1. Surface Tension, Screen Space

1. Surface Tension, Screen Space Giuliana Bruno Abstract My work questions how material relations can appear on the surface of different media—on film and video screens, in gallery installations, or on the skins of buildings and people. In response to these issues, I propose to approach materiality as a surface condition. Focusing on screen surface, I show that technologies of light can produce new forms of materiality. In this text, the screen emerges as a site of encounter and admixture. Various experiments of screening are considered, ranging from those envisaged by László Moholy-Nagy to the contemporary installations of Krzysztof Wodiczko. In these configurations of the act of screening, different forms of mediation, memory, and transformation can take place. This is what I call ‘the surface tension of media’. Keywords: Screen, materiality, surface, media, moving image installation art, László Moholy-Nagy, Krzysztof Wodiczko There exist what we call images of things, Which as it were peeled off from the surfaces Of objects, fly this way and that through the air. […] I say therefore that likenesses or thin shapes Are sent out from the surfaces of things Which we must call as it were their films or bark.1 For Lucretius, the image is a thing. It is configured like a piece of cloth, released as matter that flies out into the air. In this way, as the Epicurean philosopher and poet suggests to us, something important is shown: the 1 Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe, pp. 102-103. Sæther, S.Ø. and S.T. Bull (eds.), Screen Space Reconfigured. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020 doi 10.5117/9789089649928_ch01 36 GIULIANA BRUNO material of an image manifests itself on the surface. Lucretius describes the surface of things as something that may flare out, giving forth dazzling shapes. It is as if it could be virtually peeled off, like a layer of substance, forming a ‘bark’ or leaving a sediment, a veneer, a ‘film’. This poetic descrip- tion and its philosophical fabrication go to the heart of my concern in this text, which addresses matters of surface and especially of screen fabric. In reflecting on the configuration of the screen, I expand here upon a central concern of my book Surface: Matters of Aesthetics, Materiality, and Media, in which I turn to the concept of surface in order to investigate the place of materiality in our contemporary world.2 In this age of virtuality, with its rapidly changing materials and media, what role can materiality have? How is it fashioned in the arts or manifested in technology? Could it be refashioned? I ask these questions at a time when contemporary artists themselves appear preoccupied with materiality in different forms and are questioning the material conditions of their mediums. Take, for example, Francis Alÿs’ moving-image work REEL–UNREEL (2011), an homage to the resilience of cinema as a cultural archive. The camera follows a reel of film as it unrolls through the old part of Kabul, pushed by children like a hoop to create an improvised narrative of the city. Here, at the very moment of film’s obsolescence or demise, a reel of film can take on a particular significance and can be refashioned into a different object as it becomes transformed into a way of unfolding space and reimagining urban relations. I argue that, in this transformative way, there is potential for a reinvention of materiality in our times. In claiming that it is visibly and actively pursued in the visual arts and in residual and textural forms, I set out to open up a space for its theorization. Most important, I contend that materiality is not a question of the materials themselves but rather concerns the substance of material relations. I am interested in the space of those relations and in showing how they are configured on the surface of different media. In thinking about the surface of things, the architect Le Corbusier wrote that ‘architecture being […] the magnificent play of masses brought together in light, the task of the architect is to vitalize the surfaces which clothe these masses’.3 This idea inspires the theoretical direction I propose in approach- ing materiality as a surface condition. The surface is here configured as an architecture: a partition that can be shared, it is explored as a primary form of habitation for the material world. Understood as the material configuration of the relationship between subjects and with objects, the surface is also viewed 2 Bruno, Surface. 