Life in Pixels

haud ignota loquor

Blog

  • Bionic Citizen

    Apple WatchWearables are the hot topic in technology today. What once seemed like something out of a Star Trek episode is now reality. And whilst Samsung, Motorola and others are veterans (if you could call more than two years in the product category “veteran”) I truly think that Apple’s design and brand-respected clout will be the final tipping point in solidifying this curious new niche as a distinct product line.

    The Apple Watch’s gutsy move in positioning itself as a piece of haute couture is indeed a bold move; I have many questions about the longevity of such a device when the ephemeral (technology) is juxtaposed with the eternal (high-end watch design). It seems like a product conceived of contradiction as much as it is a device seeking to bridge two seemingly disparate factions of society (fashion and technology). However, it represents a progression of technology. A powerful progression, I might add: we are on the cusp of transcending the notion that technology exists as a realm separate to the organic body that is us. The Apple Watch’s ideal of being a fashion piece means it encompasses the design traits distinct of fashion: personality, individuality, intimacy.

    But even more than that: wearables are a step closer to the assimilation of the inorganic — the world of binary code and cold, calculated lines of coding — with the organic: us, human beings, sentient creatures who have created these strange contraptions. Are we on the brink of becoming bionic? Is it possible that, by following this progression to its logical destination, we can assume that there will be a convergence: that these two worlds will properly collide; that we will become bionic creatures, beings made just as much with technology as we are with blood and muscle?

    The singularity theory postulates a point in time in the distant future, called an event horizon. Beyond this point, we cannot predict, using the cognitive skills we have honed over millennia, what will occur next. The idea that we are assimilating ourselves with the technology that we use can be considered as an event horizon. The current state of technological development suggests that this is the case, but I think that if we examine the nature of our current society, we can further understand why this might very well be the eventual outcome of our species.

    We live in an increasingly connected world. The Grid rules our lives: we are beings that connect to it daily; it is what provides us with a large amount of our daily intellectual sustenance. We cannot function without the Grid. Our society is hyper-connected, and devices like smartwatches illustrate how reliant we are on the Grid. That such a device exists signifies the ever-encroaching grip our digital lives have on us. Our lives are lived as much in the virtual sphere as they are in the realm of reality. When technology begins to disappear yet exert an even more potent force upon our existence, we begin to step closer towards that event horizon of the bionic being. Technology is beginning to disguise itself. It is no longer taking the visage of a “device that looks like a computer” — that traditional aesthetic is being challenged as microchips get smaller and more powerful, thus making it possible to insert them into devices that we are accustomed to for centuries.

    As design becomes invisible, it will allow technology to ingratiate itself far more easily into our daily lives, slowly tightening the grip the Grid has on our psyche. As microchips become smaller and their power more potent, we will begin to subconsciously slip into a symbiotic reliance with the devices and the virtual networks we’ve created. This is going to change society in incredible ways. Everything from culture to politics to economics to the built environment will be affected. One area I’m particularly curious about is, of course, the urban architectonic. How will our bionic beings navigate an architecture of the future? How will our built structures evolve to support the new lifestyle that will emerge? How can virtual reality coexist with the concrete and steel that is so intrinsic to maintaining our human existence at the base level?

    One simple device, oft derided and questioned for its very purpose, can have the potential for a significant sociocultural impact. For now, though, we play the waiting game: watching, patiently, as the progression of technology and society slowly merge, an intricate dance orchestrated by a plethora of parameters and the organic ebb and flow of time…

     

  • Creatamin: the blog for creatives

    A good friend of mine, Wazir Rohiman, recently started a blog for creatives, by creatives. I met Wazir whilst studying architecture at UCT, and we’ve become excellent friends over the past three years. We share an appreciation for all the possibilities that exist at the intersection of science and design, and it is here that Wazir’s new blog excels.

    Creatamin (love that name) posts inspiration, tips, interviews and thought pieces all related to living the creative life. It can be daunting for young designers embarking on their journey out in the big world. Creatamin’s posts aim to provide a platform for us young thinkers to share our opinions and get inspired by our peers.

    I’m really excited to be following this blog, and I highly recommend it to all creatives, whether you’re in architecture, product design, web development, writing or fine art.

