Eric Souther - Sound Matter
Peter Campus - Three Transitions
Edrex Fontanilla and Robert Goldschmidt - Torrent
The human being makes sense of their surroundings and daily interactions through past experiences. It is impossible for me to deny the possibility that my entire world, even my life, exists within my mind. If this was true, other human minds and material objects are creations of my imagination. In our current society, social interactions are becoming increasingly rare. Today, we can believe that we are interacting socially with friends while sitting alone at home. The computer has changed the way our society functions and heightened misunderstanding of self.
According to the solipsist viewpoint, my life is comprised of analogies stemming from personal experiences. Simple daily activities such as social interactions are constructions within my mind. An idea like solipsism is nearly impossible to prove untrue.[i]
I believe our society, specifically younger generations, is becoming increasingly focused on the domestic. Through recent technological advancements, our life experiences are taking place primarily within the walls of the home. As a child, the main place we interact socially is within the educational system. As an adult, social interactions take place mainly within the workplace. Today, as we develop innovative ways to interact with a computer, the workplace (and to an extent the educational system) does not necessarily need to be separate from home. We can interact with colleagues and be able to get the utilities needed in order to maintain a full time job and raise a family.
As our lives become focused around the home, social interactions become more and more experienced through a digital device. Instead of face to face interactions, our society is relying more on human-computer-human interactions. Today, a high school student can sit alone in their room and still believe the fact that they have over 300 friends, because online communities, like Facebook, tell them so. A child’s close friends today are not the same as a child’s close friends 20 years ago. I believe the computer has strengthened the idea that our lives are just creations of our minds. However, I also believe it is devices like the computer that prove this idea to be false.
Bertrand Russell describes the theory of solipsism as “idealism taken to the limits of absurdity.” As Ralph Arthur Hall, MD writes in his essay on solipsism, if Russell’s description of solipsism were true, “one would be relegated to a world of one’s own making; yet, there are many occurrences, surprises, and mysteries in one’s life. Since the origin of these is not inside, it must be from outside us. The only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existant, and ever present.” However, it is my belief that as our lives become focused around digital systems, these mysteries in our lives will become less frequent. A computer engineer’s job is to create the perfect system, a system that responds to the user without any surprises or problems. As we begin creating perfect systems, and use them in our homes, our lives become extremely self-centered with a minimal amount of flaws. 1
Peter Campus was a pioneer in the field of video art. Campus realized video’s potential to visualize internal human psychological problems; specifically, Campus’s personal conflicts with the visualization of self. In Campus’s 1973 video titled Three Transitions, he explores the manipulation of identity using basic video editing techniques. In the piece, Campus is the director as well as the actor.[ii] The video allows the viewer to realize that this is a personal piece for Campus, however at the same time it forces the viewer to imagine the piece related to themselves. In one ‘transition’ Campus is holding a piece of paper which, with the use of chromakey processors and video mixers, displays the live face of Campus, as if it were a mirror. While holding this mirror image of himself, Campus sets fire to the paper resulting in the burning of his face, only metaphorically.
As self is the fundamental element in the theory of solipsism, Campus’s videos can be seen as critiques of the solipsist theory. The human being has a fascination with self, throughout our lives we try to figure out who we are, by comparing ourselves to objects within our environment. In order to know what we look like, we use tools such as mirrors to reassure ourselves. Without these tools, we would have no idea about the sight of our own faces. It is my belief that these tools are fundamental in proving solipsism wrong. These tools are material goods that can significantly extend our senses. For instance, today we can use a computer as a memory storage bank. Instead of keeping our memories in our minds, we can rely on the use of recordings of the past that are saved on a computer or some digital device.
Campus uses these tools as a way to manipulate and express his inner self to an audience. Campus’s work is only a start in the disproving of solipsism. He was able to make public the realization that video had the ability to act more than just a device to capture entertainment. Video could magnify the human fascination of self and recreation. A video camera became the next step past the mirror. While the mirror reflects an image, the camera records the image, and can be brought a step further through the manipulation of the image, post recording. It was this unique device that helped visualize that which had been previously only thought of, make physical that which is mental.
Human societies are engineered based on the structure of the human body. We arrange our living spaces in ways that are suitable for our body size and structure. This idea is fairly obvious, for example the door leading into a house must be large enough for the human to fit through, however if it were any bigger than that it would be a waste of material. This attitude toward human made objects is evident in art also. We view a 2D object when it is hung from a wall, at eye level. In order for us to feel like we are part of something, it must somehow incorporate our body. While viewing a landscape painting that is painted on a two foot square canvas we would focus on its aesthetic values. However, when viewing that same landscape painting which is now the size of an entire room, we may say that we appreciate it because it is as if we are in the painting, or part of the painting.
