Paul Thomas
Director Biennale of Electronic Arts Perth
Co-ordinator Studio for
Electronic Arts, Department of Art, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box
U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845.
Paul Thomas, is currently the
Director of the Biennale of Electronic Arts Perth 2004. Paul has been working
in the area of electronic arts since 1981 when he co-founded the group
Media-Space which met weekly and developed a series of artistic resources
fitting an Artslab concept. Media-Space was part of the first global link up
with artists connected to ARTEX.
From 1981-1986 the group was involved in a number of collaborative
exhibitions and was instrumental in the establishment a substantial body of
research. In 1995 he founded the group Terminus= an online research group and
in 2001 he developed the forums for electronic arts research (FEAR). Paul also
president of Media-Space Perth Inc, he is the coordinator of the Studio
Electronic Arts (SEA) in the Department of Art at Curtin University of
Technology and is currently studying for his PhD researching a reconfiguration
of spatial attitudes. Paul is also a practicing electronic artist whos
research can be seen on his website Visiblespace. http://www.visiblespace.com
Reconfiguring
space
I want to explore in this paper two elements that draw together
the device created by Filippo Brunelleschi which demonstrated perspective and
Char Davies virtual reality work Osmose (1995) and Ephmre (1998). These elements are examined to see if another device could be
created that could reconfigure perception. The worlds emergent technologies
are exploring the potential of new spatial world order but based on old world
order perspective. Even the cubist reconfiguration of space did not make us
change a dominant perspectival model of perception. It did not have the same
ideological and psychological power as perspective. Brunelleschis device, like
the shine on a womans nose, seduced the viewer into believing a certain loss
had been compensated.
Fig
(1) Baptistery of san Giovanni
Fig
(2) Illustration of Filippo Brunelleschi peephole device
I will begin with a short description of the device which
Brunelleschi used to demonstrate perspective. I will rely on Antonio Manetti, Brunelleschis biographer
for much of the definitive description. Manetti states concerning the structure
of the device that Brunelleschi has a small panel about half a braccio square
on this panel was a painting of the Baptistery Fig (1), the panel was painted
with such care and delicacy and with such great precision. (Manetti
1970 pg 44)
The second part of the device was a flat mirror, which was to
be held in the other hand to that of the painting. The third ingredient to this
device was the small hole cut into the painted panel itself he had made a hole
in the painted panel at that point in the temple of san Giovanni which is
directly opposite the eye of anyone stationed in the central portal of Santa
Maria del Fiore. (Manetti
1970 pp 44) Manetti
goes on to state that the hole was shaped like a womans straw hat. (Manetti
1970 pg 44)
There was one other feature to the device; burnished silver was
used on the painted panel to create a reflective surface. Manetti states of the
burnished silver where the sky had to be represented, that is to say, where
the buildings of the painting were free thus the clouds seen in the silver are
carried along by the wind as it blows. (Manetti
1970 pg 44)
As shown in the illustration the painting was held in one hand
whilst the mirror was held in the other Fig (2). As the seer looked through the
hole the shape of a womans straw hat in the back of the painted panel
they saw the real baptistery. The mirror was then lifted to cover the view of
the baptistery only to reveal the painting; an exact copy in true perspective
reflected in the mirror.
I want to analyse the aspects of the device to see if we can
develop an argument for using the factors in Brunelleschis device to create
another shift in our perception. To start with I will look at the positioning
of the device and where that leads.
The
measurements
According to Manetti the painted panel was
half a braccio square, and The mirror was extended by the other hand a
distance that more less approximated in small braccia. The measurement I would presume would
be one that was adjustable as the mirror would need to have been tilted and
turned to find the correct position to seamlessly weld the panel painting with
the background in front of the viewers head. The scale of the mirror is
unknown. There is little information about it but common sense would suggest
that it could not have been as large as the painted panel as it would have been
difficult to hold at arms length.
The measurement of the panel and its position in relation to the
viewer are crucial to the device and its ability to function. This position was
first of all one of absolute singularity, which bound the viewer to the device
making either the viewer or the device a prosthetic. In regards to the
measurements of the device there is a clear connection between the ability
perspective had to objectify the world and to science. As Erwin Panofsky
pointed out In a sense, perspective transforms psychophysiological space into
mathematical space. It negates the differences between front and back, between
right and left, between bodies and intervening space (empty space), so that
the sum of all the parts of space and all its contents are absorbed into a
single quantum continuum. (Panofsky
1991 pg 31)
Hence the viewing position was critical to the correct
functioning of the device. This position was given as 3 braccias (90cm) inside
the central doorway of the cathedral. The measurement is quite clear in
Manettis account and therefore should be taken as having a firm reason for its
position. First there is the symbolic reason: here, in the central entrance of
the cathedral – at heavens gate - is the symbolic centre from which the
world is viewed according to Brunelleschis original demonstration device.
