this is a strange one. The Knife got asked to do the music for a danish theatrical interpretation of Charled Darwin's Origin of Species. I want to find more of this.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
song of today
this is a strange one. The Knife got asked to do the music for a danish theatrical interpretation of Charled Darwin's Origin of Species. I want to find more of this.
Which is better?
Is it better to sit and watch tv, sometimes news or documentaries; or is it better to sit and play a video game?
I had an argument a number of years ago with a room mate about how watching boxing is technically the same as watching two cartoon characters fight. He was saying that the difference between the two is that one is fake and the other is real; therefore the real one is better, partially due to the spontaneous and unpredictability of it. I was saying that those perceptions are just relative.
My point was that all we as individuals sitting in the room together were particles of light shot onto our retina by way of the tv. Therefore, no matter what we are watching it is technically the same as any other thing we will or have watched. Be it animated or recorded the subject matter was combat between two humanoid shapes. The unpredictability was proved moot when it was shown that neither of us knew what was going to happen next on either show. As far as the act being created by the interaction between two humans, that is also proved moot as a manner of differentiation; flesh coming into contact with a material creating the excitement (gloves punching on face, pencil pushed on paper). I even went so far as to say that the central figures in both programs wore costumes to make the difference between them more obvious and to help the viewer tell the difference between them; I also said that the environment in which the contest was being held was illuminated by bright and occasionally colored and flashing lights. Shit is all relative; people like to deny that fact and are comforted by the unproven idea that perception is constant between all of us.
Needless to say, nobody bought it.
Until we have the weird crab/mini-disc things from the movie "Strange Days" (mid 90's; Raph Fiennes, Julliete Lewis) there is no way we will ever be able to perceive the world another person sees it.
We don't see objects, our retina translates the particles of light it pics up. Who's to say that my eyes translate those particles the same way as yours. To switch over to the ears, check out how the sound a rooster makes is vastly different between languages over the world. i.e. Spanish=Ki-Kiri-Ki; English=Cock-e-doodle-do. Now a rooster doesn't really sound like either of those, it's just that our ears heard it differently and translated it from sound perception to a phoenitic(sic) translation.
Some might find this interesting, while others might find this inane and boring. All I can say is, same words read in the same manner off the same source, from the same mind; just translated and perceived differently. It's all relative
I had an argument a number of years ago with a room mate about how watching boxing is technically the same as watching two cartoon characters fight. He was saying that the difference between the two is that one is fake and the other is real; therefore the real one is better, partially due to the spontaneous and unpredictability of it. I was saying that those perceptions are just relative.
My point was that all we as individuals sitting in the room together were particles of light shot onto our retina by way of the tv. Therefore, no matter what we are watching it is technically the same as any other thing we will or have watched. Be it animated or recorded the subject matter was combat between two humanoid shapes. The unpredictability was proved moot when it was shown that neither of us knew what was going to happen next on either show. As far as the act being created by the interaction between two humans, that is also proved moot as a manner of differentiation; flesh coming into contact with a material creating the excitement (gloves punching on face, pencil pushed on paper). I even went so far as to say that the central figures in both programs wore costumes to make the difference between them more obvious and to help the viewer tell the difference between them; I also said that the environment in which the contest was being held was illuminated by bright and occasionally colored and flashing lights. Shit is all relative; people like to deny that fact and are comforted by the unproven idea that perception is constant between all of us.
Needless to say, nobody bought it.
Until we have the weird crab/mini-disc things from the movie "Strange Days" (mid 90's; Raph Fiennes, Julliete Lewis) there is no way we will ever be able to perceive the world another person sees it.
We don't see objects, our retina translates the particles of light it pics up. Who's to say that my eyes translate those particles the same way as yours. To switch over to the ears, check out how the sound a rooster makes is vastly different between languages over the world. i.e. Spanish=Ki-Kiri-Ki; English=Cock-e-doodle-do. Now a rooster doesn't really sound like either of those, it's just that our ears heard it differently and translated it from sound perception to a phoenitic(sic) translation.
Some might find this interesting, while others might find this inane and boring. All I can say is, same words read in the same manner off the same source, from the same mind; just translated and perceived differently. It's all relative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)