In sculpture it is easy to feel like we have an attachment with a piece, because it is three dimensional and physically ‘real’. Video is much like a painting, however slightly harder to associate ourselves with. In video it is easy to realize that what we are viewing happened in the past. It is a recording which is being replayed to an audience that was not present during the recording. It is not impossible to incorporate the viewer within the video. One way to do so is by presenting the video on something that would incorporate the viewer. Because a video is presented through a projector, the canvas is made up of light, and light has the ability to be bent and manipulated. With this in mind, certain artists have taken Campus’s idea of visualizing concepts through video, and presenting them on sculpture.
In order to dissect and disprove the idea of solipsism, it is vital that we materialize that which is conceptual. Using tools such as the video camera, it is possible to build a community that can classify a piece of art as a physical concept. Edrex Fontanilla and Robert Goldschmidt realize this opportunity, and have collaborated to create what they call “mutable sculpture”. They are making “a series of video art sculptures that explore materiality, continuity, and the limits and assumptions of viewers’ perceptions.” They use the video camera to create “unique visual and aural stimuli that compel the viewer to reevaluate cognitive and perceptual information.”[iii] However, they believe video art is inaccessible by the viewer. Much like a painting, the frame of a video is the material limit that restricts the viewer from interacting with the piece physically. In order to break free of this boundary, Fontanilla and Goldschmidt present their video’s on sculpture.
Eric Souther is another video artist who is more concerned with the role of text, specifically virtual text, in our present society. Souther believes that “our lives have become embedded within a digital code that blurs the line between the real and the virtual.” This idea is a huge problem when dealing with the theory of solipsism. Souther’s work is more a collaboration of artist and viewer. He describes the artist as the organizer of virtual text. Souther creates work which the viewer must decide whether they will interact with it, in order to see all that is there.
Souther believes the digital world we live in today, is made up of virtual text which we may not always remember to be there. Whether or not we can see it, the virtual interactions we go through daily, like the interaction I am going through now with the program Word developed by Microsoft, are created through text. The computer is an object that is created by humans, and works much like the human brain, yet is still recognized as extremely un-human, or robotic. Because of this distance we feel from an object that was created by our hands and minds, we feel intimidated by that object. We subconsciously realize that there is some cybernetic system that is allowing this computer to function, and allowing me to get my work down. [iv]
In Souther’s digital pieces, he attempts to force the viewer to interact with the computer, which by theory will then make the viewer become part of the computer. In his piece titled Sound Matter[v] there is a computer placed on a table with a microphone and a projection of the digital piece seen on the computer around the wall. If the viewer decides to they can approach the computer and make a sound into the microphone. The sound is then amplified in the room and the digital image on the computer expands or contracts depending on the maginitude of noise flowing through the microphone. The reaction on the computer depends entirely on how much noise the viewer decides to make, if any at all. Each viewer will have a different relationship with the piece depending on how much they are willing to involve themselves. Souther believes that “the production of the interface and the interaction of the work will become inherently more important than the artwork itself.”4
Another video artist that creates some work based on viewer interaction is Jason Bernagozzi. In one specific piece titled In Between Believing and Seeing, Jason projects the image of a girl meditating on a flat wall. In front of the screen is placed a single chair, allowing the viewer to sit down and experience the piece separate from the rest of the audience. What the viewer does not know is that the chair has a sensor in it, allowing the computer to know when there is someone sitting and observing the projection. The sensor then triggers to computer to react to the presence of the viewer. The image of the girl immediately begins to disassemble into an abstract shape, rather than the meditating girl. The viewer of the piece is directly responsible for the destruction of the image. The image of the girl remains an abstracted image until the viewer decides to end their interaction with the piece and rise from the chair. [vi]
Although both of these artists have slightly different ideas, their work is closely related to the participation of the viewer, and the computer as an extension of the body. This bodily extension, or tool used to allow individuals to interact with their outside world, is exactly what proves the idea of solipsism false. Humans have created tools in order to better understand their environment. If the theory of solipsism were true, we would not need these outside objects to help us better understand our world.
I believe this idea of interactive art has only recently began to be dealt with. Our culture has only recently been given the oppurtunities that allow us to base our lives out of our homes. I believe as we become more home based in our lives, we have the chance of becoming a solipsist crazed community. By using devices that rule our daily lives, like the video camera, to create art that challenges our current societal standards ideas like solipsism can be put to rest.
Works Sited
[i] Hall, Ralph Arthur, MD. “Solipsism: the forgotten art.” http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.philosophy.meta/2007-05/msg00006.html. From: http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html. (submitted Mon, 28 May 2007)
[ii] Wikipedia entry on Peter Campus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Campus.
