Between film, video and the digital: hybrid moving images in the post-media age Ji-Hoon Kim : CHAPTER 5

Between film, video and the digital: hybrid moving images in the post-media age

CHAPTER 5

JiHoon Kim

이 부분에서 내가 PM을 embodiment하고 연결한 것과 관련해서 쓸 항목이 많다. 이 부분은 아무래도 chapter 3에 쓰여야 할 듯 싶다. not in chapter 2. 

1960/70 초기 video art와 1990이후 현재 비디오 아트를 비교분석한다. 

Kim은 현재의 것을, ‘cinematic video installation’이라고 term한다. 여기에서 film + video 가 이루어진다고 보고 있으며, 따라서 Iles, Reees, Joselit, 등의 이분법적 개념에 반대한다. 이들은 60/70 작업들을 against film이었고, 현재의 video installation은 derived from film이라고 본다.(251)

Iles의 60/70 : Phenomenological phase = sculptural phase 하고, 1990이후를 cinematic phase라고 한 것에 주목하자.  (244) 이 사람은 이 둘을 대립적으로 파악했고, 그런 근거 중에 하나는 전자는 대부분 monitor를 썼던 것에 비해, 후자는 기술적 발전으로 인해서 projection을 쓰게 되면서 cinema 차용하게 되었다고 이야기한다. 

내가 보기에 PM은 sculptural  + cinematic phase 진정한  hybrid라고 생각한다. 

245인용. I argue that the hybridization of film and video occurs the spatial and temporal qualities of the image but also in the apparatus that frames the spatial and temporal qualities of the image and determines the viewer’s relation to the image. (245)

Kim이 보기에 이러한 이분법에 깔린 전제는 Phenomenology와 virtual을 완전히 다른 것으로 분류하는 입장에 있다. — 이건 PM에 대한 내 분석과도 이어질 수 있다. (250-252)

Kim이 이에 반하는 의견으로 Kate Mundlock 내세움. 이 여자는 virtual이 embodiment랑 반대되는 개념이 아니라고 보았다. 그래서 60/70 작업과 90이후의 작업이 연장선 상에서 이해될 수 있다고. 이 이분법적 video art 해석은 따라서, modernistic 하다. (253)

결론은, We need to consider the relation between cinema and video in this installation as an interplay, rather than the total appropriation of the latter by the former. This means that it is not possible to assign an absolute prioritization of one medium over the other in this hybrid formation of media installation. (254)

255에서 spectatorial mode 설명한다. 이 부분을 PM에 적용시켜 봐야 한다. 즉 현재 cinematic video installation의 movementtemporality를 설명함으로써 60/70하고 단절이 아니라 이어진다는 것을 역설하려 함. 

Concerning the form and spectatorial mode of cinematic video installations, the most prevailing view is to see them as spatializing time in two ways. The first spatialization indicates that installing the moving image in the gallery endows the viewer with the freedom to determine, to use Mundloch’s term, “exploratory duration,” a length of time spent on viewing the work in it ways “unburdened by externally imposed timetables” as in the cases of institutionalized cinema and television.” Maria Walsh also uses the term “peripatetic mobility” to describe the “mobile trajectory of the gallery spectator who enters the space at an arbitrary point in the film, leaves at any time or stays and watches the replay of the loop.“(255)  이 의견은 많이 attack받았다. 나도 이건 아니라고 보는 입장 유지. 이건 완전한 자유가 아니라,  manipulated 된 것이다. partial이다.

Birnbaum encapsulates this view by arguing that the simultaneity of several flows of moving imagery in the multi-projection installations of the “other cinema” artists grants “the possibility not only of dense and temporally multi-layered  imagery, but also of intricate constellations and juxtapositions.”

Margaret Morse, who claimed that video installations since the 1970s have been representative of the “presentational arts” rather than the more traditional “proscenium arts,” in that they allow their visitor to occupy and experience a “spatial here-and-now enclosed within a construction that is grounded in actual space.” (256) This here-and-now serves as the ground on which the visitor is asked to physically and psychologically interact with the installation’s different-pictorial, performative, sculptural, etc.-modes of presentation, while also laying the groundwork for a couple of temporal operations associated with two key categories of video arts. (257)

video installation works favor the here-and-now as where the viewer visually and kinesthetically experiences the interplay between the three-dimensionality of the apparatus and the two-dimensionality of the image. 이거 PM이랑 차이점 아닐까? 3D 공간 + 3D image (257)

Paini’s assessment of the multichannel cinematic video installation supports the need to consider the spatiality of cinematic video installation as the fusion of the film spectatorship based on the viewer’s physical immobility and the implementation of media apparatuses in the gallery that has promoted the visitor’s physical mobility since the early development of film and video installation. In contrast to the other critics’ oversimplified optimism about the mobile viewing of installations as being liberated from the temporal and spatial constraints of the standardized cinematic apparatus, or to their underlying dichotomy between the cinema spectator as passive and the viewer of the installations as active, Paini observes how the perambulatory viewer’s spectatorship is predicated upon the tension between identifying with the illusory image of the installations and embodying its in-frame space and surrounding. “this renewed physical freedom is no doubt only an illusion since in one way it is very much of the correlative of the emphasis on the individual as consumer of advertising and art.” He is right to suggest that the viewer’s physical mobility alone does not sharply contrast the immobility of the cinema spectator but rather resembles window-shopping, namely, the experience of consuming images on the move that... At the same time, he coins the therm “visitor-spectator” to describe how the mobile spectator has a different relation to the image than the immobile viewer with the standardized cinematic apparatus. (258)

