Gytis Skudžinskas, "12 Truths of Photography" in "Titanikas" gallery (Vilnius Academy of Arts, Vilnius). 2015
Echo Gone Wrong Magazine published my reflections on contemporary photography and G.Skužinskas' show "12 Truths of Photography":
It is an attempt to reflect on an exhibition “12 Truths of Photography”
(“Titanikas” Gallery, Vilnius, 27.01.-14.03.2015)—a series of
media-specific artworks created over the period of the last decade by a
photographer Gytis Skudžinskas. The fact that the exhibition has already
taken place will not prevent us from talking about it as if it
was still present, especially having in mind that a photographic
exhibition, on its own part, can—and this text invites to exercise this
possibility—take place without the conventional presence of photography
as such. It is also an attempt to show how the event presents itself in
this mode of ‘as if’ by becoming operative in both ways: positive (as if it is still there) and negative (let’s carry on as if
nothing happened). Instead of it being a ‘review’ or a generalisation
of Skudžinskas’ oeuvre, this reflection will try to problematize the
very cultural context of his retrospective gesture, namely: what does it
mean to turn towards photography as a medium and photographic practice
today?
It's the end of the 1960s and it is surprising to see how some of the media conventions (many of which are now widely accepted as contemporary) "survived" the techno-evolution for nearly half a century. All basic elements of the interface are still there today, unharmed, only massively pimped-up by high-tech cosmetics: the screen, the drawing pad, e-pen, graphic interface with Cartesian system of graphical representations. It's what's seen in the screen what has changed the most.
The Genesys system, developed by Dr. Ron Baecker in MIT's Lincoln
Laboratory from 1967-69, was one of the world's first interactive
systems for real-time animation. Genesys utilizes an interactive animation that exploits the potentialities
of direct graphical interaction. Because every last picture in the animation sequence
drives algorithms to generate the next one (so-called "dynamic display"), the process is referred to as
"picture-driven animation".
It would be hard to imagine a contemporary media user enjoying the interaction with the same graphic interface and experiencing the same joyful immersion, as that young illustrator in the movie did. Realization that you can control the imagery in such a new way must have triggered the feeling that suddenly, a completely new space for explorations opened up right in front of you.
From the times of Ch.Babbage, explorations in the fields of automated computing and cybernetics were carried out mostly by professionals, *
[* In contemporary techno-cultural lingo, the analogue for "professional" is "geek." It is interesting to notice, that the connotations of "geek" over the period from 60s until the "noughtees," followed a peculiar dynamics: from negative (sociopathic, asexual, "smart-ass", "programmer") to positive (social, sexual, successful, "CEO"). ]
at least until the 1990s, when "realistic" graphic interface became popular — i.e., became a norm. The representations in the computer screen became "real enough" to be enjoyed by everyone, not just programmers.
As we know, this realistic turn was met with explosion of enjoyment, in direct proportion to global computer sales. A radical change in the world-wide economy of enjoyment, and a general facelift to the interfaces: keyboard, drawing pad and e-pen, monitor. They remained intact, without any changes on a fundamental level. Obviously, there must have been reasons for that, and the "enjoyment" factor is not to be missed here. The screen — and not the "margins" around the screen: monitor, input/output devices — received the most of attention. The joy of watching, seeing, looking, gazing, peering, staring, glancing, glaring, peeping. It would be only natural to say, that the "picture-driven animation" was, indeed, also an "enjoyment-driven animation" (and "progress").
There was no reason to change the concept of the rectangular computer screen as a "window" metaphor, or to change the concept of a drawing pad as a metaphor of "paper," or the concept of an e-pen as a "pen." The factors of familiarity, convenience, and cognitive accessibility can still guarantee their dominance.
If the first stage (mode? level?) of enjoyment in the 50s-70s was "the joy of
recognition," then the second stage — the one which still lasts (more or
less) — could ne named "the joy of immersion." It is hard to ignore,
that both of them suggest a progression to "the joy of acting." The joy
of acting after the new media have been recognized, and after they have been embedded in our being, in our Dasein. Acting under the influence of the new media with Heideggerian "you are what you do" in mind.
If there is a direction to the movement of enjoyment, then it is
the ideology of representational realism which determins it. The "joy of
acting" must be tied with the realism of robotic action. That is a good topic, which requires a separate, more elaborate discussion, and I'll put this aside for now.
Returning to my initial surprise, what is actually surprising to see (or, rather, to witness again, to remember), it is how enjoyable the early "computer graphic systems" were at their time. Computer-generated visualizations were highly abstract and symbolic (those dotted lines even bare some semblance with aboriginal art), reduced to still recognizable minimum, bound to the aesthetics of visual economy. And in the aesthetical totality, the imagery has a certain raw quality, in the sense of raw imagery of the cinema avantgarde in 1900-30s...
It is a strange and firmly established norm of fusing the willingness to test the boundaries of technology (and dominant technological ideology) with the willingness to risk one's own life. Even with Fearless Felix (or any other subject) dead as a result of this test, the boundaries of technology still would have been tested sucessfully. Where personal test ends, the test conducted by the Other begins. And having in mind that during all these four hours the major part of Baumgartner's performance was concerted by the 'command center', the most signifficant manifestation of his personall will (his personal test) was the actual jump, this tiny moment of choice. But there is a chance, that this choice was also a false choice: you have a right to choose from any of the available options with the condition, that you will make the right choice. So, what is the right choice?
And there he was, trapped in the totally ideological and totally mediated spectacle.
Quick comment on a quick comment of a friend, philosopher Ivan Flores Arancibia.
It is still a bit surprising that Heidegger, a major figure in philosophy of technology, didn't leave any systematic reflections on radio and television, even though he was obviously familiar with both of these technologies from the pre-WW2 era. The fact that mid-20 century media remained outside Heidegger's theoretical scope might indicate the presence of "modernist fundamentalism" (and it is the same modernism, which found a threatening dimension in the technologies of post-Industrial revolution). It's quite peculiar that at the end of his life he became interested in television after all... but only as a medium for broadcasting soccer games.
