Space Odssey

Probably one of the most complex films I have ever watched, with messages and ideas embedded in every scene, making it hard to watch it for entertainment value, instead I found myself analyzing it constantly. Two scenes in particular left a rather strong impression upon me. The first being the scene where Dave is disengaging H-A-L who has betrayed them by murdering Frank and boycotting the mission, this leads Dave to shut H-A-L down and in the process he is shown to be dismantling human logic, by destroying the computer built by man comprised of human knowledge. Now this struck me as mirroring the first scene, as man is having to start from the beginning and develop alone without the aid of technology, is this commenting on technologies overwhelming grip over the human race? Or is the film saying that we don't need technology in order to advance? Either way I couldn't help but feel that this film was slightly opposed to technology, because it eventually showed it betraying man, also by featuring food in paste form, new age toilets etc it conveyed technology as being responsible for creating a bland and sterile existence.

The second scene is the apes discovery of the bone as a weapon; which results in their progression and the act of war. This I thought was a very truthful representation of how we as humans have progressed, which is what I feel the film was trying to show, in particular how we use acts of war to get what we want and define our progression, for example the Iraq war which in my opinion was a war created to obtain their oil, and enable the continuation of our own progression .The use of an obelisk I found also to be very interesting as the obelisk symbolizes in Egypt the beginning, where the first rays of light shone on the earth, this is significant as its appearance at the beginning and later on in the film poses the question: are we really advancing? Or are we just constantly rebuilding after failed attempts to progress?

The compatibility of art and science

A brilliant opening debate for the first lecture and something which I have often thought about myself, however I would say that the lecture has caused my view to change and consider that there can in fact be no unity between science and art. To simplify, based on the notes I have reviewed this incompatibility seems to me to be present because science sticks rigidly to rules and principles, which outlines its theories, whereas art is about breaking boundaries in order to explore new possibilities of beauty. In addition the artists themselves often pursue lives that satisfy every spontaneous whim often breaking rules which people are bound by. Just a few examples of how I came to this conclusion include: Kant's idea that the common people should be bound by morality, except artists, leaders and creative people who should make their own rules. Also the mention of religion and beliefs causing tension between the two spheres further shows the incompatibility between the two, as the artists with their Buddhist or like Schopenhauer Hinduism beliefs, are looked down upon by the traditional christian scientists.

I would just like to comment on Kant's view of equality before I conclude, the view that artists are not bound by morality is something which I strongly disagree with as I understand that it is necessary to explore new domains to create and understand beauty, but I don't see how ones profession raises them to the status of a god, as that it can be inferred one becomes if they are not bound by the laws and conscious ties of most people, like all things there should be boundaries which should not be crossed by anyone. For example the poem 'The Laboratory' by Robert Browning is about murder out of revenge, does this mean that artists should embrace murder to better understand it?