“…(I)s there something about cinema that leads it to shy away from the spiritual?

Some observers feel cinema is less than ideal for exploring religious or spiritual subjects.
According to one argument, contemporary audiences expect so much spectacle, escapism, and
star power for their ticket money … that sky-high production costs lead studios to avoid anything too
thoughtful or controversial.

Another argument holds that movies are materialistic by their very nature, which makes them
unsuitable for exploring spiritual themes. The acclaimed French filmmaker François Truffaut
believed this, pointing out that nothing can be filmed unless it’s physically present in front of a
whirring movie camera.” Christian Science Monitor

Several decades ago, Jerry Mander made a similar argument about TV, IMHO the most compelling of his 1978 Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, proposing that the exteriority and resolution limitations of the medium make it inherently harder to convey the subtler, more rarified nature of the finer emotions than the more base.

I recently looked at this again because of the item to which I blinked below on chimpanzees being emotionally affected by scenes on television. One reader wondered, in response to that, about the significance of mirror neurons to that process and the bearing that might have on media elicitation of violence. By the way, the mirror neuron piece on The Edge (link above, to which I originally pointed shortly after it appeared in June, 2000) provoked a lovely and challenging discussion thread there. [thanks, Marnie]

And, as long as The Edge is in our sights, here’s what’s there now: Software is a Cultural Solvent:
How Our Artifacts Will Be Able To Interact With Our Biological Forms
,
A Talk with Jordan Pollack.

I work on developing an understanding of biological complexity and how we can create it,
because the limits of software engineering have been clear now for two decades. The biggest
programs anyone can build are about ten million lines of code. A real biological object — a
creature, an ecosystem, a brain — is something with the same complexity as ten billion lines
of code. And how do we get there?

Anthropology’s Alternative Radical: ‘ “He’s like a rock star,” said one graduate
student in anthropology. “He’s the professor that all the students think is cool.”

Among his colleagues in anthropology, however, there is no such consensus. (Michael)
Taussig owes his academic reputation to a body of highly unconventional work
on topics like devil worship, shamanism and state terror. Ominous and
otherworldly, his subject matter is inherently provocative. Yet it is his experimental
approach to ethnography, or case studies of other cultures, as well as his
occasional diatribes against the work of more traditional colleagues that have
made him a polarizing figure in the field.’ New York Times

Word Imperfect: “…The author of The Professor and the Madman—the best-selling tale of
the making of the Oxford English Dictionary—questions the legacy of the
definitive list of synonyms that the brilliant Peter Mark Roget compiled
150 years ago. Is the name Roget becoming a synonym for intellectually
second-rate?” The Atlantic