I will first suggest that the separation of 'mediated space' and
'physical space' is entirely contrived, especially for the cause of
philosophical analysis. Jordan's analysis of Donna Haraway's Bell
Telephone example should make this clear, and should suggest in addition
why this notion of 'perspectival' metaphorization seems so forced (I
would agree with this critique in Susan Hapgood's 6.13 post; forced
perspective of the discursive variety???). When the connection, which I
agree is by necessity spatial, is made between the virtualized (visual)
existence of the baby, the physical existence of the mother, and the
mediated existence of the father, all the fundamental notions of
perspective have been obliterated. Within this televised spatial event,
there is no longer the monocular privileged viewpoint, the projected
surface, or the conceptualized vanishing point of perspectival
construction. In fact, as a spatial experience (which can only be
perceived by the television viewer, as this mom/dad/baby 'event' occurs
only through video editing and compositing), the entire scene is reduced
to a flattened representation, with unidirectional communication (and
vicarious experience) between the video image and the viewer. And even
here, where one might argue the rules of perspective resurface in the
construction of the television image, it can easily be argued that the
television viewer is participating in this mediated connection
(televisually watching the mother virtually touch her baby aurally
communicating with the father),and is therefore part of this networked
spaced rather than part of a space where the rules of perspective can
maintain validity.
The reason I think that this distinction should be so strongly made is
that (re:Brandon Van Every's post) the construction of traditional
perspective and the perspectival bias of computer graphic imaging which
are allowing things like this Bell commercial seam so invisibly into our
physical spatial environment are separate topics of their own depth and
complexity. I would prefer if we could derive a concept better than
perspective to analyze this mediated spatial connectivity. This, then,
is where I see the strength of a proposition like Keller's switch. In
all honestly (and Keller, you must continue to forgive me on this one), I
cannot successfully understand in a concrete way this switch thing (when
IS that book going to be in print, anyway?), but the concept of a switch
as a device to understand a contemporary spatial connectivity is at least
on a level that is more appropriate than perspective for understanding
this mediated space.
A problem that I have been researching recently within the context of the
architecture design studios that I teach is that of the entity of Home
Shopping. Here we have a traditionally spatial construct (the market or
store) fulfilling its traditionally spatial roles through communications
technology. To fail to see this as spatial is a severe danger, as the
physical despatialization of shopping, I argue, is a clear attack on our
social (spatial) existence. So, if we do desire to continue to see this
as a spatial construct and address it as such, how can we begin to
formalize this discussion? The 'site' is simultaneously the location of
the telecommunications center in 'wherever-the-taxes-are-lowest' land AND
the television broadcast networks. The facade is the television
interface; the circulation spine, the shipping and telecommunication
routes. If we think of this as an architectural design problem (which is
how I can most easily conceive of the spatiality of an entity), what are
our design tools in this new spatial realm? Herein, for me, lies the
imperative to better understand this 'networked space.'
brian lonsway
......................................................................
j erik jonsson distinguished visiting assistant professor.
rensselaer architecture.
lonsway@rpi.edu.