[iii] Fontanilla, Edrex and Goldschmidt, Robert. “Mutable Sculpture” http://edrex.com/torrent/Fontanilla_Goldschmidt_08.pdf
[iv] Souther, Eric. “From Text to Virtual Text.” Eric Souther Webpage. http://unseensignals.com/Unseensignals/Home.html
[v] http://unseensignals.com/Unseensignals/Sound_Matter.html
[vi] Bernagozzi, Jason. Artists webpage. http://seeinginvideo.com/home.html
According to the solipsist viewpoint, my life is comprised of analogies stemming from personal experiences. Simple daily activities such as social interactions are constructions within my mind. An idea like solipsism is nearly impossible to prove untrue.[i]
I believe our society, specifically younger generations, is becoming increasingly focused on the domestic. Through recent technological advancements, our life experiences are taking place primarily within the walls of the home. As a child, the main place we interact socially is within the educational system. As an adult, social interactions take place mainly within the workplace. Today, as we develop innovative ways to interact with a computer, the workplace (and to an extent the educational system) does not necessarily need to be separate from home. We can interact with colleagues and be able to get the utilities needed in order to maintain a full time job and raise a family.
As our lives become focused around the home, social interactions become more and more experienced through a digital device. Instead of face to face interactions, our society is relying more on human-computer-human interactions. Today, a high school student can sit alone in their room and still believe the fact that they have over 300 friends, because online communities, like Facebook, tell them so. A child’s close friends today are not the same as a child’s close friends 20 years ago. I believe the computer has strengthened the idea that our lives are just creations of our minds. However, I also believe it is devices like the computer that prove this idea to be false.
Bertrand Russell describes the theory of solipsism as “idealism taken to the limits of absurdity.” As Ralph Arthur Hall, MD writes in his essay on solipsism, if Russell’s description of solipsism were true, “one would be relegated to a world of one’s own making; yet, there are many occurrences, surprises, and mysteries in one’s life. Since the origin of these is not inside, it must be from outside us. The only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existant, and ever present.” However, it is my belief that as our lives become focused around digital systems, these mysteries in our lives will become less frequent. A computer engineer’s job is to create the perfect system, a system that responds to the user without any surprises or problems. As we begin creating perfect systems, and use them in our homes, our lives become extremely self-centered with a minimal amount of flaws. 1
Peter Campus was a pioneer in the field of video art. Campus realized video’s potential to visualize internal human psychological problems; specifically, Campus’s personal conflicts with the visualization of self. In Campus’s 1973 video titled Three Transitions, he explores the manipulation of identity using basic video editing techniques. In the piece, Campus is the director as well as the actor.[ii] The video allows the viewer to realize that this is a personal piece for Campus, however at the same time it forces the viewer to imagine the piece related to themselves. In one ‘transition’ Campus is holding a piece of paper which, with the use of chromakey processors and video mixers, displays the live face of Campus, as if it were a mirror. While holding this mirror image of himself, Campus sets fire to the paper resulting in the burning of his face, only metaphorically.
As self is the fundamental element in the theory of solipsism, Campus’s videos can be seen as critiques of the solipsist theory. The human being has a fascination with self, throughout our lives we try to figure out who we are, by comparing ourselves to objects within our environment. In order to know what we look like, we use tools such as mirrors to reassure ourselves. Without these tools, we would have no idea about the sight of our own faces. It is my belief that these tools are fundamental in proving solipsism wrong. These tools are material goods that can significantly extend our senses. For instance, today we can use a computer as a memory storage bank. Instead of keeping our memories in our minds, we can rely on the use of recordings of the past that are saved on a computer or some digital device.
Campus uses these tools as a way to manipulate and express his inner self to an audience. Campus’s work is only a start in the disproving of solipsism. He was able to make public the realization that video had the ability to act more than just a device to capture entertainment. Video could magnify the human fascination of self and recreation. A video camera became the next step past the mirror. While the mirror reflects an image, the camera records the image, and can be brought a step further through the manipulation of the image, post recording. It was this unique device that helped visualize that which had been previously only thought of, make physical that which is mental.
Human societies are engineered based on the structure of the human body. We arrange our living spaces in ways that are suitable for our body size and structure. This idea is fairly obvious, for example the door leading into a house must be large enough for the human to fit through, however if it were any bigger than that it would be a waste of material. This attitude toward human made objects is evident in art also. We view a 2D object when it is hung from a wall, at eye level. In order for us to feel like we are part of something, it must somehow incorporate our body. While viewing a landscape painting that is painted on a two foot square canvas we would focus on its aesthetic values. However, when viewing that same landscape painting which is now the size of an entire room, we may say that we appreciate it because it is as if we are in the painting, or part of the painting.
In sculpture it is easy to feel like we have an attachment with a piece, because it is three dimensional and physically ‘real’. Video is much like a painting, however slightly harder to associate ourselves with. In video it is easy to realize that what we are viewing happened in the past. It is a recording which is being replayed to an audience that was not present during the recording. It is not impossible to incorporate the viewer within the video. One way to do so is by presenting the video on something that would incorporate the viewer. Because a video is presented through a projector, the canvas is made up of light, and light has the ability to be bent and manipulated. With this in mind, certain artists have taken Campus’s idea of visualizing concepts through video, and presenting them on sculpture.
