these are definitely intriguing ideas, and quite daunting (at least to me)
in light of the possible implications on poetics.
but I wasn't sure why you brought in this imperative:
"Second, don't attempt to make the image the cause of the text or spoken
words or the other way round. Let both media have their time and space.
So don't attempt to simply illustrate with an image what the words say
or again the other way round."
I recently wrote a paper on exactly what you say shouldn't be done, and I've
based images on poems and vice versa on many occasions, as I'm sure many of
us have as well. I approached the idea of one 'causing' the other by seeing
the process as a type of transaltion of aesthetic; if translation is a
bridge between languages (+ all its cultural & peripheral contexts &c.), and
something called "visual language" exists, then the translation-like process
between word & image is fertile ground for new art and new points of view to
emerge. to 'Make New' by translating the kernel or one perceived premise of
an artwork into a completely different poetic language, like basing a poem
on a painting (WCW <--- Brueghel) or a painting on a scene from a play
(hundreds of artists <--- Shakespeare).
this is all really just to say that I didn't really grasp what it is you're
talking about. I start seeing spots when people talk about artistic theories
through philosophy and don't provide examples (though the computer analogy
was almost helpful to me). I'm confused about your interpretation of space,
but not about my reaction to your imperative.
KS
2010/1/21 Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]>
> I promised Judy bc I would write some notes on working with more then
> one media at the same time for a single art project. I had to think
> about it first, because it is a bit like trying to summarise some five
> years training in writing and media arts.
>
> We can begin with space and the new ideas of space that emerged during
> 20th century modernism in the arts. Space was perhaps the great theme of
> this century.
>
> First, the old idea of space we see in Kant and which goes back to
> Aristotle, is that of space as being extensive and quantitative. This is
> a space that exists a-priori and can be divided infinitely without
> changing in quality and can be drawn as a grid which extends to infinity
> or if divided remains constant and does not change size after being
> divided. You can walk away from this space and come back to it and it
> will remain the same or constant. This is the metric space of Newton's
> Law; F=ma.
>
> The new idea of space understands space as something that grows or
> diminishes along with matter and if there is no matter there can be no
> space. So space is created along with matter in time. This is a dynamic
> and fluid space.
>
> The older idea of metric space is still needed to design buildings,
> build bridges and high ways and so forth but this metric space is a
> division of blip functions which separate one bit of space from the
> other and as such complies with the classical law of the excluded
> middle.
>
> The new idea of space does not have these infinitely small blips that
> divide space into metric units but is continuous and fluid space which
> is constantly being made and unmade and breaks the law of the excluded
> middle. It could be said this sort of space is always happening in the
> middle and takes on a more qualitative aspect. (Although not strictly
> purely qualitative the idea of a qualitative space gives a sense or
> feeling of what this space is like as a perhaps qualitative growth in
> extension.)
>
> When it comes to art, matter is the media used to make art space with
> this sort of fluid constantly flowing, growing bigger and growing
> smaller, often at the same time in many and various ways. It is also a
> space that has to be made with art media or matter. It does not exist
> before or a priori. Basically this is modernist space, at least in
> summary.
>
> Every time this modern idea of space is divided it changes in quality
> and this is important to understand since an intuitive feeling for the
> way this space changes needs to be cultivated or learnt, usually through
> practice (as well as being lucky enough to have skilled teachers, in my
> case.) It is also a space that cannot be logically indexed since it more
> or less throws attempts at index off, always being in the middle.
>
> This modern space is what Deleuze calls virtual space or smooth space
> and not to be confused with computer networks and virtual or cyberspace.
> Cyberspace is a projected metric (Kantian) space or in D&G terms
> striated space which is the space of metric extension. This is
> important, since computer functions such as interactivity, feedback and
> cyberspace which are Kantian metric space, as I have read more then once
> become confused with the fluid modern notion of space. (A computer is a
> Kantian mechanism. It uses metric space. It is not virtual space in
> Deleuze's terminology nor is it a modern fluid idea of space. Hence,
> computers are an older more archaic technology.)
>
> The modern fluid dynamic unfolding into extension and folding into
> itself and diminishing space happens in time. Understanding time here in
> the way Henri Bergson and William James understand duration as that
> which is always changing so the present is also a fold of the past and
> of the future without being divided into discrete units. The past,
> future and present all happen together and at the same time so the
> present can be both future and past and the future can change the past
> as the present makes the past and opens onto the future. This makes or
> creates difference, since difference cannot be given a priori.
>
> Once we have this basic idea of space then we can see that working with
> two different media, say spoken text and video images, means that the
> image and the sound track or spoken text are separate from each other
> and what draws them together are resonating series which are the
> composition of two or more rhythms, the sound rhythms and the visual
> rhythms, for image and text.
>
> So the most basic is first to give each media, sound and image, its own
> space which it creates itself as difference. Let them create their
> differences, so to speak. Let them have their own rhythms which like
> modern jazz cross over each other and make unpredictable improvised
> resonating series.
>
> Second, don't attempt to make the image the cause of the text or spoken
> words or the other way round. Let both media have their time and space.
> So don't attempt to simply illustrate with an image what the words say
> or again the other way round.
>
> Anyway, that is the basic idea, hopefully abstract enough not to be a
> set of formal rules but a general way of working which can be shaped to
> particular media and projects. The other problem is that in our
> saturated media world there appears no free or open space from which we
> may proceed. For this I use an abstract idea of absolute deviation,
> absolute meaning without relation, and so abstract it cannot be
> abstracted any further. This is like a little lever that can insert
> itself in between the saturated media environment we live in and proceed
> to open up a space for the art works to emerge.
>
> anyways, better stop here before I write a whole book, Chris Jones.
>
|