I am delighted to be able to have accepted an invitation to attend Fórum Fantástico 2010 in Lisbon in November.
Fui convidado a atender O Fórum Fantástico 2010 em Lisboa em novembro e aceitei com grande prazer
I am delighted to be able to have accepted an invitation to attend Fórum Fantástico 2010 in Lisbon in November.
Fui convidado a atender O Fórum Fantástico 2010 em Lisboa em novembro e aceitei com grande prazer
Isto é uma entrevista que dei ao Diário de Notícias de 22/5/10… não é fácil ler o artigo assim, mas o texto também está aqui… As fotos foram tiradas num daqueles dias de chuva em maio – e estava muito frio – deve ser por isso que parece que tenho uma cara de enterro… *sorriso*
(edited text courtesy of Daniel Cardoso)
A friend sent me this. I had noticed this kind of thing happening, but had, rather quaintly, put it down to something to do with ‘film stock’, or the use of digital video…
Beyond what Todd Miro says, what occurs to me is that this is yet another example of ‘virtualisation’… Before the advent of digital technology, filmmakers were forced to ‘push’ against the media they were working in… as artists in other media had to wrestle with the limitations of oil paint (here is an example of virtualization in this area), violins, typewriters etc… As the digital tsunami washes over ever more of our cultural world, there are no longer any limits except those imposed by the artist. On one side this could be seen as freedom; on the other, it could, as in this example, open the floodgates to homogenizing ‘fashion’…
I have just read an article about a famous experiment (that you can try for yourself here…) in which a large number of people focusing on counting ball passes on a video are completely unaware of someone in a gorilla suit walking on screen, beating its chest to camera, then walking off. This counter-intuitive result is used to show how blind we can be to what we’re not paying attention to…
This issue of attention is interesting enough, but something else occurred to me (actually, this occurs to me quite a lot *grin*): that human vision is nothing like a series of images caught on film or video – in which each frame is recorded with every detail that the camera is capable of recording. This analogy may seem an obvious one to make, but it is wholly false. We have the illusion that we are seeing a complete picture, but in fact what we see is much more analogous to the way in which we parse a sentence – a sequence of words that, together, when processed by our brain, conjure up a complete meaning. Let’s not go into what the exact equivalent of ‘words’ might be in what we are seeing – what is seems to me interesting is that we similarly construct the ‘meaning’ of what we’re seeing by assembling it from a few large pieces – and the pieces that we choose to build our ‘visual sentence’ from are determined by what we’re paying attention to. Thus, because we’re not paying attention to it, the gorilla simply is not one of the ‘pieces’ and so forms no part of what we ’see’…