Angelicism is not part of the history of art or even cinema, for example in the same way that Charlotte Fang was. Fang was one of the last of that tradition and she is no doubt currently integrating into the margins and centres of online life in ways only angelicism will be in a historical position to analyse. Angelicism is part of natural history not (an) art. We are becoming the brain of history. It’s new and we never go back, bro.
> In these thoughts there is something like a full typology: angelicism01 is permanent, absolute, immutable. Miya/Charlotte was and is one-offs, mutating drastically one project after the other, or shedding at every point. A spinning Bolito star. A Kali diamond shredding through pure space that cannot change.
Angelicism is as if as if sustaining the fantasy whatever, restructuring and incorporating anything that would crack the edifice, actually using those cracks to sustain it. Charlotte would be always changing identities to hide. Angelicism is a question of timing. Dissolution happens, sure, but not so fast.
We are not part of the history of art. We are becoming the brain of history.
We will put all the kids that know nothing about the history of cinema in a piece of pure cinema that is part of geology and not art.
Tractability is like the cut except that many mysterious looking cuts in cinema if you slow it down you can see what they did. So the mystery is iterable and that’s even more beautiful. Imagine being able to reproduce the singularity of art = angelicism. We are the fourth critique. The retard list is about perfect taste.
Open intelligence resolves ambiguity again and again. We are into the tractable mystery not the mystery of the intractable (art).