Thursday, 5 March 2009

Digital Metempsychosis

For a thorough assessment of my research up until this moment, please see the last blog dated 8th February entitled Time and Resolution: Experiments in High Definition Image Making, which outlines my work and current findings. Click the title to go there.

In investigating HD technology and aesthetics I have had to examine the digital realm and try to understand how resolution is formed from a set of under-the-bonnet-technologies, this need has itself created an inevitable spill over into an investigation of the deeper construct of digital technology itself.

Necessarily, standard and current academic theoretical understandings have come into play and ideas like Remediation and Convergence have had their sway with me but I’ve always felt that these ways of looking into the subject are themselves boundaried by a set of limiting characteristics that have had their part in disguising the real nature of what is going on. I recently said in writing to a friend: 'We are investigating what we think is a hat and may later come to find out is a pair of shoes'.

I’ve been watching the development of digital innovations, from interactive telematic spaces to 3D printers and it seems to me that the paradigm change from web 2 to web 3 has already happened. In fact it’s bigger than that. The concept of numbering developments on the web is almost Victorian in its obsessive compulsive indexing and cataloguing of change. The 17th century Enlightenment project has had its day. Now we need different tools for a different terrain and it is called the Digital Domain.

We take stabs at understanding it and come up short because we’re using a language designed for something else to try to name it and it resists being named because it is substantially and qualitatively different from prior technologies.

The ‘Digital’ is a technology of the imagination, not the material realm. It is true it utilises some physical means – pathways and voltages and resistance and ohmage and optics etc. But they are the transportation system for the wavelet transform mathematics that power our current change of paradigm - and that mathematics was born 200 hundred years ago in a pre-Victorian age as an late-enlightenment gesture. We will of course develop new mathematics to do the rest of the job.

So I have come to the conclusion that the time of Convergence is nearly over and the time of Integration has begun.

Integration is fundamentally concerned with overcoming the idea of latency. Latency is the function within a system where nothing can be truly instantaneous. Of course – you can’t press a button in the UK and have an instantaneous event happen in Australia. Light and radio waves travel at a certain speed – not an infinite speed which is why the signal will have some latency.

Integration is about removing the gap – or at least creating the experience that there is no gap. Touch a telematic wall in Tokyo and your dance partner in Vancouver then touches your hand on their telematic wall and an event, an animation of a butterfly say, is generated on the wall in both spaces. What is important is that this cannot be instantaneous but it can be made to seem to be instantaneous.

I am in a sense making this up and in another sense I know that this technology can be achieved not only right now, but actually several years ago.

Taking another route to establishing the idea, think of Adobe CS4 which has Encore, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Premier, After Effects etc in its package. Each programme is now designed to stimulate all the other programmes from their programme interface. The day will come when (As with Maya) it’s all there in the same programme interface. They will al become one. And not only that. The idea of distinct programmes will have to go. As will the idea of distinct national boundaries. That’s what the credit crunch was about. A backup in the system that rendered it as destructive as it was aiding us. Ivan Illich studied the idea of a system and realized that with health for instance, there is the idea of iatrogenesis. This is the function where allopathic health treatment cause as much illness as the cure. Don’t trust me on this. Look at the figures.

So the idea of the system per-se is bankrupt. It is a medieval view of the world where as Newton inherited, everything is supposed to work like a machine of finely manufactured wooden cogs. It has its limits and in this sort of wooden design, friction is the problem. To push the analogy, friction and latency are the same thing.

So ideas around web 3 and integration have to get beyond the remediated language that recognises latency as a problem.

How do we get beyond the apparent problem of latency ? Heisenburg spotted the problem of the observer. You can know the position but not the velocity. You can know the velocity but not the position. I can’t remember the name of the Indian Mathematician working with Nasa but this man proposes the idea of observing an experiment and creating change when the experiment is viewed at the same time in another location by another observer and comparing the results later. The comparison will then develop a Morse code of fluctuations that both ends can use at the time of the observation thus eliminating the time delay. They will have their Morse code reference book and be able to see what the communication is – plus or minus its probablility which is chartable.

It will not be long after that to travel from the telegraph to the web real time viewing of the image of another as we speak together – over vast distances. Earth to Mars, Earth to Andromeda. Etc. Distance will be eliminated as a problem of latency.

Ursula Le Guin wrote about this in the Dispossessed,a novel that discussed the benefits of an anarchist society as opposed to a capitalist society. Her Theory of Simultaneity always struck me as being on the button – this is to be distinguished from Einstein’s Relativity of Simultaneity as published in his Special Theory of Relativity. With Leguin, everything everywhere is happening simultaneously, it is the inhabitance of a shell of a self-conscious entity that is placed within the space-time continuum that generates the idea that there is the apparent reality of ‘sequence of events’ and therefore latency. Einstein didn’t see past this and didn’t imagine the nature of a self conscious entity outside of a space/time continuum. LeGuinn realised that the self-conscious entity is a product of space/time but has ‘essence’ within non space/time. Essence is like probability. We can chart it’s marks in other media (space/time) and therefore know it exists. By extension, in a realm where everything is different an object (or a subject) with personal boundaries means nothing in that dimension. Nor does space, nor does time.

Looked at like this we can re-formulate what latency might actually be. From within the space-time continuum it looks like time is taken to do things. From the point of view of Simultaneity it is apparent that the idea of ‘distance’ is the problem. In this case of course, were one able to inhabit the simultaneous dimension, there is no time and there is also no distance of course. So we have to re-invent our understanding of distance so that there is no duration in it. Duration is a product of space and is called time – and vice versa.

Have I lost you? The thing is these words are in space/time so I haven’t got a chance to relay this insight when the description itself is undermined by a language generated that is obverse to the understanding – suffice it to say many people know this about the world. Now, within the period of Integration we just have to work out the ‘physics’.

A last note on this – a Victorian parlour game posited the idea of the Flatlanders, two-dimensional beings who perceived a three dimensional sphere moving through their two dimensional world first as a dot, then as a growing circle, then as a shrinking circle, then finally a dot, before it disappeared, To know higher non space/time dimensions take this metaphor and realise that an experience of a further dimension using your current senses which are developed and tuned for this dimension does not work. All understandings are therefore relative and limited. However, we have to keep our minds open to possibilities.

If I’m right then it will become inevitable that worldwide, each person will be assigned a code to register their individual existence and everything that I described above will become an available future.

This concept will inevitably raise the shadow of a familiar dystopia for us: for where there are possibilities for freedom there are also possibilities for repression and control. If as I stated that everyone has a code, then the first image my mind goes to is a bar code tattooed on the arm which is reminiscent of the treatment of the Jews in the Holocaust.

However, this is not a necessary outcome. For a start we were all born with a gene that makes some of us stand up and rebel. Don’t forget, the holocaust was not conclusive, nor was Cambodia, nor was Rwanda – a lot of damage was done, but these events eventually stopped.

The code is a way in which wherever you are in space/time you have a co-ordinate and therefore you can be mapped. If you carry two codes on two devices, then you can then be triangulated and it is triangulation that affords a 3d mapping of the world and your place within it and is key to the telematic realisation of space. Move an arm in the real world and your virtual arm will also be seen to move. What it does in that virtual world is then a matter of triggers and events and things then happening in the real world.

Integration is that realisation and then also of course its transformation into the beginnings of what could be called Web4….

But ‘web this’ and ‘web that’ are for consumers and the credit crunch gave us a way of disassociating ourselves from the raping of the wealth of the world by a few brigands in the higher hills of the data realm (known as money). These guys only did what they were trained to do and we have to re-invent what we ask of each other and what the base lines of automatic ethics achieve for the human condition. A lot of people say this cannot be so, ‘people are always going to be like this’. They often site the behaviour of chimpanzees being our nearest relative and exhibiting behaviour like rape and murder and that this somehow comments upon us. But the lie in that is that chimpanzees are not our nearest relatives, the Bonobo monkey is and it exhibits the kind of behaviours that if reflected and amplified in us would enable us to generate ‘web 3’. As John Lennon said, I may be a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. One potent dreamer, infects the rest.

So we no longer need to characterise ourselves as murders, cheats, liers and worst of all, morality free consumers (it was getting very tiresome anyway). Instead we can begin to look into our future, which of course as post-consumers, we can be a part of making its description and realisation.

In terms of researching High Definition Imaging, everything above relates to this area. The question of veracity of experience opens directly into resolution because without enough resolution one is aware of the scenery and mechanisms that are used to construct the image or experience. We need resolution sufficient to the task at hand.

I believe that without funds I am fairly stuck though. My latest bid to the AHRC fell upon stony ground as I have to apply into a scheme that is not suited to Creative Research Fellows and I hope to get a hearing for this point of view – but that’s another story. I shall of course carry on my research in any way I can and I have a few projects that are happening within my portraiture series. The kind of invention I was describing above is on hold until I manage to get the funds to try to realise the beginnings of what I have described – and I maintain, everything I’ve described above is not only possible, most of it is happening anyway, and above all what I’ve described is probable within a reasonably short time.