Secondly there might be a more pragmatic or profane reason. The threshold of
the doorway is sheltered from the glare outside, but not in the darkness of the
cathedral. Its ambient light is ideal for demonstrating the device, and
provides a greater luminosity to the scene of the baptistery. There is also a third more
philosophical or even theological reason. The doorway in which the device is
located is like the entrance to Platos cave where the philosopher receives
enlightenment. Entering and exiting the cave of the great cathedral is blinding
– until our eyes adjust of course. But a point has been made. The position at the
threshold is a pivotal point of the rupture in the fabric of our perception of
space. The device is not just a machine for looking; it illuminates the world;
the viewer is made seer. To illustrate the lightness and darkness related to
the doorway I have captured some stills from Hockneys documentary on the The
Secret Knowledge. As the men push the doorway open you can see the darkness
that is behind the door and the extent to which the lights spreads in to the
darkness. With the second illustration you have the view from inside the
cathedral showing the intensity of light as when one sees from inside of the
church to the outside.
Fig
3 & 4 Still from David Hockneys The secret knowledge 2003
In the context of light and dark I want to examine Davies
installation and the position of the body in work. In her installation a light
trap is constructed which allows the spectator to enter through complete
darkness. The seer is displayed behind a screen which acts as a symbolic reference
to an open doorway. This open doorway can be related to the seer holding
Brunelleschis device in the doorway of the Cathedral.
In Davies installation the seer who is being immersed is
visible to other people who are themselves shrouded in semi darkness. The seer
who is silhouetted in an orange glow is witnessed by the gaze of the
spectators. The position of the spectator could also be linked here with
Brunelleschis device in that the spectator was inside the church looking out
of the doorway at the seer looking through the device. The orange light glow is
not the light of the outside but the subdued light offering an alternative
reading. This alternative reading suggests the spectator is aware of a
different kind of doorway leading to a virtual space symbolised by the orange
light.
The spectator, witnessing the seer, realises that in turn it is
his of her body which will be seen by others. In the installation the seer and
the spectator are also both witness of another layer to this paradigm, that is
they are both privy to the seers vision whilst in the work. The spectator in
the installation sees the 2D image of what the seer has displayed on their HMD
As Davies points out in her reference to Merleau-Ponty when
writing about night, "is not an object before me; it enwraps me and
infiltrates through my senses, stifling my recollections, and almost destroying
my personal identity." (Davies
2003) This reference links the
relationship of darkness of the light trap to the darkness of the church. As
you enter the darkness confronts your identity placing you in a destabilised
position. The illuminated seer (portrait) and the illuminated vision
(landscape) are the only things made visible in Davies space. The way out is
implied through the orange glow of the doorway where the seer has a new
realisation, as did the seer in the doorway of the cathedral.
In Davies installation the spectators could see the seer in the
doorway with the orange glow, in Brunelleschis presentation the seer could
also have once become the spectacle. The spectator and witness inside the
church watching the seer hold the painting and lifting the mirror to obscure
the baptistery could be seen from various viewpoints. The mirror reflects the
baptistery to the seers. These reflections can also allow the spectator to
experience visions of the work as they watch the event take place.
The
measurement Scopophilia
With scopophilia we have a natural relationship between
Brunelleschi and Davies in the device for seeing how it is being seen.
We are constructing an awareness of the devices through Mulveys
essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. The cinematic experience
described by Mulveys essay reveals scopophilia as a primordial desire for
pleasure in seeing which, when taken to extremes as with these devices, could
produce a narcissistic space.
We find in the work of Davies that the seer when placed in to
the device, is positioned within their own private cinematic experience where
the pleasure of their gaze is projected as part of the installation to become
seen by the spectator. Here we have the essence of a narcissistic space where
the seer being immersed in his or her own private theatre is also producing a
unique journey for the spectators. I want to illustrate this through the use of
photographs from when the work was installed at the Biennale of Electronic Arts
Perth 2002.
Fig 5 Char Davies, Osmose, 2002 Biennale of Electronic Arts Perth. By kind permission of the
artist.
Here we see what the spectator would see in the dark
environment, the spectacle of two screens, which I have mentioned before
produce evidence of scopophilia and a rupture that is needed for a change of
perception. The seer, the witness and the spectators are all part of the
process, which is played out in near darkness. The physical space and spatial
awareness of the seer who is perceiving and having that perception presented,
is aware of what they are seeing, as being seen, their own physical presence being
presented in the same installation. The installation places this process of
convergence, seeing and being seen as one reference in developing a new
understanding of virtual space.
I want to take a little more time to look at the installation of
the device. The gallery installation presents the virtual reality art work to
an audience for mass consumption even as Davies states only one person at a
time can have a first hand experience. In that context of isolating the seer
the device references the disempowering aspects of the spectacle. In this
regard we have the space between the seer and the spectacle of the baptistery
when the mirror is raised, that space seen being compressed to an arms length.
It was the first stage of collapsing space. The collapse of space for the seer
of the spectacle, confronted by the mirror develops a sense of loss; it is a loss
of experience itself that provokes such strong claims on our senses. The spectators
became part of the spectacle, surround by it, they had no space to develop a
critical discernment. This concept of the spectacle is relevant to the ideas
surrounding Brunelleschis device and the changing times. The seer made part or
the spectacle then is unaware that they are playing a part in this act. In
Davies work the seers gaze is collapsed to (2-3cm) critical distance that is
an integral part of it physical construction.
