The urban screen project saw me teaming up with partners in crime
Taylor Newman and Chris Trengrove. Our conceptual development went through a lot of metamorphasis but remained rooted in the association of the screen as definitively an 'area of identifiable space'. Parallel to this we decided very early on to establish projection as a method of viewer/audience context dialogue/interaction/perception. This evoked a myriad of ideas and investigative themes.
For example, initial discussion centered around construction of a 'frame' that would produce visible vapour (gas/smoke/water) to allow image content to contact it as 'screen'. What quickly became clear was that more depth and a strong conceptual framework was necessary to avoid purely aesthetic attachment to employable technique.
As such, we considered as recourse the possibility of projecting onto two escalators (namely the steps as they traversed up and down) to stimulate dialogue through a suggestion of opposing image content/display. This emphasized the importance of setting (within location) as imperative to overall conceptual theme. The very physical nature of objects in the urban environment can provide commentaries themselves. The escalator could induce the user/consumer contemplation within the realm of shopping mall as urban sphere of commodified retail experience. For example, choice and influence in a marketable world. Perhaps subtle economic coercion, etc...?
Opportunity for discussion became evident if applied to the most uniform, uneventful or 'inanimate' of potential objects (and their respective surfaces) in an urban environment. We subsequently became interested in initiating a 'discussion' through treating the sliding doors of an elevator as an area of display. This stemmed from further recognition of purpose and placement of 'urban screens' as fundamental divisible parts of a larger sum and logical contrast and juxtaposition with it in context of society (and the urban setting).
As a result we saw an immediate anatomical similarity of la ville to that of the physical body, where its boundaries comprise compartments of volumetric space; voids filled and unfilled - amalgamated into one synergistic corporeal vessel as a whole. Microcosm and macrocosms abound - as do its inhabitable (urban) écrans.
Applying this to the elevator, we literally attempted to posit the opening/closing of its doors as synonymous with function of the heart. Entry and exit (for example) of nutrients to its chambers, expansion/contraction of valves, divisibility of contained space, transmission/transport of elements pre, present, and post-arrival, etc. In essence we fostered this connection of 'city as body' and exploration of contents therein.
Thus far, our group had recognized during conceptual development the consistency of typified screen presence within city dwellings as 'occupied spaces'. Unfortunately the logistics of choosing an elevator (and foyer lobby) as a controllable space and environment for projection proved too difficult.
However, remaining interested in the notion of anatomy, we also saw an emergeable pattern of screens as identifiable bordered 'vessels' of a greater urban body. They perhaps denote hollow containers or framed windows, themselves static - yet predominantly positioned as stationary items of focal interest. So hence the spatial relationship of audience is designated as viewer; we are doing the 'watching'.
After more research and discussion we finally decided to embody the principle of our screen as a container - to which we could apply a physical sense of the human body - itself contained within the physical/cultural parameters of urban 'society'. In essence, human beings are subject to the environment, they are contained within it - and they are eventually extricated from its immediate boundaries (in death).
This became a rear projection of a single eye with associated content upon the hatch window of a parked car.
(to view images please click and wait)
No comments:
Post a Comment