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

[Gabriel Menotti]

>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 [David Chirot]

I don’t know if the image projector still has this ability of
diverting attention. In fact, it seems to have lost it as soon as
cinema quit being an “attraction”. Nowadays, other strategies are
employed to manage the behaviour and perception of the public – to
keep them sited and focused, so to say. The first and most important
seems precisely to physically hide the projector (and hence, the
projection). If the apparatus was an all-powerful machine of
diversion, that wouldn’t be necessary, would it? On the other hand,
everyone knows where the projector is hidden.


>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. [DC]

But images do not always exist with the purpose of hiding walls,
extending the physical space by the means of illusion. Most of the
times, it is the contrary: the frame is there to hold the image, no
matter what kind of optic-geometrical relation it may have with the
physical space. In these situations, one could argue that it is
accidental that the geometry of the image is imposed over that of the
perceived space – a side-effect of the more essential process of
mediation, in which mediation can be revealed, but that cannot seem to
destroy it. Why is that so?

Let’s consider the situation were the light of the projector is
interrupted by someone, and a shadow is cast, disrupting the image.
The audience doesn’t feel liberated by this incident – they feel as
disturbed as the projection. When projection is revealed, what they
see is a glitch - in the mechanism or in their perception? Booing the
intruder out of the projector range, the audience is much more
responsible for maintaining the continuity of the image than the
projector, this brainless machine, is.


>If one examines the situation in the inverse, then, what the
>Projection does is not Control, but offer Safety, Security. [DC]

That might be a more sensible reason for the loss of autonomy of the
public, since it seems to be a *willing* loss of autonomy – not much
different from a kind of suspension of disbelief. But aren’t those two
just forms of abstraction of power and agency in themselves?

Best!
Menotti