Birnbaum Chronology

7/28/2019 Birnbaum Chronology

1/56

DANIELBIRNBAUM S RECIOR OF lHE SIADELSGIULf IN FRANKFJRTAM MAIN AND DIRECTO1OF IISPOFTIKJS GAIIEFY, SINCE 2@ HE S A MEiIBEF OF THE Bo.AFOOF FRANIGURT'SINSNTUT FOF SOZ Af.FORSOHUNC. A CONTRIBUTNG EoTTOFOF AFIFOFUM, HE IS IHE AUIIIOR OF A NUMBEN OF B@KSON ART AND PHILOSOPHY INCLUDING

'HEHA9P/IAL]ry OF PRFSEAICFjPFOALEA,iSOF OIHEFNESS 'NHL(9S6RL5 PHA\OMEIIOLOGY (1S)A\D, TOGEn]EF WTH CABSTEN HoLrEB, PFOOTTOw (2OCO). E

CGCURA'IED THE sOIH VEMCE A ENMIE (2OG)AlD IHE FIBST NSTAIMENT OF lHE IVIOSCO\dB Er\MLE

DANIELBIRNBAUMCHRONOLOGY


2/56

Plblishg. Luka6& Stehbrg,Ne Yoft@ 2005Danl Bimbtum, Luka6& Stemb6rgArr ighls r$eryed, lrdldinq the dght ot Gpduclim in rhot6 or in pan n ay rorm,

Artrstc nt6@rim in the cowr dsignby Fnz rcn sl4tibnb6, Bdin

Sei* Edllor:Ca@ e SchnidorTextEdltoriAprirEi2abethLtrmDsignrKatf. Tima5, lva*us Wisb@k, urf@, BefidFraktun m MsjnP'inlingand blndhorMdialis,BerintsBN 07456883-X

l l S2 B@dway *1602, NM Yo& NY 10001Uniadrano159,D 10115 ertn

CONTENTS

SYNCOPEWHO S IVETODAY?CRYSTALSCHRONOLOGIESEXTENDEDINEMATIME IFFERENCECUTTINGIT/E9IMULTANEOUSLYNOTHINGFUTURE RRIVALS


3/56

TIME, SAID AUSTEFL]]z IN THE OBSERVAIION ROOM IN GBEENWICH, WAS BY FAR THE MOSI AHIIFI.CIAL OF ALL OIJR NVENIIONS , ND IN SEINGSOUNOTOTHE PLANEITURNIN GON ITSOWN AXISWASNO LESSARBLTMRYTIIAN WOULD BE, SAY A CAL CUIIT ON &qS ED ON TII GR OWTHOF TREESORTItE DURATION EOUIREDFOR A PIECEOF LIMSTONETODISINTEGAATE, UITEAPABTFROMTHEFACTTHATTHE SOLAROAYWHICHWE TAKEAS OUB GUIOELINE OS NOT PROVIDEANY RECISEIMEASUREMENI O THAT N ORDERTO ACKONTIME WE HAVTO DEVISE N IMAGINARY, VEFAGE

E SFEEOOF MOVEMENTANDDOESNOT NCLINE OWARDS THE EOUATOR N ITS ORB|I IF NEWTON HOUGHT. AID AUSTERLITZ, OINTINGTHAOUGI'iHE wlNDOWANDOOWN THE CURVE OF THE WATERAFOUND THE ISLF OF DOGS GLISTENINGIN THE LAST OF THE OAYLIGHT,IFNEWTONFEALLYTHO IKE THETHAMES,THENWHEAE sITS SOUFCEAND NTOWHATSEA DOES T FINALLY LOW?EVERYRN'8. AS WE KNOW MUSTHAVEIIANKSON BOTHSIDES,SO WHERE,SEEN N THOSEIEFMS, WWOULDBE THIS FIVEF'SOUALI-NES, UALITIES EFHAPSCORFESPONDINGO 'HOSE OF WATER,WHICH S FLUID.RATHEFHEAVYAND TRANSLUCENI? N WHA'TWAY DO OBJECTS MMERSED N TIME

NESS N THE SAI\,IE YCLE?WHY DOESTIMESTANDEIEFNALTYSTILLAND MOTIONLESSN ONEIILACE,AND AUSH HEAOIONGBY IN ANOTHER?COULDWE NOT CIAIII,I,SAIDAUSTERLITZ, HATTIMEIISELF HAS BEENNON.CONCURRENT VERTHE CENTURIS NO TH MILLENNIA? T IS NOT SOI ( 'NO AGO, AFTER ALI. THAT IT BEGAN SPREADING OUT OVER EVERYTHING.ANO IS NOT HUMAN LIFEIN M NY PABTSOF THE AARTHGOVEANEO OTHIS DAY LESSBY TIItlETHAN BYTHE WATHEB,AND THUSSYAN UNOUANTIFIABLE IMENSIONWHICHDISREGARDS INEARREGULAAIry.DOS NOT


4/56

SYNCOPE

THE ETEFNALFEIUFN ISA NECESSITY HATMUSTBEWILLED:

I tend o return eternally to the EternalReturn. hisdoctrine asbeen ormulatedn thefolowing mannefi he numberof partlclesthatcomposehe word is mmense ut inlte, nd,as such,onlyca-pableof a finite though lso mmense) umber f permutations.nan nfinite tretch fume, he number f possible onstellationsustbe run hrough,and he universe as o repeat tself.Onceagain,you lr'ill e born roma bellyi nceagain ourskeleton illgrowionceogain he identical agewill reachyoursamehandsionceagainyouwill olow he courseof all he hoursof your ifeuntil hat of yourlrcrodible eath.SinceeveMhing s bound o return, othings uni-r 0e,not even hese ines, tolen rom a writer Borges) ho n turnlrrs pilferedhe ideas rom someone lse Nietzsche),ho n thellulumnof 1883declaredlIIIIiIgIOW SPIDEBDFAGGING TSELF OWARDS HE LIGIII OF TI,IEMOONAND THATSAME MOON.IINII, ANOYOU AND IWHISPERING T THE G,CTEWAY HISPEN NGOF ETEFNAI THINGS,HAVEN'TWT AI IIEADYCOINCIDEDN THE PAST?AND WONT WE HAPPENAGAJNON THE LONGROAD,ON THIS

'T WE FECIJFETEFNALLY?M

4 /r)(x)ss/ayhaf must be willed:eveMhing hat happens n thellrilvoflje ashappened efore nd sdestinedo happen gain, re-, ,r l(xl and ollowed very ime by exactlyhe sameevents. helrrrl| |r)of he universend he nfinityf t imemake hisseemingl!u r k)xpossible.hesamearrangements,reary r otherwise, reItr T OI IIt)IIIiOWSKI /EZSCHE,ANDHEV/C/OUS/FCLS,FANS. WSMTH(LONDONHE,rr \ , r 1r :r i 11rc7).57rr rr'Mrr ,1(r{: s IaUs sPo,G:Aa rHUs7pA uoTEDNJ L A


5/56

bound o recur. husDonny,he good-lookingut naveyoungguyin Stan Douglas's 998video nstallationWin,placeor Show, willagainand againpresent iswlde-eyedheories bout nysticalorcesthatare esponsibleor human uffering. nd Bob, he slighfly derand more ough-hewnenant f the apartrnenthere heaction akesplace,will orever xplain game nvolving orse acingna mannerthat rksDonny nd eads o a frght hat Bob seemso win,but whichcomes o a closewlth he aconic emark, lf I wasn'tso tired. 'dslugyouagan." And Donny lr'ill nceagain eply, l know t."And soit goes,eternally.Douglas asproducedhis inite osmos,and exacflyhe samedia-ogue andcamera hotswill, n fact, recur but onlyaftersome20,000hours, n accordance ith a computer rogramhat random-izes he screeningf two wallsizevldeoprojections,achof whichpodrays thesame"action roma difierentamera ngle.Afteraboutsix minutes, hatappearso bea loopstaftsaltoveragain, ut herepetitions not identical. he s ght ateration the combination fskewed hotsmutatingonstanty gives ne he eelinghat naybethis ime he outcomeVvill e difierent.t never s: he woguysalwaysend up carrying ut theirhopeless restlingmatch.They'reockednsidea machinehat offersno escapeAs is alwaysrue of Douglas'snstallations,here'smuchmoreherethan meets he eye. \/y irst mpressionsoncernedhe variousn-congruitiesr ereare wo lower-class en dock workers, erhaos- quarrelingndwrestllngn odgingshat appealwell,weirdly hic.The chairBob sits n while eading heDaliyRacingForm s a Brunolvlathsson.n fact, he wholeset rernindedme of the Scandinavnmodernism evival ggressivelyrornotedn thoseveryyearsbyWallpaper. agazine.hehostiedialogue nd he heawrainoveragloomyhigh-rise ityscape limpsedhrough he largewindows

