 |
| From White Darker Than White |
06/02/2010
Mark (email):
So I was at a concert, and it was phenominal btw... I came up with an idea... and as I tossed it around inside my head, thinking about how I'd represent it, I came out with a tryptich... kinda like last time in a sense... But I didn't have that in mind when it came out. Just coincidence I suppose. I came home and stayed up late to get it done; I was pretty excited about it. Anyways I'm excited to see your approach.
It's meant to be read in whichever sequence you'd like.
We'll talk tomorrow. I'm meeting up with Peter tomorrow for din and stuff, so it might be a bit later.
| From White Darker Than White |
06/15/2010
Mark (email):
Hey bud. Here are a couple sketch-ups of the two ideas I was thinking of on how to arrange the text. The first image is to be paired with the security camera, and the second is to be paired with the pigeon. The third I'm still working on, but I wanted to see what you thought of these two panels. I'm trying define the 'field of gaze' in these two panels. I think the second one, for the pigeon, is kind of a narrative. But with both I'm suggesting a movement through space and the encounters within this space.
[In] the pigeon panel I was having a bit of fun with the idea of the lines, and how they intersect with the 'objects' within the field.
We'll chat about it soon enough.
 |
| From White Darker Than White |
 |
| From White Darker Than White |
08/25/2010
(via text-message)
Mark: Do u think the tryptich is ready to be posted?
Jordan: I was going to ask you about that: what does the final post look like in your mind?
M: Hmm, I think it should be just the three panels laid out vertically. Perhaps we include the paragraph that has all the words together at the bottom. What do you think?
J: I agree [...] Also, I just want to recap w you what you think we are saying with this. Looking at the constituent parts, it’s easy to see comments about the nature of sight, perception, and subjectivity. But, especially w regard to the last image, what is the overarching idea? [...] It’s very strong, but even I’m trying to articulate it clearly. This one’s on you. Once we finish this we can talk about the Lisa’s Place piece that’s been put on the back burner.
08/28/2010
Mark (text): I wrote some notes on it in my sketchbook... It's more clear in my head, perhaps we can talk it out.
08/29/2010
Mark (email):
K, it's really raw, just thoughts put down:
First Panel: Surveillance
- Finding order in disorder
- Checks and balances
- Significance of orange: a building (human construct) to which the camera attaches itself. In the city, one does not exist without the other. [The camera] watches for glitches in the pattern of the city.
- Self-awareness, self-consciousness
Second Panel: Pigeon
- Finding disorder in order
- The pigeon follows it's instincts, a pattern that would be no different in nature. The pigeon calculates its next move by watching for things like a fallen crumb, an accidental dropping of a pizza slice... a ripped garbage bag... opportunities. The pigeon accepts the city and its inhabitants as part of the natural order. It adapts to us, and grows with us.
- Complete lack of self-awareness- it simply exists
Third Panel: the Lens/Eye
- Perception: defined vs. undefined purpose
- We know that the commonality between [the camera and the pigeon] is that they both have an awareness of humanity, but for different reasons. One exists as part of and the other exists as separate from. The pigeon exists as part of and within. The camera exists as separate from and outside of. The camera lens represents self-awareness. The unseen eye above. Would there be chaos without it? What if we relied on the eye on the pigeon rather than the eye of the camera? We are a part of nature but we've convinced ourselves otherwise.
The Text
- The text inside a result of the text on the periphery. The funny thing is that neither the lens nor the pigeon are necessarily conscious of these sensations, or able to acknowledge them. What's lacking is the human eye. Perhaps the two combined/overlapping can be said to represent the human eye.
K Jord, this still feels a bit mumbo jumbo, it's a tough one to unravel. I feel like I'm getting somewhere though, especially with that last sentence. I feel like it's a pretty tight visual though... I feel like it makes sense, but I can't explain it just yet. Hopefully what I wrote will stimulate some thought on your side and we can talk it out.
