The fitting can be multiplied and/or it can operate as a switch.
Spaces, too, can operate as switch-sites. I understand the switch
as more analogic--it institutes and regulates a flow, a translation, a
conversion, rather than having a binary on/off function. So it is an
intervention--existing or strategically-placed--that opens or
regulates a channel or conduit, but in terms of a very specific
placement within the circuit.
Shifting back into perspective mode: Susan mentions "contortion,"
and if we are thinking about perspective in this landscape, then it
does absolutely apply: it's an extending, channelling, and warping
of vision and the visual field. We know that technologies extend
and rework the visual capacity from the body proper, compelling
a re-embodiment according to new terms. Where once there was
a fixed coupling there is now a pliable space, wherein body and
vision can be continually reconstituted according to emerging
demands. This is a relentlessly material and materializing process,
which is often overlooked (as in conceptions of "disembodiment").
Also, the visual plane, or representational field, no longer exists as
such in a reflective mode. Think of the hand-held electronic
gadget (the site of enormous struggles)--it has no "plane," but
operates through rhythmic, or frequencing, alignments. So if
perspective implies a viewpoint (a subject and a located capacity
for viewing), attached to a standpoint (an embodiment), looking
*through* a technologically-mediated signifying apparatus (code,
signal, etc.) into a constructed space, which may or may not have
"depth" in the conventional sense, then we could view perspective
as a convenient marker for this alignment circuit.