He didn’t like the 3d because it wasn’t sufficiently in-your-face – he said, “It was like, ‘Gosh, that tree is even more obviously in front of the other tree!'”. (I love my son. He’s funny.) I told him it was my opinion that as 3d develops, it’ll take two simultaneous paths. One, I thought, would be the “artsy” path, in which the director (or whoever’s in charge) seeks to minimize the audience’s awareness of the 3d so that the film as a whole is basically so 3d that it appears to be real, no matter what the subject matter. (I said, “That’s the adult approach.”) And the other path would be the “in-your-face” approach, in which things are deliberately zoomed at the audience so they could ooh and aah as if they’re on a visual roller coaster. This, I told him, would be the “kid” approach.

I was mostly tweaking him about the adult-vs.-kid divide. But it occurred to me later that my own prejudices were coloring my perception of this new art form: I prefer to suspend my disbelief and don’t give a hoot if something flies out of the screen at me, so to me it’s more “high art” if any 3d in a movie is subtle and atmospheric. But who’s to say that 3d movies aren’t basically speciating away from 2d, and will one day be their own unique form, in which (who knows?) the more obvious the 3d effect, the higher the art?

I’m a curmudgeon, apparently.

We’ve so mythologised American indian culture you’d swear they never possesed a single ignorant a$$hole and a guy named Bob in New Jersey can suddenly be said to be at one with nature if he finds out his great great grandfather was Sitting Bull’s fifth cousin on his mother’s side.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/16/89-saint-patricks-day/

AVI: add List to Bela Bartok. And Chaikovsky. And pretty much all Russian composers of 19cent. And Shostakovich. And if we start looking into Brazilian music’ influences…oy gevolt!

Whites are supposedly not authentic, and stole everything from blacks.