For the first time in the history of arts, in the history of culture, man found the means to take an impression of time. Simultaneously the possibility of reproducing that time on screen as often as he wanted, to repeat it and go back to it- acquiring a matrix for actual time. Once seen and recorded, time could be now preserved in metal boxes over a long period of time and theoretically forever. - Andrei Tarkovsky
From his book “Sculpting in Time”
I am fascinated by the aspect of time- its temporal implications and affect on cultures and civilizations. The human race has evolved culturally and technologically to the extent that everything today is reproduced, replicated or recreated, substitutes that are born from the prototype-or the original.
My interest lies in the idea of recreated time, real time that is converted into synthetic time, which has the ability in its temporal duration to manifest again into real time. Furthermore, an image as memory or memory as an image is conducive to this process and the reproduction of memory itself in its recreation of a synthetic time value at its core creates another dimension of experience. This experience of duration is multi-faced. We may then re-experience this same time retrospectively what cognitive psychologists refer to as ‘experienced duration’ as opposed to ‘remembered duration’. The recreation of memories captured through a specific medium and reproduced by another in a different locale, time and space are inadvertently re-appropriated.
With today’s technological advancements, the medium of representation is not solely confined to the likes of film (celluloid). Video and digital mediums further have endless capabilities in distorting temporal dimensions and disrupting the semblance of real time.
The popular home video allows us to capture personal memories to recreate the past, a process that may even reveal a reverent mundane ness. In re-constructing these observational images and breaking the linear order of events to unfold in real time – the durational factor creates this synthetic time. These images then can be interpreted in a different context from the original image and further create new synthetic memories.
In this project, I attempt to take a recorded image of a personal memory- ie. (a day at the beach) and break down every original content – removing it from its original time factor and emotional value. Once removed from its authentic premise and linear trajectory, this memory integrates into the viewer’s subjective rationale and becomes an artificial memory. In other words, the viewer may retain or may not retain this image in their memory, since it depends on their own ability to relate to the image based on their own experiences and past memories. If at all the mundane image does get ‘recorded’ in the viewer’s mind it is only since they have identified it as an image that brings forward their own personal memories, or perhaps unconsciously be moved by their own probing to decipher the displacement of the image in terms of time, space and locale. This memory therefore, becomes an artificial memory since its origins stem from a re-appropriated personal memory.
Furthermore, the image also becomes retainable if a certain level of curiosity is aroused within the viewer, inevitably turning him/her into a ‘voyeur’. The memory of this image or the image of this memory remains inaccessible on a certain level. The reason being that although the viewer can see the recorded image and hear the sound of the water, but cannot smell the air, feel the water or touch the sand. What is relayed is only a reproduction of the actual form, content and sensibility- an aura so to speak.
In the absence of these sensory factors, the viewer is left to compensate him/herself through their own perceptual understanding, based on their own experiences. It is only at this point that the piece of work take its own direction, since the viewer now is open to interpreting this image- this recycled memory either instinctively or intellectually, and turning it into a new memory that is acquired and can be called their own.
This brings us to a series of questions about the shape and purpose of memory in a mass culture. In the face of post –modernity how does memory’s role change? How do reproductive digital technologies of mass culture introduce the ‘experiential’ as an important mode of knowledge acquisition?
With the bombardment of constant images in a neo-capitalist post modernist consumer society, what relevant images retain a significant place in one’s mind and how may individuals be affected by memories of events though which they did not live, and to what extent? After being sieved through the purpose of needs, what kind of images find themselves in a viewer’s database of memory. Therefore, does artificial memory have the ability to shape a person’s subjectivity on any given level?
As Landsberg discusses that perhaps images that refer to social cultural memories of disenfranchisement, trauma and urgency may have an impact on an individual’s psyche and perhaps of effect on our politics of understanding. This project instead probes to determine the role of personal memories within contemporary art. Since the images refer to the mundane, personal memories simply serve as a vehicle to recreate a personal past that relives simple moments of gratification. When displaced in time and space they no longer seek to serve the same purpose. Apart from the viewer, being able to relate to the image based on his or her own personal experiences, this project also attempts to examine the level of integrity through the transference or acquisition of artificial memory from someone else’s personal memory.
If history catalogues public and cultural memory, where does the individual personal memory find itself situated? If cultural synthetic memories adhere to variant significations or levels of purpose like changing attitudes, interpreting historical pasts and even providing supportive empathy for the disenfranchised, then personal memories operate on a different level - primarily satisfying the curiosity of voyeuristic tendencies.
Reproductive technologies in a mass culture make particular memories more accessible and widely available, making it possible to share and interchange memories. This interchanging creates synthetic memories that are further incorporated into an individual’s own archive of experience.
To be able to situate voyeurism within the framework of this discourse, it is important to understand the evolution of our society and our progress as individuals. Our ever increasing alienating individualist culture relies more on the needs of one rather than to blend into norms of the collective. Thus, an individual’s personal space and memory may be regarded as sacred, only since it is often inaccessible. If so, only at the consent of the individual who seeks to share that personal memory. Therefore, the curiosity level amongst the viewer increases not for any other reasons but pure voyeuristic pleasure that allows them to intrude into the personal sphere in the landscape of the individual’s mind.