Jordan (text): Ok just read it. I'll email my notes in a lil bit. The destination looks good, but reconfiguring some of the ideas may help us actually get there. Gimme a bit.
...
Jordan (email):
Alright, these are my thoughts. Hopefully they stimulate a productive dialogue: in other words feel free to argue with me haha.
First Panel: Camera
- While the camera's purpose is to maintain order, it does so by searching for disorder, or as you say "glitches in the pattern of the city."
- Also, I find it interesting how you align it with the concept of self-awareness. A camera, in and of itself, is neither concerned or even aware of what it sees. It takes a person to interpret the data of the feed to determine what constitutes a disturbance or transgression of order. But consider the durable movie cliche of the security guard napping in front of a dozen surveillance feeds, only to perk up when an alarm goes off: the vast majority of what the camera "sees" is not seen at all. If nothing of interest happens or is noticed, the footage is deleted or stored in mouldy boxes. In reality, the camera functions more as a detterent: those who see it are told they are being watched, which stimulates an awareness of what they themselves are doing. Therefore, being looked at is more important than looking.
- The camera is a non-participant or passive element in the city, standing apart from all action, never touching anything.
Second Panel: Pigeon
- The pigeon is, as you point out, part of the natural order; but it too is searching for disorder. It must compromise by exchanging seeds, grain, and fruit for the left-behinds of mankind. But in doing so it has not compromised its nature (which is to forage), only the object of that nature (the type of food it forages).
- I agree that the pigeon represents a complete lack of self-awareness, but so does the camera. What is important is that despite having no sense of self, it is searching actively for its goal, right under the noses of mankind, often completely ignored. So looking is more important than being looked at.
- The pigeon is an active, even if unnoticed, participant in the action.
Third Panel
- The camera is, as you point out, a necessary part of the city, but separate from the action that takes place in it. The pigeon does not belong to the city [naturally], but is a part of its ecosystem. And when we talk about the city, what we are really talking about are people. So rather than assigning each to one side of a rigid inside/outside binary, we should consider both the camera and the pigeon as metaphors for mankind, each one demonstrating a strange paradox of being both inside and out, natural and unnatural.
- On the one side, we have the pigeon which represents our animal nature, and the camera which represents our evolution from that origin (for better or worse). The pigeon searching single-mindedly for food, attempting at all costs to fulfill a biological imperative, is like the base impulses that drive us (survival, reproduction, etc). The camera watching but not seeing, expecting something that may or may not happen, is like humanity in its evolved state. Consider that for civilization to develop, humanity first had to develop a consciousness of the self. Once the former animal has this, it can look past its nature, accumulate knowledge outside of what has been programmed into its genes, and create tools, shelters, cars, and cities. Only the creature that knows that it will eventually die would have the forethought to make things to prolong its life. So the camera is the eye we turn towards ourselves, to make us mindful of our nature in the world, and to regulate our actions (of away from nature).
- So to misquote you, humans are "a part of nature but also separate from it." Neither the former [condition] nor the latter can be removed without ceasing to define human beings. So while the pigeon is concerned with objects (nouns) and the camera is concerned with actions (verbs), it is only the human being, a combination of the two perspectives and thereby self-aware, that is concerned with emotions, qualities, and the essences of things (adjectives).
So what do you think? Did we unlock it?? hehehe...
(text)
M: Wow, it's what I was trying to say, it's so clear now.
J: Are you for real: you're not just kissing my ass or sparing my feelings?
M: No man, for real, it's sick.
J: See? You're the proof and I'm the pudding son hehehe That shit is undeniable.
M: Hi fives. Should this be posted? I think so.
J: Should what be posted?
M: Well, a version of it perhaps? The analysis.
J: Hmm, remember I've always been interested in showing our process in a piece... can that be done here do you think?
M: Dude, we'll talk about it tomo yah? In REAL LIFE. Sweet.
by Mark Erickson & Jordan Baylon