Il theseguys ving ogether? ecauseheycan'tafford eparaie part-ments?Becausehey'regay?Of course,he coolcamerawork,withextreme nges and cose upsrominiscentf American Vdramas f the 60s,shouldhavemadeI obvioushat he setting elongs ot o the cyncalen oI Wallpaper-lxrt o an earlierime,when his urnituretillspokeof utopian opes.ln act, the themeof this repetitiouset strangely iveting oublel)roject n is neitherhoroughbredacingnor conspiracyheories utf lher the ailed romlses f modernism. s in allof Douglas's ork,llx)sotting nd deolog alcontext avebeenmeticulousyesearchedXI igorously apped ut.Together th thearchitect obertKleyn,ll() artistconstructedhe set accordingo authentic lueprintsromI| 'l)0splan or the total redeveloomentf Vancouver'strathconarl|r lrbt, scheme nrealizedut ntended s a ow-rent igh-rise,! )llrl()no the housing roblemsacingan enormous opulation fI n{,10, de workers.Donny nd Bob occupyone of the dehumanl/lrr r nitsn thesecomplexes, nd heirc rcular itanyof endlessrIri l) i)raton ives xpressn o a pred ament eminiscentfi, lrxxt Beckett's ovel heUnnamable,ving ikeacagedbeastlr r r (t oagedbeastsbornof cagedbeastsbornof cagedbeastslr ni ln l cagean ddead n a cage, ornand hendead, orn n a! .lIr rl|xI hendead n a cage."o4he act hat,a fewdecadesater,l lr.r lr r(xlornlstrison ell, ntendedor owcostmassproduction,'i ' r i ri loothlynto hepagesof high-end esignmagazines akesllrr lr lry t lratmuchmorediabolical.rom hecityplanner'srislyI rJtu r l rillionaiizedife o a nightmareetishizedy he well-off,hisr ' ,' l t l t rx l l)ece.


6/56

l\.4odernismits ailures s wellas the leeting nornentsf hope nwhicha constellationf freedom ppears ossible is an overridlngtheme n rnuch f Douglas'sork.At DocumentaX, n 1992, heanlstpresented o,"s-champs,hichofiered glimpsentoan alter-native oclalorderand he liberatingormsof sef-expressionhatmodernism romised.Scenes rom a free-jazz ession featuringfourAmericanmusicians ctive n Paris ince he '6Os are pro-jected n blackand whiteon both sidesof a thin screenhangingnthe mlddle f anotheMise mpty oom.Thepiece, ikeso manyofDouglas's orks, egisters n many evels, nd remember njoyingit withoutworryingmuchabout he exactoriginof the music, hesocialcontextoi the performance, r the camerawork involvedncapturinghe event.That he musicof choice, 1965AlbenAylercomposition,eemso cite wo deologicaliyverdeterminednthems,La Marseillaiseand TheStar-SpangledBanner, s no accident:Douglas, fterall,stages his peformanceas partof his researchinto he emancipatoryspirationsf the ree-lazz ovement, hichsome ookas a marker oran alternativeociety. ather han nostal-gia,Douglas's ouble-sidedendition f thismomentof hopeultimately nrealzed,jkemost acetsof the '68 revolution bringsout the discrepancy etweenhe way theseconcertswerepresentedon TV(wherehecamerawork mainly mphaszed olopefomances)and hegroupdynamics f ihe interchange.he music s what ieseveMhingogether, ut he hinscreen olds lvo realitiespart thatof someth g ike he "official"amera, nd hat which s perhaDsmore ruebut hors-champs, r out of reach. t takesplentyof wal-kingbackand orth n he room o figureout hese win worlds. oucan'tget bothat once.lvluch rt romother enturies Baroque llegoriesr religious otifsfrom he Renaissance,ay demandsa tremendous mountofknowledgeo be fullyappreciated; hy should oday'sart be any

appreciatedn a straghtforwardevel, ut or the viewerwho s w Iling o delvedeeper, he pieces ake on muchmoresignificance.l)ouglas s no obscurantistriswrltings recrystal lear, ndso islriswork.At times t's ustso multilayeredhat he deal iewer onewho comprehends ll he parametersnvolved hardly xists.s thatll problem? ake he video nstallation erSandmann199S), nolirborate editationn the mechanismsf recollectionnd emporalrtwareness,nd, believe, ne ofthe mostsophisticated orksofrxnrtemporaryrt 've comeacross n recent ears.A poetic, isuallylx)rplexingttempt o come o gripswiih heGerman ituation fewVorrrsfter he allof the BedinWall,he piece an be viewedand',rlloyed

implyas a dreamlike cenario bout hechidhoodmemor|l,|lof threepeople rom he small, ormerlyEastGerman ity oflrr)lridam. ut o really ppreciatehe installationequires familja-r ly withnumerous ources: he GermanRomanticwriterE.TA.ll'rllrnann's tory"DerSandmann"; reud's ssay TheUncanny',, rl its heoryof repetition;s wellas certain spects f German ityl,lru rlng,particularlyheSchrcbergeften,r smallplotsof land hatllrir x)orcould ease rom he city o grow heirown vegetables.llrr li(J ardens erenamedafternineteenthentury ducator\_4oritz'i lrlolxn,whoseson DanielPaulSchreber's emoisof My Nervous//r)i,r;ii ouldplaya crucial ole n hedevelopmentf Freud,sheory' ,l t)ruil)oia. ll his s relevanto Douglas'snstallation,ven f t'snolrl l l Ir ir loly hat hework s"about."/ [r :]/tx/mann s a double ideoprolection itheachscreen howing,r lt lo (k)Qreeweep f a Schreberarden. tagedn he oldUf a,,l l lor (st outside otsdam ndshoton 16mm ilm, hesetsar er rrrrl l]sof thegardenst neas heymighthaveappearedwentyy"r['1 (I), lhe othera contemporaryersion, aftly ransformednto'r r r1|lr,l|l)lion ite.Themostcurious spectof thisdoubleprojectionr,r lrt 'vrrlk)al eam hatsimultaneouslyutures ndseparateshe


7/56

even fVou oncentraten theseam, t'snoteasy o understandhatIt represents r how, echnically,t'sproduced. he gardens ccupytherr espectlvepaces o either ideof the cleft n sucha way hat,in Doug s'sown words, as he camera asseshe set, he old garden s wipedawayby he newoneand, ater,he new s wipedawayby he old;without esolution, ndlessly."hus, he seam s a fissuren time,keeping onesof ternporalitypadandyet ettinghem ouchvia an ultra hin split" that marksa klnd of syncopation. he wosides rewoven ogether y astoryde vered n-screeny Nathanael,the ragicheroof Hoffmann'sale,who reads loud roma scrlptbutmoves is ips n a way hatdoesn'tmatch hewords or so t seems.On closernspection,t becomes lear hathis ipsactually o fall ntosyncat exactly he momentwhen Nathanael imself asses crossthe racture.As the camerasotate, he c eft seems o widenso that he objectsthat enter nto t disappearor a moment.Time s eating ts wayacross he screenrhingsareconsumed y he hungry ap but reap-peara second r two ateron the otherside. f the ine tseli epre-sents hepresent the conspjcuousetevasiveNow of perception- then hiswork seems o makea phllosophical ointabout hetemporalityf experience.s thepresent verpresent?n fact,every-thingseems o startwith deferral, ifference,nddelay ln short,with what JacquesDerrida ave he named/fferance.hepresent-nessof oerceptions not he i rm oundation has beenheld o be,but an effect f a playof differences andnot ust ernporal iffe-rences.Hoffmann'story s ullof doubles, ncannyepetitions,ndpuzzllng orrespondences.iven he abundance f opUcalmeta-phors n he aleaswellas he central hemeof the eyeand he earof losing ne's ight, t'sperfectmateriaior cinematic xperiments.But rather han llustratehe story,Douglas uts he central onceptsinto motion.Thereare no slicedeyesa la BuRuel r Bataille ut a

