One of the underlying intentions – to provoke thoughts and action in an apathetic society by presenting one potential future – has been completely missed, for example. As artists we try not to tell people what to think, rather, we hope that the work provokes thought. Therefore surface level
analysis such as this really does miss the point.
>
> I suggest that you consider the work of Primo Levi (If this is a Man) and Douglas Hofstadter (I am a Strange Loop) as a frame within which to reconsider the two parts of the work you directly cite. Both these sources present the human spirit and its capacity as something transcendent and powerful – almost mystical…complex, sometimes flawed, yet imbued
with a power perhaps borne of its organic nature. You might also like to consider some work of Ray Kurweill, our back catalogue, the Wizard of Oz, and perhaps our own artist statement as it pertains to this work.
>
Furthermore, your complete misreading of the final frames of the work suggests that a reviewing of the work might be in order. It is also important to have an insight into where you may have experienced the work – were the conditions optimal? What role did the sound have on your experience (it is interesting that you have not mentioned the role of sound in this work, given that the involuntary psychological and physiological responses to sound is a key element in the sound design of the work).
>
>
We would have welcomed an opportunity to discuss aspects of the work with you, but no attempt at contact was made
on your part. Your citing of the work as a binary opposite to your own opinion (with which we have nothing but support for incidentally!) could be interpreted as rendering you guilty of the transgression with which you are so quick to
(erroneously) accuse us of.
>
Dave Sudmalis