The New "Virtual Presence"

I found “The Reception” act of the Berkeley Dance Project to be the most pertinent to our studies, in that it related modern technology’s effects upon one’s sense of presence and existence. As explained through the narration, we understand someone to be “present” when we can touch or see them physically. However it was further explored that in one’s absence, their “presence” may be replaced by something as simple as a letter or phone call from them. In this sense, presence is captured simply by any temporary filling of the void that remains when someone exits your immediate life. The next step in this exploration focused upon the ability of technology to visually construct a sense of presence. As we entered the theater, we watch as the performers danced before a screen, as a digital image of a dancer very nearly mirrored their moves. It was explained to the audience that the technology was called tele-immersion. A computer in a separate location received the imaging of the dancers movements and then sent the digitally constructed dancer’s image to the stage and was projected upon the screen. This capability, along with others such as video chatting and video recording, allow for a new experience of “presence” in that it can recreate one’s visual image. In effect, one no longer has to be within the same room as another to feel connected with such technology. But the question that then came to my mind, and what I feel was something the performance aimed to address, is how does this change one’s overall value of corporeal presence? Growing up in an age of endless advancements within technology, programs such as video chatting, while exciting, are not shocking or unexpected developments. Where as previous generations were far more reliant upon physical interaction, phone calls, letters etc. to remain connected to those in their lives, younger generations live in a perpetual state of simulated interactions e.g. text messaging, Facebook, video chatting, and instant messaging. In the dance performance, two dancers were often paired together, alongside a single dancer, as the single dancer performed with the pair in unison, as if accompanied by a fourth dancer. The single dancer moved as agilely and gracefully as the pair who moved together, demonstrating that a physical presence was of no need. Furthermore I felt that the constant interactions of the dancers, choreographed in a way such that their movements were wholly reliant upon these interactions, reinforced the idea that though we may have a virtually constructed sense of presence, the things that move us are in fact the physical interactions in our daily lives that cannot be replaced by a screen or a telephone.

Time and Sculpture

Sorry this is a little bit late, I was having difficulty with the whole google account thing!

Our visit to Berkeley Art Museum allowed me to experience a number of artistic encounters I had not yet before. Bruce Nauman’s gallery was filled numerous works, all of varying mediums. From the fiberglass castings, reenactments of performances on video, to light and sound installations, his collection of work was wholly unfamiliar to me in comparison to my previous experiences with art. As such, trying to fully understand the artworks seemed a daunting task, let alone connecting the works to ideas from the class. However in my consideration of the gallery as a whole, I began to see that in a few circumstances Nauman had managed to integrate time as a piece of the artwork, a sort of fourth dimension, as discussed in the Time Machine.
Classical sculpture is generally static and unchanging in its nature, it is meant to deny the effects of passing time and remain eternalized in its original state. Nauman chooses to reject this idea in some of his pieces. For example in his film “Manipulating the T-Bar”, Nauman’s motion and physical act of moving the bar is a characteristic of the sculpture itself. The sculpture is encapsulated in this sixty-minute period of time; you cannot remove it from this window in time. In this way he adds this fourth dimension to sculpture to remind the viewer that there is a process involved in the making of art, and though you cannot always see this timely process (except in films such as this) the time remains an inherent quality of art.
Similarly Nauman’s “Untitled 1965-66”, a brown latex piece situated in the corner of the gallery as if a simple heap of cloth, proves vulnerable to the passing of time. The shape of the object, a ragged pile of cloth, suggests to the viewer that it was once a particular shape, but over time has wilted and collapsed. Furthermore the latex medium will overtime actually begin to change and partially disintegrate. These qualities suggest that the sculpture in fact has a life of its own, and that the viewer is seeing the piece at a specific point in its existence, and that it is ever changing, no matter how slowly.
Nauman’s style of art may not be my favorite. I may not even really understand it to the extent that I feel I do. But I do appreciate the integration of time as a very real characteristic of his art, and the concepts that he infuses into his work in order to keep the viewer constantly thinking.

The Varying Experiences of Reality through Photography and Film

Well I should have taken note of the problems people have been having with posting and double checked to see that my post made it up two days ago. This is now inexcusably overdue but I suppose it's worth having up anyway. My apologies everyone.

Camera Lucida and “The Kinetoscope of Time” present us with two separate mediums through which time is expressed: photography and film. More specifically, I found each text to draw upon the relationship of the medium to the spectator’s perception of reality. However, though each text touches upon this concept, the perceptions that they each relate are distinctly dissimilar, and therefore speak to the varying experiences of reality as a result of modern technologies.
Photography and film are not the same method of expression. This is a statement so obvious it goes without saying. I only address it for it may then also seem obvious to some that they would clearly yield different understandings of reality. This distinction was not wholly apparent to me and therefore led me to the discussion of this idea. Film is simply a running reel of still photographs. In essence, film is inextricably linked to photography in that is comprised solely of photographs. However in reading Camera Lucida, the characteristics of the photograph that separates it from any other artistic medium became clear. Barthes notes “ the Photograph is indifferent to all intermediaries: it does not invent; it is authentication itself” (Barthes 87). The concept this then led me to is that film, by nature, is capable of producing fiction; photography however is bound by reality and fact. A photograph is an undeniable physical representation of what was before the camera in a specific moment and place. It is in this way the photography succeeds beyond any other medium or capability of the human mind to assure one of reality.
“The Kinetoscope of Time” conveys a separate experience of reality through its narrative. The narrator is presented with the opportunity to view his future through the film of a kinetoscope, an early screening invention. He reaches this proposition after having viewed a series of short films depicting dance and battle. He enjoys these films immensely, but is however adverse to the idea of seeing scenes of his own life and alleged future. Therefore, it must be understood that there is a valued distinction between one’s own reality and the “reality” put forth through film. Film may be a series of photographs, but when viewed in rapid succession, one is drawn from the reality of the moment in which each photograph exists, and rather becomes involved in the story that lies before them. It is in this way that film may serve as a means of time travel, a means by which time is manipulated and one may temporarily escape their own position in time. What may be taken from the narrative then, is that though we enjoy these momentary escapes and the ability to manipulate time through film, we are undeniably bound to the pattern and motion of time as we know it, and therefore our own realities.