Fascination of Time in Media

This blog post is for group D for "the Kinetoscope of Time."

This fictional story is about a man who looks at different types of images and scenes, yet the part I want to talk about it at the end. The man is approached by another man who offers him the chance to look into his past, and the man declines, then the other man offers him the chance to look into his future, and the man declines once again. He declares, "I shall know all in good time."

I think this concept is a good way to look at a lot of the themes we've discussed in this class, as well as a good way to look at peoples' fascination with media. Temporal manipulations, as well as just the general ability to view something that is not real life and seems a separate reality, I believe, brings up a lot of possibilities or questions for people, which is why these ideas are so prevalent in new media. Time travel is a major theme related to this. People can only know one linear reality in their lives, but with media, exploring these ideas of time travel is possible. You can relive a moment, to see how slight changes can play out in different ways, as in Run Lola Run. You can travel far into the future to see what a world you will never get to see, because you will no longer be alive, like in H.G. Wells' novel. You can also slow down and speed up time, which is also not possible in real life. Because of the fixed speed and linearity of time in our lives, people have always been fascinated with changing this fixed nature, as well as being able to manipulate time to experience something they normally could not.

I see this story as an interesting contrast to the other media works we have experienced in this class. This man is given the chance to see his future, something that is impossible in normal, linear reality. This media object gives him this possibility. Yet he declines, his reasoning being he chooses to stay in this fixed linearity, showing large amounts of patience. This idea is very foreign, and many would not choose this, because the nature of media in general has given our society not only this fascination, but an expectation of instant gratification as well, another theme running throughout this class.

Therefore, I see the end to the story as being in sharp contrast with the majority of themes in this class, yet also revealing a lot about these themes.

The True Aura

I understand what Marina Grzinic is saying in her article. With all the new technology, beaming and streaming images to us very quickly and in very good resolution, the auras of the objects being sent are lost because we then lose sight of our distance from the object. Aura are returned when transmission time is slow and the image is imperfect. She says, "in these very shortcomings-in the very 'imperfections' that annoy and frustrate us-lies our potential to appreciate the full richness of the subject in the image." This is because we are then reminded of our distance to this object and really how far away it is. I understand this, but I am not sure I agree with it one hundred percent. Nothing short of a person truly being in the room with you completely conveys presence, but some things I feel do it a little better than others, and I do not feel that losing sight of how far away you are from someone completely destroys the aura.
For example, I'll use the dance performance we all just saw. The image of the dancer in the lab in Hearst Mining was being streamed into the Berkeley Playhouse, and vice versa. I felt that a lot was lost because this image was so blurry. I felt like, while I see Grzinic's point in some aspects, the dancer's "aura" would have been better represented if the quality had been better. I feel like a lot of the communication between the two dancers was lost, due to the poor resolution. It was hard to make out all the different movements and steps the girls in the lab were performing. I feel that if the dancer in the Playhouse, as well as the audience, could have seen all the detailed movements of the dancer in the lab, more would have been conveyed. This is because the piece was based on the two interacting, not on just watching the dancer in the lab. Because it involved the two dancers interacting, I feel to truly reach the goal, it would have been better to see the individual movements of the dancer in the lab more clearly. The dancer in the Playhouse could have better worked with that and played off those detailed movements.
So, in the case of the dance performance, I disagree with the article, but I can almost see what she is saying. I'm not sure I completely agree though. In streaming an image that is so clear and so fast, it may be possible to disembody that object or person because it is so easy to focus on the present image, almost forgetting, in a way, about the object or person back in their original place. Yet, at the same time, if I were to be talking to a relative who is very far away, and I can talk to them in real time, very quickly, and with a crystal-clear image, I do not believe their aura is going to be damaged in any way. I would not forget that they are very far away, or disembody them...instead, I would feel their presence, their aura, just who they are, is reinforced in my mind because I am able to be exposed to them so realistically. In that sense, I disagree with the article.

Nauman's Narrative Engine

I do no know a large amount about current media, so my understanding of a "loop" is very elementary, but I think I can extract a few basic ideas out of Manovich's piece. He asks, in one part, "Can the loop be a new narrative form appropriate for the computer age?" He explained how current narratives are more linear, due to how actual, real human experience is linear. Yet, due to bandwidth and storage limitations, he claims loops may not be a thing of the past. He calls it the new narrative engine because the loop, in the current computer age, drives a lot of the media. For example, although a computer game maybe appear to be progressing linearly, the bad guys may be walking back and forth across the screen. They are programmed by a loop. Also, more generally, he explains that computer programs while running and seemingly moving forward, are actually completely programmed on loops. Thus, loops are very prevalent and drive a lot of new media due to hardware limitations.
The way I thought of this when I read this piece was by relating it to some of Bruce Nauman's videos from his exhibit, "A Rose Has No Teeth." For example, the video of him falling into a corner, over and over and over again. This is on a loop. It is true that he performed this in person for a very long time, but he did not do it over and over and over again. He therefore used this video on a loop due to physical restrictions, as well as spacial restrictions (as he could not perform this stunt over and over and over again in multiple places.) Thus, the loop is used due to limitations.

A Rose Has No Teeth, But The Camera Has An Eye

The Bruce Nauma exhibit at the Berkeley Art Museum has very many facets, from sculptures to videos to photos. One of the things common to all of them is they all represent an edgy new way of approaching and looking at art. Yet, while many of the techniques Nauman used are considered groundbreaking, I did see many connections to the works and concepts we have studied in class so far.

The one that stood out the most to me was the film entitled, “Manipulating the T-Bar.” In this film, Nauman films himself sideways, picking up a metal t-bar, and placing it back down. Then, he picks it up, turns it, and places it back down. Through this movie, he is first combining art forms, film and sculpture. He is also manipulating the sculpture, turning the viewing experience into a new way of looking at art, seeing how sculptures do not usually move, but he is using his body as a vehicle to move it, and thus, his body is the vehicle through which the change can be seen. I saw this as very similar to a scene in Vertov’s, Man With A Movie Camera. You see Vertov physically standing behind the camera, both very large, towering over the entire city. This speaks to the same purpose, seeming to say that Vertov is using his own body to physically manipulate the camera to achieve his new and groundbreaking type of art. In addition, the act of filming Nauman manipulation the t-bar also speaks to showing the process of making the art in the actual art piece itself. This also has links in Vertov’s work. In Vertov’s film, the viewer sees a person actually physically clipping and splicing film rows together. This serves two purposes. First, it represents the new way Vertov approached his art by showing how the camera can manipulate the potential of the human eye, but it also shows the process behind this art. Similarly, Nauman is using his manipulations of the t-bar to create a new way of approaching art, but at the same time, it also shows the process behind creating the art.

The second concept that stood out to me in Nauman’s work as similar to the concepts of our class was his idea of an absent presence. For this, I will focus on his sculpture of pieces of blue neon tubing, molded to his body, with measurements taken at ten-inch intervals. This represents a different way of approaching art because the tubing creates a sense of presence, but there is not a direct appearance. There is a sense of something that had been there, so a sense of absence is created. There is, also, very little insight into what the artist was thinking or feeling at the time as it is just a sign that he or she has been there. I saw a similarity in this piece to the concepts from Camera Lucida. When you look at a photograph, you experience a “certificate of presence,” meaning whatever is in the photograph was in front of the camera at some point. It shows there was a presence there at some point, but also creates a sense of absence because that thing that was there at one point is not longer with us. Thus, Nauman’s work does the same thing. The tubing gives us a sense the artist was there at one point, but also creates a sense of absence because it is just the tubing now, and the artist is absent.