Sunday, 8 February 2009

Time and Resolution: experiments in high definition image making


As an AHRC Creative Research Fellow at Bristol University my research is concerned with High Resolution Imaging. The operative word in my title is ‘Creative’. My fellowship was awarded partially on my argument that ‘my methodological contention is that technical investigations have to be performed in the medium itself, using the form to inquire into itself, to speak in its own language side by side with the written word.’ The article that follows is a synthesizing of the understandings I have derived through practical and creative acts during my first year of research into the High Resolution Domain.

KEYWORDS: High Definition, Commodification, the Gaze, Electronic Cinematography, Audience Engagement
There are a series of links to works at the end of this article.

INTRODUCTION
In September 2007 I took up an AHRC Creative Research Fellowship at the Department of Drama at Bristol University, having until that point, been a cinematographer and a occasional educator. My enquiry concerns whether increased resolution creates deeper engagement for an audience and also how that engagement functions - for instance, if engagement increases in relation to increased resolution: is this a quantative, or quantum increase? My enquiry is not scientific, it does not seek to weigh nor measure, instead I am trying to understand through a creative enquiry that utilises audience response. That response comes in different ways, sometimes by the inflection of a voice, sometimes by a pause in a description. It is, in the best sense, relative to my own understanding.

In trying to explain my research to an audience at a presentation at Bristol’s Watershed Media Centre recently I used this metaphor: at dusk you might notice an increased coloration in the red, amber and green traffic lights which seem more saturated than during the day. The physiological explanation is that at dusk your brain switches from using the cones to the rods in your eyes. The cones, developed to produce a greater response to colour, are less numerous and are less reactive to luminance, the rods are far greater in number and have developed to have greater response to light, but not to colour. As the brain switches between technologies, fluttering back and forth, you gain a heightened awareness of colour. If you take this idea and rethink it in terms of resolution, then it would seem that there is a similar boundary between what we used to think of as a standard image for television and what we are beginning to think of as the lower limits of high definition.

A question that arises is this: is there only one boundary in terms of resolution? What if there were a set of boundaries where the mind responds at greater levels of engagement to quanta of resolution? What if every so often as you go up the scale of definition you slip ever deeper into the ‘dream’ of what lies before you?

THE GENESIS OF AN IDEA
In 1992 I was engaged to make an installation for the Bonn Biennale which was the shooting of a dinner party from above and then it’s projection back on to a table, complete with tablecloth, 8 white plates and eight chairs. Some years later, in 2003 I showed this at various exhibitions shot at standard definition (720 x 576 pixels). There certainly was a degree of engagement by the audience with the piece, but I wondered if the blurry images were limiting the effectiveness of the piece. It bothered me greatly that the image was not clear - i.e. the prongs of the forks were indistinct as was the food. The more I showed the piece, the more I came to feel that greater engagement was possible with a greater clarity of image.

On entering my role as Research Fellow I immediately shot In Other People’s Skins on P2 Cameras which are notionally HD (960 x 540 pixels in resolution before uprezzing to either 1280 or 1920 formats).

The common HD format is 1920 x 1080 pixels. This is known as 2k resolution due to the numbers accumulating to approximately ‘2000’. This is in the common 16:9 aspect ratio – 16 units horizontally by 9 units vertically. Another form of 2k is 2048 x 1024 pixels – this is the cinema form. 1280 x 720 is more common as an HD format in America – having less data, it is easier to stream this form for broadcast. When TV’s say ‘HD ready’, the resolution is generally 1280 x 720 pixels.

I created a dinner party for twelve people (thus invoking the Last Supper) and shot 5 different dinner parties, Asian, Indian, Western, African and first century Arabic. I carried out extensive tests with compression and decompression settings, in relation to projector set-up and then graded the work through projector as opposed to monitor, and so created the most accurate colour and resolution representation of the image for the public forum.

I contacted 7 cathedrals and then obtained an Arts Council award. During the 15 week tour around 50,000 of the 150,000 people that visited those cathedrals sat down at the installation.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON AUDIENCE RESPONSE
I made a point of viewing the installation anonymously and I noticed that people were ready to play, to move plates around, to mime the clashing of glasses between virtual guests. I noticed that whether the audience was old or young, people were prepared to join in: that babies placed on the table were fascinated by what was happening beneath them; that strangers conversed as if they were at a real dinner party, that soon the conversation turned to ‘art’ and what defined it for today.

I listened as some people said that they were truly confused about what was real and what was not and they were enjoying this confusion. I noticed that some people reached for a virtual plate expecting it to feel real. Some people said that the strangest feeling they’d had was when the virtual guest did something they were not expecting, that it was similar to what they imagined would be the feeling of protoplasmic hands thrusting out of their stomach.

So the installation immediately engaged the audience in a performative act which raised the following question: Was it the installation that was creating the main act of engagement and consequently producing subsequent performative acts, or was it the addition of higher resolution to the concept? The prior version was 720 x 576 pixels and this ‘HD’ version was 960 x 540 pixels.

RESOLUTION, PHOTOGRAPHY AND CINEMATOGRAPHY
We understand that new mediums tend to be thought of in terms of preceding media for a time, before we recognize the ‘true’ characteristics of the new medium, which then gives rise to a new aesthetic impetus that makes the new medium ‘whole’. From then on the new medium can be explored in its own terms, before it too re-mediates whatever comes next. But of course, at a certain point, new mediums have the capacity of reaching back and interrelating with prior media. In The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience (Sobchack,1992) Vivian Sobchack asserts that:

‘The cinematic qualitatively transforms and converts the photographic through a materiality that not only claims the world and others as objects for vision but also signifies its bodily agency, intentionality and subjectivity’.

Conversely, with regard to composition, movement of camera, the movement of objects or subjects within frame and the placement of light and illumination, it is my experience that cinematography has a photographic element. As I compose, execute and listen to the film whirring frame by frame through the gate, within the stream of frames in every shot, I attempt to achieve at least one moment or frame that is photographic in nature. The overall stream is cinematographic, but I have become convinced that to achieve truly great cinematography one has to unleash the potential of one frame in every shot that has the specific quality of a photograph. This is not particular to my practice as many notable cinematographers, amongst them Vitorrio Storarro and Conrad Hall, have considered the relationship between cinematography and photography from a cinematographic standpoint. The difference in the photographic frame occurring within a flow of frames as opposed to being created as a photographic act makes it the epitome of and also the evocation of the cinematic. As the film plays, the audience, at some deep level, recognises this moment and this re-cognition will then place the entire flow of images into a deeper level of availability and therefore allow deeper engagement by the audience. For me, this is a guiding thought in my practice of Electronic Cinematography, which on a material level has similarities with its predecessor. For instance, in Photo Chemical origination of the image there is the existence of a latent image prior to development and this is paralleled in the Electronic rendition (or development) of data in raw image processing.

THE CREATION OF WORK WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPING AESTHETIC OF THE MEDIUM
With the above in mind I proceeded to devise six new works that explored the issues as I was beginning to see them. This series of works had two trajectories: One set, In Re Ansel Adams, Portraits of Glastonbury Tor, and Un Tempo, Una Volta, was to explore the possibility of re-imagining that which was already well known to the popular psyche and somehow in using the new medium, say something new about the subject or present it in a way that utilised the technology and the aesthetic that I was coming to understand. The other set, Dance Floor, Water Table and The Unfurling, was conceived to try to explore audience performativity from working with the virtual and the real as I had in In Other People’s Skins.

In both trajectories there were deviations from the basic rules I had set myself and also during the first six months of the award I was heavily affected by In Other People’s Skins: this work had been successful in intent and outcome and that in itself shakes ones artistic foundations.

I left out a visitors book during the tour and due to the large attendance there were many comments that were potent in encouraging me to pursue my research path. The point of quoting these and others within this article is to relate my intention and concerns with the outcome, which in itself indicates to me my next trajectory:

‘Wonderfully creative - strange to change gender and race all in one evening.’

‘It's refreshing that this exhibition encourages and enables us to communicate with each other. A wonderful experience.’

‘Extraordinary. The most imaginative and socially interactive piece of modern art I've seen.’

‘A fascinating take on human life. A reminder that we are all the same.’

I had made work that had won plaudits from the audience before - but never on this scale, there were pages of positive comments from the tour and this was to cause me to continuously re-evaluate every stage of the making of the 6 new pieces - both consciously and unconsciously - sometimes I dreamed new elements of the work I was to make and then modified the work I actually made according to the dream.

The other thing to say about both trajectories of work is that they were intimately bound together in intent from artist to audience: through the making and exhibiting of In Other People’s Skins, I’d become aware of the power of the artist to affect the viewer if they understand the authority that the audience gives the artist in the agreement to view the work. That is a transfer of control and influence at one level; it is the giving of consent and this act of choice by the viewer, if the artist is truly aware of what the transaction means, represents all that the artist needs to make and exhibit the work in a successful way. By ‘successful’ I mean here to fulfill the bargain the artist has entered into with the audience - to deliver some element of meaning or significance (given the life understanding of the artist) through whatever tactics and strategy the artist has engaged in. ‘Bargain’ contains the notion of an increase of benefit for all involved.

