in my various outdoor endeavors i’ve had my share of close calls, so i feel limited in how much i can criticize this guy. that being said, having done neon canyon/the golden cathedral myself, i can vouch for the danger/stupidity of this dude’s actions. i wonder if this account is real. his willful recklessness seems at odds with his ability to describe the incident. does he really not understand how lucky he is to be alive?
exhibit b: article from the New York Review of Books about david hockney and the iphone.
basically what we have here are two fairly famous artists reacting to a particular piece of technology. i find david hockney’s position more interesting because his involves creating art, and creation is interesting. lynch’s position is about limitations.
in a way their respective opinions are surprising. if i had to guess, i would have thought a film director would see more possibilities in new technology than a painter.
in yet another example of art imitating life (or something like that), the 2 davids roughly represent the way my friends see new tech like iphones. some embrace it because they see new possibilities. others shun it because they feel it detracts from some notional purity of the life experience. i hear alot of complaints about smartphones detracting from deeper, more meaningful human interactions.
i have to wonder if people are being honest with themselves when they take lynch’s position. it seems to me the logic of that position requires an either/or scenario which doesn’t match reality. no one would argue that films should only be watched on a tiny screen.
it isn’t like eating potatoes with my steak dimishes the purity of the steak experience. when i eat potatoes, i’m not expecting them to substitute for my steak. it is a combo, folks. and a great one, i might add. 🙂