Presence?

Technological advance and what it offer is simply amazing. This dance performance provides a completely different perspective looking at performing art. This performance is a mixture of physical presence and virtual presence of actors. In this performance,'reception,' it is presented in the way that physical presence interacts with virtual presence. For the audience, it is hardly distinguishable whether the actors are physically present or mere images. The idea that the actors the audience sees might be distant provokes our sense of presence. It is questionable whether virtual presence is adequate while the audience expects 'presence' of the actors in this kind of art form. Moreover, in this hybrid form of art, it is appropriate to categorize this under the previous category. I see this performance 'controversial' in the way that it asks us numerous questions to think about.
One thing connects two presences--virtual and physical--is time. It reminds of telecommunication such as cell phone or video conferencing. In this way, this mixture is easier to be understood: we do not feel dilemma considering communication through the cell phone. However, it is not the audience that interacts. It is hard to make the audience feel that two parties of actors share the same time. Since the audience is only required to watch, it is possible to question whether it is 'real.' Do we necessarily believe what we see? we are brought to watch a performance by magician for example. If we see a person talking on the phone in some kind of movie, we, the audience, are not sure whether the person's action is genuine. In other words, can the audience feel a sense of 'presence' from virtual presence? For me, it seems challenging to answer

Loop

Lev Manovich’s text “The New Temporality: The Loop as a Narrative Engine” discusses the

idea of “the loop.” What is the loop? rises as an immediate following question while Manovich introduces this new idea. Manovich starts with two simple examples of media with “the loop:” “cultural object (game) or software (various media players such as QuickTime Player).” At this moment, it is not so clear of what exactly the loop is; the best guess is some kind of a repetition. A notion of what two examples share in common is that they both presents digitalized images (assuming “game” as videogame.) In addition, digital images are not meant to be or necessarily a record of real images.

The following paragraph has proved that I was not quite following what Manovich implies by the “loop.” Manovich draws an example of “a loop”—not clear whether he used it as an example of “the” loop or simply a loop—from the sequence of Man with a Movie Camera: the cameraman cranks the handle of his camera as he films. Manovich mentions that “a loop created by the circular movement of the handle gives birth to a progression of events a camera moving through space recording whatever is in its way.” In Manovich’s definition, the loop is simply a process of recording. It is questionable whether digital images that circular movement is not necessarily relevant contradict Manovich early examples of the loop.

The idea of the loop becomes clear as Manovich builds on his argument. Manovich asserts that because of limitations—storage or bandwidth—“early QuickTime movies and computer games relied heavily on loops.” I assume Manovich’s idea of the loop as fragmented part of a sequence or a sequence with duration. It is interesting, yet outdated claim; because technological advance is so quick and face-paced, some computer games actually creates images displayed instantaneously not limited to play loops of already-recorded clips (such as recent 3D games require expensive graphic engine). This digital image fails to qualify as a loop since there is no sense of a “sequence.”

Response Essay

My first impression on Bruce Nauman’s works or sculptures was somewhat a disappointment. In fact, it was awkward: art seems not to be that artful. I expected a work of art as something visionary or hard to understand without artistic knowledge such as Leonardo Da Vinci’s or Pablo Picasso’s surreal paintings. However, this experience, a visit to Berkeley Art Museum, changed my perspective of art as something not artful but yet understandable.

I do not understand what the title of this exhibition—“A Rose has no teeth.” However, there is something clear in his works: it is some kind of an experiment. Bruce Nauman engages in the experiment of new technology; he definitely uses implements which hardly seems classical such as fiber-glass, projector, or even a photograph. However, I failed to classify all of his work under one categorical theme. A piece of his works experiments with time, other with a material, or another with the artist, Nauman himself as a subject.

There is one piece of Nauman’s works that random geometrical image is reflected through the project onto the screen made of sand. The image of mixed geometrical figures reflected is constantly changing; each figure is changing its color or the shape of the figure is changing. The idea of ‘randomness’ Nauman intends to create ascertains when Nauman chooses to project that image on the screen. The material of the screen is ‘sand;’ the screen made of this material has no fixed form. I am not sure whether it is Nauman’s intention that the work is not solely the artist’s own: the screen has been secretly altered by my ruthless hand or I am not supposed to. However, it is clear that this work is different from works before the technological advance such as a projector that Nauman has created the piece which has no one fixed form but constantly changes. I am not going to say something like this is the ultimate form of ‘randomness’ or whether has he achieved it; however, it is clear that Nauman experiments and it is the technology which makes this possible.

Photograph preserves

I did not know that I need to click "publish." no wonder it didn't show..

It must be so nice to analyze the whole book in this short paper. However, the broadness of the book or messages in the book limits me (yet, I do not fully understand). So I will try to focus on a few parts which struck me like a lightning of insightfulness.

Most of time, the one who is being photographed is aware of one’s self being photographed. As being aware of that, the one engages in the action of “posing.” Barthes refers the action to “transformation”—feeling the creation of one’s body or the mortification by the photograph. Though it is imaginary, through “posing” Barthes metaphorically mentions that he derives his existence from the photographer. It is an interesting notion that by the time one performs the action, the one realizes that his image will be regenerated—possibly over and over. It is agreeable that such an action qualifies as “transformation” in the sense that the action is acknowledgement of his permanent image created. However, a question arises: what about the photograph does not involve in the action of “posing” (for example, a situation that you do not notice you are being photographed)?

In contrast to an image is being eternalized, the subject is become an object. Barthes refers this to “death”; the subject does not necessarily have any importance in the photograph anymore. It is understandable that after the photograph is taken, the subject—someone who is photographed—is breathless, motionless, and even timeless. Whether or not the subject exists any more, it is clear that it is no longer important in the photographed image itself. It is paradoxical that the photograph is no longer relevant to its referent: the photograph eternalizes and objectifies the subject or the referent. The photograph then gains its meaning or identity other than the replication image of the referent. I am not sure that Barthes meant the idea of “death” even taking into account of the referent’s existence. This, the referent’s existence does not have any influence on one’s replica, means that the photograph is granted a distinct identity or meaning apart from the referent.

“In this glum desert, suddenly a specific photograph reaches me, it animates me, and I animate it. So that is how I must name the attraction which makes it exist: an animation. The photograph itself is no way animated (I do not believe in “lifelike” photographs), but it animates me: this is what creates every adventure.”—pg20,

It might be necessary for me to connect to the class’s main focus—time machine and machine time. Despite the photograph can not exist without the referent, the photograph still exists even if the referent no longer exists. Barthes asserts that the photograph animates him. To Barthes, the photograph means preservation. It can be said “time machine”; however, the photograph does not bring you to future nor is it meant to. What I mean by ‘preservation’ is that the subject is eternalized in the photograph. This gives me a clue why Barthes prefers a photograph to a movie: “I do not believe in “lifelike” photographs.” This seems that Barthes rejects an idea of the photograph as a tool to portray the world does not exist. In the photograph, the subject is preserved for eternity that the past is present.