THE PROCESS OF ORIGINATION AND STRATEGIES WITHIN THE WORK
The idea behind the first set of three of the six new pieces derived from a moment in 1988 when Alan Yentob, (then controller of BBC2), had left a 10 minute gap In his scheduling of Thursday nights and had asked for a series of shorts that filled the gap. Building Sights was the answer: An ‘interesting presenter’ would be taken to a notable architectural site and hopefully some interesting television chemistry happen. I worked on three series and every director was avoiding The Lloyds Building – the poisoned chalice because it had already been shot far too often. What would one have to say anew about this building? I was fortunate enough to have Michael Craig-Martin to work with and his relationship with Richard Rogers’ building was indeed interesting, but it struck me that the images that I was to make should also be interesting and enlightening. Given that practically every angle of the building had been photographed I introduced steadycam shots, dolly shots and hung a crane from the 13th story with a remote head – all of this new to television at that time – in a search to create sequences of movement that would speak about and evoke for the viewing audience the way the space was organized in the building. So it was this process of invention and renewal that struck a deep chord within and it was this idea that stayed with me: to look at the familiar and reflect upon the idea that was discussed by Jean Baurdillard in The Transparency of Evil (Baudrillard, 1993):

‘It is often said that the West’s great undertaking is the commercialization of the whole world, the hitching of the fate of everything to the fate of the commodity. That great undertaking will turn out rather to have been the aestheticization of the whole world – it’s cosmopolitan spectacularisation, its transformation into images, its semiological organization.’

In this attempt I would try to achieve a renewal of the location or image, flush out whether or not there is an aesthetic that accompanies the form, and is not simply the same aesthetic as obtained with previous and similar technologies.

My challenge in making In Re Ansel Adams, Un Tempo, Una Volta and Portraits of Glastonbury Tor was not only to re-present these locations but also develop the art that was possible in refreshing the image for the audience via the potential developing aesthetic of HD.

IN RE ANSEL ADAMS
With In Re Ansel Adams, the famous American photographer used high resolution black and white photography to propose the image so that it could be immediately received with visual impact.

Given that I was using a cinematographic form I had to adopt a different strategy:
When the image begins there are only incandescent dancing pixels bathing the exhibition space in a luminosity and play of light, accompanied by the sound which was constructed to immerse the audience as if they were deep within the waterfall and pull back in perspective until the huge Yosemite valley was revealed on the 16 x 9 foot screen as a deep thunderous roaring, potently detailed image. I then drained the colour to Black and White, thus connecting my work with Adam’s original and creating a moment of recognition for the audience.

Here, the active element is the ‘reveal’. The audience is continuously asked the question: What are we looking at? As the reveal develops it sees more and more of the image, which it recognizes, but the scale of display then overcomes the problem solving of intellectual recognition, to give way to its pleasure.

The question that arises for the artist is: does all of this manufacturing fall away for the audience until only the matter of ‘art’ is revealed, in a similar way to that achieved by Adams? Has 70 years of familiarity with the image been washed away so that another artist - myself in this case - may achieve some kind of transmission or communication with the audience?

Go to: http://www.flaxton.btinternet.co.uk/NEINRE.htm then click ‘see video’ to watch a low resolution version of this work.

PORTRAITS OF GLASTONBURY TOR
I then began working on Portraits of Glastonbury Tor. Using ideas related by John Berger in Ways of Seeing (Berger, 1972), that of looking at the context of the production of art and artifacts and how clothes, location and objects within frame delineate the social standing of the subject or something that was of import to the subject. I also made reference to 20th century cinematography (the photo-chemical capture of motion and all that that implied) and 21st century electronic cinematography (the electronic capture of motion and all that that implied).

Outside of the technical imperatives to make this work there is a tradition in photography of the photographic series, which displays anthropological undertones, as well as those of the circus sideshow. People like August Sanders, Edward S Curtiss, Walker Evans, Dianne Arbus and even Robert Mapplethorpe have lined up an array of their contemporaries or social equivalents to display a cross-section of humanity and humanities concerns.

I began to prepare to shoot Portraits of Glastonbury Tor and I knew that I had to re-present this tradition of the documentation of the self in a different way. The reference became 16th-18th century portraiture where what the subject wore, held, or sat upon said something about them. In this case the Tor was also the subject of the work so the project would therefore include an element of landscape. Another reference I wanted to use was that of the long exposure times of early photography. I therefore asked my subjects to walk in to frame and hold their pose for one minute.

With the people from around Glastonbury, the gravedigger, the farmer, publisher, osteopath, priest, dressmaker, chip-shop owner, Zen Buddhist monk, window cleaner, special needs worker, this created a strong integration process with the community.

I then arranged for an exhibition at the Somerset Rural Life Museum inside the 14th Century barn cleared of centuries of rural tools leaving only a cider press at one end and a haywain at the other. I commissioned a 16 foot by 9 foot screen to show the piece with the subjects life-size so that the viewer might scrutinize what they were shortly to realize was not a photograph, though it had photographic detail – there were little moving figures on the distant Tor. I also showed this work at the Wickham Theatre and Windows 204 in Bristol and on a small back projection screen at Gallery Scarabocchio in Venice.

UN TEMPO, UNA VOLTA
With the third piece in the set, Un Tempo, Una Volta (Once Upon a Time) and having visited Venice a year before, I began to imagine a series of shots of some duration that did not show water, canals, sunsets, old buildings, tourists, gondoliers etc. But it was only when I realised I must free myself from simply doing the converse to expectation that the glimmer of an idea that was potent entered my mind. I began to ‘know’ that we should be able to hear the sound of water and not see it. I also began to ‘know’ that a boat should be present but we should not be able to see that either. I wanted to see the underside of Venice, the bit that’s always there, but that few people, except those that work there, actually see. I began to think that builders, firemen, ambulance-men and dockers might all see something special as they travel the canals.

Through this thought process it dawned on me that I should also create a Portrait project of this area too. The camera stays still reading the world, like a mobile scanner, in extreme high definition. That in effect is my research - how resolution interrelates with time. At this moment it began to occur to me that there is a relationship between higher resolutions of representation and the amount of time the attention is taken with perusing what has been mediated by the interface itself. If you look directly, then that is the experience you get - you and it. If you look via a medium, film, video, a telescope, a ride on a helter-skelter, that’s the elemental resource that mediates that gaze. What if that gaze were then returned ?

I organised a visit to Venice and set out to find people for a seventh piece that I had decided to make, as Portraits of Glastonbury Tor had revealed more than I had hoped for and itself demanded its own continuance in some form from me. This work was 1Ritratti di Cannaregio (Portraits of Cannaregio), set in a district where ordinary people live to the north of Venice where we were working. At the same time for Un Tempo, I met the boatman and sketched out a route and then on the day of the shoot took some silk banners to several of the bridges so that some of our helpers could drop them over at the appropriate moment so that they would brush across the camera lens and create a field of colour. This again was a device to interrupt the image or sensation the audience would be having, that of being mesmerized, and the interruption would be delightful: a field of sumptuous colour.

Friday evening at 7.40pm, when the footage had finished rendering, we took the projector we’d brought with us to the Gallery Scarabocchio and arranged for the exhibition to start at 8 p.m. When the covering board came off the window and the images of Portraits of Cannaregio fell upon one of the white banners now arranged as a screen for back projection, I could see around 60 Venetian faces waiting and smiling with surprise as they saw their own neighborhood and neighbors in front of them.

Outside of the gallery, Scarabocchio had set up a round of parmesan cheese and bottles of Prosecco (when in Venice…). On the bridge people were sitting and laughing with delight as familiar faces came and went. Yes it was in 4k resolution but shown at 1k and yes resolution was important, but more important was the representation of their own world through different, yet familiar eyes. Later I showed Un Tempo, Una Volta, In Re Ansel Adams and Portraits of the Tor. I again showed Portraits of Cannaregio and finally Portraits of the Tor was again requested.

This also happened at the exhibition of Portraits of the Tor at the Rural Life Museum in Somerset – the request by one community to see the world of other communities, which is why I shall go on and collect other ‘Portraits’.

Audience Comments on the first three works from visitors books at the exhibitions (including comments on Portraits of Cannaregio):

‘Mesmerising subliminal narratives; beautiful, haunting, informative and engaging.’

‘This is new - it redefines the portrait as a crossover between the static image and its limitations and the elements of time in a portrait. The biker is the most fascinating in his stillness as there is doubt about whether the image is live or frozen time. This piece asks a lot of questions about our perception and has given me lots of ideas for photography. Exceptional in a sea of plagiarism.’

‘An exceptional work which questions traditional portraiture with the minute discomfort of posing. The HD resolution demands our attention - detail becomes incisive - excellent.’

‘Mesmerising and curiously powerful. The way in which the angle of the screen upset my visual expectations of moving mages and films was particularly challenging.’

THE SECOND SET OF WORKS

The second trajectory of work was comprised of the following pieces: The Unfurling, Dance Floor and Water Table. I began to call upon the experiences I had had with In Other People’s Skins around the recognition of what new aesthetic might be developing in relation to the demonstration of and the dialogue between the virtual and the real.

