Projection and dis/embodiment; genealogies of the virtual – Thomas Zummer

 Projection and dis/embodiment; genealogies of the virtual – Thomas Zummer

Into the light

 Chrissie Iles와 차이점 : 프로젝션 아트의 근원으로 시네마와 아트 두개 모두 든다. 좀더 시네마에 포커스를 맞추고 있다. 결국 프로젝션 설치 아트가 critical interface로 기능한다고 주장한다. 

Maurice Merleau-Ponty “our organs are no longer intruments; on the contrary, our instruments are detachable organs…After all, the world is AROUND us, not in front of us” (p.72)

현상학을 계속 접목하고 있는데, 결국 instrument를 통해서 percept하게 된다. 그리고 이것은 기존에 갖고 있던 선험적 지식, 관례에 근거해서 파악되는 것이다. 완전히 새로운 상태에서 경험하는 것이 아니다. 

We do not encounter the world except as already embodied and culturally embedded. Moreover, the body’s perception of itself also constitutes a psychic substrate, and the unconscious memory that organizes lived experience is modified by specific technologies. Optical devices, affecting our ideas of spatiality and temporality, causing us to perceive things as closer, or larger, or more similar, in relation to our ow perceived bodies. Perception, linked to technological instruments, stubbornly apprehends different phenomena according to the most familiar tropes, habitual conventions of pictorial representation, and fundamental intuitions of the body.

“Machines for seeing modify perception.” – Paul Virilio (p.73.)

Cinema, one might say, is just such a lived technology. we spectators are intimately inscribed into the mediated imaginary, taking up residence-for a moment-within a phantastic technology. … The body persists as a common and inextricable component of the apparatus.  (p.74.)

1960s, 1970s : These early seminal works dissolved traditional boundaries of territory and the body, data into interaction and connectivity, in a diffused topology that laid the initial traces of today’s digital mediascape. (p.75.)

영화의 경우는 이미 그것이 virtual이라는 것을 알고 있는 상태로 우리는 극장에 입장한다. What we are, when we walk into a movie or turn on a television, is already virtual.

INSTALLATION AS INTERFACE

In each there are specific protocols and types of interactions that the works produce, critique, or require of a viewer, and many of these works depend on-or tamper with-established and unconscious traditions or cinematic spectatorship. Moreover, many of these works came about in close proximity to the interrogations of the art object that took place within the framework of Minimalism and Conceptualism, and in relation to discourses on technology and the avant-garde being addressed in the art world at that time.

Media installations formed a permeable membrane, a demarcation between species of projective and interactive technologies, circumscribing technology and perception, and constituting a mediating instance between the architectures of the museum, gallery, movie theater, and public concourse, with their respective hitories, desires, and dreams. They are, in short, an interface.

What I would like to suggest is that many of the projective/ interactive installations that developed during the period operated as a reflexive critique of certain institutions- the museum, galleries, cinema, television-and certain models of subjectivity in relation to contemporary philosophical and critical concerns. (p.76.)

They were reflexive interrogations of the status of all sorts of objects, subject, meterials, language, and cognition, and the discourses and institutions that authorized and guaranteed forms of perception and interpretation.

In this general sense all of the elements of a projective environment-ourselves included-constitute an interface, a common boundary within which sense and reflex, simulation and cognition, history and psyche interact.

The critical appearance of a kind of reflexive ‘auto-deconstruction” of media marked these works as different from commercial media forms, as well as from theatrical explorations, Happenings, collage, or kinetic works. (p.77.)

Projective environment offers a different interface where spectators engage as active/passive operators within a complex, permeable architecture. But these environments are not cloesd and insular, neither purely analytic, nor aesthetic, nor merely idiosyncratic. They present a variable and plural field for reflexive critical speculations on the nature of technical reproducibility.

The hitherto discrete boundaries of thinking, acting, techne, and artifact dissolved, as artist and author, spectator and subject-bodies and all-were cast into a dissimulating abyss of mediations. …Installations operated as reterritorialized spaces, simulating, co-opting, or contaminatingi the museum or the theater, reinventing private spaces or public places, in order to tamper with, question, or problematize conventional interactions between cultural producers, institutions, and consumers. ..In this sense, projective environments formed a critical interface.  (p.78.)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s