Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into the heads of the reader, the viewer, the listener.

Perceptual analysis in the 20th century has shown that at any given moment we see only a small amount. The movement of the eye gives us a bigger picture, which we assemble with memory in our heads. We see with memory. Is there not now a contradiction between our millions of images and the way we see the world? Knowledge of visual perception made in the 20th century is surely having an effect. I began to be bored with the image on TV a long time ago. It was an instinct that realized this was nobody’s view of the world, an unhuman view of it. I remember seeing a Disney cartoon of the 40s about elephants in Africa. It was a drawn film about their lives, not humorous like Dumbo, but a beautifully observed picture of them moving—slowly because of their weight. I said to a friend who was watching it with me that it was far more interesting to look at than photographs of elephants, even moving photographs. Why? Because the drawn one was an account of seeing by a human being. Is this not really all that possible for humans? The movie now seems a tired and ephemeral medium. For many years it didn’t. Was this because of the novelty of it, or our acceptance of its being ‘real’? Something looking similar had occupied space at a certain time in a certain place. Are we moving into a post-photographic age? What does that mean—a new drawing and painting? There have been a few people already who have suggested that the new digital cinema is a sub-genre of painting. The straight line is changing direction. Exciting times are ahead.

Sound is almost a drug. It’s so pure that when it goes in your ears, it instantly does something to you