In making this set of new works I wanted the audience to receive the work with a degree of expectation that the work will do something other than either entertain them, or simply offer them the ‘conceptual art experience’ - where a concept is equal to or dominant to the material elements of the work, where receipt of understanding of the elements of the jigsaw of the conception allowed people to leave the exhibition in tact. I wanted to deliver a third thing: that should the audience enter into an agreement with me, I would create sufficient space for them to intercede and create meaning themselves and in so doing understand something new about resolution which would allow them to leave the exhibition increased.

I found myself doing things which tried to upset conceptual work but also that of standard entertainment and that in itself became a platform for possible change. I felt I needed to place the audience where they were not sure of what the outcome of watching the work was, yet at the same time they would feel confident that whatever happened, it would be beneficial to them.

Using our tendencies towards assumption, expectation, assertion, ratiocination and then re-ordering the criteria, the parameters of how people read the space they are in and the work they apprehend, I tried to re-discover the simple strategies that I used in In Other People’s Skins - like the act of shooting an object and then projecting it back on to itself in a changed way.

One of the traditions I found myself calling upon was that of tableaux vivant (Paz, 2004):

‘originated as medieval liturgical dramas when a mass ended in a short, dramatic series or tableaux.’

Danielle Paz goes on to quote Mary Chapman (Chapman, 1992):

‘Although its emblematic and allegorical characteristics recall medieval drama, the “tableau” emerged as a true art form on the Continent and in England in the eighteenth century.’

This tradition finally finds its contemporary mode in places like the Ramblas in Barcelona or Milsom Street in Bath. Performers stand on pedestals and hold a pose. People pay to be startled and in turn delighted. In tableau vivant, the audience is aware that people are performing by holding the pose but might break it unexpectedly and there is delight to be had in this surprise. Later, a Grand Guignol tradition springs up to suggest that waxworks dummies might come to life. The power and possibility of this coming-to-life of the virtual is what I was interested in discovering in these next three works.

THE UNFURLING
In terms of the exposition of The Unfurling, in a preliminary test a year before, I found my daughter asleep on a rock and then in editing the footage slowed and stretched the 15 second period of her waking into 8 minutes.

When I was about to shoot the new work it seemed apposite to think in terms of High Speed HD capture so that each moment (at 1000 frames per second) would be unveiled in high definition. Some of Bill Viola’s work is captured at high speed on film or video - for instance in both Emergence (Viola, 2002), shot underwater, a man jumps in and sinks out of frame in extreme slow motion and in Ocean Without a Shore (Viola, 2007), people walk slowly to camera in black and white from beyond the real world and pass through an invisible watery barrier into colour and the real world before returning to the monochrome world) - in both of these pieces the clarity achieved though high speed, makes certain qualities that are not present in real time available to the audience.

Bill Viola and many early video artists, like Robert Cahen and Dalibor Martinez, went beyond this simple act and took ‘the photographic moment’ and extended its timeline so that it might be witnessed at leisure - and this witnessing by the audience produced in some cases, the awe of the expansive gesture as characterised in the work of Ansel Adams. But this potential spectacularising of the gaze, can be seen as problematic because it too can become a commodity when viewed from within a Situationist viewpoint, (De Board, 1967):

‘The spectacle cannot be understood as a mere visual deception produced by mass-media technologies. It is a worldview that has actually been materialized, a view of a world that has become objective’.

As a counter measure towards what might be seen as an over-expansive and gestural position, in Regarding the pain of Others (Sontag, 2003) Susan Sontag discusses some notions around spectacularising the gaze, in this case specifically of the viewing of suffering:

‘To speak of reality as becoming a spectacle is a breathtaking provincialism. It universalizes the viewing habits of a small, educated population living in the rich part of the world, where news has been converted into entertainment – that mature style of viewing which is a prime acquisition of ‘the modern’, and a prerequisite for dismantling traditional forms of party based politics that offer real disagreement and debate. It assumes that everyone is a spectator. It suggests, perversely, un-seriously, that there is no real suffering in the world.’

Her specific point about refuting the notion of spectacularising the gaze through viewing suffering is useful in terms of the concern as a whole because at the centre of the concern is the central issue as identified by Sontag as she goes on to elaborate:

‘Citizens of modernity, consumers of violence as spectacle, adepts of proximity without risk, are schooled to be cynical about the possibility of sincerity.’

So the artist in society has to go beyond the fear that their audience might be incapable of sincerity or have a belief that their artists might be incapable of sincerity and simply pursue their intuition about what is important when trying to make art. This noticing of the gaze in the works of Viola, Cahen or Martinez, allows us past the spectacular to what critics of Viola might see as the ‘easy strategy’ of evoking the numinous present in every audience member. ‘Easy’ in the sense of ‘pulling the strings of the audience’. But evoking the numinous is not ‘easy’, it is instead an act of skill.

I prefer Plato’s use of the root of the idea, that of ‘nous’, where knowing is intuitive and prior to the act of ratiocination. I like the possibility that such an idea has crept into the language of the average person via the Cockney dialect – the idea of ‘nous’ or common sense. Etymologically speaking, the word nous appends from the Greek word, numen, or ‘to nod’ – I value the idea that rather than needing cultural helpers to understand a work or an act of art, that the audience simply nods in accord because it ‘gets the point’ - and from getting the point it can plunge further into the potential resonances of the work.

For me, making and exhibiting images as art is a revolutionary act against a system of approaching art that seeks to dis-empower the image and art itself. I use the word revolutionary in terms of a knowledge of ‘the spiritually essential’. Notions of authenticity of experience resonate for me when making art and I have a deep conviction that, like a shaman making a talisman, I as the ‘artist’ can infuse the artwork, primarily by removing my own set of neuroses from the work itself. If I can do this successfully, then I also manage to create enough space within the receiving of the work by an audience, that empowers that audience to become creative and active in dealing with the ideas within the work.

In the end, for The Unfurling I found myself liking the disturbance to the surface of the image created by shooting at 120 frames per second, then slowing it down more in post-production and then blowing the image up for projection. By presenting the changing image in steps, this distorts the surface of the image in a way that I prefer to the smooth rendition that would be obtained at 1000 fps. Arguably ‘seamlessness’ is a form of disguise and by now I was committed to getting rid of sleight of hand in relation to delivering work to the audience. As I worked through the creative process, I was beginning to face my own set of ‘givens’, my own set of previously unexamined beliefs about what matters and what does not matter in making art.

I used the 16 foot by 9 foot screen hung at a diagonal angle and suspended above the audience at the Wickham Theatre at the Drama Department at Bristol. The audience was invited to wander around the space, under or around the screen and see the ‘cinematic display’ out of context. There were no chairs, no passive seating space available – but there was a soft cushioned space that they could lie on to rest as they looked up at the huge image. This for me was not a passive space. It asked the audience to leave behind any fear that might have them not touch the work in some manner. For me, this meant leaving behind the inability to join in. Also this was a reflective surface, which also helped in a ‘shimmering of the image’. This was a re-presentation of the idea of viewing which kept the audience out of the passive state yet enabled a deeper engagement. They were surrounded by the slowed-down soundtrack; the text that the voice spoke was concerned with ideas around unfoldment and birth of consciousness – it was therefore a creation myth within a creation piece.

Some audience comments collected from visitors books, from various exhibitions of the work:

‘This work gets the viewer to look at something very ordinary in a different way. In particular I liked the way the film showed the balance of movements, that for every shift in one part of the body we must move another to compensate.’

‘Absolutely beautiful, mesmerising. I could watch it for hours. The architecture of the body and its movement in time and space becomes miraculous in this work.’

‘Aaah - I see the world as hyper-real. The grass feels as though it might crunch under my feet.’

DANCE FLOOR
I made tests for both Dance Floor and Water Table in standard definition. Dance Floor shares some of performative elements with The Unfurling; Water Table shares some with In Other People’s Skins.

I showed Dance Floor at the Phoenix Project in Glastonbury. As people entered they saw a rectangular platform raised 12 inches above the ground. This surrounded an image that was projected from above, on to the floor. I placed some 50 old and worn shoes around the space – I felt the need to create a sculptural element that works with the light and ephemera of the projected work. The exhibition space was bathed in a slow rumbling sound. As the audience proceeded into the room several people had already stopped around the rectangular well in which the flickering light of movement could be seen. Coming to the edge of the well the audience could see that beneath them, two life size performers were dancing together in extreme slow motion. People said that as they stood above the projection they felt like they were falling in to it and stepped back – the experience was vertiginous, yet the rostra was only 9 inches deep. Initially people stood around the well, eventually, some of the audience stepped down and danced upon the projection. People remarked that the image displayed a grace of movement that was missing from their ordinary apprehension of dance – they found themselves mesmerized by the movement and stayed for quite long periods just gazing down into the well – some obviously were bold enough to join in.

The words ‘mesmerized’ or ‘mesmerizing’ return again and again when people describe how high resolution images affect them.