(t vision.YetDer Sandmann uestionsmore han he traditonallr(,gemony f vision; t alsoeffectivey tagesa theoryof temporalnwareness a chronoiogy that represents threat o the underrilirnding f the se as a subject uly presento itseLf. heworkrioomso propose forrnof temporal warenesshat comescloselo what Freudunderstood s Nachtrdg hket, or deferred ction.I voots hat haveneverbeengivenas ullypresent reexperiencedr)i) ly fter he act. n "Freud ndtheSceneofWriting," erridari| | |r]st up nicelyrlt s hus he delaywhich s n hebeglnning."os(llr]|r s perhapshe appropriateace o return o the doctrine f theI lr|rul Retur'-r.hic4 morrenr gowa sgiven ro osiTplsiicrrl(nrlstic rendering.nan nfinite tretch f time, he number f pos-,rll)l{)l)ormutationss exhausted, nd he universe egins o repeatllroll lclaimed.But perhapst'snotso much hephysicalhings hat||r( lr i loturn historcalvents,ife orrns"...onceagainouwilbeIr r roma belly; nceagain ou rskeleton il lgrow .."] but hatrrl/' {)/x)whch is chronos, r ime, tself.Dr1erences such eturns:llr | ( lollor fissurehat s the Now, he syncopationhat s "presence"llr,r(Jlrto an end.Th eEternal eturns, n act,no t he houghtllr,r l lio universe ustcomeback he same, ut ratherha tdiffer-f /,rrill i irlways omingback.Dilferencemustbe atfirmed gain n,!r lr (: l |so s such. n hisway, he hought ecomes principlef'rr lr( i l(nr00 nly hatwhich saffirmedeturns,ndonly e who, I tr w t)irtwill he necessityf my return.Thisselectiveaw of Umet't t I \rssity hatmustbe willed, aysKlossowski,hiefpromoter,, l l.lk'1,/ri(lto'svicious ircle," nd announces,bviously nirnated y

'r !rrr) (t inestimableightnessrAt he moment he EternalReturn)^ WHI INGANDDFFERENCE.FANS ALANBASSCHCAGO: HEUNIVERSITYF

'| ^r r 1r : r r / | ) . |203


8/56

is revealedo me, I cease o be myself lc et rurc and am suscep-tible o becomjng nnumerablethers,knowing hat I shatl orgetthis revelationnce am outside he memory f myself .. . And mypresent onsciousness ill be established nly n he forgetting fmy olherpossibledentities."o, hat his means o Boband Donny- the cyclical rotagonistsf 144n, laceor Shaw | don'twant oknow Nathanael,ur ractured etoot DerSandman will nodoubtrotateeternally,ut of syncwith himself, nd, hence,he perfectlydemonstrateshe relentlesseturn f difference.Withoutesolution.endlessly,"aysDouglas.)s"Thedoubt, hatpronounal oubt,doubtof pronouns, oubtof thecertainty f an l, is thea pdod of my work,"Douglas eclared n1994.0'ohegeneaiogy f the subject salwaysalsoa chronology.tthe selfdoesn'texperiencetself n mmediateelf-proximityut n-stead ealizeshings bout tself nlybelatedly,s he Freudianheorysuggests,hen he implicationsor subjectivityresignificant. ithits ntricateemporal tructure,ts perplexinghronology, erSand-mannprovides workingmodel or he historicalepetitionshatrecur, s t were, romwork o work.TakeOnomatopoela1985-86),in whicha passagerom Beethoven'sC L,linor onata,Opus ll" -famously ommented n by TheodorW Adornoand ThomasN,4ann- is peformedby an oldplayer iano,abovewhichare projectedimages f textilejactorynachineryWhat sespeciallyntriguingbout

/the Beethovenragments ts nexplicableesemblanceo ragtimei' music.Thisaccidentalonnection eems o transplanthe NachfAg-,chAeilof psychologicalempqraliry9 tne stageof history: fewnotesby a nineteehtFteni trv enius poarentlyealze heir ul sig-07 KLOSSOV\,SK P. 53.03 OUOTEO N SCOTT !'JATSON, DI,CNA HATER, CAFOL J CLOVEF, SI,AN OOUGLAS (LONOON] PHAIDON,

rlllcanceonly etroactively,hen he ndustrialmechanizationhatr'[]orgedduring he composer'sifetimeinally aineda fullgriponrrllsticcreativity.I)ouglass istorical xplorationsrealways oncreten heirscrutinyr,l oohnologicalhanges, nd he always eems o be in search f|lllr{rtions whicha oarticular eveloomentouldhave eered ff nl|lr llternate irection, here ayers f significancerepresent utrol yetactivated. he nquiriesntoconstellationsf technology,deo-ll,{ly,and art are neverpursued n he interest f achieving ome,rvorwhelming,ll-encompassinginalsynthesis.On he contrary[r{,ll of Douglas's ork displays tragic racture, tension hat mayxllxr0r superablen rarehopefulmoments ut can neverbe fully1t'{[rnned,n Nu.tka.1996), nother laboratenstallation arked yd |nrxinting cleft, he sound rack s keptout of syncand he shotr,| l l t bcus unUlsublimelaritynally nives theguiseofmadness.ll!r (llrlorted rojectionshow hegorgeous oastline f Vancouverlhl,lr( while wo eighteenth-centuryaptains, olonialists ho claimll!, hIxl for EnglandndSpain, espectively,eliver set of deliriousrdrl|lkr]s revealingheir ncreasingerangement.nLe D6trolt2000),,r tlxl,rl itory bouta househat "holdsdarkness ithin," wo ver-,, hr r l hosame16mmblack-and-whiteilm on e tandard,he,'llr.'r rvrn$e nd n negative), reprojectedromopposite ides,,nl0 I tl[)slucentcreen. n either ]de hecorrespondingersionI , ||rlr loriand s distinctlyisible ut he ranslucencereates isua]',lhr.lr l)olhsides ppear bit washed ut andgrey. he magerya-,lhl ' ,f ir (t l()stlke olorlessight;t s,on ecould ay, pectral.helwr ll|| kx)psare a so a few framesout of synchproducing kind, l rr rl)1nnl aloof a few ractions f a secondso thateverymove-rrlrl 1r llurorndedby a spectral choor premonitioni things o,, ' I ln llr|r ocreasesheghostlikeuality.


9/56

( {)t}8), shortpiece elongingo the seriesTelevisionpots"(11)lJl-88),woman s sitting t a tablesmoking cigarette hen hel,lr)rxr ings.Shedoesn'tanswer n heseriesivonodramas"1991),llx, viower s treated o scenes n whichsomething oesastray. nllrxlr tny narratlve,omesmallerror a schoolbus driving n thewr()r{J ideof the roador a person uddenly anishing ithout xplarfill()n produces situation ut of the ordinaryOnehas he sensellul llro storyhas ust begunand hat hequestionmarkswilldlsap-In'l|r ]omentariy.But heyneverdo; noexplanationrrives. t theI r)r' of Douglas's ork one inds he probem of the self hat s noIrl| tr[ donticaltosef,aself hatha sno naturalinkto tsownvoice.ll hr x) surprisehat he artist requenty cknowledgeshe nfluence,rl iDr(rc Beckett, uintessentialnterrogatorf thecoherent elfandll lnrrlofof thevoice. he undamentaloubtof pronounsieldsrrwhwrrrdnd perplexlng ituations.f the self emains nnameable,lll.{r lx wcanwe be certa whenwe nameolhers? n 'm NotGatyI r l l ) lwome napproach neanother n thesidewalk.Hicary"\'rvr orxrof them,and since here's o response, e adds, HowV,nrrl,) ln(, ' /"hey'retandinger y lose;here an't eal y e a misllr,I, 'r i Iuding. hen he eply omes: l 'mno tGary."