Hearing
space
With Brunelleschis device the sonic
environment of the seer to the event heightens the state of being detached form
the world still further. In this context we have the position of Brunelleschis
device at the central axis of the cathedral doorway. In Platos cave
description there is little reference to the sonic reverberations that could be
attributed to a number of causes, the fire crackle the men chains, sounds of
movement, groans etc. The cave as a sonic environment creates an acoustic space
where sound can rebound and echo, making it difficult to locate the source.
Sound in new technologies is used to compensate for a lack of high quality
definition in some rendered images. With the device of Brunelleschi placed in
the doorway of the cathedral we have the perfect sonic catchment area to allow
sounds to be collected and resonate. The inside of the cathedral designed with
thick walls, which mask the sounds from the outside world. The sounds coming in
are muffled as they enter further in through the doorway.
The seer by placing only one of their
eyes to the device evokes part blindness, limiting the sense of perception and
heightening the audible factor. Then when the seer places the mirror in front
of the painting the sound intensifies through the lack of vision and the
amplification of its position in the doorway.
Owen Barfield describes space in pre-Renaissance terms as before
the scientific revolution the world was more like a garment men wore about them
than a stage on which they moved. (Barfield
1957 p 94). The seer, pre renaissance, wearing space like a
garment would have been more fully aware of the integrity and integration of
sound to that experience.
The other aspect, which I want to focus
on, is the relationship between the real time image, the image that is presented
in the burnished silver and that of the sonic duration. In Brunelleschis
device we have the real time animation of the clouds, which represents not only
a spatial continuum but also a sonic continuum allowing the seer to be
conscious of the time. We also
have the busy space between the cathedral and the baptistery which once the
mirror is lifted to see perspective the people disappear. What are left are the
sound of the footsteps and other sounds of the street. I want to use Bergson to add to my argument
in relationship to Brunelleschi. Bergson discusses the concept of duration
using the analogy of hearing the sounds of footsteps where he states that I
retain each of these successive sensations in order to combine it with the
others and form a group which reminds me of an air or rhythm which I know: in
that case I do not count the sounds, I limit myself to gathering, so to speak,
the qualitative impression produced by the whole series. (Bergson (86))
Fig 6 & 7 Still from David Hockneys The
secret knowledge 2003
In this context time is placed at the
conception of the visual recognition of perspective, it places sonic duration
as being contained within a perspectival gaze. The domination of a
perspectivisation results in duration being viewed as having a point; that the
audible world is being defined at this point in time. This line of reason is to
suggest that unlike the stillness of the painting the seer could be tricked in
to thinking that the painting is part of a moving image by the reflection in
the burnished silver and the sounds. The painting is still, and in this context
places itself in the guise of a moving image. The scene in the film where the
intruders replace the image from a security camera still photograph of the
actual scene. The security guard believes they are witnessing visual truth
whilst the theft takes place behind the scenes. The seer witnesses duration
through the painting, creating a belief that they have not only seen visual
truth but audible truth as well. The sound is now detached and can be perceived
as an external object to be understood. The world becomes the container with in
which we see is an area of space in which sounds can resonate and light but it
is as though the image at the base of the container we are looking at is still.
This reference places the sound heard not as a
series of individual notations to be counted but as a sonic object that could
be understood holistically. This whole contains the duration of that event and
by linking the sonic object with the moment of perspectival conception would
reinforce sounds alignment with vision.
The sonic works in Davies Osmose (1995) and
Ephmre (1998) were
created by sonic architecture/programming Dorota
Blazsczak and sound composition/programming by Rick Bidlack. The
sounds are not linked to a real world experience they are randomly generated by
interacting within the work. The connection here is in the attempt to break the
sound from the being objectified in a perceived container by making it part of
the garment that is worn over the head (HMD). The seer has placed the container
on their head where the sound is transformed back from an external sonic object
to become part of a wearable space. Brunelleschi made the sound totally linked
to the perspectival imperatives blending them to a sonic spatial object based
within the vanishing point. Davies work takes the sound of the seers unique
experience and broadcast that also with in the installation to the witness and
the spectators reinforcing the previously detached concept of sound.
Conclusion
Through a comparative examination of the work of Brunelleschi and
Davies I have made a number of observations that when drawn together create the
possibility of a rupture. In this context I am talking about a rupture as being
a significant event that can create change. The work of Davies has enough
significant similarities to that of Brunelleschi as to make the question of a
reconfiguration of our spatial understanding plausible. This is not to say that
it is the only one and that others will not develop from these beginnings. It
is likely that if we want to be able to colonise this new space not based on
the politics of perspective we must seriously determine whether we are not
again at a point in time when all the signs are right to disempower the point.
Barfield, O. (1957). Saving
the Appearances. London, Faber and Faber.
Bergson , H. (1910). Time and Free Will. 2004.
Davies, C. (2003).
Manetti,
A. d. T. (1970). The Life of Brunelleschi, The Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Panofsky, E. (1991). Perspective as Symbolic
Form. New York, NY, Zone Books.