[LMTA, Vilnius 2025]
I’ve been preoccupied with the notion of creativity and outcome. Not as a certain result of given effort, but as the incidental trace of some inadequate, inefficient gesture. And yet, paradoxically, we remain embedded within the so-called creative industry. Industry implies production. And where there is production, efficiency becomes the dominant. Efficiency has no interest in the act of pondering—it insists on results. The quicker, the greater in quantity. The more dazzling, the more engaging.
But experiment follows a different logic. It doesn’t care about measurable outcomes or productive value. What matters to experiment is the act itself, and the relations it quietly sets in motion. What matters is that participants remain unaware of their involvement—so nothing in them adjusts. I find myself drawn to experiments where I am both subject and initiator. It’s frightening. But perhaps that’s exactly the point.
Eventually, I realized I had encountered something I wasn’t even looking for. There was a dissonance—between what resonated internally and what managed to surface, however faintly, beyond me. A quiet fracture. A space where expression doesn’t quite align with perception. A metaphor for the unresolvable tension of being heard but not understood. For the telling without any real concern for reception.
A 15-minute video was posted on LinkedIn on April 12. Whether that gave it meaning—or took it away—I still don’t know.
What you see here is a 5-minute edit interpretation.
Created during the course of "Theory & Practice of Experimental Cinema" at LMTA.
Created during the course of "Theory & Practice of Experimental Cinema" at LMTA.