My current work looks at when an image becomes a moving image. I have been using as a basis for this the early visual experiments by such as Eadweard Muybridge. It is interesting to note through these works, how such moving images walk the line between artwork and experiment.

The terminology of such works introduces the notion of the Persistence of Vision. This can be said to be the phenomenon of apparent motion, it describes the retention in the eye of an image rendered for the smallest fraction of a moment in order to correspond and connect with the image that precedes it, and so on, in order to create movement. It is a term, which suggests longevity. If vision is persistent, so is it constant. If the term is constant, so too is it contradictory. If sight is persistent and continuous how then can it be composed from the composition of a sequence? Is sight therefore a series? Is the optical and the psychological so fused as to merge and how does that impose on the real?

If the persistence of Vision is actual, then does this prove the existence of the After-image? The After-image is the vision that stays. If the persistence of vision is the act, the after-image is the object? It is the negative of a negative if sight is the reality and thought is the positive, though it can be ascertained as more of an "after-thought" than image. It is therefore more of a myth than its action.

I am therefore working with strobe lighting, at nighttime to create scenes reminiscent of early visual experiments. I am interested in trying to capture later day movement with present day technology. I am interested in the scenes and situations caused by working in such a way, how awareness of the presence of the viewer is heightened and roles become mixed with those of surveillance.