In order to dissect and disprove the idea of solipsism, it is vital that we materialize that which is conceptual. Using tools such as the video camera, it is possible to build a community that can classify a piece of art as a physical concept. Edrex Fontanilla and Robert Goldschmidt realize this opportunity, and have collaborated to create what they call “mutable sculpture”. They are making “a series of video art sculptures that explore materiality, continuity, and the limits and assumptions of viewers’ perceptions.” They use the video camera to create “unique visual and aural stimuli that compel the viewer to reevaluate cognitive and perceptual information.”[iii] However, they believe video art is inaccessible by the viewer. Much like a painting, the frame of a video is the material limit that restricts the viewer from interacting with the piece physically. In order to break free of this boundary, Fontanilla and Goldschmidt present their video’s on sculpture.
Eric Souther is another video artist who is more concerned with the role of text, specifically virtual text, in our present society. Souther believes that “our lives have become embedded within a digital code that blurs the line between the real and the virtual.” This idea is a huge problem when dealing with the theory of solipsism. Souther’s work is more a collaboration of artist and viewer. He describes the artist as the organizer of virtual text. Souther creates work which the viewer must decide whether they will interact with it, in order to see all that is there.
Souther believes the digital world we live in today, is made up of virtual text which we may not always remember to be there. Whether or not we can see it, the virtual interactions we go through daily, like the interaction I am going through now with the program Word developed by Microsoft, are created through text. The computer is an object that is created by humans, and works much like the human brain, yet is still recognized as extremely un-human, or robotic. Because of this distance we feel from an object that was created by our hands and minds, we feel intimidated by that object. We subconsciously realize that there is some cybernetic system that is allowing this computer to function, and allowing me to get my work down. [iv]
In Souther’s digital pieces, he attempts to force the viewer to interact with the computer, which by theory will then make the viewer become part of the computer. In his piece titled Sound Matter[v] there is a computer placed on a table with a microphone and a projection of the digital piece seen on the computer around the wall. If the viewer decides to they can approach the computer and make a sound into the microphone. The sound is then amplified in the room and the digital image on the computer expands or contracts depending on the maginitude of noise flowing through the microphone. The reaction on the computer depends entirely on how much noise the viewer decides to make, if any at all. Each viewer will have a different relationship with the piece depending on how much they are willing to involve themselves. Souther believes that “the production of the interface and the interaction of the work will become inherently more important than the artwork itself.”4
Another video artist that creates some work based on viewer interaction is Jason Bernagozzi. In one specific piece titled In Between Believing and Seeing, Jason projects the image of a girl meditating on a flat wall. In front of the screen is placed a single chair, allowing the viewer to sit down and experience the piece separate from the rest of the audience. What the viewer does not know is that the chair has a sensor in it, allowing the computer to know when there is someone sitting and observing the projection. The sensor then triggers to computer to react to the presence of the viewer. The image of the girl immediately begins to disassemble into an abstract shape, rather than the meditating girl. The viewer of the piece is directly responsible for the destruction of the image. The image of the girl remains an abstracted image until the viewer decides to end their interaction with the piece and rise from the chair. [vi]
Although both of these artists have slightly different ideas, their work is closely related to the participation of the viewer, and the computer as an extension of the body. This bodily extension, or tool used to allow individuals to interact with their outside world, is exactly what proves the idea of solipsism false. Humans have created tools in order to better understand their environment. If the theory of solipsism were true, we would not need these outside objects to help us better understand our world.
I believe this idea of interactive art has only recently began to be dealt with. Our culture has only recently been given the oppurtunities that allow us to base our lives out of our homes. I believe as we become more home based in our lives, we have the chance of becoming a solipsist crazed community. By using devices that rule our daily lives, like the video camera, to create art that challenges our current societal standards ideas like solipsism can be put to rest.
Works Sited
[i] Hall, Ralph Arthur, MD. “Solipsism: the forgotten art.” http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.philosophy.meta/2007-05/msg00006.html. From: http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html. (submitted Mon, 28 May 2007)
[ii] Wikipedia entry on Peter Campus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Campus.
[iii] Fontanilla, Edrex and Goldschmidt, Robert. “Mutable Sculpture” http://edrex.com/torrent/Fontanilla_Goldschmidt_08.pdf
[iv] Souther, Eric. “From Text to Virtual Text.” Eric Souther Webpage. http://unseensignals.com/Unseensignals/Home.html
[v] http://unseensignals.com/Unseensignals/Sound_Matter.html
[vi] Bernagozzi, Jason. Artists webpage. http://seeinginvideo.com/home.html
No comments:
Post a Comment