WATER TABLE
As an installation Water Table is an extension 
of In Other People’s Skins in terms of the recognition that people enjoy being seated around a table and trying to touch something that in real terms does not exist. There is a reference here to Adolfo Bioy Casares’ novel The Invention of Morel (Casares, 1940). An escaped prisoner comes to an Island where he finds he cannot communicate with or touch the inhabitants. The explanation is that he is witnessing a 3 dimensional recording of a visit by travelers to the island the year previously. When he learns this he still remains in love with one of the virtual inhabitants despite the evidence of his common sense that what is in front of him does not truly exist.

In Other People’s Skins was punctuated with images of water, earth, fire etc to interrupt the audience’s belief in the table as being real. Of course the table itself was a real table and the image of the dinner party had a certain reality to it and people certainly believed they were sitting down with a virtual rendition of both these ideas. So with The Water Table I wanted to abandon image upon reality (table upon table) and utilize the actual table’s function, of an object to sit around and utilize for various communal acts, but replace its obvious reality with another.

I placed a white tablecloth as the screen on the table and eight chairs which were an invitation for the audience to sit. On the table itself I placed pebbles gathered at various beaches in Cornwall, Turkey and California (for variation). My intention was that this element would provide a sculptural dimension as with the plates in the dinner party or the shoes with Dance Floor. This gave the audience focus and there was then performative play with the placement of pebbles on the image and in obvious piles, but one or two people removed them and placed them on the floor between the table and the entrance as an indicator or pathway to the work. It interests me to work both with the virtual and real elements in the same installation as a means of bridging the audience’s connectedness with the work.

THE DEVELOPING AESTHETIC OF HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGING - SOME EARLY PROPOSITIONS
In all of the above there is the continuous issue that Benjamin raised in his 1936 essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, between the virtual and the real: Can that which is a reproduction hold the aura of the original? It has always been of interest to me that when the electricity is turned off, so my works disappear, only to exist as a memory. But it is also important to me, that there is no conceptual dominance and that there is a relationship to traditional aesthetic and material concerns – even if the material is removed. Apart from the props, which, of themselves are replaceable and not integral to the work, that which has relevance has also been removed.

The wonderful thing about the digital is that it is not ‘original’. Even works created within the arena of code are simulacra. That which is displayed is only ever a representation of data flow. So the notion of aura residing within a material work of art, may only ever have been related to a world where ‘things’ mattered.

After a year and the completion of the first third of my enquiry I can formulate some of the thoughts I have on the effect of increased resolution as a set of aphorisms. I’m very aware that what I’m about to write raises a lot of complex issues which I will have to address later in the research. I feel however that it is my role to reveal and expose these issues. I’m using this form because of the tentative nature of my thoughts at this time:

Resolution equals time
Attention is energy
Engagement is an active property within the act of the gaze
Within engagement, time ceases
The gaze is resolution and is also time, as time equals resolution

To put the above simply: when the resolution of a displayed image is increased then there is more detail for the gaze to scrutinize. The gaze could be said to be an ocular expenditure of energy which rises or falls to meet its challenge - in that sense it has similar characteristics to wavelet transforms in that they intelligently examine the data they are to deal with and then appropriately deal with them. (Fourier’s Wavelet Transforms are to my mind the underpinning mathematics that enable the entirety of the digital realm to perform as it does).

In expending energy, in concentrating, discriminating, ratiocinating and utilising all the separate factors that usually constitute self as an intellectualizing entity, in the act of gazing, the self is momentarily subsumed and becomes that emission of energy and effectively suspended whilst one’s energy is focused upon an image, and in that focusing one becomes the image – because at that moment form and content are one.

There are three issues here:

a) there is the use of language in describing the actions of concentration which is currently derived from photography: ‘to focus’ and from that the larger idea (with a nod to Chomsky), that throughout history and the development of the self, the language of our most recent technology is utilized to describe the actions of consciousness. For instance, the expression to ‘gather ones attention’ could be attributed to the simple act of finding foodstuffs and medicines from the land.

b) The second issue is the notion of the image. Just what is an image after you strip away all that we collectively agree the image is? Notionally it is some form of inscription in a medium (Charcoal on paper, oil on canvas, media on media, etc). But there are images in the mind - pictures - and also less 'material' ideas of images: concepts. Duchamp championed the notion of the value of the concept above its material manifestation. Strip away the material and all that is left is immaterial - just as it is in the digital realm.

c) The third issue is whether or not it is worth thinking of the performative in this act - the response of self to the engagement with greater detail is a worthy level to analyze the act. Of course performativity happens - but how important is it when compared to the play of energy of mind across an image, whether two or three-dimensional?

In all of this I have to fictionalise these elements so that I may form a description of the terrain so that it might be discussed and thought about and reflected upon. I have developed the simile that there is a surface or interface where image meets gaze and gaze meets image - as if there was an exchange to be had between both. There is, but it is displaced by time. The act of shooting is at one time and the act of displaying is at another.

The iconography of the image, the exploration of a place seen many times seems to be in tact, yet I did feel that generally the image was made afresh with the accompanying benefit that the special-ness of the individual self can be maintained against the flow of images.

MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
One’s own work sits within a wider context of one’s own understanding of the world. To my mind the development of the self at the beginning of the 21st century is conflicted: on one level one could propose that it is further individualized than, for example, an Egyptian slave of the second century BCE. Arguably, the 21st century self has more power through the democratic order and therefore is less likely to submit its self-hood to the overall community. However, the contemporary self has taken to representing itself through an avatar, both telematically - myspace and face-book require a description of self as a collection of likes and dislikes and commodity choices which say ‘I am this’ because I have these brand loyalties' - but also via a status representation in real life through actual purchase of cultural elements that have 'value' amongst peers. The outer self pervades the inner self. If we transmit our self-image and avatar telematically from London to Beijing via the Internet, then simultaneously we transmit the outside world in terms of choices and allegiances equally as far inside - to an inner Beijing.

Given this conviction and the tentative results of the work, these are building blocks for my investigation into the nature of the mediated image, mediated through resolution. A basic question arises: Why does an image with many times less resolution than our optical system have an effect on us when an object directly perceived may have none?

LAST THOUGHTS

At the beginning of my work it seemed to me that High Definition should not be conceived so much as an image format, but rather a portal, a doorway through which we might look and see things differently. It is a doorway that enables a look into the future because it demonstrates and reflects back to us our current physiology and psychology. If technology should be ‘appropriate’ in that it arises through our imaginings (through our science fiction writers) and then manifests when it is needed, then High-resolution imaging is indeed a reflection of our state because it has become technically possible and therefore appropriate at this time.

For many years it’s been my conviction that this effect can be demonstrably countered by the individual who will engage with the process of manufacture such that the transmission of idea to the audience is reflective of and understands the global image condition. The community can also potentially be untouched within the global. It has long prolonged its resources for maintaining its authenticity against the deadening influences of late capitalism. Artists could utilize this innate strength to reinvent their own practice and go out of their own community and into others to formulate fresh and real responses in their art. This is the way that Un Tempo, Una Volta and Portraits of Cannaregio came into being and when returning with the fruits of that exchange it has become clear to me why staging is important in bringing back that exchange to my own community. Staging is an element within context and context clarifies meaning. My art is about speaking directly to the viewer, in a way that is untainted by ratiocination – because this is an intellectual function that intercedes and if you will allow me the conceit, lessens the ‘resolution’ of the exchange. It seems to me that global image culture is of ‘low resolution’ and that individual or communal acts can be at a ‘higher resolution’.

At this point in my fellowship, the study of increased resolution within image making is about revealing higher levels of clarity - about seeing more clearly, about creating the possibility of a gaze that is energetic and liberating and that is emblematic of the paradigm that is upon us. Art that works for the individual mind and psyche in an empowering rather than deadening or alienating way, can reveal what we are about to know about the world prior to the coming of a set of prescriptive thoughts – and that glimpse is then of an incoming paradigm. In catching this glimpse of the paradigm within which we think, we can perceive its limitations, an act which in itself generates the force that dissolves that paradigm and allows the new paradigm to grow.

