Beyond such rudimentary technical considerations, however, the attempts to perceptually fuse film and space described here had some basic consequences for the public’s use of the gallery as well. Given the shadows created when a body is placed between projector and screen, the actors were specifically directed to do this at set points in the performance, the projected image thus determining their physical movements. Something similar happened with the audience (Fig. 12). In Performances 2 and 3, in which the public was free to move around the physical space, there was also a tendency to move “around and between” the projected images, the basic aim being to either cast their shadow or, alternatively, deliberately avoid doing so. At times, this movement was also motivated by the desire to follow one particular series of images, at other times, it was initiated by attempts to see as many visuals as possible. Moving in this way, the public was obliged not only to navigate the physical elements of the gallery (including other audience members) but also the far more complex world created by the video projections.15 For those who decided to place their shadow in the filmic space, there was another layer to their movements, that is, their response to the movements of the filmed performers. As the performers changed position, so too did the audience. Trying to avoid covering up the actor with their shadow, they entered their own particular spatial dialogue with the recorded image.
Figure 12: Correlation of movements between actors on-screen and actors/audience in the physical space.
Unlike the early cinematographic-spatial films made by Hybrid Artworks that involved using the cinematic techniques of framing, depth of field, camera angle and duration of take to “defamiliarise” our perception of space, the techniques described here clearly went beyond the simple creation of strange views of architectural settings. The objective was an apparent fusion between the filmic image and the architectural space that had a number of very simple, but fundamental, consequences for the use and perception of the physical arena. If we accept installation as a potential testing ground for certain architectural ideas, the Incidental Legacy project clearly illustrates just how closely entwined technical cinematographic and spatial questions could become. It involves a basic but fundamental merging of the methodologies and the techniques of the filmmaker, video artist and the architect. Seen in this light, it reveals installation as an area of investigation in which both these practitioners become more fully versed in the language and techniques of the other. It begins to reveal just some of the technicalities that would lie at the heart of a truly hybrid filmic architecture.
Notes
1The projects realised by Hybrid Artworks were funded on a project-by-project basis by a series of arts funding boards. This piece was jointly funded with support from Hull Jazz Festival, 1998, and Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts. The second part of the overall project was funded as part of Hull Literature Festival.
2In addition to the three permanent members of Hybrid Artworks, the collaborators on this piece included Scott Bryson (actor), Danny Phelps (actor), Noel McConville (musician), Rob McGrath (musician), Nik Prescott (musician and technician).
3In this regard, the piece referenced the idea of the “virtual window”. See: Friedlberg, Anne. “The Virtual Window”. In: D. Thornburn and H. Jenckins (eds), Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition, MIT Press, Massachusetts, 2003. p. 337–354.
4For an overview of arguments regarding the actor-audience relationship and “expectations” of theatrical spaces, see: Mackintosh, Iain. Architecture, Actor and Audience, Routledge, London, 1993. p. 126–142.
5Typically, there are scenes in which all members of the audience hear a monologue. Some of the audience, however, can see Actor A (partially concealed behind a screen), whilst others can see Actor B (partially concealed behind a different screen). Consequently, when A is seen to be cowering and B is seen to be recalling the events retold with a certain amount of nostalgia, different associations are inevitably made in the minds of different members of the public. Exactly the same phenomenon occurs as a result of the use of photographic and filmic material. The timing of the projections is synchronised with the positioning of the actors so that multiple and conflicting associations are set up depending upon the relative position of given audience members. Through strictly controlling site lines and timing, the Shadows performance became a type of spatial interpretation of the simple but extremely effective Kuleschov effect; a spatial formula that allows different connexions to be constantly made and remade between contradictory stimuli. In short, space became “active in plot construction”.
6See note 1.
7The piece references Anthony Vilder’s idea of “warped space” in this regard. See: Murdoch, Kate. Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, 2010. p. 63.
8Although the idea of memory is a thematic thread running through all aspects of this work, in the purely spatial context it refers to ideas developed by Pascal Schöning. See: Schöning, Pascal. Manifesto for a Cinematic Architecture, Architectural Association, London, 2006. p. 23–24.
9Although not thoroughly convincing or realistic effects, these false perspectives were used by the actors as if it were genuine. In this filmic false perspective space, one could see mediated images of the actors. The live actors in Performance 2 began to interact with these filmic representations of themselves by directing their gaze, dialogue and gestures into the filmic space created beyond the physical boundaries of the gallery. In the process of doing this, the live actors often positioned themselves between the projectors and the wall. The result was that their shadow fell onto the image. In these moments what the audience witnesses is the presence of three factors: the live actor, their shadow and their filmic representation. Given that the piece is a constant contemplation of memory, these moments not only function as spatial/cinematic effects but also as scenes of reminiscences, that is, alternative forms of flashbacks.
