Giannis's agility or handle.
Funny point about China. I wonder if Wilt would have developed his agility if he had a bunch of other athletic 7 footers making it harder to get open shots. But I guess to your point, he was less skilled, even if only simply because he didn’t need to be more skilled and it may have no effect on whether he was a greater player.
I'm reminded of this a recent Rick Beato video about the almost complete disappearance of bands from the pop music charts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_DjmtR0Xls
Not only has the new space been exhausted, but the economics have fundamentally changed in a way that no longer supports pop music *groups*. There apparently won't even be any viable new entrants to outdo the Beatles, let alone Radiohead. In many of our lifetimes, we have witnessed the beginning and end of an art form. Given the economics of cinema, we may be seeing the same thing there (movie theaters are barely hanging on, and the 2 hour film format doesn't seem to make the same sense for streaming as it does for theatrical releases). We may already have just about all the great pop/rock music and maybe even all the great films we're ever going to have (just as our stock of great symphonies, jazz, paintings, poetry also seem to be about complete).
Good points. I am surprised how many great novels continue to be written. The novel appears to be an exceptionally rich art form, with many possibilities.
Perhaps AI will come up with something new.
MarkW says:
"We may already have just about all the great pop/rock music and maybe even all the great films we're ever going to have (just as our stock of great symphonies, jazz, paintings, poetry also seem to be about complete)."
Scott Sumner: "I am surprised how many great novels continue to be written. The novel appears to be an exceptionally rich art form, with many possibilities."
That's a great answer - I noticed the novel hadn't come up in this post - but I would go further and suggest that we should apply the lessons of this post to other art forms.
On film, a first guess about the "have all the great films been made" question, based on Scott Sumner's view of paintings, is a resounding "no." If the history of film goes like the history of paintings, about 400 years or so from now, some future Sumner is going to be making a post on films that includes sentences like these:
"My favorite painters are Velazquez and Vermeer...."
"If limited to one painting per artist, I'd add works by Piero Della Francesca, Titian, Tintoretto, Rubens, Rembrandt, Goya, Turner, Cezanne."
So maybe this future fellow will pick 3 directors from the 1920-1980 period, and then his two all-time favorites are going to be coming along roughly in the 2050 - 2150 period.
Of course films are like novels, they tell stories, so maybe it will go more like the novel, a steady supply of excellence for a long time. Then again, the novel didn't begin with the creation of a massive novel industry churning out titles, so maybe not. Then again, rich people in the 19th century had entire rooms of their houses devoted to storing books, not to mention their own version of Netflix, so there was certainly a decent output of product even back then. (I have no idea, obviously).
Great post. Of course, we could all pick our own favorite artists/directors and you've picked outstanding ones. If I do say so myself.
I would say that the "mannerist" style in movies started much earlier, certainly with the New Wave, Bergman, Bunuel etc but likely even earlier with Lang....Sure, I'm using "Mannerist" even more loosely than you were (e.g. Bunuel is surrealist?) but movies have provided a forum for personalized, "non-realistic" styles since their inception.
Yes, it's true. But the difference is that the standard style was not yet exhausted. What's different since 1980 is that almost all the great stuff is mannerist. Farhadi might be the best non-mannerist working today.
how do you know its not the way you percieve and not the way it is?
It is the way I perceive. I know nothing about how things are beyond my perception.
What do you think about TV? Is it a derivative form of art to film, or an independent medium? I ask because I think Mad Men is the best TV show ever produced, and it was made recently and long after TV was first invented. Even highly-regarded shows like The Sopranos or The Wire seem quaintly unsophisticated by comparison. I do think Netflix has ruined TV though. While I loved the first couple of seasons of Babylon Berlin and Dark, almost everything streaming TV produced now seems dull.
Very good question. I see TV as a writer's medium, whereas film is a director's medium. In general, good TV shows are not good in a visual sense, they are good because they have good dialogue. So in that sense it's a different medium, more like theatre.
One reason I like Twin Peaks is that it's more like film than TV. As far as The Kingdom, I saw it at the movie theatre back in the 1990s.
I've never seen Mad Men. All I know about it is that great line "I don't think about you at all."
Mad Men is known for its spectacular visual sense (I agree few TV shows are), as well as its writing. Pretty much every episode has multiple shots as perfect as Hopper paintings.
I guess I'll have to check out Mad Men.
I think few knowledgeable basketball analysts today consider Wilt Chamberlain the greatest basketball player of all time, even in the sense you mean here. While it is true that averaging 50 points a game is inconceivable in the modern NBA, that is more about how the game has changed than a sign of his relative dominance.
What was unique about Chamberlain's game was his high-volume scoring per game. But if you look at his points scored p/36 minutes or p/75 possessions, his highest scoring seasons are all-time great, but not at the top. And his true shooting percentage is relatively average when compared to the other top volume scorers in NBA history.
