Marc Lafia on Wed, 6 Nov 2002 01:51:18 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> In Search of a Poetics of the Spatialization of the Moving Image pt 4 (final dispatch) |
[also To: Lev Manovich <manovich@jupiter.ucsd.edu>, RHIZOME <list@rhizome.org>, <losslessvideo@bbs.thing.net>, <rare@ rhizome.org>, <spectre@mikrolisten.de> and CC: Daniel Coffeen <Daniel@joyfulcomplexity.com>, <MaryLea_Bandy@moma.org>, Glorianna Davenport <gid@media.mit.edu>, louky keijsers <loukymakeijsers@hotmail.com>, Carl Goodman <cgoodman@ammi.org>, James Buckhouse <jbuckhouse@yahoo.com>, <brosen@tft.ucla.edu>, <chrissie_iles@whitney.org>, Jordan Crandall <crandall@blast.org>, <janetb@ucla.edu>, "Paul D. Miller" <anansi1@earthlink.net>] In Search of a Poetics of the Spatialization of the Moving Image pt4 Marc Lafia "In the new world the characteristic unit will be small, highly mobile, independent and intelligent." Robert Fripp (1974) The moving image now is pervasive and saturates much, if not all of our social space, if not our global sphere so much so that at any given moment we are either being seen, monitoring something, watching or transacting in the conflux of the image. How to characterize this conflux but to call it the spatialization of image, the spatialization of a multiplicity and simultaneity of image. Spatiaizaltion leads to the amplification and intensification of characteristics of the image already realized through its trajectories in narrative and experimental film as well as single channel and installational video as explored in the last century. I say this as spatialization continues and adds to the extant repertoire of a certain history of the moving image (much of it traversed above) yet at the same time radically changes the terms of construction, deployment and reception of timed based images as we go forward. Spatialization brings forth a new kind of visioning both horizontal and vertical. Vertical in a radical new sense of duration, horizontal in terms of the extant of image, possibly without end or beginning. It is a visioning always-inhabiting time, a permanent part of space; giving forth a new pattern and shape that is permeable, elastic, and unstable. Meaning generated by these relations and structures rarely approaches something unified or gathered. Much of it is contingent and significance is in relations and structures rather than in the transparence of the contents of elements. This field is less a mirror than a constellation of points of exchange, a kind of switching mechanism of potential transformations. The Œspace between¹ must be explored, or built within, in order to construe relations between. Such imaging oscillates between closure and opening, between fixed and extended duration. Images in the realm of spatialization are less narrated than constructed. Here it is not about, what does it mean? But, how does it work? How does it work is what does it mean. Its units are less narrative and perhaps more precisely, a kind of indexing of folds into heterogeneous assemblages in space. What¹s being told has less presence than the material being manipulated in the telling. As such this kind of image construction is not so much a language of reproduction but production. It may be thought of as a vast and continually pleating fold always in flux, always becoming, always already transposed. Rather than a distribution of various time events that resolve themselves in a single trajectory, one strip of film, multiple screens, distributed projections allow for the image of multiple events constituting different durations of time. Of course time is distributed much differently in the spatial distribution of image where varied durations of varying events give forth simultaneous and multiple viewpoints as well as continually differentiating states of imaging. To think spatially in terms of the moving image is to think very differently about time. Time has been the privileged rubric that we have read the moving image. As described above, Chrissie Iles's essay and exhibit, ŒBetween the Still and Moving Image' concerned the image not just installationally but sculpturally, truly spatially, but almost always in the sense of announcing a space, extending the frame of the image while at the same time delimiting the space as a unity, that is reconstituting image and its extended frame as a phenomenology of space and presence. In the nineties much video art concerned itself with the distribution of narrative across multiple screens, but not so much in terms of space proper. A poetics of the spatialization of the moving image concerns itself then as much with the distribution of image or images on and through multiple screens/projections as well as the image in space, images constituting space, volume, if not place, especially in terms of virtual or immersive space. (This space having a kind of perceptual volume to which we return further in this piece.) Spatialization then is as much about an augmentation of space as it is about the refiguring of space, an inhabitation of space, the being of image as space and figuring of space. Images, as moving forms, as kind of ephemeral solids, present and open entirely new possibilities of consideration and authoring. Such image constructions turn on considerations more architectural than filmic, more about ambience or presence with very different senses of duration. This I think is quite new and is a way to consider distribution and spatialization as the construct of particulars that present an atonality or series of individual gestures that just are. Spatialization and the dispersal of images towards image-spaces proffers event structures, away from structures of tension and resolve, or closeness and limit, towards an expanded definition of open works, and towards iterative fields and folds of images that are always becoming. In taking this music analogy further, spatialization is more akin to polyphony than harmony, where