The relationship of man with his creation throughout history is an anthropological proof of his ability to overcome himself; however, we are at a time when the object of consumption has overcome us. Since we sought automation so much, the graduated man was diluting his immateriality in search of it, to the point that we established a systemic anthropomorphism in our relations (with the artifacts). Today with a consumer society, we worship, love, and relate deeply to objects like never before. We learn to love them because we are imperfect and the objects have been perfected to perfection, as they are thought from the fragments of the unreachable imaginary ideal of their creator. So, are objects a kind of society's amulet? The aforementioned reference triggers a communication paradox, approached by Baudrillard “can object constitute another facial language [human communication]? Can man through a group constitute another language besides a speech to himself?” This reflection opens an invisible gap between man and the object, and within that space emerges the EGO object, an infinite and systematic cycle that involves everything that concerns human creation. Creation alone is a reflection of man's despair in comparing himself to a higher being, everything we create is for consumption and personal benefit. The communication paradox revelation that in the end, we are a great organism that exists for (and to) venerate ourselves (ourselves), then would our society be a god? If you describe an object, even if immaterial, to someone, that would already be the proof that it, even if it is only within your consciousness, you would be the simulator, the one responsible for existence. Based on this reasoning, society would not differ; we live in a collective in which we unconsciously simulate our existence through objects. Creating, thinking, loving, and obtaining are the fuels for the continuous simulation of our soul. Therefore, if what I create is a discourse to myself, I “create soon I exist”.
SHORT FILM