    A few of my favourite posts recently published on Creatamin:

    I invite you to check out Creatamin at www.creatamin.com.

  • Originality v Hollywood: Dawn of Mediocrity?

    A curious phenomenon is occurring in the centre of society’s entertainment universe. Perhaps it’s a sense of potential failure casting a net of fear around what was once a creative powerhouse. Perhaps it’s a descent into mediocrity as our collective society has embraced a sense of complaisance, where banality passes for acceptable quality. Whatever it is, there can be no denying it: Hollywood appears to be running out of fresh ideas.

    Instead, we’re being treated to the wonders of rehashed entertainment. I’m reminded of a sentence Nick Offerman’s character, Deputy Chief Hardy, says in 21 Jump Street (ironically, a reboot of a popular television series)

    “We’re reviving a canceled undercover police program from the ’80s and revamping it for modern times. You see the guys in charge of this stuff lack creativity and are completely out of ideas, so all they do now is recycle shit from the past and expect us all not to notice.”

    I feel like this is exactly what an executive-led creative industry is doing. I can almost picture the suits in their corner offices somewhere in Los Angeles, cigar in hand, smug grin on their faces, signing-off another reboot, knowing that our pop-obsessive society will eat this all up and fatten the studio’s bottom line. How stupid do they really think we are?

    There will come a point, hopefully soon, when cinema audiences will tire with this. When we will finally open our eyes to the fact that it’s the same movie, with the actors-du-jour fitted snugly in to a predictable plot.

    Look, don’t get me wrong. I’m just as excited about the new Star Wars as the next fan. Likewise, I can’t wait to see what Marvel has in store with Avengers: Age of Ultron. I’m an (obsessive?) follower of their Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series, and an ardent watcher of both Arrow and The Flash, two of DC’s darling television spin-offs. These are all properties based off existing source material, whether it’s comic books or one of the most famous cinematic franchises of all time.

    However, I feel that there are talented writers out there with exciting, fresh stories yearning to be unleashed from their paper bounds and brought forth onto the reflective-silver screens of our cineplexes. These stories are being marginalized when studio execs opt to “play it safe” with rehashes of recently-completed rehashes (I’m looking at you, Spider-Man), with bloated adaptations of beloved source material (The Hobbit) or the hope of capitalizing on unexpected, explosive success. In the case of this last example, I’m of course referring to the recent news that Lionsgate, boon of the young adult dystopian fiction adaptation fad, is considering continuing the Hunger Games stories beyond the book. As a fan of the series and its cast and wonderful director, I sincerely hope this will not materialize. Whilst it would be great to see more of the world that Katniss inhabits, and the fact that the last book left much to be desired in terms of an ending, the stories should just be left alone. Hollywood needs to learn about a story’s limits. They need to learn how to let go.

    At the end of the day, we as cinemagoers make the final decision. We have a choice about what we want to watch. That’s the great thing about cinema: we live in an era when there are so many possibilities; were spoiled for choice, essentially. We can choose whether we feel like watching an inventive story like Birdman, or rekindle some nostalgic feels with a viewing of a Godzilla (or Ghostbusters or Robocop or Terminator) reboot. The thing I truly wish for, through, is for original stories to receive the same level of care and treatment that these existing, beloved properties are currently getting.

  • 2015 in Cinema

    2015 films

    Every year I make a list of films I’m looking forward to. Being a cinephile, I make an effort to seek out not only those movies that I know will be surefire hits (I’m looking at you, Avengers 2), but also those dark horses (Chappie, perhaps?).

    2015 looks like our best year in film yet. It’s got one of the most anticipated films of the past decade (Star Wars Episode VII), the gritty setup for Marvel Phase III with Avengers 2, and a host of reboots that I can’t wait to get into the cinema and watch.

    Without further ado, here’s my pick of films to look out for this year.

    (Films marked with an asterisk are my must-see items of the year).