The nterestn spectral houghtor "spectrology"a erm usedbyDouglasn his2002essay Suspiria"),r0ecursn manyworks, nclud-ing he 2005 nstalla tionnconso/able emories, free ernake fTomesGut!6rrez lea'aMemorias el subdesarrol/oN,4emoriesfunderdevelopment)roducednCuba1968. n bothworks,hepro-tagonistsa personwho staysbehind n Havana urlnga timewheneverybodymportant eems o have eft he countryAlea's ilm s Iset n 196162 ,a timeof Cubanmass mlgration;ouglas'sro - |tagonist n theotherhand s adrift n he samecity wo decades Ilaterdurinq he vlarieroatLittwhenso.ne 00,0OO ubarsem.grat-|ed .Ll eis afiesled'or avingeceived packageron abroao. IFscaping rson after oJryears. ^e res lo fi'.]o isway bac< o ris Iod sef and nlo hisprevious orld,bdl he has urned ntoa gl-ost Isurrcuroed V nd,vrdualsha tmirror lhers r ar uncannyashion.IHavara tselt as L.ned rro a ciryot douoles..ldeed,he enlre work Iseems o be a sludy 1 spectrology: ot onlydoes he p.olagonisr Imrrrorhe rraincharactern Alea filn (bolhare rarreo Sergrol. lt I're salsoa doLbleot nisown earlier elt. IJ'rily s never give1.Wor


10/56

WHO S METODAY?

| )or(las'sdoubtof pronouns, is undamentaloubtof the certainty, 1 r , s theverypointof departure fthls essay.Who sspeaking,r! oving, erceiving? ho s hesubject stablishedconstructed,i ,ri{ ltbledor taken or granted)n he worksscrutinizedere thesell lrr lr i l( j t,etoften isceral achineriesf ime-consciousness,er-| . ' t) l ion, ndknestheticxperience?anwe sti l l haracterizehel,(, l i(nrs ere nquestionhroughhe grammaticalpersons"ndtrrr(ir lr(rralndexicas f discourse,r arewe forcedntoa kindofll! lr l l l l lr l ] l \ /recedingllpersonsno t etan ,roIayou, no ta we,sh e,,r l /,(r,perhapsomparableo themodeof speakingescribed| ,y )( )t Lawrence erljnghettjs "the ourthpersonslngular"? orr|,, l , lx)o,n E a-Ljisahti la'sarly o-second or kMelt4le 993),l lr ' rxx)r| inglyaturalinkbetweenubject ndvoice asbeen limF|l lr lrI xJ ha tmany oices peak hroughhesamemouth or he,i,rrxr {)ioehrough multiplicityf mouths).What s hegrammaticalt, 'rrr x)rlsuted o describeuc ha linguisticredicament?gain,!^rlr{rr; il)oaking? ince he aspiration ere s not o conceive newI' lr,|1,, )nologyf emporal wareness,etalone generaLheory,' l r lr i iol) iect,he eply or ather,he eplies)o th equestion f hell/r,,1'wil l leary e essgeneralhan n reatises ithsuchaims.lr,rr l wr , lrope,be moreprec e and specifc. naccordance itha, r rt | rt lr l lreartedominasm, he eplywill ary romworkof ar t| 'w,,r l , r ) l r r l .Why?Because" arrnotthesamewhennhaingthe.lr , l | r, r x ndifferencef Dominique onzalez-Foerster,hen ostr I r i i 'L :| nhtias nscrutableatacornbsf pastness,hen ryingr, , ..i,rr llu transcendentalynaopationsf StanDouglas, henex-

t,,,r ' , | | , {t l lrepolyrh}thmictroll cross ougAitken's lectric arth' i t lr, | | irr(ussimultaneityf Tobias ehberger.lt imatelyac h.. rl | ,rr l: i i ls ownconcepts nd ts own heory. r rather, ach frl i I I wl rl\rins gven rise o its own set of concepts nd set hemi|| |r" lr,r l l l()workof art s his erymolion, nd o theorizet husi,i' rr1',lll o orc han o rfake he concepts is]ble s concepts nd


11/56

involved. romwork o work, romconfgurationo configuraton,I am- the " " s - another. ometmes"1" s not onebut rrany.However,he old credo of a continuous ecomingolher s notasatisf,/lngesu unlesst is mademore pecfic.Whathas nspiredmeto wrte this essays the optimisticdea hat he ntense ensationsassociated ith heseworksof art canbe described nd,at least oa certain xtent,anayzedas differentnstances f becoming sub-ject. s t he ntentionaltyescribed y phenomenologynd heambiguousleshof the active iewerwho enters he workof ad andfu y expores ts mostextrerne ossibilitieshat determ e he imitsof possible ubjectivation?r is it the work itself hat defnes heparameters f newpotentialorrnsoj subject ity,perhaps nvolv gmodesof awarenesshatdodge he ramework f phenomenology?Suchare he questons hat constitute he ultmatehorizon f thisessay.

( )| l]r( iernghe requent seofphenomenoglcal oncepts,ma y'r ( rr rurpr ing hat suggest certainorm of expermenta"con,l r ; l iv rr,"one hatha s ound nsp ationnWalter enjamin'se-, l ir ir l i(nrhat he human erceptualpparatus,ar rombeingrir lrrr (Jiven, hlstoricallynd echnologicalyonditioned.n somer l lx [rost progressivenddaring ssaysrorn he 1930s,Benjaminr,r vr )r sa new orm of subjectivityn syncwith he atest echnolo-{lhri )l ]echanicaleproductiona formof collectivizedubjecthatI r', )11raditona notions f creativlty nd esthetics ehind norderl, r, f{ )(Jotte he unction f art n termsof (socialst) olltics ndr,,w r)l|ns f massproductionnddistrbution. f hl s necessaryfl f l u ratey iberating"lrntegrationf the human ubjectwlh theIrr 1l |( l(( y f cinema, osal ind rauss rites, Notonlywas i m toI'Ir,,o |onan dwornenrom heConfinesf thelr rivate paces,I I I I lo l co lectlve ealm .. but t was o nf trate nd estructure' rl ,1,:lrvily self, hanging amagedndividualxperiencentoener, r.,rI r r lk)ctiveeroeption."l,hec tes Benjamin, hoobvious sawIlri', ' { r )lr]lruction f subject y as a moment f emancipationnd,r l, irrxl to theact of breakingut of ai "Then ame im and,,.t l nh I llrisprison-wor w th the dynamite f one enthseconds,,, l lrr l row, n the mdst of ts farflung uins nddebris, e calrnly, rl , Ul \ nirrdventurousravels."" enjaminsconstructivist"p-|( ' , lr 11)wilrdhe question f a future ubject fullof optirnism nd'l l lr r l 11)oconcle lth he melancholcaz e nd he nterestn.,1 ,',, . i tr)|oeypca lof themajorty f hs writings bears ertain.|l |l rll l() more ecent peculationsoncerning ewconstruct ns, l t '' ,r (ll , drnittedlyssco eciivisticut carriedorward y a

"l lrHE iocx w LLAMKENIF Ge DFAW 6s FoRPForEcr N ocroaEFe2

I I WOFT(FAFTN THE GEOFMECHANICALEPAOOUCTIONN'LLUMINI


12/56

sim ar hetoric f beration- ouidoneeven eate hemproductvelyto Deeuze'sprophecy f a formof lifeafter \,4an, future 'fold,,or"superlold" ependent pon orces rom heouts/de hatare emer-g ng n new echno gies ndsystems f commun aton ?Who,then,comesafter he subject?,4 ho emerges?Oncewe have iberated urselvesrom a traditional otionof sub,jectivity thatof transcendentalhenomenologyt l being he mostsophisticatedndpersuastve),he pluratyof pos ionsand he discontinuy of functionseem o openup a spectrum f diverse ubjectconstruations, aking ossbleand urgentClaudeMora ,squestion,"Who s nre oday?"rs hasnever eenmy ambitiono treatartworks14 AFIEB THESUBJECT OMESNOTI!NG BUI A MUTLAIEOSUEJECI AOOFNO IOULD INSET TH SS'FA N OF THOI]GHTHAS A POI] ']EFFIJLTEPFESENTATE TODAY N BENJAMIN UCHLOH:'IHE NEOFL]TUF TC MYIH OF NNOVAIVE FORMSOF COMMUNCAI ON. OF A TECHNOLOGICALFOGRESSUNDFTEAMT Y ANY PFT FTGENE STHIALZED CAP TALISM, DEL VEI]ED AUNVEFSALLY OVEI]NNGTECHNOSCENTIFCPSEUI]OCOMPFIENCE S A SUBSTITUTEORA LINGUISIC CONSTTUTION FTHE SEI,F. Y COLLAPSNG ACHAND EVEFY CT OF LINGI]IST AFTCULATION!!ITH N FFE ESTAALSHED FORMULA]CSYSTEMS NAT EXEFTEDTOTALCONIFOL AND WEFE INEXOFABLYL NKEDW TH EVEF-MOFE OIALIZNO DEMANDSOF CONSUMPT N THESESYSTEMS F CONTFOLSEEMNGLY ORECLOSEOlHE ALID YOF ALL OIHERCI]LTUFAL ONVENT Ns,' {BENJAM BUCHLOH]]AYMOND ETI BON FEIUFN TO DSOADEBAND D SF GIFAT]ON OCIOAFF 92 P 3/ )SO AF E ALL

FEOENI DECSOF NEW FOFMSOF SUBJECNVY EMERG C IHFOUGH ] IE NTEFACT N WTN NEll /IECHNOLOGIES THOSEDEVELOFEDY OELELIZE.AY JUSTHYPOCFICAL MYTHSCONCEAL C TH EFACT HATALL EMANC ATOFY PACES FTE E NC RAPDLYEFADICATEOY AN NCFE ASNCLYMERCLESSGLOEAL PECTACLE ACHNE NHABTEDEY ]I]THLESS NTREPRENEURSN TI]EONE HANO, NDPHLEGMAT CONSL]MEFS N TtsEO]HEF E SOLELY Y PFOFOUNOLY UTLNTED I]BJECTS? AYEETHIS S TIE ONLY H NG LEFI TO US PEFHAPS ODAY PFOFOUNDLYTAMAOEDUBJECTS AVENOOTHER OFI ON SLNCEWE AFE ALL NCAFABLEOF ANY K ND OF IFULY EMANC PATORYFFACT CE F II]ISS THE CASE.TH S ESSAY OULDENOHEFEW TH A STRING F APOCALYP] STAIEMENTS IME S OUTOF JONT !\E HAVERI]NOUIOFTME TH S IS I]E END15 CLAUDEMOEAL] ADlESI IIAIAUJAUF]D HUIIPAR : FAYAFD 934)

r r lLr i l l l ons ofphiosophicaldoctr ines.Rather,belevethatthe- ' | ,rxl)ored bring onh theirown set of concepts. Each and everyi !, 'l l rcseworks of ar1 someof wh ch l dwell on, others rnentioned', ir | | l ) i []stng) epresents productive nv onment a hetero-, r,,r ,L[ , \ ]paratuswhich etsa subject mergeand unfold n accori .L , , wr l l ra specificdistr ibut n of t imeand space, be t thehol-1, rlr, | , )Lrl f an maginary ime in the intersticesof ficton that Pterrel l f , l , l ,r lksof, he emporapolyphonies f Dougasand Rehberger,rln, , r,ux I trediascapes of Atken. That the probems of temporalityI r,,,1 I ro l role n the attempts o come to gripswith thesevarying, |, , ,1,1,r r ) lublectjvityan be no rtere coincidenceonsder ing he,, r! i t )1 r ong ine of writer socatng the unresteLicted y t me atr l i ! , , ry r | r l of the subject.Commenting n the Kant iandeaof the,,l l r l1, ! : l (nr" f t ime as the most orlginal orm of self awareness,r 1 r r r , , lv( r rcau-Pontyconcludes,lt s of theessenceof imeto be,L ' r r ly r i r lLrame, ortmewhchf ows, but also imewhich s awarelr r r 1 ' l l rsturningbackof time ow ards sef, an originaltempo -l, I lr ir( ics ut an nter ior i ty,nd representshe very"archetypett r t, ' l .t l r)shipaf self ose/1." '?Canthsorgtnalorm or beco-' ' ' r , r l i {ct , h s "Chronologal " gure par excellence, ve r beLl r ' , vr r i r ly? ls theresuchathlng as a "t ime- image"?

. LVli rot an appendix to De euze's Cinema 7 2, nor iS t a. i .Lr l , l ,l lo a thrd part ,aCinema 3, extending he nquiry nto' , , t i , r , t o lomaticexper imentation. hy not? Prmar i lybecause

' , , l, 1, xr ; breakwth some of Deleuze'sundamental ssump-,, '. r1) labywlththe xpllctBergsonlsmhat keepshsotherI ir r , r ioi t l tered xplorationsogetherso as to const ute one,| | . r r r i ryLicaloolshereemployed om e pr lmar i lyrom a di f fe-PEFCEPI'OI! TRANS C SMTts 1LONOON


13/56

rent rac{itn of thought, hatof phenomenogy.Ths cloes ot mplythat he ramework f phenomenologys seenas ina.On hecon,trarythe heoret al concepts reappled n sucha iashon that hevery rn s of phenomenoogyre ested.Sorne f the worksanayzedhere, n act,seern o driveus beyondphenomenogy.When onsiderg phenomenologyeyordphenomenoiogy,t hasoftenbeenpo ntedout that there s a tensionbetweenHusserl,soffoiaprogram, n the onehand,and he concrete nalysesf phe-nomena uchas tertporalawareness nd heproblems f alterty,on theother The igorof these pecficanayses nd heprecsion fthe conceptua evices mployed ak e he ension ithin henomenologyonspicuous.he mmediateresencef heconsttutingsubjecto tsef is notas evident stadlng-po t as originallyelieved.This hakeshevery oundationsf phenomenology,ndon emustrnquire: hat s he statusoi thephenomenoogicalocabularyf theoveralapproacl-rs no onger hatof a Grundlegung? re hesedevoes for nstance,he echnica errns ntroduceclo describehefow of rnternaim econsaiousnessimpressn, etenton,rotenton,or primary nticpaton)and he distifctions stablishednorder oseparate resentationaorrnsof aofsc ousness perceptionn thew destsense)rom ariousormsof re-presentatn (imag ation,Tecoiecton,ntcpation, mpathy, ictorialonsciousness,tc.) st Ivald as descriptiveoolswhe| they are reed rom heiror g natoundaUonalistramework? hefomenoogy, neca| argue, otonlyoffers sa box of useful escriptveools,but alsoprovides pathlor refectionshat breakwith ts own undamentalonditionsf pos-sib ity. n h s essay,Hussersconcepts renotony freed rorn hegeneraamb ionsof h s phiosophyas a founda|onadiscourseandthus, necouldperhapsay , mployed th as muchor as iltehermeneuticaespector heorig a phiosophica ileu s Deeuzepays o thehistoricalontext f Bergson henapplying isconcepts

i" .r 1 I as Televantnstruments when exp oring those modes of\ t , . x)t) hat shou d interestanyone for whom the "excessve y,!, r i r rx l unty ofthe subject" ls as becomesuspect. heempha. ' || lr i lcmporal what hereca "chronologal ')aspectsof these,,1, ,i l i l l )pearancef subjectivity l l leadusto see he worksofI I l r r , Lr ( erscrut iny s so manyattempts o capture he verydi a1,1 l l |ot tsel f , adaectcthat bynecessi tyseemsto eadus,. ' r rJ l r ) l . impora - to the "t lme- lessoi dof an oceandeath,, ,de. l " l l )y l lc taDeanortothe nfntefodsof a Baroque reaton,,r I x , Jarden, T extua arch ecture.At leastsinceKant,we, ' l r . r l t (xe s no such hingas a straightforwardmageof the| , | r, Ll r w (the ow tself being ust one of several ecurringmeta-

rL I l l) l of ths, we haveno nartes,"lc ays Husser abouti i i , . L i r i l t tut tngf low" (F/ur)of consciousness h ch for him,r ! 1, , w lr "absolutesublectivty" tself. hereareonly ndirect, I t r r i r l ( ingf th s realm,only moreor ess successfumefa-' i 1 , r r cp t hal becomesprobematc once the lackof realrs fu y acknow edged); more or ess effectlve l ustrar l , ( i lLtra, agrammat , symbo a, spatal k nesthet ,. l l )r cuze's dea of time crysta ized nto an mage must ber . i ,1 t, L ow for more ntrcate ormsof schematism.n heL I r l l lymoreor less vet lnganalogies:he I ne, he clrce,

] I I ,1' I^F FOL]IJAL]LTS M^GNE HM. N TOL]CAL]L|/ELANCII TR^NS,1 I] !)OKl; 1.037]P 76 TIEI]L]tsJECTDOESNOTOS^PI'EANRATIEFITS

IJ ! I! 1]PLITN']L]ESTON W IAT AI] 'JUSESNTEFIST ANL] NOL]RY S ISN W I,4ANNER F EF NC WHCH D SAFFF IIANC! IS],OF FTATHEHS D S

, 4J] I ^I E T BlT OFFFFS ]S OUT OI- T NO MOFETI]AN A FLI]FIAL'I OFI I] iI I I NCT ONS 1ANIIsE E IL'JEFEIN'OI]N I EHTHE Sfsrt i ! , OFY I ! IONGLI SEFM.'TA I ON ET ME TO FrECHAFACTEFST]C I


