I started to think about loops as a kind of temporal default for video installation and realised that this kind of unanchored immersive view of time might be a problem ie not in keeping with spatial threshold because the experience of space and time cannot be separated . Being in and out of time is a threshold condition.
So I wanted to structure the work in time in a way that was also spatially congruent.
One solution is to divide the work into elements ( call them chapters) spaced apart by interludes.
Each interlude corresponds to a spatial experience in which one is aware of the screens, not as projected images but part of the space of the work. It is a time for being in the space of the screens as say architectural elements.
The Chapters contain the work itself, in which the screens function more conventionally as carriers for the projected moving images.
In this way the work moves forward both temporally and spatially, the visitor moving between spaces, in and out of interludes and chapters.
With the project focused on liminality I have needed to consider how screen based installations (my preferred form of presentation) might work in this context.
Thinking of the screen as threshold is helpful – as an architectural element that separates private and public space etc.
In terms of media theory, I now realise that the intermedial gesture is a kind of dynamic threshold condition, moving between being in a medium and the staging of a medium (outside).
In terms of ‘spectatorship’ the intermedial gesture maps on to a region between cinematic viewing (being in a medium) and structural film (staging of a medium).
These slides are from the research paper presentation
I am exploring a two screen configuration to explore this threshold condition. This seems practical for the final show and defines a space between the screens which is not completely surrounded by screen and can be entered from a number of directions.
The following slide shows how the space infront of the screens can be activated by projecting a shadow from an object (what it is will depend on many factors) onto each screen A and B. The effect of this would be to return the ‘visitor’ to the space around the object in which the screens become walls.
The photograms made using the digital setup replaced the photographic paper with a styrene sheet. Previously the styrene sheet had been used as a material for rear projection.
While the digital photograms looked similar to conventional photograms I was struck by the relationship to projection. In rear projection the image is focused on the screen, or there is a shadow play or equivalent (refractive elements etc). The photogram is therefore a limit case with objects placed in close proximity or in contact with the screen.
In making these photograms – they are very interactive because the image is displayed on a computer in realtime – you become aware of the passage of light in 3D. The screen is a kind of cross section through this light field, which is complex and carries a material trace. You play around with this material.
In rear projection the emphasis is on the focused image on the screen and the defocused space in front of it is an aberration or a means to an end. The logic of the photogram would see this defocused area as just as important, because the photogram is already unfocused.
Another way of putting it would be to see the image existing in 3D in front of the screen with a focused image coinciding with the screen when conventionally focused. Another way of reading a defocused image would be to see it as part of the 3D space, as something in transition towards or away from focus.
So the screen is a kind of threshold in which the 3d light passes into a 2D space. The screen is also architecturally a threshold as well.
Front or rear projection is not just a means to an end. The space of projection is important and can be played with. The photogram or unfocused image is in a kind of liminal state. The screen is a form of threshold.