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

[David Chirot]

A paradox of the "depth of the image" is the extreme thinness of the image
as object/virtual projection.  Think how much artifice there exists and is
ever being experimented with  in continuing the ancient saga of the quest
for the "tromp l'oeil" effect . . . all to obscure the fact of the Wall or
physical screen on which the images are projected.
    (The Apartheid Wall along the "Jews Only" Israeli highways is painted
with an assortment of scenes, al displaying wide open fields, sky and where
there are no Palestinians and as the American song says of the lands from
which the Indians have been cleansed-- "the skies are not cloudy all day"
      The Image, Screen, both used as "Wall papering over" the actuality
which is supposed to be done away with and for the nonce must remain
hidden--so as not to obtrude on the dream--)
      Jack Kerouac said that an image of America was what he called "red
brick and neon;' the neon is the glowing light of promise, of dreams, of the
cinema entrance--the red brick is the hard walls on which the neon
projections glow and at the same time from which they are suspended.
Running headlong into the American Dream, one bangs one's head against the
red brick wall, and dreams are shattered all along the booze and blood
soaked gutters of the street corners . . .

      There is a Buster Keaton film in which he, the projectionist, falls
asleep and, dreaming, runs down into the theater and up on the stage-and
then--right into the image! In the dream with in the "Dream of the cinema,"
Keaton's character begins to live an "Other life" much as for Gerard re de
Nerval sleep is the portal through which one enters into "our dreams " which
"are a second life."

 In Godard's 1963 film les Carabiniers, (The Riflemen)  there is the homage
to already cliched  scene (having been done as one of the first films ever
made) of the two buffoonish "hicks" who, on first seeing a film, do the same
thing, charging the screen, only here being repulsed by its "red brick and
neon" effects.

      The "masking" of the projector is due to its ability to throw
diversions in a direction away from itself, so that the only time the
illusion is broken is indeed when someone gets up during the projection and
walks away from the screen--and their shadow is seen looming large, a
cartoonish, fumbling and bumbling character caught in the light and whose
progress away frm the screen is observed as a swiftly changing seriesof ever
blurrier and diminishing  shadows.

In the 1960's Stan Van der Beek experimented with altering the space of the
cinema itself, showing several films simultaneously overhead and all around
the prone bodies of the spectators inside a theater shaped like a yurt. This
model was quickly picked up on (if it was kn won of, if not, simply as
things in the air of the times) by a multitude of clubs in Amsterdam, London
and other cities, where the interrelationship of Psychedelic music, drugs
and the passivity of the prone spectators were combined to create a cinema
not of shared dreams, but one of individualized trips.  In a way, this
method creates out of the "mass of the spectators" thought of as being
"brought together in the dark" of the cinema  a model similar to that of
television, with each viewer given the literalization of an "individually"
targeted "message"   and locked inside a different viewing space.  The
concept is that ultimately the totalizing experience will become one that is
greater than the sum of the parts and so represent the coming of a new
consciousness.