14/56

the cone, he pyramid,hecrysta the sp ral, he network'he old,the abyrinth....his s theperspectlveromwhich heworksof arthereare scrutinized.Chronobgy,acco.dingly,s never o bethoughtof ln the singular.Onewouldperhaps ave o conclude inanalogywithWittgensteincomment n phenomenology)ihere sno chro-nology, nlychronologlcalroblems,'zond hey arerelated ot onlyto the ssue f temporalty ssuchand o ourvariousmodesof rela-ting o time,but also o the veryssue fwhat tmeanso bea subject(lf heres a closenessere o Deleuze'shoughts n tirfe' then t isprimarilyo thosevery ateattemptso bringFoucault'sheories fsubjectivationloser o phenomenologicalerminology nd o thetopologies f transcendentalhilosophyiTimebecomes subjectbecause is the foldingof the outsideand,as such, orceseverypresentnto orgetting,ut preserveshe wholeof thepastwithinme-mory: orgettings the impossibility f return'and rnemorys thenecessityf renewal."" he ultimate xteriority,he absoiuteOutside,can no longerbe understoodn spatialerms' but ratheras a tem-poraldimenslon:Fora long ime Foucaulthoughtof the outside sbeingan ultimatepatialityhatwas deeperhan ime;but n his ateworkshe offershe possibilityncemoreof puttingimeon the out-sideand hinking f the outsideas being ime,conditioned y thefold.""Timeaffectstself, nd hroughhisauto-affectlont foldsandcreates n nieriority,realm f reflexivityhus,an Outsides"t\'vist-ed,""folded," nd "doubled" o as o create n Inside s thereper-hapsanotherpossibleorm of foldingafter he subject?A fold{or"superfold")tter ,4an?f here s, Deleuze aintains'hen ime s siillits medium.n hatsense,we remain, venhere'within he realm20 LIJOWG W T'GENSTE N, SEMEFXUNGEN OBERDIE FARBEN/REMAMS ON COLOUP IOXFORD]EAS LBL_ACKWELL77),953.21 GLLES DELEUZE, OUC,4UII TRANS.S HAND LONDON ND NE!! YORK CONINUUM.1933) P ]03'

of temporal rchitecturesnd opologies. eremainwithin he realmexplored y chronology.)


15/56

CRYSTALS

Thepast s present.Something ashappened nd he echoesarestill esonatingn my head.Theyafe not becomingmoredifficultodiscern;n act heechoes rebecomingncreasinglyoudand mpos_sible o escape.Thepast ingerson, yesterdayeverberatesntoday.An exampte: teenage irlwithshod blondhair s throwinga b;lagarnst wall.A man s sobbingheavilyna bedroomnearby; ud_denlyhescreams ut nagony. girl,s oiceexplains:Todaymydadis crying. ate astnighta cardroveoverhjsdad who died nsta;fly.,These minous peningwordsset he one nEija_Liisahtila,soiay(1996/97), three-part ork hat presentshesameviolentncidentseen hrough he eyesof threedifferent haracters: younggirl,agrown-upman,and an elderlywoman.Their ragmented,trangelypoetic epodsouchupon heaccident, ut simultaneouslyeaveadenseweb of questions oncerningamily elationships,ersonalidentity,exuality,nddeath.Thepast s present. omething ashappened:naccident, catas_rrophe, tragjcevent.Theworkunfolds sa process f assessjngand working hrough a processof grievinghat consjsts f frao-mentsoI narrattonncapabteof presentingnoverarchingndco-he_rentaccount.This s trueof Todayand Consolation evice 2OOO),and noneway or another f allof Ahtila,smatureworks.

,ltSa stofoboutanending,,,sayshe neighbor_nana lorn Consolationervice.fhere s no therapy,no catharsis,no Hegelian ufhebung. t allstadswth an ending,and hen t endsagain.This sAhtila,s;rimdeaof(ionsolation.

ll rs rue hat he narrative oes not proceedaccordingo,,simpleorrusality,"ut what hen has aken ts place?Theres a recurringlr)rnporaltructurenAhtila'silmsand nstallationshichall see;lo depend n thenotion f thesecrethat ingersn he past,Asview_rrs we are plungedntoa situationhat rs ncomprehenstbJef werlr)not ake heechoes f the past ntoaccount.Somethingf great


16/56

magnitude a rupture, catastrophe' n unbearablemomentoftruth hashappened,nd t appearso be our ask o come o termswith his raumatichlng.Thework s a kindof interpretativer evencatharticitualwhichmight ead o the pastbeingexorcisedPerhapsthe ceremonyaneven erve s hestarting oint or hereconstruc-tion ol a fulland selt denlcalsubject? hlila workssuggest uchapossibility,ut he ull econstructions deferred nd emains prom-ise hat cannotbe ullykept.Thewoundsand hemystifyingracturesin hepast emainmorestronglyelt hananysenseof a harmoniousself-identity.Nabokov rites: Perhapsf he utureexisted,oncretelynd ndivid-ually, ssomethinghat couldbe discerned y a betterbrain, hepastwouldnot be so seductivelts demandswouldbe balanced ythoseof the future."sThiswouldhinderus fromconstantlyinkinginto hehistory f things.Headds, But he uturehasno such eality(as he pictured astand he perceivedresent ossess);he utureis buta figment f speech, specter f thought The seductivenessof he pasl has edmanyphilosophers ' mong hem Husserl ndBergson,o treat he pastand hefuturen an asymmetricalashion,payinga greatdealmoreattentiono that whichhas beenand oour capacityo retaint. Ahtilas an artistwho' in a aomparab'leay'seernso careprimarily bout he past lt is a past hat s aliveandwhichcreates onsiderableurbulencen the present. typicalea-tureof Ahtila's orkwhich squitesalientn loday s the speedandnervousnessithwhich heprotagonists eliverheir ines There ssomething ecticand mpatient bout hesevoices.What s it thatcreateshis senseof urgency?Maybe t's hestrifeagainsthe ruth-lesspowerof oblivion.Herstories an be seenas a fightagainsi'orgetling,nd h. s sperhaps hat realeshe eeli ' lg iurgencynherwork.We obviouslvaveno ume o lose Howcanwe characte-23 VLADLMR NABOKOV IAAIVSPNFENI TH]A]GSNEV] YORK VINIAGE. 1972)' P 1'

rze the resultof Ahtila's reative ffort?Obviously,he past hat weare ryrngo come o termswith s constanflylippingudheraway,andno final ecretsever evealed. ers s ananal!,ticf ftnitudehatletsa retreating rigin eturnaccordingo rules hat havealreadvbeenset nsucha way hat no overarch;ngarrativepoea,so glvecoherenceo fragments f a scatteredife.Only n briefmomenldoes ransformationeempossjble, nd he changedoesnot con_cern he past tself ut rather ur relationshipo alteritynall ts orms:thepast,our own and hatof others, nd heothernesshat existswithinourselves.What s the act of consciousnessn questionreminiscence,elf,analysis,processof grieving r a paradoxicalcelebrationf thatwhichhasbeen?Thedeadold manappearsn the recollectionsf the youngman nparn.He emerges ut of thedarkness, alking n a road hat runsthrough forest. he reescastshadows crosshe roadproducinqa georretncalahern l lighland darkness.he mancornes loser:he ooksd'recy al us. heviewers.her he urnsawayand iesdownon theroad nsucha fashionhat he bodydisappearsntooneoflheshadows, jthonly he armsvisible. henhe puJlshemcloserohisbody,and he sgoneentrrely. eunderstand hatwillhappen.,, ' .alhe.,wharnasalready appened:'Wedrove ora swim hror,qhlh e orest whe the oa d ssr4ped ir hblack haoows fthelrees.Suddenly ne of thoseshadowsstoodup .. ., ,That maoe', 1 rral lyi ' tg ow n o die,pull ingnh: sarmsan ovanisninont o,J,rrk' less:n magenwhich im eseems o rystalt i/e.l, sa kinoofremory ethe sverymuch here, reparing imselfora future fIn)return.Past,present,uture n theblinkof aneye,Ahtila,s orks, o fullof denseand emporally omplex mages. n his bookonllx)"Ume-irnage,"eleuzenal\rzesxac y thesekindsof condensedrinomaticmomentshat seem o capture ne verymovement fr,nrporalityna crystallizedormationl


17/56

WHAT CoNSTITUTES THE CRYSTAL_IMAGEs THE MOSr FUNDAMET'I'A! OPERATTON F nME: SINCErHE PAST IS CONSNruTED NOT AFTEA THE PFESENT THAT IT WAS BUT AI THE SAME NME' TIME IIASTO SPLIT ITSELF IN TWO AT EACH MOMENT AS PRESENTAND P''ST' WHICH DIFFERFfiOM EACH OTHEFIN NATIJAE, OR, WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, IT HAS TO SPLIT I}IE PRESENT IN TWO HET'EROGENEOUS OIRECTIONS'ONE OF WHICH IS LAUNCIIED TOWARDSI}IE FUTURE WHILE THE OTHEFFALLS INTO THE PASI TIME HAS TO SPLIT A1 THE SAME TIME AS IT SETS ISELF OIJT OR UNROLLSITS;ELF: T SPLITS IN TWO DISSYMMETRICALJETS, ONE OF WHICH MAKES ALL THE PRESENT PASS ON'WHILETHEOTHERPRESEFIVESLL THE PItsI TIME CONSISISOFTHIS SPLII AND IT SIHIS' IT STIME, THAT WE SEE IN THE CRYSTA!',4

