The aim of the work was to find a way to create portraits that were spontaneus and non reproduceable.
An eye-tracker was used for this purpose. Over a period of 30 days, I looked at a photo portrait and I recorded my own eye movements. I did so 3-7 times a day, for a variable lenght of time, and put together the results at the end of each day. The “portrait” as a theme has always played a major role in art history, and many artists in the western world have tried to come up with ways to portray their subjects more accurately.
Obviously, there's no such thing as an objective portrait.
Every portrait is the representation of the impression and the idea that the artists has of the subject. Every choice is somehow determined by the perception of the artist. The eye tracking then is a means to limit the role of the artist in the process and, paradoxically, to enhance his actions. As every thought, movement or act (either mental or physical) is recorded by the machine, the results are completely spontaneous, but completely dependent on the artist's personality. It's obvious that anyone could make a portrait like this; there's no skill involved. What strikes me as most interesting is that no two works are alike.
The project lasted 30 days in order to see whether already knowing what the visual stimulus was would affect perception and make said stimulus visually saturated.