References:

Bibliography
Baudrillard, Jean (1993) The Transparency of Evil, Verso
Benjamin, Walter (1936), ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung
Casares, Adolfo Bioy (1940) The Invention of Morel, Editorial Losada, Argentina
Chapman, Mary (1992), Living pictures, Women and Tableaux Vivants in Nineteenth Century American Fiction and Culture, Cornell University
DeBoard, Guy, (1967) The Society of the Spectacle, Buchat-Castel
Paz, Danielle, (2004) ‘Tableau Vivant’, Theories of Media, Unversity of Chicago
Sobchack, Vivian (1992) The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience, Princeton University Press
Sontag, Susan (2003) Regarding the pain of Others, Picador

Videography/Installations - links to excerpts

In Other People’s Skins
In Re Ansel Adams
Portraits of Glastonbury Tor
Un Tempo, Una Volta
Dance Floor
Water Table
The Unfurling
Ritratti di Cannaregio (Portraits of Cannaregio)

1 Ritratti di Cannaregio (Portraits of Cannaregio), had begun to extend the development of the ideas first found in Portraits of Glastonbury Tor, so I next shot Portraits of the Somerset Carnivals in late Autumn 2008 and I am due to shoot Portraits of Bristol University’s Centenary and Portraits of London in May 2009 and exhibit these in the Autumn. I now hope to develop electronic motion picture portraiture before pushing further to an examination of the cinematic moment within high Definition Aesthetics.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

Warfare is a market condition of late Capitalism


The title above is nothing at all to do with High Definition but everything to do with High Resolution. To resolve highly is the thing - to resolve to understand. As I go on with my research it spreads out into everything I look at. Somehow the metaphor of the terms used, expands. In using the image of the child above there is a degree of shame. I have read Susan Sontags 'Regarding the Pain of Others' and I understand that the use of this image is complex. If you look at the images I use at the start of these blogs you'll generally see a humorous use - for instance, isn't that 'Brains' from Thunderbirds about two blogs back, looking a bit worse for wear after a night out? Doesn't that use of that image make the use of the image above disrespectful – maybe this is why shame comes into the picture? But regardless I feel the image is relevant, but the explanation of its use is complex.

The image will prompt many different responses in many different individuals - mostly emotional. There has always been shock in the use of an image like this and that's one of the primary reasons for using it - why should any child die in any war - ever? And, in a most recent conflict, somehow army apologists on British news have excused this act and explained it away as if 'it is necessary' or worse, that it is simply the end result of the heinous nature of the enemy they oppose. In other words, they blame the mothers and fathers of those very children that have been killed as if they were the killers.

All of this does not mean I am losing focus in my research - to the contrary: I make my tests with technology, I make my artwork, I write my articles... but I also now think more deeply about all of my concerns and experiences. I am concerned with the political nature of research, scientific or otherwise. I am worrying at the nature of things in our society that are supposed to not be political - to be free of the taint of that which is distorting.

I once met Noam Chomsky, but I wasn't completely aware of his relevance in the world – I was too young. I had earlier read and been moved, as every English schoolchild of my generation had, by George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’. I took great pleasure in realizing that Orwell’s central text, the work of his dissident character Emmanuel Goldstein’s analysis of the power relationships of the three dominant hegemonys, Oceana, Eastasia and Eurasia, was deeply relevant to the world I found myself living in. The fact that the text had been written as a trap for Winston Smith – as a ‘honey pot understanding’ – lent particular irony to Orwell’s deep cynicism not just about the Soviet communist project, but also about human nature (1984 was a bout a distopia after all and not a utopia).

Many years later I made a work which utilized some ideas from Orwell’s novel, aided by footage I had shot for Apple Computers at the moment they had introduced their new venture: The Macintosh. In 1983 I was rung by an LA company, Chiatt Day Advertising, to provide a crew to shoot the making of a commercial to be Directed by Ridley Scott and lit by Adrian Biddle. I was then working and managing a Soho based facility called: ‘Videomakers’ and we had aned a reputation for shooting on the American system – we understood for instance that if you shot images in certain English situations there would be a storbing fo the image due to our electrical system being based on 50 rather than 60 cycles. We were to shoot on NTSC, the American television format which recorded 30 frames of 525 line resolution images. We used to joke that NTSC meant ‘Never the Same Colour’ because it didn’t have the 13 cycle oscillation which the PAL signal did, which was a colour reference signal that the tv set could realign weather distorted images.

What I hadn’t quite internalized was that I was to be sent the son of the owner of the company to direct us, a young guy called Mark Chiatt. He’s probably now quite influential in the LA advertising world. At the time he was young and raw and often on the shoot I found my self being grabbed by the shoulder and spun round to cover something I’d already shot a few minutes earlier.

1984 as a commercial made advertising history for several reasons, the main being that it was only to be shown once during the 1984 Superbowl and the footage we were to shoot would be used, not only in a ‘Making of’ for the troops at Apple, but also to be shown on American News programmes and various other places (disco’s even) to hype the fact that the commercial would only be shown once and you’d better catch it. You’ve probably seen the commercial – if not, go here and have a look:

http://i.gizmodo.com/5136951/1984-macintosh-ad-still-rocks-our-socks-25-years-later

It just so happened that at the very moment I was shooting this for apple, a friend of mine was involved in shooting a large IBM shoot down the road and we’d both been constrained to sign secrecy clauses so that we may not talk about what we were doing outside of the studios for some time to come. Needless to say we met and talked together in a pub in Soho and mused on the nature of all of this but of course didn’t discuss the issue more widely – at the time.

On the shoot, which lasted for 10 days and cost about $1.5 million which was huge amount of money at the time, I found myself on an amazing set which, wherever you looked you inhabited that future world and the sets themselves rose 4 stories at least with sliced up jet engines hanging on the walls as if they were massive air conditioning units. I started to realize that a director like Ridley Scott had a greater imagination than most at the time and that he knew how to create a world. Also, the crew was large, maybe 50 people in total with around 100 skinheads from the Bother Boots Agency (who could also be hired to collect debts, be bouncers, extras – whatever). A lot of them were also Neo Nazis. The adveritisng agency was straight down the line capitalist. The country we were in was Thatchers Britain, the world we were in was Orwell’s distopian totalitarian future. We the crew were basically anarchists (sort of). There were even socialist workers party infiltrators amongst the ranks of the skins trying to change hearts and minds and not get beat up.

Very soon I realized that I was in an amazing and historic situation. The commercial would be fantastic visually (he had already made alien in 1978 and Blade Runner in 1981 which showed he knew a thing or two about creating an interesting sci-fi world on screen). The ‘Making of ‘would therefore be impressive – so what about me, the artist, film maker, cameraman – what would I do ? I’d already had a seminal moment when checking back the rushes and finding the whole crew standing behind me and the soundman watching what for them was the first time any of them would see images of what they were doing at the time of making those images – usually they would wait months to see the outcome at the cinema – not this time though. So suddenly, instead of ostracizing us as the enemy with the new technology as they usually did, they welcomed us and even began to help us.

The soundman, Antony Cooper and myself decided that we’d like to interview the skinheads. There had already been a knifing and a rape and the crew were very nervous that this group of extras, being already known for rioting on Pink Floyds ‘The Wall’, may just get very violent at the end of the shoot. We found the biggest most interesting Skin and arranged an interview. A short while after we had begun more skinheads had heard about what we were doing and quite a few joined us, including the ‘theorist’ – so named by us because he was watching and listening to what the skins were saying and originally correcting them. Then Mark Chiatt joined us and made the mistake of asking a Skin about his Bulldog tattoo: “What’s that shit on your arm ?” Meaning what’s that mark on your arm. There was a moment of cross-cultural confusion as the Skins thought that he was insulting them and we nearly came in for a beating – but we managed talking them out of that by saying that he was American and didn’t truly understand what he was saying. Close.

I decided that I had to ‘steal’ the footage (effectively from myself as the image maker) and put on another hat and work with the material I had shot. This took some fast footwork where I managed to get some standards conversions done to import the footage into the pal system – the colour and contrast of the images suffered of course – all before handing the NTSC rushes over to Apple.

Later Mark made a good corporate piece for apple which played the disco circuit in California and also was used on the news networks and then the commercial showed and instantly gained its position in the industry hall of fame.

I worked with the material at Videomakers for a while – we had just taken delivery of a time base corrector, which could freeze the image and we had basic vision mixer capabilities too. One night I became angry at the sheer hatred cming out of the Skins during the interview footage and collided that aginst an image of the grl from the commercial who hurls a hammer at the Telescreen and thus brings Big Brother crashing down. This was elementary scratch video – or, going back 60 or so years to Vertov and especially Eisenstein with his Montage of Attractions – the collision of one image against another to produce a third meaning.

As soon as I showed the work which I now called ‘Prisoners’ knew I had a special piece of work and the requests for festival screenings proved this to be so.

Prisoners deals with the problem of ideology, the potential manipulation of meaning and the hotness or coldness of the medium as expressed by McLuhan – as well as several other issues. I called this work Prisoners because I was interested in the problem of having a fixed ideology, of having a fixed set of ideas in relation to the world. To use a metaphor: it seemed to me that having sun glasses was useful whilst in the sun, but useless in the middle of the night. So therefore those people depicted in my work, the capitalists, neo Nazis, Thatcherites, communists, corporatists and us, the anarchists were all held Prisoner by our own set of beliefs.

I should add that some years earlier on a shoot where we were examining BBC practices and the BBC themselves ended up using this to teach with, Anthony had put his boom down, taken his headphones off and announced that ‘the only thing documentary documents, is the attitude of the makers to the their subject at the time of making – and nothing else’.

It also brought up issues outlined by Noam Chomsky who I was to meet three years later whilst shooting a documentary on US foreign policy in the 3rd world, directed by my then colleague Renny Bartlett, there is a documentary available called 'Manufacturing Consent'. In a nutshell it explains both Chomsky's understanding of the constant dark move to limit truth by vested interests and his relevance to a world where communication is the most important commodity. His understanding is that, with a nod to McLuhan, the world is global and the information that flows is not neutral, the medium is the message and the message is the way the understanding is limited. That limitation is an impoverishment of truth. Chomsky's relevance is that he has constantly proclaimed this to whoever has the ears to hear. The commodification of information is both the mechanism of control and the relegation of its worth to equivalence to any other commodity.

