dispositif –device, mechanism, apparatus
“We have physical responses to an image”. (Bal, M., 2013, p. 8) This sentence is essentially what drives my individual practice, but also the necessity for my collaboration with Georgina Cook. The notion of merging the physically real with the 2-Dimensional, ‘representative-ness’ of photography and film married our practices together. How can you bridge a representation of reality with the original depicted ‘object’? At what level does a reduction or isolation of a representation lose its original meaning? The majority of the success of Georgina and I’s first interim show (or perhaps, first work about ‘The House’) was our foray into that ‘physicality’ within 2-dimensional works. Branching largely from our collection of slide images, this type of thinking appears quite natural when viewing the slide as an object. It acts as both an image, and a container for said image; a mode of transport, and a preservation method.
Transferring these notions of ‘object-hood’, and physicality, with the addition of a viewer, to the idea of space allowed for the creation of our first piece. A key element was the inclusion of this viewer; the work working to envelope them into the piece itself: “[a] viewer who just happens to pop in unintentionally ends up as a central character in the story, becoming the ultimate wall for the attachment of meanings.” (Haapala, L., 2012, p. 163) The screens, and the placement of the projectors, pushed the viewer to move around the space, in order to physically view the entirety of the work. However, in order to complete such a viewing, the audience would have to seemingly cut the projection, by walking in front of the projectors.
As this piece was a work in progress, the ideal formation would allow the viewer to walk amongst the panels, screens, or dividers, onto which the projections would be streaming. By continually moving the audience both within and outside a space—the level of interaction is proliferated: “[t]he projector screens keep splitting the space, moving the viewers inside the stories;” (Haapala, L., 2012, p. 163) they are at once apart of the stories, and viewing them; in many ways, acting as the camera themselves. ‘Representations’ take on a variety of meanings within the film. They are showcased in the objects, tasks, or repetitive routines from the work.
We largely viewed the domestic space, and more specifically ‘the house’, as a venue for an outward reflection of its inhabitants. As Bachelard said, “[i]nhabited space transcends geometrical space.” He viewed the house as the most basic form of ‘shelter’; existing as our first ‘haven’, the house becomes the space for our imagination, “the first universe for its young children.” (Stilgoe, J., 1994, p. viii) As the first universe, this space goes on to shape our subsequent knowledge of other spaces. This space, developed in us alongside our growing bones, and our spatial awareness, is so ingrained within our psyche that it shapes our dreams, and becomes a “shelter for imagining”, or so Bachelard suggests. (Stilgoe, J., 1994, p. viii) The physical house becomes the ephemeral ‘house’ which we inhabit within our mind.
The point of this film was to investigate the physical manifestation of many of these concerns; namely the signifiers of this type of environment, and their different indicators. The augur, the ‘family’ dogs’, and the quintessential British countryside manor house: these all signify a type of domestic space. Through an almost indexical capturing of this space, and its components, the film can be viewed ‘documentarily’, or as a factual investigation into a space. However, the presentation of the work, particularly in the second interim (which I took over the editing of both the sound and the video footage), emphasizes the use of illusion. The split between the three screens delves into notions of time, and reality. Each screen ‘submits’ its own video, all vary in length (5 min, 2 min, 1 min), and each plays in a repetitive loop. Each video ‘meets’, in some sense, by showing a continual space, consistent figure, or object, but they appear as separate time periods, or occurrences. The illusion ‘works’ by presenting the films as signs of ‘truth’; when, in reality, they are selection, and reduction of a chosen space; a non-reality, and non-truth. (Similarly to Jeff Wall’s use of black and white photography – as a means of utilizing its historical value in newsprint, as a ‘truth tool’)
The use of repetition, or the loop, sought to contain the viewer within the set space—the set dispositif. The progression of the narrative, and therefore progression of the viewer, is hindered by the selection of shots, and containment to the ‘establishment’ of the narrative. The film is essentially continually ‘setting the scene’ for an action, or event. Each loops has slight differences, once again deluding the viewer into believing its state as another occurrence, rather than a re-occurrence (similar to Stan Douglas‘s Win, Place or Show, analysis here) The sound, with its non-diegetic nature, is the only element that is consistently altering. Non-diegetic sound is interspersed with suggested action—at times the sound resembles the scenes it goes alongside, but it is not synchronized. By showing a still pond, and projecting noises of water rippling, the reality of film and filmic practice is questioned. The illusionary aspect of this union of sound and image taints the viewer’s perception of the rest of the film, and colors their judgment of these ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘documentarian’ non-events. The over-arching base tones within the sound also offer a sinister edge the footage, alongside the more figurative clips, and their concurrent contextual environment.
The film ‘concludes’ with the films again meeting—all screens showing a slight variation on bed, before individually petering out. The ‘conclusion’, however, is mitigated, as the entire sequence once again repeats; the soundtrack seamlessly merging into the beginning.
Bal, M., 2013. Thinking In Film: The Politics of Video Installation According to Eija-Liisa Ahtila. London: Bloomsbury.
Stilgoe, J., 1994. Foreward, in G. Bachelard, 1964. The Poetics of Space: A Classic Look At How We Experience Intimate Places. Translated by Maria Jolas. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bachelard, G., 1964. The Poetics of Space: A Classic Look At How We Experience Intimate Places. Translated by Maria Jolas. Boston: Beacon Press.
thoughts of various use 