My mode of presentation is short-form video - basically I create fast cut, impassioned 'idea explainers' that explode with enthusiasm and intensity as they distill how technology is expanding our sphere of possibility.
I prefer the word 'journeyman' to 'journalist' because I think that certainly, when you hear a story, you want to hear certain facts. But I also think what makes a story interesting is the points of view expressed therein.
As technology continues to increase our possibilities, what we're seeing is a shrinking of the lag time between what we dream about and what we create.
Look at the evidence and to be willing to question your own truths, and to be willing to scrutinize things that you hold dearly because that way, that transparency, that self-awareness, will protect you from ever becoming somebody that whose beliefs somehow make them have myopic vision about what could be.
Not too many people in cocktail parties are aware of Bioprinting and growing organs, or the coming technological singularity; I've seen very little philosophical speculation about how far we can go, how much we could achieve.
There's always going to be the circumstances you can't plan for. There's always the unexpected relevance and the serendipity.
I make short films, little documentaries, about the co-evolution of humans and technology.
For me, it's always a failure of the imagination. I have that anxiety that time is passing, that everything is ultimately fleeting and impermanent. I better take advantage of every single moment.
As a media artist and filmmaker, I'm constantly considering the role of situational context when creating my work.
Movies have these transcendent moments where everything is just right, from the dialogue to the music to the lighting to the narrative context; everything is just perfect, and something magical happens - the film breaks through the screen and does something to you.