That’s what’s wrong with capitalism – yes it is functional on many levels, has ‘defeated’ communism, but the relegation of everything in the world to the lowly level of a commodity, a thing capable of being traded, is the force and mechanism that limits our vision. Some ideologies know this. Usually the outcome is a terrorist stance whether it is the Red Brigade or Al Quaeda – what’s a person to do when they realize what’s going on except do something to try to make people sit up and realize that fact? Of course that strategy doesn’t work – you just end up with everyone trying to then destroy both you and your ideology in response to the atrocities you’ve convinced yourself are necessary to commit – now that’s counter prodcutive

In all of this there’s the limitation of understanding, another commodification of concept that reduces what might be possible in our future as something unobtainable right now. That’s a failure of imagination of course. If you do speak up then the inbuilt herd function starts up – the sparrow with the broken wing gets attacked by the flock. Right now we’re all happily suckered into a Frank Capra like joyful moment of being pleased that such a nice man is now the most powerful man on the planet – and a person of colour to boot! I say suckered because Barack Obama is confined to solutions within the structures of the current system and has surrounded himself by advisors who really buy in to the whole thing. It was disappointing to see that he’s bought the threat from the Taliban because now the troops are going in to Afghanistan and that means what it meant so many times before.

Of course the Taliban are a group of people who want to limit the rights of so many people – women – to achieve a personal and group goals - and the world can’t allow that. But we have to find a way that doesn’t involve fighting to accomplish a change in their imagined needs for a rule that diminishes others. In taking fighting as the medium for change we import the commodification of freedom which has to be won intellectually, not bought via the coin or the gun. Warfare is simply a market condition in a market where money is no longer the medium of barter. Bartering is simply an agreement between two sides to make an exchange. One variable is the idea of agreement. If agreement as a condition can be suspended then an exchange can be made without the will of one side – and that’s warfare.

I ask myself: Do I truly believe that it's possible to exist without using commodification of resources (via money or value systems) to survive? Surely there are other potential systems of harvesting the benefits of the environment in a sustainable and enduring way that leaves no mark or corrupting influence on the planet? Surely, if we can imagine something positive then it can become a possibility. I can imagine a world where bartering is not necessary. I’ve read enough of our greatest visionary writers to see that a lot of people have wondered at this idea, even if the great mass of people exist in the limited confines of the contemporary zeitgeist and the overall paradigm of the age. I’m ot saying that I’m better than anybody here as my basic understanding of my own existential condition is that I have ‘sameness’ about me with not only other humans and my ape cousins, not only all sentient creatures, but all things that exist. I see nothing about myself that puts ‘me’ above or below anything around me in terms of precedence.

I do however see a lot of people who do believe in the idea of their own precedence, because the contemporary id, in it’s function of individualizing the human self, has come to that point where each and every human has to divide from the ‘group soul’ and gain self-identity. Four thousand years ago, as a slave within a dominant culture, you might have had more allegiance to the overall soul of your enslaved nation than to worry about your ‘self’. Therefore the tales the you might have found yourself telling would have been supportive of the release of your nation from Egypt (for instance). So the soul of the time was less individualized.

But now we have invented UTube, Myface etc, all of which are there to demonstrate (rather pathetically) the individual. My use of the word pathetic is because we utilize brand loyalties to identify our selves to others:

“I am this because I have these likes, (do you like them too ?) Then we are the same you and I – individuals within a mass of others, different and therefore special”.

Not.

Chomsky exists because we the group have to hear his message. “The prophet stood upon the mountain and spoke to the gathered throng”. The message is that the medium is limited and therefore distorts and groups of the powerful are busy utilizing the message for their own needs – often ideological. Vested interests often want the world to stay the same because it is good in some way for them, or if they do want change then they want a change that is also good for them.

You could argue that me writing this is a vested interest – I must want something, why else would I use my energy? In a world of commodification, isn't this blogging thing just another means of making ‘gain’? ...And then there's the use of those images I discussed at the beginning and the need to produce images and research the production of those images... and to look at High Definition....

What I want is to appreciate Chomsky – albeit a bit late – because I should have shook his hand even harder and told him that I appreciated what he had done and would go on to do. I would also do this with Blake or Voltaire were they alive - Blake because he would not cease from 'mental fight' to liberate truth, Voltaire because he would defend the views of others as a right - Chomsky, because while he is alive he needs his morale boosted to carry on speaking his truth.

With the image above, the desecration of a life like this is the real problem - the use of the image should re-evoke a continuous remembrance that war is one if the things we currently do because of the current state of the human condition and that we know, or feel we know, that it is not right, that the outcome of any war could have been agreed before the war was fought. We know we can be better and we should make that our higher resolution.

Thursday, 8 January 2009

The Sum of Human Knowledge

So a person like me, at a time like this, is concerned with a technical issue which relates to a sense we as humans have: sight.

The technical issue is High Definition, or as I would rename it, High Resolution Imaging. This however is a title that verges on issues around scientific photography, why is why I am ambivalent about the choice.

If the biologists are to believed, sight is derived from touch (there will of course one day be a braille version of HD). In smell, molecules cascade against surfaces that are sensitive to them. In sight, photons activate electrical impulses that transfer to a system that ‘makes sense’ of these impulses. Here the proposition is that mind is the sense common to all the other senses: it’s ‘the-making-sense-of’ sense. It’s the ‘common sense’ of all the senses.

But these senses we have are of local origin, local to this planet and this solar system and the physical conditions pertaining to this environment.

If you look at the universe, as far as we understand it, the the premise of the whole thing is based upon massive diffusion, gravity, heat and cooling, then aggregation, then collision and finally massive diffusion once again. It’s a soup.

Sitting on this ball of clod we stare out, using light, the medium of the universal constant as our medium (and what a constant!) and look for any evidence of where there is an absence of this constant. Where it is we know what produces it - where it is not, we hope to gain clues about why it’s there at all.

In that sentence there are many issues: the notion of a constant is what serious magicians call the ring-pass-not. It is something that may not be contravened. C.S. Lewis used this idea in his science fiction trilogy, Out of the SIlent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. Loosely, my understanding of the universal constant is that it is mass at full acceleration. I’m simplifying for poetic effect of course. What I mean is, if you took the smallest amount of mass and accelerated it to the speed of light the particle would both weigh the weight of the universe as well as occupy all the space of the universe. That Einstein was a clever fellow and if one believed in the Illuminati, then one might imagine that that’s where he got his information from.

It’s big stuff, really big stuff. I also suspect that mass, space, time, velocity et al are all swop-able as values for consciousness - or rather unconsciousness. The big I am is in a state of amnesia - that’s what manifestation is, a state of necessary amnesia so that the impossible trick of pulling off localised consciousness (i.e. what makes us people) can Hermes-Trismestigus-like be enabled.

Equally ‘seeing’ is part of the trick and as I was told in my interviews with various planet-sized intellects like David Stump (Electronic Cinematographic SFX on Quantum of Solace) and Scott Billups (well, Scott is more like the mischievous norse god Loki, but both have big brains whichever way you characterise them). Naturally I asked people what they thought HD was and framed a set of questions around where it had come from and where it might go but people like Stump and Billups quite rightly countered with a disagreement about the appositeness of the questions about the technology’. They positioned their understanding rather as an enquiry into the sensory system we have.

Many of the issue that are coming up in HD are around verisimilitude, about whether to use Log or Linear or Gamma Curves, or LuT’s or Raw or various systems of generating data from light sensitive sensors - about how that data was generated, about how the eye generates data; about how we can view something that is true to what is in front of the lens and what is behind it. It’s the proverbial minefield if you only have half a grasp.

Lately, at the end of 2008 and bleeding into 2009, many people on the Cinematographers Mailing List have been discussing what all of these terms mean and what they may be cross-translated into for the normal person (i.e. standard Director of Photography or cameraman). There are some bright sparks who have a knack with words and can make plain what each is and how it pertains to the field. So far though, no one has cottoned on to the time honored issue of ‘the touch’. Simply put, you’ve either got it or you aint.

In film you take a reading and exposed and developed the film and took note of the results. Through doing this a few times you developed experience and knew what to expect. You tried various stocks with different responses and learned how to predict the outcome. You became experimental and did things, like under and over exposing, having the film developed for longer or shorter times, avoided elements of development like by passing the bleaching of silver process - you even suggested heating up the developer to the lab - and so on and so forth. Well that process is where we’re at at the moment in electronic cinematography and there are no easy answers. So whether or not you’ve got it or you aint, you aren’t going anywhere without experience which you gather from simply doing it again and again.