10This evolutionary process is a theory that echoes Kate Murdoch’s definition of the three-part typology of the screen viewing experience offered in a historical context by Lev Manovich in The Language of New Media. See: Murdoch, Kate. Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art, Ibid. p. 63.
11In this final presentation, there was now the initial photographed imagery of the space, the videoed footage of the rehearsals, the continuous end wall projections of Performance 1 and another simultaneous presentation of Performance 2 that was played through a TV monitor in the corner of the space.
12For an introduction to theories and arguments regarding the nature of audience behaviour and expectation in this type of video installation, see: Murdoch, Kate. Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art, Ibid. Specifically, p. xi–xv.
13In terms of Pascal Schöning, the physical space becomes a form of “cinematic architecture”, a space defined as much by associations made between ephemeral phenomena as the physical attributes of the location itself. See: Schöning, Pascal. Manifesto for a Cinematic Architecture, Ibid. p. 24–25.
14The technical correlation required in this type of performance between physical action and space on the one hand, and filmed projection on the other, is most clearly demonstrated in the work of Station House Opera in which the intricacy of the syncing of action, space and film is much more detailed than that described here. See: Kaye, Nick. Site-Specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation, Routledge, London, 2000.
15The decision to reveal all projectors and cameras during each stage of this project was a direct and obvious reference to various ideas found in the work and writings of Bertolt Brecht. See: Willett, John. The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht, Methuen Drama, London, 1977. p. 165–183; Willett, John. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, Methuen Drama, London, 1964. p. 57–66.
The physical experience of image and the sensorial perception of space
The world imagined by Diller and Scofidio
Although the work of Hybrid Artworks represents a more deliberate focus on architectural qu
estions than that of the other video artists and performance companies mentioned thus far, in the work of the New York–based architects Diller and Scofidio, the ideas, techniques and intentions underlying their work find an even closer and much more high-profile architectural simile.1 Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio use architecture, installation and performance as the media through which they question the character of the contemporary image-, screen- and lens-based society in which we live. Their performance pieces have been presented in Europe and the United States, their installations have had an international audience and their buildings and architectural projects can be found in several countries around the world. Amongst their projects are Cloud Building, constructed for the Yverdon Expo in Switzerland, 2002; The Institute of Contemporary Arts in Boston, 2007; and the redevelopment of Lincoln Centre Complex in New York City, 2009.2
Central to their work and its theoretical underpinnings is their questioning of visioning technologies and, in particular, how the moving image has weaved its way into the cultural fabric of the twentieth century. In short, they explore the impact of the media on contemporary culture.3 In some pieces they introduce CCTV into the fabric of buildings, in others they deliberately film the public in order to turn them into the objects of display, whilst, on occasion, they also investigate how visioning technologies alter our relationship to each other and, indeed, ourselves. In some pieces, they have used imagery to invert our sense of place and almost literally turn buildings inside out. Although the practical building requirements of their latest projects have inevitably limited their overt theoretical investigations, they continue to be committed to probing questions on the relationship between the moving image and architecture in a way that often seems directly indebted to the theories of Paul Virilio.4
Performance: Jet Lag
In examining these issues over the past thirty years, Diller and Scofidio have been involved in collaboration with actors, dancers and performance artists of various kinds and have produced a wide variety of performance pieces. These include Who’s Your Dada produced to coincide with the Dada exhibition at MOMA (New York, 2006); Moving Target,5 a dance piece choreographed by Charleri Danses and performed internationally,1996; and Delay in Glass (Rotary Notary and His Hot Plate), a project based on the work of Marcel Duchamp in 1987.6 One of their most lauded pieces was Jet Lag, a piece involving digital artists, actors and sound engineers that questions the role of visioning technologies in various ways.7 It is split into two halves, each of which relates a very different fact-based story. The first of these stories was that of Roger Dearborn, a British engineer who took part in a round-the-world boat race with sponsorship from the BBC and the Sunday Times in the early 1970s. The second was the story of Sarah Krasnoff and her continual six-month series of flights between New York and Amsterdam during the same period.
In both pieces, the role of the mediated image in our understanding of the piece, ourselves and the world around us are central to the themes examined. In the Roger Dearborn section, the audience is presented with the protagonist at the outset of his round-the-world trip. They see him lose his nerve very early on in the race and follow his decision to fake the journey by communicating with the press through video, radio and satellite. He sends fake messages, records false broadcasts and gives invented coordinate positions which place him at the head of the race whilst, in reality, he circles aimlessly just some miles from the start line. He manufactures a telecommunications geography.8 Throughout the piece, the actor on stage is accompanied by his own radio broadcasts, electronically mapped coordinate positions and, most importantly, live and pre-recorded video footage of himself that accompanies the actor on stage throughout the work. The resultant piece is a technologically hybrid work in which the role of visioning machinery is always at the fore.
Figure 1: The mediated and the real: Jet Lag.
The story of Sarah Krasnoff follows the protagonist’s attempts to ensure that her son-in-law did not get custody of her grandson. By continuously travelling between New York and Amsterdam airports over a six-month period, she not only eluded her in-laws but also the US authorities who were seeking her inside US territory. The saga only ended when, fatigued by continuous travel, she finally died of exhaustion, jet lag. It was at this point that her story came to the attention of the world’s press, by which time her story had to be pieced together through anecdotal reports, old photographs and some CCTV footage from the airports in question.
Krasnoff’s story begins with a recorded phone call to Paul Virilio by somebody enquiring as to the verisimilitude of the events which he had commented upon in one of his texts some years earlier.9 It proceeds through a combination of live action, pre-recorded CCTV footage and digitally generated images of Krasnoff and her grandson in aircraft. Just as with the Roger Dearborn story, it literally places visioning technologies at the forefront of the piece, and thus deals with the role of the media in our understanding of events through both its content and its form. Both pieces employ a whole range of digital and analogue sound effects, projections of GPS coordinates, pre-recorded video footage, real-time video relays and computer-generated backdrops onto which are superimposed filmic images of the characters.
This creates a rich, complex tapestry of images on stage that gives the work its particular aesthetic. However, the backdrop is not just about creating an interesting or appropriate aesthetic. This complex visual menagerie allows the pieces to bridge time and retell events from the past; it also permits the actors to portray an occasional sense of schizophrenia by juxtaposing the live action with the mediated representation and, in addition, lets two discreet places to be joined visually on stage.10 It is thus, a commentary on the media, an investigation into its role in today’s society and an argument about its influence on the urban environment. Perhaps the most obvious example of how it comments on the media and our use of it is to be found in the narrative content in each of the two pieces.
In the story of Roger Dearborn, not only does the protagonist rely on visual technology to construct his lie and maintain contact with the land and the commercial media, the supposed TV audience and the media itself becomes reliant on these technologies for the story. We are presented with a version of the story in which the protagonist becomes a TV celebrity and the media becomes reliant on his broadcasts to maintain audience levels. It also suggests that this self-same audience becomes hooked on his messages and images. Thus, what we have in Jet Lag is a piece in which the physical construction of the scenery, the structure of the narrative and the content of its story all focus attention on the media and its relation to society and, albeit in a different register, physical spatial locations.
Installation: Loophole
A medium that moves Diller and Scofidio closer to architecture is installation; a medium that has seen them work out of both conventional and non-conventional art spaces and, as with their performance-based projects, has led them to collaborate with artists and technicians from multiple fields. In addition, however, it has involved robotics and the moving image. It has frequently taken surveillance as its starting point, but from there spreads out to confront a whole series of other conceptual issues. One example of this was their 1998 exhibition at MOMA, New York, Para-Site; a piece involving the filming of events and spaces outside the building and their simultaneous projection on the building’s interior.11 As with many other examples of their work, the technique turned the building inside out and engaged the public in spatial interactions mediated by both physical location and filmic representation.
Another example is Jump Cuts, an installation in San Jose (California, 1995), that involved something similar, only this time it was the building’s interior that was filmed and projected on the facade outside.12 Variations on these themes, which conflate interior and exterior space through the medium of film, are evident in another piece that, as with Para-Site and Jump Cuts, used CCTV surveillance cameras: their 1992 work Loophole. Installed at the Artillery Armory building in Chicago,
Loophole was part of a one-off exhibition curated by Beryl Wright of Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art, whilst the museum waited to move into its new home, a space designed by the German architect Josef Kleihues.13
Exhibiting alongside a whole range of other installation artists, Diller and Scofidio produced a piece involving CCTV cameras, video monitors, LCD screens and text that were all intended to interact with views and commentaries on events taking place outside the gallery. Again, interior and exterior were to be interconnected, transformed and manipulated through the medium of the moving image. In this site-specific work, Diller and Scofidio placed CCTV cameras along the windows of a staircase in the building so that they filmed the exterior view. The images recorded by these cameras were projected on LCD monitors placed along the self-same staircase windows and thus they overlayed the exterior view with the same view, only in mediated form.14
Figure 2: LCD screens and interior monitors: Loophole.
Guido Incerti suggests that it reworks the themes of “transparency and surveillance” seen in other pieces, particularly Para-Site, only here, it is a literal manipulation of the transparent.15 The LCD screens placed in front of the window can be altered from a state of transparency in which the exterior view is foregrounded to a state of translucency when the mediated representation comes to the fore. Both views are successively revealed and concealed at given intervals so as to initiate a dialogue between a physical reality and virtual representation. Further to this, when the view is revealed, a cross-hair targeting graphic focuses the eye of the viewer on the exact point of focus of the camera. The views selected included an office in a distant building, a bench in a park and a point on the sidewalk of a distant street and, as a result, the cross-hair can be seen as inviting the viewer to continue in the voyeuristic engagement set up by the piece.
The Architecture of the Screen Page 16