Every shot has its reason and there no innocence at any second. The video-eye became so projective that it is a permanent and immediate testing of the real. So it is no surprise that the real gets fuzzy and tries to resist (to save its life !) against the sumsumming eye of this never forgetting tourist.
The streets view, the city shots are voids, empty images, screens of habits where the person is formatted to overruling figures of a dominant fiction. As each pixel has a digital value, this value seems more and more independant from the next and soon pops up at a flat intensity, a flimmering image where each pixel interprets some energy, abusing of its own desire (the rule of the unique perspective eye) to keep some relation to the real.
Altough the real gets hard to catch, it is still here. The montage and the total equality of intensity of the screen are two of the three axes in which a volume of life may be pathed : a realm of perception. As the video plays the unalterable eye of the perspective, this never-exhausted (because its total) birdview that overflies the living surfaces, we got to take the chance of its amnesiac behaviour (the eternal present) to dive into the screen-commanded real. Use the video and the screen, to provoque a howling larsen. To keep traces of the vanishing realm of life: the metropolis. The third axe is the absolute value of truth: where the industry of illusions concentrates on producing limited surface and corrupted time, the depth may collapse it in mirroring, larsening the maintained eternity.
How to manage a portrait of living in this matrix? What can the poet do to say where he is? Is there any transmissible orientation trough that eye that is no more a personal one.
What is the most difficult value to appear on an electronic screen? Grey !