Like being able to expose film or a work in the electro-cinematographic realm, I think the universe per se is one big experiment within a set of parameters. Significantly the further you look out in to the dark, you still see galaxy after galaxy, each one of which has as many stars in it as there are grains of sand on the beaches of the earth (and then some). It’s not endless, it’s 14 billion years in terms of distance. Right up to the boundary of the space-time continuum, there are prototype galaxies slightly unformed because at the time of their creation it was all a bit hot and the necessary cooling hadn’t quite happened yet to formulate galaxies with the kind of matter and gravity we’re used to (and remember space extends as far as there is matter, as matter is a key element of time and space - where there is no matter, there is no space).

Within all of this are we. 3rd rock from this particular sun. I always feel that the local gravitational conditions forced this set up and that these conditions, that of having hard bits then gassy bits which are a condition that is at least this galaxy wide.

That temperate planets will originate at this kind of distance relative to a star of this kind, of mass, is part of the equation - bigger mass stars will have a similar effect on their planets but maybe there will not be an earth-like planet - maybe there’s fewer than .01 per cent of these kind of planets in this particular galaxy - but that’s still zillions of places where consciousnesses can originate. Maybe only 0.01 percent of those consciousnesses are self-reflective and so on and so forth - but that’s still many. And if you then look at all the other many zillions - no, god-zillions of galaxies out there you get life, self-conscious life originating out of the huge act of amnesia that is the entire manifestation. Amazing.

And in all of this, there’s a little human with an obsessive-compulsive disorder that makes him interested in how light hitting surfaces, bouncing into bits of glass and finally being represented to organs that are sensitive to these effects. Amazing.

By the way, I like the idea that the scientists now believe that this solar system is the third variant that we have all been part of. Apparently the kind of matter that exists here is the kind that needs to have been smelted more than once. We’ve dissolved and reconstituted and this is the third time (locally). I like that we’re on a spinning spiral of matter, going at around 600,000 miles per hour and that it takes 226,000 years to revolve once. I like the idea that in 2 billion years time we will silently and softly collide with the nearby galaxy of Andromeda, and that there’s so much space in both galaxies that hardly anything will actually touch anything else, but that gravity will spin us and twist us in a huge, eon-like ballet of amalgamation with the aforesaid neighbor. Amazing.

Tuesday, 30 December 2008

Filmed in Super-Marionation

For a while now I’ve been thinking about mediation - the way in which media per se, channel the details of the ‘real’ to the observer. Any medium, in representing the real, either in an indexing mode such as with photography, where each element of the real is sought to be represented as far as possible by elements within the medium (therefore an ‘index’ of the real) or in abstract terms, as with non-representational painting, where something of the original is sought to have been represented by some aspect of the medium (a swirl of paint takes on the meaning of the artists response to something in the world for instance). One potential mesh of these two ways of mediating something is via haiku. Each poem being a snapshot of the world replete with meaning. Another meshing form is photography. Photographs do not simply index the world, they also arouse some feeling about the world that accompanies the recording of the details of the world. Haiku is an early form of photography. This mix of the two is a primary element in the description of the idea of mediation and how mediation operates.

If we can know the epistemology of mediation, we can begin to better know our own ontology.

Each of these ways of presenting the world to ourselves, (invoking Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle once more), changes it. To observe is to alter. To represent is to alter. My study of resolution and the representation of detail, in itself is an enquiry into the effect of raising the bar of the electronic representation via data flow, to see if there’s a moment where the real and its representation merge. Also, I want to know if this is a beneficial merging and not a mesmeric or physiological effect. I suppose I just want us to be more than apes in an ape state in an ape world.

I’ve also been thinking on ‘remediation’, a term which seems to talk about the affects on a new medium of those practitioners and theorists who’s thinking resides within the realm of a prior medium. The common example is that of photography having had to deal with the last gasps of the realist movement within painting - so early photographic subject matter dealt with a very still image (also materially it had cause to because of the long exposure times to bring an image into realisation). There was, in effect, an attempt to make early photography adopt the rules of still lives, until photography developed sufficiently to show that it was more than a form of painting. Latterly, having dwelt with what photography now is for some while we are at a stage of articulation with it where it is more again than our descriptions - especially since it has changed once more through the ubiquitous access given it by the digital realm. The making of still images has transformed its means of production and also what it is that is produced. The mage is no longer a photograph - the language itself is surpassed because meta understandings have accumulated through the act of the digital. A photograph or photography per se, can now be achieved within the digital - as so much else from so many disciplines can. The digital offers the manipulation envisioned by Hesse in his Glass Bead Game. But Hesse was wrong in thinking that it would be the province of the chosen (albeit self-chosen as in monks and monasteries). Instead the means of unifying art, the great unifying and current principle, is via the digital and available to the masses first and foremost - the lumpen proletariat.

I like calling it the digital as opposed to saying via digital means or however else one could describe this, because I believe that ‘the digital’ is something we cannot yet see because our eyes are closed to what it is - because it is new.

To come to what it might actually be we have to go further back and one can see that any inscription or ‘image’ on a cave wall was predecessor to articulate acts within painting, printing, photography, radio and thornily, digitality. ‘Thornily’ because the debate is on whether or not ‘the digital’ is a medium. Lots of inverted comas because everything is up for grabs - redefinitions abounding with each throw of the dice.

To take this even further, I have been thinking about the concept of the ‘paradigm change’. In the ’60’s this concept was restricted to ideas within language but it was so useful a concept that it spread to science. The central notion is that a paradigm is similar to a wave: that the wave contains a set of ideas that amount to the paradigm, wave-like in its operation. Paradigm’s can be long (the whole christian idea) or short (the notion of a paradigm itself is only 50 years old). I like the idea of a paradigm, it explains a lot about the way that human’s seem to be and why they do what they do. Often they are functioning within the zeitgeist (if the paradigm is long then the eddies and currents of the zeitgeist change many times within a paradigm). The Christian Paradigm has many changes in zeitgeist - the inquisition was one example, Luther’s revolution was another. But the Christian paradigm can exist within a larger paradigm, maybe one that has existed for around 8000 years - or more. The notion of organised religion is an example of a large scale paradigm. The mystics amongst us claim yet another, larger one - the 26000 year astronomical period that contains the whole of the notion of the zodiac. But this too is small in relation to the 2 million year notion of regular glacial changes. The biggest set of paradigms (and currently the dominant beginning narrative is one that seeks to extend itself back through time to a point where the beginning of things is encompassed within the paradigm) is the notion of the 14 billion year existence of the earth with its twinned concept of the 15 billion year existence of the whole of the universe. There are lots of creation accounts, probably the most familiar within this Judeo-Christian mindset, and ancestor of the big bang notion, is that of the mind of god moving across the deep and declaring the intense and productive wish that there is light in what is presumed to come before light itself - the dark.

I was reading of the collision of two groups of galaxies - that’s the notion of a local gravitational clumping of galaxies (star farms clumped together in the larger idea of a galaxy, further clumped together as a whole group of galaxies). Take that notion and collide it with another one just the same. God-zillions of stars passing by and in some cases through each-other and colliding, producing something we cannot imagine.

But in universal terms this is still small beer. And thinking of small - the Higgs Boson may make an appearance this year. A currently imaginary small particle that verges on the characteristics of just being energy. I’ve been accused of harboring Buddhist ideas recently - if only it were that simple. Of course the phenomenon of all materiality is simply energy when you enquire really closely - Of course, how could it be any other way?

I don’t hold with the notion of the big bang either. I think it’s just local phenomena. Last year a scientist proposed that all particles are either finite or infinite universes (yes, every particle). It fits better with Fred Hoyle's notion of a universe without end - that is my intuitive affiliation anyway). Einstein was keen to have an end to things - albeit in a curve - because it worked for his maths. I’m more with Blake and the old bible prophets who said: you really have no idea just how big this all is. It’s as big as the biggest thing you can imagine - and then so much more - in fact, take the first idea and multiply it a few zillion times...

And so on and so forth.

Stepping back, I’m interested in the notion of re-paradigmation. How when a new paradigm appears we look at it with eyes that are adjusted to the old paradigm and then we initially see its affects in terms of the old paradigm. And this is just what we’re doing with the idea of the digital - we’re seeing it as having a Newtonian function - or at best an Einsteinian function. But of course digitality is a word that comes out of the past: it refers to the digit, the finger.

We are a myth making species.

The trouble with always writing the narrative is that everything becomes relative. We continually construct and renew meaning in our stories to ourselves. We dynamically create the wave in the group mind that swells and comes crashing into our overt consciousness when there is sufficient energy in the wave. Maybe the only way to deal with this process is to imagine stories about how things are, about what on earth matters, what is real for a while, then strike out into open water when the new paradigm forms and creates something worth heading toward. And so we swim, we tree dwellers.

In this mix, art is to be made because it informs us of what is to come. We speak out, to ourselves, something about the world that was before unspoken. It interest me that in terms of mediation, or remediation, its root idea comes from the word remedy: to heal - but more of that later. And lastly, the title of this entry relates the understanding that Thunderbirds was always shot in 'Super-Marionation'. Of course, Super-Marionation does not and never did exist. It means big puppets. Is re-paradigmation a form of big puppetry, (sent by Jung's idea of the Oversoul, that species soul, the species unconscious responsible for movements in the zeitgeist) to encourage us towards new accomplishments?