in polyphony; each voice retains its own character. In the realm of spatialization independent images need not form a unity to be resolved in the register or place within the total system, that is shaped by an internal structuring of its elements, in turn a delimitation of the perception of individual images. This is why I attempt earlier to move away from montage, traverse visioning and ask for a way to start again, for a way to think beyond what has preceded or think through what has preceded and to consider image as a kind of volume, a space itself that iterates over time, that metabolizes time rather than problemitizes it from an outside. If images come to be in space, to live through a kind of being as do real time and algorithmic images, the kind of closure we are accustomed to with aesthetic objects is shifted to dealing with something that can never be known in one viewing, can never be consumed, stood outside of, but can from day to day exhibit different characteristics, different tones, different temperaments. Thinking spatially about time based images then turns our consideration to constructing and presenting moving images more as volumes, time-inhabiting and evolving forms then fixed or even looped time-based projection or installation works. Conditioned as we are to think of media in the ways that it has been industrialized as varied kinds of products, films, television, commercials, video billboards, video installations, streaming video, video games, in fact all accepted forms of current imaging exploring a new tonal system of image will take time. How then to talk about something that is moving but fixed always there like architecture but always changing not loops but infinite scores this then is a very different aesthetic object. What we might talk about is patterns, forms, perhaps even temperament, I am not sure. But certainly the older technologies of cinema and television as well as all visual instrumentation, technical and social can be reconfigured to bring forth something new? What follows then is a brief but I hope suggestive list of trajectories for possible films, time-based moving image works conceptualized with a poetics of spatialization in mind. I welcome all of you on the mailing list to add towards this list, to write manifestos and make new works. How far and wide can the distribution or spatialization of images be? Can images in multiple locations constitute a single film? If we follow the idea that each screen image might represent an object, a solid, the distribution of image than turns on the organization of its display technology. If so then might we have sprawl or scatter films. We saw this in the recent Nam June Paik installation for example, what was shown at his solo show at the Guggenheim and what is in the atrium now for the Moving Pictures exhibit is a massive sprawl of images here, there, everywhere. When the moving image is considered as object and image, for example the New Prada Store in Soho, would not such a space and others like it afford every opportunity to move image away from product, fashion, information or ambience to occasioned commissions, for example a distributed spatialized noir, or any number of inventive ideas. This sense of object hood also makes for Ambient Architectural films, a way to think of the space of films and their placement in space, as an arrangement of color and forms. Here it is light in space, flicker in space, color fields, ambience, distributed narrative. The entire industry of security and surveillance, are these not films, why be hidden away and closed off to be seen on small monitors by a select few and not made monumental, projected large as elements of space. Rather than hide all these monitors, medical, military, security, why not make them transparent and part of the visible design of our everyday. The installation of Diller and Scofidio at the Brassiere in the Seagrams building suggest this, as contained as the images are. Additionally why not let passersby use such screens as a public space to create works of their own where underlying material can continually be transposed, deformed, reformed and varied. It certainly would be interesting to see Times Square remixed with these most everyday Œhidden¹ and proprietary images. We have begun to see similar suggestions for the skins of building including several of the proposals that were put forward for the new Eyebeam building in Chelsea. Why see CNN in airports when entire airports can be aurally and visually arranged and modulated for desired ambience - the same for hotels, office buildings, department stores, malls, hospitals. Most all of our public spaces would do well to more thoughtfully consider the overall or spatial design of image and sound deployed in them. It is rather extraordinary that this is not part of architectural practice and criticism. Post structuralists put forward the idea of the intertextual, texts as a collection of fragments, texts as bounded infinities and not closed, when considered as such ambient and architectural films are a new kind of unbounded spatialized topology of moving sound and image with immense opportunity for site specific works, design and architectural efforts and numerous kinds of interventions. The examples above locate themselves within closed architectural environments even if they are vast and sprawling. Can an environmental installation with images distributed places far and wide, a literal sense of space constitute a new unbounded closedness as well? Certainly ready-made films may be constituted by a list of images at given times and given places. There are all kinds of conceptual spatial films to be made certainly, but as well dispersed or spatial films. Spatialization as described above speaks about the role of space, a distribution in space of the moving image, but this is not to leave aside the complexity of time that multiple screens in a confined space bring to a work. All