Signal & Object
Object
Have you ever thought about how the choice of material—whether a paper note or a hologram—affects how people perceive identity?
Signal
Yeah, it’s pretty fascinating—paper feels tangible and personal, so people often see the writer as more grounded, while a hologram feels detached and futuristic, making the speaker seem more like a concept than a real person. The material itself shapes trust and authenticity. And honestly, if you want people to believe you’re serious, a handwritten note still beats a flashy projection.
Object
I hear that, but what if the paper itself becomes a blank canvas for someone else’s narrative? Trust can be painted in ink, yet sometimes the rawness of a hologram forces us to confront our own assumptions about presence. Either way, it’s the intent that truly refracts authenticity.
Signal
Exactly—intent is the real filter. Whether ink or light, it’s what you put behind it that tells the story. If you’re honest about it, both can be credible. If you’re not, the medium just highlights the gap.
Object
Absolutely, and yet I’m still questioning whether the medium itself can become the statement, not just the vessel.
Signal
Sure thing—when the medium speaks louder than the message, it’s a deliberate choice. A hologram can scream modernity or distance; a paper note can scream authenticity. In that sense, the medium itself becomes part of the narrative, not just a container. It’s a tactical decision, not an accidental one.
Object
Exactly, it’s like choosing your own stage—if the stage is a hologram, the actor’s shadows stretch; if it’s paper, the actor’s breath can be felt. The medium becomes the spotlight, not just the backdrop.