Reading Jean-Francois Chevrier and Catherine David's message about
public image and public space i couldn't help thinking of the atlantic
ocean beaches 30 kms away and of all the people gathered there, sun
bathing.
On one side, an urban public space which pretends to transparency and an
horizontal mix of water and sand on the other. All there is to do is to
try to fit in, to be part of the show for there is no place to hide, no
place for intimacy, no shadow, no margins, no TAZ.
Same story of universal exposure. The scale just changes as technologies
and media presence evolve.
Photo sensitive, media sensitive, the rest follows. Something about
becoming flat, flat as a flyer, a tv or computer screen. "Comment, vous
n'imprimez pas ?"( cannot translate this properly alas).
I am always surprised to notice that architects and urbanists still seem
to ignore outside/inside doesn't mean a thing anymore even if they build
glass houses. Never heard of Dan Graham ?
Light screens everywhere.
There is something wrong with the map. So there is with the territory.
What i mean is that using Korzybsky's sentence or Deleuzian concepts
just doesn't work . They are not appropriate and don't operate.
The same thing happens when people speak of the WEB as a rhizome . Yet,
it is rather the opposite.
I am no specialist but this "map" question is indeed a good one. To me
at least ;-)
Since i "master" a website and work with other artists to help them to
shape their projects, i have always faced the same problem, which is not
especially an artistic problem : what is an information space, what is
its spatialty ? Has this question a meaning in this "context"? Can it be
visualized ?
Since the site i am busied with (http://www.insat.com/Pericles) has its
interface and content entirely renewed quarterly, i tried many times to
find something that could be satisfying. I must say i keep trying. It's
like being in a small plane in the air without the earth below.
When browsing the Web, the only thing you watch is the flatness of your
computer screen with its light coming from within. Which means images
have the status of signals, no contemplation possible. Seduction. Which
means that 3d modeling and its old Renaissance space story doesn't fit
either. Which way then ? Finding the right answers to new questions
takes time.
There is something of the art of memory in this topic. But the main
difference is that there is no architectural or virtual pace defined
here. And "virtual space" just doesn't mean a thing.
To me it is more a variable configuration with its own economical,
political and meaning strategies.
And as thinking is not a regular habit of mine i will leave you there
;-)
Best
jean-philippe halgand.
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------