         Wall, cinema, television, screens--might not all pale in comparison
with the vision of Albert Speer as filmed via the visual/vision of Leni
Reifenstahl as The Triumph of the Will? Here the projections are luaunched
into space, without anyscreens at all--thelight of the projector appears to
be a series of soaring outburts of the ground itself, illuminating in their
arcs the spectaror/partitipcant masses of catgorized and lined up humans, at
once passive and active, posied for action, and in action.  The creation of
a space for projection at Nuremberg is the cleberation of the dawning of a
new consciousness, a new reich, a new Coming of the gods from on high--the
shots of hitler's airplane coming down from outof the Olympian clouds to
land and bring the Message to the Masses that is at the same time the masses
already owned Message--al that they are needing is simply this leader to
trigger and set in motion this in-suspenion mass of Zombies . . .
            The powr and succes of the Speer Projections has been copied in
Satr Wars and via Star Wars in the Jenny Holzer Projections intsallation in
the US.  In both cases, the success of the film and art installation is
manifested in the huge amounts of money that each has earned, including the
sale of associated objects, reproductions, books, assorted other
paraphernalia.
          In these examples, from the outdoor spectacle to the cinema to the
huge art installation--where the spectators are prone on Holzer-designed
colossal bean bag chairs copying on a much grander scale those favored by
American corporate executive's offices--.
the political is diverted to the cinematic entertainment and from there to
an art installation which pretends to be a commentary on the political.
          From one side of the Projection, so to speak, the situation seems
to be one of a de-humanization of the audience, al of whom exit these
displays, these evnets, feeling and saying much the same thing.  (At the
Holzer, even Hozler says "itis like Star Wars; and al the reviews read
almost word for word the same, as though al have been brainwashed; eiuther
that or the press kit for reviewers offered them their only dieas--).
       However, a paradoix is often that the person undergoing thse
dehumanizing processes, claims to for the first time to "feel like a real
person, to really belong as a human being."  "Dehumanization" is understood
to be the replacement of a false humanity by a real one, one much greater
than oneself, a kind of religious epiphany of being as One, and at the same
time, Many, with each one its own manifestation of the One, at once
"believing the same" and "being for the first time a real human."
Individuality is experienced as a confirmation of the many and of oneself as
being confirmed by the many of others.  Never has the individual felt so
safe to be "myself."
           If one examines the situation in the inverse, then, what the
Projection does is not Control, but offer Safety, Security.   And if a
person has the illusion of safety, then they feel they are not threatened by
control.  Control vanishes fro the site of projection and is distributed
among the entire mass of "individuals" who al seem to think amazingly alike
when it comes down to safety and security.   Self-censorship replaces the
need for censorship and outright physical enforcement becomes unnecessary
except in those unreported cases of "disappearances" and "Missing persons"
of the kind not shown on the obsessive Cable shows concerned with primarily
attractive blonde females.
          The ideal of Projection then would be that each person in such a
society be themselves a conveyor of the Projector, each person become their
own projectionist and projector simultaneously, in order to project and
observe also al things that might disrupt or break the Security Margin of
the society. The projectionist n the booth as it were is observing not the
spectale being projected, but the crowd observing the spectacle. When an
entire society begins to function in this manner, as both projectorsof the
Projection and as observers of each person in the crowd attending the
Projection, then Surveillance becomes a simualtenous aspect of projection.
           The Invasion of the BodySnatchers is then completed--andone has a
zombiefied society very like those exiting the Projections show of Holzer's
who al exclaim howmuch like Satr Wars it is.
        The "dehumanizing" aspects of control are ironically those which are
most human--the suspicion, hatred and fear of any one or thing which
disturbs the sense of Security in the Many and the Same, the One and the
ones.  It isnot the "machine mind" which dreams up these plots, but the mind
of humans bent on a very human mission--exterrminationof anything
threatening the sopciety to which one owes allegaince.
        When Goering was being questioned at Nuremberg--how the circle is
unbroken!--he was aksed how a scsociety such as Germany's which had produced
such great writers, sceintists, enginers, musicians, mathematicians--how
such a society could fall for the rusesof a criminal like Hitler?  Goerings
repsone was that al you have to do is tel a nation that their securtiy is
threatened and immediately they wil surrender anythiung, including their own
human and civil rights, in order to ward off the vil that is approaching and
that is is also hiding among them.
         The role of projection is not to dehumanize, but to on the contrary
over-humanize the worst traits and lowest instincts of humans in order for
them to feel that they are more human than others.  They, they are the
representatvies of humanity and when humanity is threatened of course they
responded "humanely., " "morally," in a civilized fashion" to al those
"barbarisms" of the enemy.  As long as one believes that one is more
'democratic, more "free," and More "moral" than others, then nothing one
does in the name of safeguarding these is seen in any way as being immoral,
criminal, anti-Democratic, hypocrisy raised to the ultimate degree.  The
real conflict is not between humans and machines, but between humans and
humans--or those pod born beings who resemble humans, one's next door
neighbors . . . .
          The function of the machine is often one of exploiting what one
pundit called (speaking of preparing Sarah Palin for a 2012 run at the
presidency) "the knowledge gap,"--again a "human, all too human"function in
that the supposed complexity of machines result sin their being understood
and accessible only to a marvelous set of higher beings, , those technicians
and Engineers who operate and create the improvements in the machinery
itself.
      In re architecture as it ie being discussed, again, one might return
to the example of Speer for another understanding ot the meaning of the
transference of the projector/surveilling projectionist which is being
"given" to each person involved.  This  complementary/supplementary  meaning
is that this being has also been given the ability of not only functioning
as a projector/surveillance entity, but also as a PROJECTILE.
         Those indivudals seen on TV legally armed to the hilt and
"observing" and "projecting" at the Obama Town Halls are especially
frightening in that they are the endlessly replayed loop of the projected
image of the Lone Saviour to the Intimated Innocents as well as the Lone
Assassin of Presidents  (The film Taxi Driver playsoin the ambiguity,
theinterchaability oif these two roles.) They are projecting and are
projections of both these roles and are able to see themselves as others see
them, and to see others as their role is constructed to have them see them.
Simultaneously the projecot and the projected, al that remains is for them
to become projectiles.
        The militancy and the military aspects of the
projectionist-projector-projected-projectile arebrought to a bizarrely
ironic "conclusion" in the "unmanned drone." The drone itself is "unmanned'
yet everything else surrounding its existence is human.  What the drone does
is to perfect the sense of SECURITY of the luanceher while at the same
creating the maximum of insecurity in the enemey.The "inhuman" aspect of the
drone' wall papers for its al too real humanity--the ddesire to kill others,
steal their lands and enslave or exterminate the local populace.
      What is at stake in this entire setup is not simply control, but t
fundamental human conception of what constitutes security, Defense, nd the
"moral," and "civilized" justifications for what are criminal acts, criminal
acts in human terms. The projector, the projectile, are the projection not
of control so much as the combination of the drive for self-preservation and
its ally, the drive to lay claim to and prove one's Superior to others
       This drive is where the aspects of control begin to break down, and
the carefully constructed "order' to dinsintgtrete into a chaos of
violence.  What the projection ultimately does is simply confirm in each
being that they have not simply the right but the IMPERATIVE, the Calling,
to act in such manner.  This is why so many peoples see themselves as
"chosen" or doing "God's work," or enacting the glories of Manifest Destiny:
the only way to find justification for such acts of criminality and
bestiality is to claim that they are ordained from above, by God, a god who
perhaps is landing any day now from a helicopter and moving forward into the
immense spectacle arranged for all to proclaim--
the arrival of the "all-seeing eye."
.





      .












On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Gabriel Menotti
<gabriel.menotti at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090910/60a394e5/attachment.html