“This mobile spectator has a variable vision of the size of the screen and is inclined, not to identify with the lives of the fictive characters, or to merge illusory into the space of the set, but to enter the image.” Seen in this light, the spatiality and spectatorship of cinematic video installations are ambivalent: their viewer cannot be firmly described as either mobile or immobile insofar as he or she is compelled to continually oscillate between the viewing experience of mainstream cinema and that of multichannel video installation. (258) 킴의 이 부분은 적절하다.

Paini 의 경우에서, Flaneur는 적절치 않지만, visitor-spectator는 인용할 수 있다. 이 사람은 cinema와 VI가 완전히 다르지는 않다고 보았고, VI is more like, window-shopping이라고 주장. 즉, VI 관객은 ambivalent : mobility , immobility를 oscillate한다. 

Bellour “The work fixates that which one could call its visitor-but there is no right word with which to grasp this dissolved, framented, shaken, intermittent spectator.”(258)

이들은 모두 비디오 설치가 관객을 자유롭게 했다는 의견들인데, 이건 역시나 내 생각에는 제한적이다. mobility가 renew된 건 맞는데, mobile해진건 맞는데, free해 진건 아닙니다. 특히나 Paini의 컨셉  Flaneur는 아니라고 봅니다. 스크린, 프레임을 공간 안에 설치해 두는 것과, 공간과 결합하느 ㄴ것은 완전히 다르다. 

viewer is able to determine the amount of time spent on observing the artwork.

 

STRATEGIES OF SPATIALIZATION

Idea of spatialization here refers to other cinematic components, including framing, montage, and narrative space ,remediated by the operation of video technologies. … Also video’s sculptural and architectural elements, such as multiscreen environments for breaking a single viewpoint, the sculptural deployment of the projector and the screen, and the decentered, participatory, and embodied conditioning of the viewer. (260) 이건 인용해라. PM의 spatility하고도 일치한다. (260) term자체가 많은 것이 담겨있다고 나는 생각한다. 

Catherine Fowler 이러한 최신 비디오설치 작업들이 Disrupt the norms of mainstream narrative cinema라고 했다. PM은 disrupt는 아닌 것 같은데.. .암튼 이것을 통해서 frame is connected to the space outside it can be read centrigufally, but the extention of the framed spcae is, not out into the fictional/real world but rather into the gallery space. 라고 이야기 했다. 이 부분이 중요하다. (260)

Kim은 VI에서 두가지에 초점:

1) theatriclization of the image and apparatus

2) architectural deployment of screens.  (261)

Seen in this way, cinematic video installations are grounded in the alliance between two types of “theatricality,” each concerned with cinema and video. …   to define the spatial relationships between the image and the viewer, and between the apparatus and its environment. (261)

Kim또한 architectural deployment of screens라고 보는데 내 생각에는 이게 궁극적으로 PM과의 차이점이라는 거지. 그리고 VI multi screen 대부분의 경우 cinematic narrative에 도전, 전복하는 것이 목표이다. PM은 그건 아니지 않은가. 

Doug Aitken and Eija-Liisa Ahtila .. for the two artists’ works foreground multiscreen interfaces as a way of distributing images in close dialogue with the architectural space. 진정 그렇냐? 방을 나누고, 그 방에 따라서 narrative가 달라지는 걸로 이걸 prove하려는데, 이건 좀 제한적이지 않냐. painting이랑 그닥 다를게 뭐야. 이게 작가의 definition에 의하면 하나의 작업이기 떄문에 그걸 하나에 다 보지 못한다는 거지. (262)

Their works are not channeld into a self-reflexive inquiry into video 이게 early video의 특성임  for the sake of reasserting its hitherto sustained expressive boundaries; rather, the two artists use video’s association with architecture to renew the image’s montage and narrative space originated from cinema, whether the narrative is fictional or documentary, and to explore the images’ psychological and affective impact on the viewer outside the normative cinematic apparatus. (263) 이렇게 cinematic narrative form에 도전한다는 거지. 멀티 스크린을 통해서.

With their various architectural uses of screens, Aitken’s cinematic video installations go beyond the sequential ordering of time in the single-screen cinema and instead explore a heterogeneous temporality of narrative, one marked by an intricate web of non-synchronous durations, each of which develops its own event in a different place with its own rhythm and pace. (269)

However, unlike Campus‘ and Graham’s self-reflexive (early video) inquiry of the relationship between video and architecture, Aitken uses video’s architectural dimensions to invent a particular model of spectatorial activity, a spectator whose physical movement through the architectural space matches the work’s ambulatory arrangement of images. (272) 관객의 공간 안에서의 움직임이 영상 스크린들의 배치와 짝을 이룬다. 

Aitken’s configuration of the fractured subjectivity and heterogenous temporality involves a strategy of distributing projectors and screens into the architectural environment of the exhibition space and dividing a single room into multiple projection surfaces. 여기서 볼 수 있듯이, VI는 그저 공간에 스크린, 프레임을 놓을 뿐이다. 그래서 공간 밖으로 나갈 수가 없다. 아무리 애를 써봐야 Black box를 여러개 쓰는 정도? PM은 아니다. 아예 밖으로 나가버린다. 다양한 festival등이 증거이다. 이래서 PM을 단절적으로 보았던 걸지도 모른다. (272)

Sleepwalker의 경우가 중요하다. 이것은 Blackbox 밖으로 나온 예이긴 하지만, 여전히 framing되어 있다. 그저 blackbox를 확장한 정도?? (272)

Sleepwalkers (2007) expands his spatialized narrative created by video projection onto the surfaces of a museum. .. .cityscape. .. The museum’s building surfaces then become part of this dynamic narrative artifact… Rather than insisting on the medium-specific divide of media screen spectatorship, for example, the divide between the film spectatorship and the spectatorship of the gallery visitor, the large scale projection in Sleepwalkers elicits the viewer to have various body-image relationships applied to different media screens. .. by their locational and environmental properties. (273) 뭐 city, urban scape이 추가된다는 건데, 그로 인해서 작업이 크게 달라지는 건 없다고 나는 본다.it is just multiple screens, not merged one. 

Similar to the experience of watching a film in the theater, viewers are able to maintain their frontal position toward the projected image. 내 말이 이말. At the same time, however, they must shift their position to view the projected images on the other sides of the building… 그러나 역시 active shifting은 아닌 것 같다고 나는 생각. 

For Anne Fridberg, cinema’s shifting framing and camera mobility offsets its immobile body-screen relation by providing its spectator with the “bodiliy, haptic, phenomenological perception of an itinerant and peripatetic viewer.” In Sleepwalkers, the interplay of the cinematic mobile gaze and the viewer’s physical mobility supplements the immobile spectatorial relation of the normative cinematic apparatus.

Aitken’s architectural deployment of screens across multiple rooms or surroundings to spatialize the fragmented narrative space and to create the unstable subjectivity and spectatorship is also the case with Ahtila.  (274)

architectural deployment of screens는 완전히 PM과 다르다!!! 

Bringing the bond between video and architecture to her spatialization of multiple times and locations, Ahtila also uses this distribution of the screens into separate spaces to spatialize an array of cinematic techniques and forms. (275)

이 모든 예들은, 결국 cinema에 여전히 bound되어 있다. cinema를 spatialize하려는 시도들이다. 

이 부분에서 kIM은 video에 대해 중점적으로 다룬다. cinema와의 관계 안에서. 나는 딱히 이런 입장은 아니다. Kim이 cinematic video installation이라고 define 하는데 다 담겨있다. 나는 projection mapping이다. 1990s 이후의 cinematic video installation이 기본적으로 disrupt the norms of mainstream narrative cinema라고 본다. PM은 rather, I think VJing 등의 외부적 요소와의 hybridization을 통해서.. 달라지지 않나 싶다.

 

STRATEGIES OF TEMPORALIZATION : GORDON, BREITZ, DOUGLAS

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

The cinematic video installations examined herein thus far demonstrate that hybridizations are at play on the dimension of the media apparatus that determines the perceptual and ontological conditions of cinematic images. (294)

the operations of spatialization and temporalization in these works testify to the transition of video form its analogue predeccessor to digital technologies for projection and imaging as they enable the viewer to perceive the cinematic image and narrative in more decentralized and multiple ways than projected in the normative cinematic apparatus. 그러니까, 이런 면에서 60/70 작업들하고 이어질 수 있다는 거지.

At the same time, this transition allows for video to intimately merge with that constitutes the cinematic-projection, narrative space and time, montage, cinematography, and the historical forms of cinema-thus leading to the ambiguous correlations of the two media. 

Their intermedial configurations on the level of the apparatus validate how video’s specificities, its three-dimensional construction of media space and architecture, and its manipulation of temporality at various speeds and in multiple durations, are maintained and reconstituted simultaneously. Video’s convergence with the digital thus enables the artists to refashion the cinematic montage, narrative, and spectatorship with the multiplied spaces and times experienced by the viewer who negotiate his/her frontal attention so the images with his/her perambulatory navigation through them, or to investigate how the post-cinematic technologies transform the times of cinema as the art of formulating our perception and memory while also shedding on it new light.

These two allow me to stress that hybridization as the consequence of the post-media conditions pervade not simply in the forms of the moving image but also in the apparatus by which they are framed and circulated. (294)

이 부분이 중요하다. 나에게는, 즉 digital 기술과 만나면서 DMI 뿐만 아니라, apparatus 의 변화도 온다. 즉, PM에서는 frame이 사라져 버림으로써 또 좀 더 다른 movement 가 생기게 된다는 방향. 

 

 

 

 

 

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