The Kubrickon
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:18 pmI'm mounting a new campaign to fathom the secret design behind what I call Stanley Kubrick's Architecture of Immersion.
A few quick points. If you prefer a right-brain address, skip to the image below.
a) I have never been a fan of Kubrick's films; in fact I have disliked the later ones quite a bit but most of all the whole idea that he is a Great Cinematic Genius has bugged the hell out of me for years.
b) The cognitive dissonance between my own experience of his films and the larger consensus, which had bothered me for decades, finally moved me to try and tackle it with podcaster Doug Lain. (Result here.)
c) After the conversation, I re-watched Room 237 and The Shining and finally "got" the latter (enjoyed it, I mean), thereby deepening my interest in the idea that Kubrick's films were not ordinary films, either in the sense of being simple entertainment (yeah right), or "works of art."
d) I reached a tentative conclusion that Kubrick had approached his "art" scientifically, as an experiment of some kind, and that the proof of this was in the way his films generated such obsessive attention and analysis. I started to suppose that this was deliberately intended by Kubrick, for a specific purpose.
e) I had a kind of epiphany in which I thought I had grokked what that scientific purpose was. I sent some lines out into the "Sync" community ~ where many of the SK-obsessives obsess together ~ which led to another podcast, here. I didn't want to come out and state my "discovery" because it was so wild and mostly unbacked by any evidence, so instead I extended a challenge at my blog, here.
f) Most of the responses and guesses and feedback so far has been interesting but still within the accepted framework of SK as an alchemist, illuminati shill, NL Programmer, etc etc, positing very wide, general aims usually with mystical overtones; what I am working towards postulating is quite specific and not vague or mystical at all: scientific. That's another reason I haven't revealed it yet, because to present an at least semi-"hard" scientific hypothesis is going to take some work!
g) Meanwhile what started as notes from my chat with Doug Lain has turned into a book-in-progress and a growing web of internet activity, which I call collectively, The Kubrickon, in imitation of the original Kubrickon, which is what I am hoping to unveil.
There's a Twitter feed, https://twitter.com/Kubrickon
A Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLWqgr ... qrZqW07_Eg
A new piece at the Quietus that pretty well sums up the approach I am taking, There's Something About Stanley: Kubrick's Strange Science Of Obsession
And a Patreon account to try and get some monetary support so I can pay my heating bills while I check all the way into The Overlook. (Not sure if I should mention this last, makes it seem a bit crass I know, but hey, full disclosure; I will refrain from including a link to reduce the crass-factor.)
Lastly, here's an image to make up for all those words.
A few quick points. If you prefer a right-brain address, skip to the image below.
a) I have never been a fan of Kubrick's films; in fact I have disliked the later ones quite a bit but most of all the whole idea that he is a Great Cinematic Genius has bugged the hell out of me for years.
b) The cognitive dissonance between my own experience of his films and the larger consensus, which had bothered me for decades, finally moved me to try and tackle it with podcaster Doug Lain. (Result here.)
c) After the conversation, I re-watched Room 237 and The Shining and finally "got" the latter (enjoyed it, I mean), thereby deepening my interest in the idea that Kubrick's films were not ordinary films, either in the sense of being simple entertainment (yeah right), or "works of art."
d) I reached a tentative conclusion that Kubrick had approached his "art" scientifically, as an experiment of some kind, and that the proof of this was in the way his films generated such obsessive attention and analysis. I started to suppose that this was deliberately intended by Kubrick, for a specific purpose.
e) I had a kind of epiphany in which I thought I had grokked what that scientific purpose was. I sent some lines out into the "Sync" community ~ where many of the SK-obsessives obsess together ~ which led to another podcast, here. I didn't want to come out and state my "discovery" because it was so wild and mostly unbacked by any evidence, so instead I extended a challenge at my blog, here.
f) Most of the responses and guesses and feedback so far has been interesting but still within the accepted framework of SK as an alchemist, illuminati shill, NL Programmer, etc etc, positing very wide, general aims usually with mystical overtones; what I am working towards postulating is quite specific and not vague or mystical at all: scientific. That's another reason I haven't revealed it yet, because to present an at least semi-"hard" scientific hypothesis is going to take some work!
g) Meanwhile what started as notes from my chat with Doug Lain has turned into a book-in-progress and a growing web of internet activity, which I call collectively, The Kubrickon, in imitation of the original Kubrickon, which is what I am hoping to unveil.
There's a Twitter feed, https://twitter.com/Kubrickon
A Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLWqgr ... qrZqW07_Eg
A new piece at the Quietus that pretty well sums up the approach I am taking, There's Something About Stanley: Kubrick's Strange Science Of Obsession
And a Patreon account to try and get some monetary support so I can pay my heating bills while I check all the way into The Overlook. (Not sure if I should mention this last, makes it seem a bit crass I know, but hey, full disclosure; I will refrain from including a link to reduce the crass-factor.)
Lastly, here's an image to make up for all those words.
