Pinnacles of the Culture of Mankind: Art that I Love

Lately I've been reading a lot of conspiracy theories and material relating to them. It's fascinating stuff. The good ones are pretty impressive in the way they manage to create a cohesive theory from what would appear to rational people to be totally unrelated and meaningless events. It's like they're playing Connect the Dots with total disregard of the numbers. And they're drawing their own dots. And it's a piece of particle board. But the end result is still amazing!

I wouldn't say I believe any specific ones, but I think the general idea behind all of them is likely true. Most theories can usually be summarized as follows:

1. Some group or individual has a desire. This can include man things such as material wealth or resources or political power. Some more mystical theories also include religious power or ancient secrets and the like. This can all usually be summarized as "control", which is then either a means to an end or necessary for a further objective, but control can be said to be the immediate goal.

2. Said group acquires control by operating above and outside the stated global political and business system. Usually this is done through the group installing itself in positions of influence in organizations that would otherwise have no reason to assist each other particularly.

3. The group masks their control and actions by maintaining the illusion of other factors causing the effects of their actions and other people having control.

4. Apparently, the group then inexplicably reports their progress by making vague hand gestures and coded messages that only those with enough free time to watch TV frame by frame will notice.

This "pattern" fits most popular conspiracy theories: those involving the Bilderburg group, the Rothschilds or Rockefellers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, etc, etc. Obviously there is a lot of overlap on these, but some key differences and definitively camps. I often wonder if, say, a Holocaust denier thinks that a UFOlogist is crazy or if they have some sort of baseline acknowledgement? I think, at least, they probably have some common personality elements. Theorists usually seem to be fairly optimistic about humanity and the world at large, they feel that the problems they have with current society stem not from any sort of innate or unsolvable flaw but from the influence of others that, powerful as they may be, can and must be stopped. It's a quite uplifting sentiment, I guess, if it was true.

So I'm skeptical about them, but I can't deny that the very roots of general conspiracy make too much sense to not exist if possible - "If someone can do something like this, someone will do something like this." - it's just... no one really can do the things they're claiming they've done. But I really don't know. Stuff like MKULTRA and organized crime started off as conspiracy theories. Even if none of the current theories have it exactly right, which is more than likely, there's probably at least one unaccepted fact floating around. Plus, I find witnessing someone in the grips of obsession to be one of the most fascinating things on Earth.

A Conspiracy Theory I Can Get Behind

So there's a few conspiracies about censorship of art, mysteries in art, lost art, etc, etc. Sometimes these tie in with some idea that some of the elite artists are Illuminati or whatever, part of the "New World Order" or what have you, real Dan Brown sorta stuff. Kind of interesting, but I think it's one of the more boring directions you can go with the idea. I'm more of a fan of the idea of "dangerous art"! The stuff that can make people go mad, or kill themselves, or something! Like the plot of Infinite Jest as I understand it (I have yet to read it, regrettably), or that Monty Python sketch with the joke developed to kill Nazis. That's one of my favorite Monty Python sketches.

Basically, I like the idea of art being moving on an uncontrollable level. You do see it, on some level: people involuntarily weeping upon hearing music, becoming transfixed in the Louvre, all sorts of minor reactions people have just due to the power of good art. I remember the term "artistic rapture" being used for this sort of thing once, I think that's a pretty apt description. And I think it's not totally ridiculous to feel that it stands to reason that some art might be SO AMAZING that to experience it is to DIE.

OK, that is ridiculous. But I do like the idea of lost art having some sort of remarkable nature aside from being lost. Like the full cut of "Greed", someone told me once that it would be "hands down the best film ever" if the whole 10 hours remained, not sure if there's any merit to that at all, but it's the sort of thing interesting, at any rate. That's why I'm fascinated by the idea of scenes trimmed from Hamlet or unfinished manuscripts or whatever, it's so easy to just think "Alright well obviously that would be even better" 'cause you'll never be proven right or wrong. There's a romanticism to it, I think.

Anyways that's sort of besides the point I was heading towards initially, which is this whole idea of art having an overwhelming power. I started reading about conspiracy theories, as I am often wont to do, and I managed to tie the two together.

The Real Point of this Post is a Discussion of Sublimity and Art Which Surpasses All Description

Basically I think it might be good "practice" (what for what?) to try to "tackle" some of the stuff I think is pretty much "sacred" in terms of quality, reputation, etc. Often people will never voice their opinion on Beethoven's Ninth, or Citizen Kane, or whatever, 'cause... what more can you say about something like that? It's almost insulting to the critics who have come before you to even try. WELL I'M GONNA TRY. Because WHY NOT.

Reasons Why Not

1. This is another feature that you will get tired of very quickly. See: One Piece reviews, manga reviews, daily album reviews, weekly album reviews, song of the day, etc, etc.

2. It will be even less comprehensible than when you write about things you like regularly. This is saying a lot because already trying to write about something like Radiohead leaves me with "Kid A is like fifty billion suns focusing their energy entirely on producing the first note of "Everything in its Right Place", meaning the whole album requires more energy and genius than can be thought to exist in the known universe.", which is obviously true but also a stupid way of saying... anything.

3. You should be doing other things. Many many other things. Why are you not doing other things. You should do other things. Start doing these things right now.

BUT NO, I am doing this. Or I will start doing this tomorrow.

The first thing I want to write about is "Hamlet". I am pretty excited to write about "Hamlet" for a number of reasons. I plan on going in with no additional research, just what I know, what I liked and why I liked it. It will likely be amateurish, inaccurate, unfocused, endlessly gushing about the wrong things. Hopefully, at some point, I will be able to go back and scoff at at how little I knew and how wrong I was back... now, but hopefully I will also not choose to scoff, but to admire the unique perspective I had on it back then? Because every opinion, as long as it's interesting, is interesting, even if it's misguided?? Which was the original point of this post??? Even though that shouldn't need to be stated???? Look forward to several paragraphs of "well Hamlet is the only character in fiction that truly has questionable sanity because blah blah whatever"??????