Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Core Post 1 TV & Screen

This week’s topic is “TV & Screen”, and I found both “ Domesticity at War” and “Television While you wait” are very helpful understanding how screen functions in the public and private space. Colomina’s piece starts with comparing domesticity to the warfare because the domestic space is losing its limit to the outside world due to the invasion of media. She states, “ The house is a military weapon, a mechanism within a war where the differences between defense and attack have become blurred.” (4) She later gives examples of Underground House, Slow House, and Drive-in House to illustrate how these shelter-like houses combines exterior and interior together. Aspired by the warfare shields, Underground houses abandon the traditional glass window and use the TV screen instead. One could set the Underground House in certain temperature and humid, and one could pick particular landscape view through operating the screen.  While people could choose better, various and more “natural-like” view through the screen, it proves that TV could change not only the domestic living but also the traditional architectural.


This reminds me of those huge LED screens that are replacing the traditional Billboard, lights and even wall. Las Vegas has one of the world largest LED screens in a mall called Fremont Street Experience, where a huge video screen substitutes the arch roof. Besides showing performances, the screen functions as a piece of art, an attraction and shelter. When people look at this LED ceiling, they are looking at three things. First, a TV screen similar to the one they have at home, which gives them information or entertainment; second, a ceiling mural, such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling; and third, an attraction, like the fireworks on Independent days. Thus, the screen has multiple functions that entirely blur the space and time. Are we watching a show, are we looking at a television program, are we visiting an attraction, or are we viewing a piece of art? We are watching these at once, thanks to the screen. So I think  TV screen is much more complex than blurring the exterior and interior space.

5 comments:

  1. Hi Yitong! Your points about TV screens being multi-functional and blurring more than just interior and exterior spaces are really insightful and fascinating. You bring up some interesting principles that form the basis for installation art -- artists and galleries have been meshing screens with interactive spaces for a long time. From Andy Warhol who examined the two dimensional qualities of the screen to Isaac Julien who uses film on many screens to tell spatial narratives to James Turrell who reconceptualizes the viewer's perception of screen vs. embodied spaces...these artists examine the way screens affect not just what we see, but how we see:

    http://www.1fmediaproject.net/new/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Install3_ScreenTests_Mandella.jpg

    http://www.1fmediaproject.net/new/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/moma_julien_ttw_bassmuseum_201028.jpg

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/15/1418607830368/c6274f1b-2e6b-4437-b457-f133a5b41e12-620x372.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=d2c8ab0231b082bde0e5e9ed7c6bf09d

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for all this Cheny! I agree that screen is a crucial concept of our everyday life today. It has great impact on our perception from and our interaction with "the outside world". Metaphorically the screen is a bridge, but virtually it is almost the opposite of a bridge — we the viewers are always parallel to the screen. We and the screen are two parallel surfaces that cannot be bridged ever. It’s interesting to think that although everything is on its surface (which means behind it there is nothing), but the screen is the crucial locale where we are reaching out to the exterior, the outside world. It’s also interesting to think about that as the world is made of different, infinite surfaces — or more precisely (perhaps), the space is between different surfaces, what would it be like if every surface could be seen as a screen? If screens signify heterogeneous, immiscible dimensions in the same space, then, inspired by Aki’s Atomic Light, I would say even our skin is a screen, a corporeal one behind which probably is the most complex dimension of human mind.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for all this Cheny! I agree that screen is a crucial concept of our everyday life today. It has great impact on our perception from and our interaction with "the outside world". Metaphorically the screen is a bridge, but virtually it is almost the opposite of a bridge — we the viewers are always parallel to the screen. We and the screen are two parallel surfaces that cannot be bridged ever. It’s interesting to think that although everything is on its surface (which means behind it there is nothing), but the screen is the crucial locale where we are reaching out to the exterior, the outside world. It’s also interesting to think about that as the world is made of different, infinite surfaces — or more precisely (perhaps), the space is between different surfaces, what would it be like if every surface could be seen as a screen? If screens signify heterogeneous, immiscible dimensions in the same space, then, inspired by Aki’s Atomic Light, I would say even our skin is a screen, a corporeal one behind which probably is the most complex dimension of human mind.

      Delete
  2. Also see this really interesting article on Hiraki Sawa's film-stallation work:
    http://sensesofcinema.com/2010/feature-articles/%E2%80%98little-pieces-of-infinity%E2%80%99-hiraki-sawa%E2%80%99s-o/


    "A key theme of Sawa’s video work is the revelation of miniature spectral worlds and imaginary environments creating a bridge between otherwise disparate spaces and time zones. These imaginary worlds illustrate the potential for still backgrounds to provide spaces for the projection of microcosms and a connection to imagined histories, narratives and distant locations."

    "...Sawa suggests that this installation explores scales of time. All screens offer divergent, yet related impressions of time and history. Contingency is also expressed with constant reference to the immediate experience of the exhibit. Whilst the images within 'O' feature a range of temporalities, the installation is screened and received by spectators in the present. As Mary Ann Doane argues, cinematic projections become an experience of the present."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yitong,

    I think it’s so great that you brought up the Fremont Street Experience in regards to this week’s readings. What I found most interesting about your post is the idea that Fremont Street not only provides this spectacularly immersive visual experience, but the work itself also functions as a shelter. I’ve been to Fremont before, but when I was there I never considered the implications of an art installation as a sort of shelter, which is quite compelling. Fremont Street also acts as a public space where crowds can gather together to watch something unfold "live" onscreen - thus creating a sense of community that was briefly touched on in 'Television While You Wait.'

    Thanks for your post!

    And for those who haven’t been to Fremont Street, here’s a video: https://vimeo.com/94499578

    ReplyDelete