3 Le Corbusier, Towards a New Architecture, p. 37. SURFACE TENsiON, SCREEN SPACE 37 1. Francis Alÿs (in collaboration with Julien Devaux and Ajmal Maiwandi), REEL-UNREEL, 2011. Video installation, 19:00. Installation view, Francis Alÿs: REEL-UNREEL, David Zwirner, New York, 2013. © Francis Alÿs. Courtesy of the artist and David Zwirner. Photo: Maris Hutchinson / EPW Studio as a zone of encounter and admixture, a site of mediation and projection, memory and transformation. Furthermore, as we consider that art, architecture, fashion, design, film, and the body all share a deep engagement with superficial matters, we can also observe how surfaces act as connective threads between art forms and how they structure our communicative existence. This larger theoretical premise about surface materiality leads me to consider the material condition of the film medium and to specifically address the surface of the screen. I propose making a material turn in visual studies in order to vitalize the surfaces that clothe the material of our objects and to show that, in our times, materiality manifests itself in projection, in the surface tension of media. In particular, I aim to theorize the screen as an environment of ‘projection’, understanding projection in the largest sense of the term—as an architecture of passage—while highlighting texture and materiality, surface, and light. Projection is indeed a space of relations, and it is becoming an actual environment. Architects are increasingly turning the façades of their buildings into screens, making them into translucent surfaces as permeable and layered as skins, and artists are reinventing the art of projection. We as visual theorists can contribute concrete reflections on these intersecting architectures if we think further of our own reflective surface: the projective mode and visual 38 GIULIANA BRUNO plasticity, the sartorial texture and opaque transparency—that is, the luminous material transference—that is our medium. It is time to design an alternative genealogy for the screen, not simply conceived as a window or a mirror. Departing from the metaphors of optical framing that have long circulated in film theory, I propose to think haptically of a luminous screen-membrane or screen-fabric. In fashioning the projective space in this way, I mean to emphasize the surface condition, the textural manifestation, and the support of a work as well as the way in which it is sited and mobilized in space. I am particularly interested in the play of materiality that is brought together in light on different ‘screens’, and in offering a theorization of the actual material fabric of the screen, outside of figuration. I am also interested in exploring the migratory patterns of such visual fabrications, and in tracing their material histories. This investigation of screen cultures thus concerns the archaeology of media as well as their shifting geographies. Such concern for a material geography runs deeply in my work. From an early call to exit the prison-cave of the movie house, I have worked to affirm the hapticity and mobility of film architectures through an expanded notion of cinema. The act of ‘streetwalking around Plato’s cave’ suggested a desire to explore film not as an isolated and enclosed domain but rather as a mobile, shifting terrain.4 In further mapping the projective space, I have emphasized that the activity of projection includes a psychic interplay and modalities of affect as well as other relationships. Screens are a moving architecture in which spectators are engaged and participate in constructing environments of ‘public intimacy’.5 In other words, screens are spatial formations that are relational. This geography of exhibition suggests that cinema is a variegated landscape, for there is a historical variety of moving-image exhibition in space. The function of the screen cannot be understood if we ignore that cinema is materially connected to other forms of display and if we overlook a considera- tion of these modes of exhibition. Screens are in fact a material architecture that emerges in dialogue with other arts and exhibition practices—includ- ing, historically, the birth of the museum. The public museum was in fact configured in its modern form in the same age of visual display that gave rise to the cinema, the defining art of modernity, and it shares with film that surface of communication that is the visual, theatrical architecture of spectatorship. The cultural function of the screen evolves in conjunction with the visual arts and in interaction with their surfaces and volumes. 4 Bruno, ‘Streetwalking around Plato’s Cave’, pp. 110-129. 5 Bruno, Atlas of Emotion; and Bruno, Public Intimacy. SURFACE TENsiON, SCREEN SPACE 39 To recognize this relationship of art to film exhibition is particularly relevant in any attempt to address contemporary culture. When we approach the visual architecture of our times, we confront a hybrid, shifting landscape. Modes of reception in the visual arts and media are becoming more fluid and increasingly mobile. The exhibition of film images has exited the space of the movie house; screens have multiplied, and different forms of viewership and locales have emerged. As moving images have migrated, they have established a solid presence as light spaces in the art gallery and the museum.

Load more