You might think that his ability to take such a heavy load offensively, by playing more minutes and more possessions would make him more valuable than more modern high-volume players even if they are equally good or even better on the basis of rate statistics. But this is just not reflected in his team statistics. During his highest scoring years his teams were average offensively (in the year he average 45 points per game) or just good (when he averaged 50). If he really was so much better, and taking such a big load of the offense, you'd expect to see a bigger impact on his team's offense.
This muted offensive impact from his early highest scoring seasons is likely part of why he changed his game so much as he got older and became more of a passer/playmaker. Arguably he was actually a better offensive player then, but also more ordinary as a scorer, and so someone that can more easily be compared to other great offensive players.
If you want an excellent breakdown of Chamberlain as an offensive player, this video does a superb job: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVJrDj5GbtM
Good comment. FWIW, my ranking has generally been that Jordan had the highest peak and LeBron had the greatest total career, with Kareem being third. I discounted Wilt because the league was garbage back then.
I've been watching the NBA since 1968, and I've seen an amazing jump in the quality of play, which is still ongoing. I'd say 50% or 60% of the most talented players of all time are playing right now. I follow the Bucks, and when I think back to the 1970s and 1980s, there wasn't a single 6'11'' player with even 75% of the athleticism of Giannis. They were lumbering dinosaurs. (Although I'm told that Wilt was very athletic when he was young.)
Bill Walton was 6'11". He was by far the best player, the key player, on what was, for about two seasons in the late 1970's (until Bill Walton got hurt), by far the NBA's best team. Giannis is at least 33% more athletic than him?
Maybe Giannis is - my perception of the relative talent levels of the two eras is quite different, but I don't have a strong opinion on this question. (I don't credit my own perception of things much - my memory on a lot of topics tends to be suspect). My one reason for thinking maybe not, after taking a bit of a look at some stats, is that Giannis doesn't block so many shots. (He seems to stand out, statistically, more as a rebounder). But of course Milwaukee might be using him primarily as a perimeter defender....
Walton was a great center, but a very different player from Giannis, who is essentially a wing. I recall he was insanely good in one of his NCAA finals games.
Think of Giannis as the only big man in NBA history with the agility and handle of a guard. That's what allows him to get to the rim, which explains why he's the only guy in modern history to shoot over 60% while scoring over 30 PPG.
He's also a good passer and an excellent defender and rebounder. Unfortunately, he's recently been injury prone, especially in the playoffs. (A problem for athletic big men--jumping puts a lot of strain on the body. Walton, Embid, Zion, etc.)
"Giannis is at least 33% more athletic than him?" Yes. He's like a 6'11'' Russell Westbrook.
What 21st-century film is rated higher than Mulholland Drive? And what is your top ten list of paintings?
In the Mood For Love is generally the highest rated.
My favorite painters are Velazquez and Vermeer, so all ten would be by those two artists. Off the top of my head, the list would probably start with The Maids, The Spinners, and the Rokeby Venus, all by Velazquez. Top Vermeer paintings would be things like The Art of Painting, Girl With the Pearl Earring, View of Delft.
If limited to one painting per artist, I'd add works by Piero Della Francesca, Titian, Tintoretto, Rubens, Rembrandt, Goya, Turner, Cezanne. Not sure which ones.
If I could ever get back to Europe and spend 100 hours in the great museums, I'd probably find lesser known works that I like better than the classics.
There's also an apples and oranges problem of comparison. How to compare great works by a Japanese artist like Hokusai with the great works of Western painting. I can't really do that. It's like trying to compare films of two undeniably great but radically different directors. Very hard to rank.
This post reminded me of Sam Bankman-Fried’s quote about Shakespeare.
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/comments/1728oub/sam_bankmanfried_on_why_shakespeare_isnt_a_good/
I guess he was right that the odds are that Shakespeare isn’t the most talented playwright of all time, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t the greatest.
I think SBF is one of the tech guys I had in mind that don't really understand art. He's right that there are probably writers more talented than Shakespeare, but none greater.
I've never really appreciated any David Lynch or Lars von Trier movies. I don't think I've ever enjoyed an "artistic movie" like those. (Maybe Parasite counts?)
I'm willing to give it another try though.. Where should I start? What should I be looking for as I watch?
Parasite reminds me a bit of Kubrick films---an artistic film that has fairly broad appeal to the general public.
With Lynch, don't worry so much about the plot. Look at how he presents the scenes. You might start with the first episode of Twin Peaks. He brilliantly portrays various people gradually becoming aware that something horrible had happened to Laura Palmer, but not being sure. Blue Velvet is another one that's more straightforward than Mulholland Drive.
The conditions that allow and promote the flourishing of human beings natural desire to reach towards their self understood horizons are always worth investigations. And I really enjoyed your riffs on the influence of mannerism on Films.
But I want to address your challenging invitation to develop Market Monetarism.
More later