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. Perspective is a seductive
space that prefigures the computer screen, where its virtualisations seem more
authentic than phenomenological experience.
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 #3p.
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 #3 pp 44} Manetti goes on to state that the hole was shaped
like a womans straw hat. {Manetti, 1970 #3 p. 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 #3 pp 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 out
perception. To start with I will look at the positioning of the device and
where that lead.
The measurements
The
measurement of the panel and where the position of the panel is located are
crucial to the device and its ability to function.
According to Manetti the painted panel was half a braccio square which is approximately 30cm, 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. In Martin Kemp book The science of art he uses a diagram of the device with the mirror being about quarter the size of the painted panel. {Kemp, 1990 #24}
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. The connection perspective had with hermetically
sealing objects through the gaze and a symbiotic relationship with 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
#22@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 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.
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 their 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 and 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 #37} 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.
Like the
spectators in Davies device could see the seer, 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
their 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.
Char
Davies, Osmose, 2002.
Setting.
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 present 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 is compressed to an arms length. By the position of the mirror
held at 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 #13 @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 #52 (86)}
In this context time is placed at the conception of
the visual recognition of perspective, it places sonic duration as being
contained with in perspectival gaze. The domination of a perspectivisation
results in duration being viewed as having a point; that the audible world is
being defined 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 the cross 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.