I was working my way through "resonate: present visual stories that transform audiences" by Nancy Duarte, famous author of "slide:ology," when the Committee sent a committee to meet me at an undisclosed location.
In the old days, we would have picked a cheap location to meet and later use as a film location in a re-enactment for fictional narrative purposes only, not as a training video presented on national television disguised as a miniseries that some of my esteemed colleagues have accused us of.
These days, using technology that no one has been able to decipher, in more ways than one (because we decided to go ahead and put to use our knowledge of that which does not exist in this universe), I can sit in the driver's seat of my petite bulldog, putter around town and find out what my comrades, colleagues and associates want to discuss while hidden in full view.
So, while I was mentally flipping through Nancy's pages as I drove into town to exchange tickets from one performance to another for a traveling musical show passing through our burg, a special subcommittee (don't call them thugs or strongarms) appeared to persuade me to get out of my paper journals and back on publicly available territory for all to see and even the playing field.
They reminded me that I made a lifelong commitment to the Committee in exchange for access to unlimited use of the network called our species in the global/solar ecosystem.
Here I am, translating the untranslatable into legible mathematical formulae to help our species understand the interlaced layers of matter/antimatter familiar to us woven with other "material" that we can't yet detect using conventional instrumentation, and the Committee wants me to make a ruling/judgment about the humour used by a British actor in a bogus, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-inflating industry awards show shown on the tellie for gullible global audiences!
Pardon my English but can I ask the Committee to piss off or sod off?
We've got a species to save and they want to worry about the bonuses they're projected to make at the end of the next project tied to marketing a film loaded with bad actors, a thin plotline and over-the-top CG effects?
Everyday, common stuff that businesses deal with in one jargon-filled form or another.
Just as some look at Germany's industrial growth from the early 1900s leading to mechanised war and predict that another country will want to assert itself militarily in the next couple of decades, futurists predict that the day of the living actor and surrounding business of entertainment is transforming into an army of mechanised automatons that can be mixed and matched to act out any plot perfectly.
The Age of the Algorithm.
Biorhythm experts need not apply.
Hasn't the Committee heard this already?
I assume I repeat this to comfort their insecurity about meeting their stockholders' and marketplace's fickle expectations.
The ubiquity of shows dedicated to analysing who wore what on the red carpet is a clear indication of the obsessive behaviour of examining the lint and minutia of a dying industry, or at least one in a long narcissistic decline.
The audience is its own set of actors, happily unpaid and writing/performing scripts madeup in the moment.
Now, on to more Earth-shattering analysis. How do I draw a symbol for something that can't be represented by a symbol?
No comments:
Post a Comment