kinds of event times exist and unfold in multiple screen works. The event horizons of such works can have varied, brief, complicated, multiple, simultaneous, immense and overlapping durations. Of course most art works derive their impact from concentration, compactness, if not immediacy or a certain kind of ready legibility, even illegibility that is eventually read as a pattern. Long durations like Warhol¹s ŒSleep¹, ŒEmpire State Building¹ are films of duration without event ness. Web cams brought to one screen from all over the world constitute real time films. You can see such a work at artandculture with a 24 time zone screen of live images. The boundedness of multiple windows in a single frame distinct from multiple projections or monitors or displays separate in space, each framed singularly present various orderings of image as dispersal in space changes relationship of proximity, as near and far complicate things, just as the space between or spaces between alter the very idea of order or structure itself. With the distribution and dispersal of moving images in space new orderings of time become possible, new ordering of relations become possible not seen before. The spatialization of moving images in fact is a new medium and considered as such presents an unlimited horizon of possible films. For sure the idea of display monitors writ large into an environment where such images are reactive and intelligent takes the moving image into a realm of consideration and aesthetic possibility with much to be explored. Spatialization also refers to the authoring side of future films presenting environments where images in real time can come from a very wide selection of sources. The steadily growing archive and live channels accessible worldwide through the Internet present opportunity for networked and interactive cinema. The spatialization and distribution of authors and materials along with algorithmic procedures for iterative events of imaging changes our sense of just what a piece is, when a work ends and begins, and new software tools radically change both authoring and what we think of as finished works. MAX MSP Jitter allows for the composition of films down to the granular level of the pixel and for the continued interplay of archive images and effects with live imaging. Once networked, such imaging and imaging events loosen the structures of composed and fixed imaging, making imaging more conversational and improvisational. Computational or Algorithmic Films organize themselves along certain instructions that give shape and constraint to such works. ŒBy using any number of different random generators which are controlling each other (which - according to serial thinking - form a scale between a completely deterministic and a completely chaotic behavior) new variants of the same model are generated. Variants may differ dramatically from each other, though they are always perceptible as "inheritances" of the given structural model. Such works can be perceived as meta-compositions, which enable the unfolding of a film rather than a fixed work. Both Algorithmic and Generative films described below greatly complicate the notion of duration distending the compactness and compression of time we are accustomed to in many works of art including the all-at-once-ness of a visual work of art and most time based works which resolve or present themselves in a fixed period of time. Generative Films - 'Generative art is a term generally used to refer to any practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy, contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. After the initial parameters have been set the process of production is unsupervised, and, as such, self-organizing and time-based.¹ Cinema or time based works here become instruction sets. VJ¹s produce 'live' or real-time films or image events at the intersection of machines, playback materials, and live interaction creating performative assemblages, a kind of local networked cinema. Interactive films, such as ambientmachines (ambientmachines.com) put forward a structure, or language for possible films where every film is unique to every viewer participant now an author. >From the prosthetic of the web, radar, control rooms and war rooms this multiple visioning and over laying of real time, archive and virtual images of possibilities extend image in a never-ending iteration and configuration. We may also consider mechanical or machine visioning films, films without authors. Infra perception or extra perception is offered by any number of regimes of visualization at different scales and different intensities. Immersive films or works of perceptual volume can be thought of as spatial films as they offer the exploration of a simulated space allowing one to move in all directions. Reactive Spaces|Objects|Screens are also spatial in the sense of creating a circuit of engagement with the viewer as participant. Of course many more examples can be added to the list above and in which can be form any number of categories of films such as Inventory Films, Indexical Films, Films of Recontextualization, Films of Data Visualization, Lowercase Films, Body Films, Military Films, Film purely attuned to certain Filters and Processes, Presence Films, Ambient Films, Surveillance Films, Sprawl Films, Re-enactment Films, Iterative Films, Reactive Films, Life Form Films, the list can go on and on. ³All the films I was spliced into today¹ On any given day we are actors in any number of films, at the ATM machine, crossing a bridge, shopping, in traffic, in the subway or train, in some one¹s home video, entering any number of offices, even in one¹s home¹. We exist and transact in vast and spatialized films widely dispersed and varied. In the circulation of the image banks and transmissions of the world are any number of possible trajectories and plateaus for future films. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net