The power of reproduction in mass media makes possible the ideas of even reproducing memory, which in itself is a reconstruction of a formative past experience. The creation of digital technologies allows the individual to access authentic memories and further allows the re-inventing of the same images through the re-appropriation and controlled displacement in time and space.
Furthermore, if the personal memories of an individual may be distorted, broken down, redefined, and then made accessible- this synthetic memory transferred only leads to a further reconstruction of that artificial memory which turns from a remnant of the actual memory into an acquired memory that may not have any basis in reality.
Which brings us to the question that if social historical memories bring back people into the lives that have not been lived by them, and are nevertheless invited to experience them at face value, what do personal memories offer?
In the power of the digital image of its ability to transport us to alternative temporalities of a different locale- lies the advantage of being offered an alternative reality, one that distorts not only time and space but the memories of personal experience. This state of ‘hyper reality ’ as suggested by Baudrillard brings us to question the implications of time that is inevitably associated with memory, since memory would not exist without time.
Furthermore, time only exists because we associate it with a unit of a variable that is indeed measurable.
The creation of synthetic time comes from the recreation of a unit of time that is representative of past experience, which has its basis in real time. This artificially created time value can only exist as a synthetic time value if its undergoes a transition from its original linearity. Thus, synthetic time is produced when the actual given time or the ‘real’ time is expanded (ellipsis, slow motion, repetition), condensed (ellipsis, fast motion) suspended (freeze frames-stasis) or simply broken down from its original linearity into a continuous random order.
This breakdown of the original memory that existed with a constant irreversible time factor now becomes subject to any or various kinds of manipulation, which in turn create artificial memories. These artificial memories then displaced and re-appropriated further evolve into acquired synthetic memories which the viewer may or may not retain as their, yet unconsciously record in their memory. Intriguingly, this leads into the understanding that the viewer now is consuming an illusion of an illusion, hence its relevance to ‘hyper-reality’.
Notably, if we are to examine this concept of the consummation of an illusion of an illusion, it is reflective of our culture today that feeds off mass-produced ‘everything’- far from the real thing- the original- the authentic.
As we evolve, our society becomes slowly accustomed to the artificiality in all aspects of life- from synthetic foods to cyber-sex, from cloning to artificial intelligence, from online book libraries to virtual homesteading, the list is endless- all we have to is look around and realize the impact of technology that is integrated in every aspect of our lives.
If we look back into history, we realize that photographs held cultural value because they represented a moment- a slice of time that was captured in a tangible form. The photograph replaced the painting, and a few years later film replaced the photograph. Film, however did not simply capture a slice of time but captured a flow of time- its temporality gave rise to many different discourses and implications through history.
It is with the technology of film that made revolutionary changes in the way we relate to the past and how our society understood the medium that could not only represent the past but have the ability to replay that ‘past’ as many times as wished. With the onslaught of film came the unique possibility of printing on celluloid the actuality of time –factual or not. A few decades later, video- another temporal medium with its economical virtues and plasticity, offered convenience over the rigidity of the film medium and distinct conception as an art form in itself.
In our current times, with the advent of digital technologies, the possibilities extend to not only capturing the flow of time but also manipulating, distorting, and re-defining the basis of any medium, which can be digitized. Understood within this context, this idea is articulated by one of Manovich’s definitions of ‘New Media’ defined as analogue media converted to a digital representation. In contrast to analogue media, which is continuous, digitally encoded media is discrete . Thus, the advantages could be tremendous in terms of the image’s tangibility, longevity, formatibility, and resourcefulness.
Digital reproduction in its endless capabilities allows artists to redefine their work, especially works that relate to past mediums that still can be accessed through digitization. All digital media (texts, still images, visual or audio time data, shapes, 3-D spaces) share the same digital code. This allows different media types to be displayed using one machine- a computer –which acts as a multimedia display device.
Thus with the power of ‘new media’ the ability to redefine time and memory is intriguing as it allows the work itself to be re-constructed within the social, historical and cultural parameters of mass media. The objectification of the thought process, and incorporation of personal memories propelled into the public domain result in newer understanding of culture, races and personal emblems of varied ideologies.
Furthermore, the recording and re-defining of memories not only distort the real time that they are born out of but immortalize an event that hasn’t technically taken place. If it is re-conceptualized, it is only in the premise of the viewer’s mind after the process of re-creation of that has already taken place from the individual’s first deconstruction of the image that seeks to distance itself from the original memory.
Allowing viewers to access my reconstructed personal memories, which can be further, re-appropriated in their own understanding, brings forward the divisibility of digital mediums within mass culture and its importance in blurring boundaries of time, space and memory with artificial time, re-created space and synthetic memory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:
• Cubitt, Sean – Digital Aesthetics. Sage Publications. London. California. New Delhi. 1998
• Lunenfeld, Peter- Snap to Grid. - A User’s guide to Digital Arts, Media and Cultures., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. 2000
• Landsberg, Alison – Prosthetic Memory- The Transformation of American Remembrance in the Age of Mass Culture. Columbia University Press March 2004.
• Levine, Robert – The Geography of Time- The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist. Basic BookS Inc, New York, NY .1997
• Manovich, Lev - The Language of new Media. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2001.
• Tarkovsky, Andrei – Sculpting in Time. University of Texas Press. Austin. Texas. 1986.
ARTICLES:
• Benjamin, Walter – The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction in Illuminations. Edited by Hannah Arendt. 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment