[-empyre-] the depth of projection - uses of space, networked spaces, control

[Gabriel Menotti]

Dear Duncan and Spot, thanks for the brilliant expositions. Here goes
my round of commentaries:

>Malcolm looks a lot like Vitruvius, Roman architect celebrated
>by Leonardo as the pre-modern humaniser of the built
>environment. [Duncan White]

Indeed, a very pertinent comparison. Conversely, let’s not forget the
‘horror’ part of the performance: the de-humanization of the image,
when Malcolm gets closer to the projector. As his body exits the
scene, the shadows grow and become more and more different from each
other (and from the body they are a projection of).

In dislocating the body from one point to the other, I think Malcom’s
performance demonstrate something Movie Show doesn’t: the image as a
result of the circulation of bodies; visuals that can be radically
different depending on where the artist (and the public) is
positioned.

Somewhat, the situation reminds me of the famous Wizard of Oz scene in
which Dorothy uncover the wizard behind the curtain (by the way,
another kind of frame). From this perspective, the image seems
inevitably connected both to the body and the projector - what
produces an illusion of autonomy (both of the image and its
circulation) is the architectural context in which the film is
presented: a spatial organization that hides the source of projection,
but which is not necessary to projection at all.

So, is the architecture in these cases a strategy of control? If so,
how such control is related to the dehumanization of the space (and,
in a way, of the image)?


>Expanded Cinema doesn’t circulate in the same way
>because of how it uses space. [Duncan White]

Good point. Bruno had commented before how it is difficult to find
places to exhibit his Hangover interactive film, due to the structure
it needs. On the other hand, these works find their own venues – a
“scene” where the particular uses of space they foster are promoted.
As they circulate more easily, do these works lose anything?


>This is a software project and meta-artwork which exists on tens of
>thousands of screens all over the world.  […] Because it takes so
>long (about an hour) to render each frame of animation,
>it's only practical to realize these works with an internet-wide
>supercomputer. [Scott Draves]

I really like how the way of presenting of the images (as a screen
saver) is connected to the rendering structure (crowdsourcing,
networked computing) of the piece. What of theses aspects do you think
were enhanced/ diminished when you did the symphonic presentation? How
is it like to gather all the originally dispersed audience of the
sheep in the same semi-public place?

>I will skip the discussion about the [..l] relationship between man and
>machine as this seems peripheral to the "screen" discussion (but just
>ask). [Scott Draves]

The man-machine relation seems a pivotal point so far! Could you
please expand a bit more on that? Especially about your degree of
control over the generated images. In what points of the image
production do you actively actuate?

Best!
Menotti