The virtual window ; from Alberti to Microsoft Anne Friedberg INTRODUCTION 2006

The virtual window ; from Alberti to Microsoft

Anne Friedberg  2006

PM과 이전 moving-image apparatus와의 차이점을 찾을 수 있을 것 같은 느낌적 느낌을 주는 구절들이 많다.!!! 

INTRODUCTION

Like the frame of the architectural window and the frame of the painting, the frame of the moving-image screen marks a separation- an ontological gut-between the material surface of the wall and the view contained withing its aperture. (5)

A virtual imaeg begins to have its own liminal materiality, even if it is of a different ontological order. .. At the end of the nineteenth century, … B.. To Deleuze, the vitual and the actual both have a reality. … (9)

Perhaps a polemic is needed: before the digital age, there was virtuality-painterly, photographic, cinematic and televisual-and its aesthetics and visual systems cannot be reduced simply to information. There is a long history to the virtual image: … Once the term “virtual” is free from its enforces association wiht the “digital”, it can more accurately operate as a marker of an ontological, not a media-specific, proptery. (11) 이부분 중요하다고 생각함.

Grau’s history of immersive spaces of illusion-the panorama, cineorama, stereoscope, Sensorama, and 3D IMAX-describes visual systems that supply a totality of imaeg space, a 360 degree space of illusion wiht an infinite number of perspectives, not fixed but dynamic. (11)

Virtual images have a materiality and a reality but of a different kind, a second-order materiality, liminally immaterial. (11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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