    • Mortdecai (Jan 23)
    • Jupiter Ascending (Feb 6)
    • Kingsman: The Secret Service (Feb 13)
    • *Chappie (Mar 8)
    • The Gunman (Mar 13)
    • Furious 7 (Apr 3)
    • *Avengers: Age of Ultron (May 1)
    • Mad Max: Fury Road (May 15)
    • Tomorrowland (May 22)
    • *Jurassic World (Jun 12)
    • Inside Out (Jun 19)
    • Ted 2 (Jun 26)
    • Terminator Genisys (Jul 1)
    • Minions (Jul 10)
    • *Ant-Man (Jul 17)
    • Pan (Jul 24)
    • Pixels (Jul 24)
    • Hitman: Agent 47 (Aug 28)
    • Everest (Sep 18)
    • Victor Frankenstein (Oct 2)
    • St. James Place (Oct 16)
    • *Spectre (Nov 6)
    • *The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (Nov 20)
    • The Good Dinosaur (Nov 25)
    • The Martian (Nov 25)
    • Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (Dec 18)
    • Mission: Impossible 5 (Dec 25)

    A lot of exciting films coming out this year, but a few notable mentions regarding this year’s selection: this is the first year that Pixar Animation Studios will be releasing two films in one year. Perhaps this will make up for last year’s lack of a single film from Emeryville, CA. I do hope they regain their classic touch, something I feel they’ve lost in recent releases.

    Star Wars will be the biggest movie of this year. Yes, even bigger than Marvel’s “Avengers” sequel. That’s because there’s so much riding on this movie, such anticipation, and most of all: the great mysteries surrounding this release are sure to compel fans new and old to this franchise to check out what director J.J. Abrams has in store.

    Then there’s Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, which will release sometime later this year (no official date yet). This revenge western set around the Civil War is another film I’m really excited about.

    I will once again post my thoughts on some of the films above once I’ve seen them, and this year I will also write a few posts a month on cinema, the technical aspects of the industry and my thoughts on some of these upcoming releases, in anticipation of watching them.

  • Equipment Doesn’t Define Creativity

    There’s this wonderful saying that perfectly captures my thoughts on this topic. Essentially, what I believe, after going through three years of intensive design instruction in my undergraduate architecture degree, and throughout my various design-oriented ventures for personal work and for SKKSA, is that equipment does not dictate creativity. Indeed, it’s not what you use, but how you use it. This is where the magic happens; this is the act of art, where the depth of the creative act becomes apparent at the hand of the craftsman.

    So before I delve deeper into this topic, here’s the gist of this idea: you wouldn’t compliment a chef’s kitchen utensils if you enjoyed his meal; you would commend his skills at bringing forth a delightful gastronomic experience. Similarly, one shouldn’t say “wow, that’s a great photo. You must have an amazing camera.” Because, like the chef and his delicious meal, a beautiful photograph is the creative proof of the photographer’s skillset: of understanding light, composition, technical dexterity and that unique aspect of the creative process that transcends mere product and renders a piece “art” – judgement and intuition.

    One could have the most expensive creative equipment at their disposal, but without the knowledge of how to drive these tools, without intuition and passion and a deeper, rooted understanding of the art form – whether it’s a literary work, a piece of art, a photograph or the design of a building – the resultant work would be mundane, lacking a sense of meaning and connectedness to humanity, to society, and thus considered a positive contribution to the world.

    All too often, in our consumeristic mindset, driven by the fast-paced nature of technology, society and an ever-increasing pressure to constantly produce for insatiable, all-consuming minds, we forget the magic that can arise when we transcend focus on equipment and rather consider the actual act of creativity. The act of creation, of making something out of nothing, is a rather sacred thing. To render something from the mind into reality is a cornerstone of mankind’s evolution, of our ascent from mere hunter-gatherers purely concerned with survival, into creators and thinkers with the potential to build entire cities and venture forth into the stars.

    So these platform debates and mock-wars over which brand or product, or tool is better, are rather meaningless in the grander scheme. Whether you’re Windows or Mac, analogue or digital, it’s the way you use what you have to create that determines your prowess. In the end, not many will care how you created it; it’s the end product that matters to the large portion of society. But it’s up to us, as the creators, to imbue in our work meaning, and a rootedness to culture, society, history – to the precedents that provide richness and add dimension – because these are the elements that will ensure longevity in the final product. These, and not what was used to create them, will immortalise our names and ensure our creations add value to our fellow humans.