Deleu,/eonceivest temporalityn Be'gson terrrs ano o a certainextenthis entirestudyof theclnema s asmucha philosophy ftimeand movement s t is an nterpretationf certain rtworks slngmoving mages.What s Bergson's hilosophy f timeall about?Deleuzeresentshe mostbasic deas: Bergson's ajorhesesontime are as ollows:he pastcoexistswith hepresenthai it hasbeen: he past s preservedn tself'as past ngeneralnon-chrono-logical); t eachmoment ime splits tself ntopresentand past,presenthat passes ndpastwhich s preserved'"'?5ime lowsandeachpresentades, ut t doesn't isappeart ispreserveds pasland consciousnessasdirectaccesso thispast The ime-images'of cinematicmaginationhatsucceedn makinghis emporal truc-tureevidentn orcing hemselves pon he vjewerare he pointsofcrystalliTar,on:necryslal-image asnol time'b,itwe see 'me 1the crystal.Wesee n he crystalthe erpetualoundation f time '?6Deleuze'shilosophicaltading oint s BergsonatherhanHusserl'who, r my view, eveoped neven icl-er pproacho lheproblernsof time-consciousnesskeBergson,Husserl onsidersemporality24 GLLLESDELEUZE C/NEMA2r IHE l/MElMAGg TFANS H ToML NSON aNO F GAIFA (M NNEAPOLISUNIVEFS Y OF MINNESOTA RESS 1939),P' 31.

to be themostbasic evelof subjectivity.nd ikeBergson, edis-tinguishes etween ifferent indsof past irneand he different a,pacitieshesubject asof relatingo itr herecent astwhich sstillgrvenn rmmediate roxjmityo theongoing erceptualiow and hepastwhichhasalreadyaded ntooblivion nd, herefore,eedsaspecial ct of recollectiono becomepresent gain.The irstkindofmemoryoi themost ecent ast,Husserlalls etention;hesecondformhe calls ecollection.n ourconsciousife,Husserlwould avwe arecontinuoJsryoll between evel t.achs'o. awarenesst elive n he perceptual resence which s builtup by jmpression,retention,ndprotentionexpectation)as wellas in herecollectedpast. nadditiono this,other ormsof awareness,uchas emoathvand .nagrnatiol.make ne rrachinery f consciousnessvenmorecomplex. hemind s a multi-channelpparatus,nd several ro-grams reacttve ndviewed t thesame ime.Whena contemoorarvarT r sJchas Doug'asal^sot "temporal olyphony.in retationohissplilscreennstallations,nd morespecificallyerSandnann, tmaysound ikea veryadvancedormor consctousness:

SEINGABLE TO SIMUITANEOUSLY PFODUCE DISTINCI VOICESJIAS ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING IVEBEEN TRYING TO ACHIEVE, NOT ALWAYS IIAVING THIS IDEA OF A SINGLE, STATIC DENTITY BUT ONEWH1CHS ALWAYSCHATENGED FFOM THEOUTSIDEI ND S ABLETO'THNK OF'THE OTHEF,SIMUL.IANEOUSLY POIYPHONY IS A IECHNIOUE FOR DOINGTNAT. THAI IS THE FEELING OF ,TE S,AXDM,4'V,WIIEFEYOU'RESEEING WO EMPOAAL MOMENTSAT HESAMETIi,|E,ANDYOU'FE HOPEFULLYABLE TO THINKOF THOSEMOMENTSATTHE SAMETIME,JUST AS ONE S ABLE TO LOOKAI THEr,qEsENT AND UNDEFSTaND How tc pesr Lteo rxe wey r oto.2z

In act,such temporal olyphony,,s he mentai tate nwhichwe allrve ontinuousy,nd herearemorecomplicatedormsof svnchro_'' iciryha n he me.e nterplayf oerceptionnd ecorlect;. AsI Lrsserlanhenomenologyakes lear,he nested tructure f sub_2/ {r FD NFOBERTSTOFRTAN oUGtrS:ALeNATON rLA FFOxtMtrE,,,4FrpFESs62 2ooot


18/56

jectivity ilows ormany lowsof awareness:hile ooking ut of thetrainwindowseeing he andscape assby, may antasize boutamemory f a strange ream-imager I may emember n old day-dream,Thesubject what Husserl alls he ego is whalkeepsallthe evels f sucha multidimensionaltructureogether:l am alwaysin thepresent nd still n thepast,and already n he future.'malwayshereand also elsewhere. as ego come n between hese womodes. am only n hisdoubling, nd emergen hisdisplacement."'?"Whathappens f the unifyingunctionof the ego s no longeractiveand he multiplicity J lows ive heirown autonornousives?Phe-nomenologicalhilosophy as akengreatpain n analyzinghe va-rious llusionsroducedf onekindoJconsciousnesss mistakenoranother,f, or instance, memory r fantasys taken or a kindofperception.f, on the otherhand, he structuringunction f the egois removed ntirely,ndeach track" uns ndependentlyf the olhers,it is clearly question f a severebreakdown f thementalapparatusas a whole. his s madness. htila ascharacterizeder hree-screenvideo nstallation heHause(2AO2)s an accountoi psycho-sis,And concerninger wotkAnne,Aki,and God(1998),hewrites:AKI V RESIGNED FROM IIIS WORK IN COMPIJTEF APPLICATION SUPPORT W|TH NOKIA VIRTUALS, BE.CAME ILL Wlll SCHIZOftTAENIA AND ISOIA'IEO IIIMSEIF IN HIS ONE FOOM FLAT 8IS MIND STARTEDTO PROOUCE A FEALITY OF ITS OWN IN SOUNOS AND VISIONS. LITTLE SY LITTT.ETHIS FICTION BE.CAME fLESH AND ALOOD. THE LINE BEIWEEN REALITY AND I MAGINATION BECAME BLUBEED, FANTA.SIZEO PEFSONS AND EVENIS STEPPED OUT OF AXI V'S HEAD AND BECAME PAMLLEL Wfr|I THEBEALITYAROUNDHM.6

23 BOBEFT SOKOLOWSKI 'D SFLACEMENT AND IDENI TY N HI]SSEF|S PtsENOMENOLOGY' INHUSSFFL.AUSGABEUNO I'USSFFT FO,?SC/]UNG ED. S. ]JSSEL NG (DOFDFECI'1T/BOSTON/LONDON:

29 AHTILA, ANNE, AKl, AND GOo, lN F/JA LrS4 AHI]L, (KASSEL:FRIDERTCTANUM 993) ALL AtsT LAOUOTATIONSFE FFOMTH S PI]BLICATION NOTOTHEFWSE NDICATED

This nstallation,onsisting f fivemonitors nd wo screens, iffersfrom he works or split-screennstallationsuchas lodayandCor_solationSeruicen hat he multidimensionalit ylearlyranscendswhat heviewer an apprehend.hroughheirspeedandcomplexity,allof Ahtila'sworksexplorehe im s of perception, utAnne, Akiand Godpushes hings urtherand clearly epresents kind of mentaldisintegration.hework san ntricatemixof nsanemaginationnddocumentaryootage. hestoryaccordingo Ahtila,s,,basedon realeventsabouta manwho, being na stateof psychosis,reatedwoman or himself."On theone hand,Aki appears s a confusingmultiplicity f facesand volces hat deliverhe same inesaboutanidealwomantln hedar4ime, nne san aerobicsnstructorShe sveryaffectionatey nature, et irmwhen necessary', n he otherhand,documentaryootages presentedhowing eal nterviewswitha largenumber f youngFinnish omenapplyingo play he roleof Aki's maginaryirlfrlend.hus,everydayealitys presentedideby sidewith ictional, allucinatorymageryA thirdcomponent, re_senton an addltional creen, s an mageof cod, playedby twoactors, ne emale,heothermale.Togetherheseelements roducea multi-layeredndmazellkearrative,r rather mazeof narratives,that ransgresseshe mental apacitiesotonlyot so-called ormalitybut more adically,eepinghe presence f a God nmind,of finitesubjectivity.heheterogeneousrystallizationf time hat akesplacehere s no longerhat of ordinary umanexperience ut thatof ashatteredonsclousnesspening pto infinity,Thecombination f documentarynd ictional arativen Anne, kj,ard God s, o a certainextent, eminiscentf theearlierwork f 6was (1995), split-screennstallationbout hesexualworld ofyoung emalesn Helsinki.hestoryand hedialoguen hisstrangelymeodiousworkare ictional, ut research nd nterviews ithrealpeople recededhe realizationf the work.Ahtjla xplainshestruc_tureof the nstallation:


19/56

IF5 W'S S IS SPI,IT NTOTHBEEAOJACENT MAGES,FORMINGA SYNCHRONIZED FIPLE.SCREENNARRATIVE. HE NARMTIVEUNFOLOS N PARALLELMOVEMENTS CFOSSTHE SCREENS.WITHIIVAGES CONTFASTING AND REACTINGTO EACH OTHEF, OCCASIONALLY THETHFEE IMAGES APPEAFTO CR'ATE A SIMULTANEOUS VENT, ,G. WHN A SEO1JENCEN WHICHGIRLSADOAESSMONO.LOGUSTOTHE CAMERA N DIF'EBENTSHOTS S EOITED O GIVEA FEETOF OIALOGUE. ACHSCBEEN SHOWS A OIFFERENT PERSPECTIVEON A GI\,N PLACE, AND THE THREE SHOTS SOMENMESCOI\]VERGEO FOFM ASINGLE PIC'URE PLANE,

lf the workabout hepsychoticelecommunicationngineer ki re-presentshe breakdown f normal ime-consciousness,henwhatthisportrait f agroupof young emales onveys nsteads a fluidkindof temporality. he hreescreens isplay he sexual antasies,everyday ctions, nddreams f theadoLescentirls.Even f he workis ultimatelypieceof complexicuon,he straightforwardnessf thegirlscreates strongdocumentaryeel.The ntricatenteMeaving fdifferent indsof consciousnessmemories,antases, erceptionsproducesnot a senseof dissonance. ut rathera senseof harmonious low The ender yricism f daydreams ndsoftpianomusiccasheswith he straightforwardnessf the accounts.However,hedirectness f theirstories oesnot exclude senseof wonderandrnystery:lt wasequally maz g o see n a pornomagazinehat menhaveno holebehind he testicles.thought hat it had notalwaysbeen ike his."lf cinema ouldproducewhat Deleuze allscrystalimages aptur-ing he structure f time t self, hen he temporalpossibilitiesf the.otnerc.nema, o useRaynordBerloLr'soncepl..e.. he nJti-screennstallationsf today's rtists xploring ew ormsof narrationandsynchronicity,reeven icher. hesimultaneityf severallowsof moving magery rants he pcjssibilityot onlyof crystal mages,but alsoof more ntricate onstellationsnd uxtapositions.s it thephenomenologyf theexperiencingubject hat nterestsAhtila, ris this experiential ul tidimensionalitynlya means o an end hat

mustbe describednquitedifferenterms?Clearlyhereare ecurrinqLhemes suchas dealh,dogs,sexand vtolerldes,re_ inatcreateme strange tmospheresnd specific oetryn Ahtila,s ork, rom heearlyworks or monitor o TheHourof prayer 2005), pieceabout hedeathot herdog.But rrseems hat he pheno.nenotogicdrssues realsoof greatmpodanceo her Ina recentnterview,hetalksabouther nvestigationsnto he functioningf memoryandperceotion:ONE MOBNING WHILE I WAS BRUSHING MY TEE7H, I WENT FROM IHE &fiI]ROOM IO THE WINDOWAND SAWADOG BUNNINGON THEGROUND. FETURNED O THE BATHFOOM NO THOUGHTABOUTTI]E DOG, AND I REALIZEDI DID NOT PICTURE IT IN MY HEAD AS I SAW IT JUST A COUPIE OF SECONDSAGO FFOrrl HlcH ABOVE, sUT AS tF I WAS S,TANO|NGBESIOE r tN THE PARK I sAW tT As A MEOTUMSHOT FROM THE SIDq TAKENFFOM MY EYE LEVEL OF EVEN BEIOW - IN OTTER WOFDS, HOW I HAOSEEN OOGS BEFORE,THATWAS HOW I FECOGNIZED IT.THIS RELATESTO WHAr I TFY TO OO IN MYFILMS, IO BBEAK UP THE SPACE,TO CBATE A SPACE THAT DOESN,TEXISTAT A CONSCTOUSLEVEL.3d

The ichness f temporal xperiencend he complexity f theexpe_nencing ubject s certajnly neof the ssuesexplorednAhtila,smature nstallations.ut alreadyn her hreego_secondworks ormonilor,MeMe, Okay,andGrcy 1993),she staged ncredibly ubflesituationsnvolvingluidand destabilizedormsof subiectivitvnlhese onpact andenigmatic orks. he naturalnkoeL\r'r'eea.tmansubject nd human oicehasbeen oosened or entirely liminated.Here,many oices peak hroughhesamemouth, r thesame oicethrough nanymouths. hepersons ppearingo us in hesedenseworksarealienated ot only rom he peoplesurroundinohem_la'niy,oalners.etc.- bLt evennore dramatical,yrom henselves.Aterity,n variousorms,seems o rulecompletely; o harmonious

30 MAGDALENA MALM, "THE IDEAOF L NECF TY BOTHEBSME AN INTEFVIEWWITH EIJA LNSAAHTILA."N BUCK BOX ILLUIIIIA]AIED,EDS SAFA ARBHENUS, MAGDALENAMAIM, CF ST NA F CUPERO LUND:


20/56

wholeor fixed elf-identitys n view.There s always fracture, splitor a dissonancehat divides nd estrangeshe speaking ub jectfrom tself.Having he actor step out of characterand address he au-diencedirectlysone of the deviceshat Ahtilauses o create hlsalterity ffect,but evenmoresubtle s theconstantmanipulationfthe relation etlveen ubject ndvoice. n he humorous e,We,allthe members f the amilymove heir ips,but strangely nough t'sthe self absorbedatherwho analyzeshe deterioratingamiy. nOkay, womanwalksbackand onh n her oom, ikea nervous nmal na cage, pitting ut nformationbouta violent exual elation-ship: lf could, would ransformmyselfntoa dog,and wouldbarkand biteeveMhing hat moves.Woof,woofl"Thestory s told n hefirstperson,but manyvoices maleas wellas female are orceduponus.All hishappens ithsuchspeed ndease hat t s mpos-sible o reconstructhe alterations nd shiftsafterviewing he workevena few times. n Gray yet another ccountof a catastrophethreewomen ide nan ndustrial levator. heydeliver deeply isturlcingeport boutan mminent nvironmentalisaster. r maybeit has already appened. heyspeakwith incredible peedaboutchemjcals ndradiation, reating weirdpoetry: Leadprotects sfromgamma-rays,andsluffs he holes nd absorbs heproducts ifission. ll he soundsof comfodare nsuffcient. nehundred adsequalonegray." hesubject mergesn hesecompactpieces s apreliminaryonfigurationather hanas a substance r essence ivenonceand or all.Thesubject ere s a fluidarrangementf positionsthat can be redefined nd restructured.nAhtila's orks, he subjectnot onlyseems o live n imebut also o be ime.Time tself a zoneof radical ifference can crystalze n manyw_ays ur l wi,LLeUql_ -rest nstable elf dentiv

CHRONOLOGIES

Kantsays hat imehasonlyone dimenslon.t is he ormof our nnerinlu ion andas such acksvisually iscernableontours.t hasnoevident hape Gesta/t but we produceour own mages f timethrough arious nalogies. e bonow models rorngeometryo geta bettergraspof time's nnerworkings. hus,we representimeasan nfiniteine,and rom his magewe then drawconclusionsoncerningts nature. line, s s wellknown, an be dividedntoan nfi-nitenumber f points, nd, hence, inearirne s haunted y all heriddes known rom he nquiriesnto he conceptof movement,orinstancehat most amousparadox ssociated itha certain eno:Achillesuns'ten imes aster han hetortoiseand gives he animala headstart f ten meters.He runs hose en meters, hetortoiseone; he runs hat meter, hetodolsea decimeter; e runs hatdeci-meter,he tortoisea centimeter;e runsa centimeter,he tolroisea milimeter; ur leet-footedero uns hat millimeter,he tortoisetenthof a mlllimeter,nd so on to infinity, ithout he tortoise verbeing vertaken. simihrparadoxsphrased y William ameswhen- in SomeProblems f Philosophy1911) he denieshat ourteenminutes anpass.Why? Because irst t is necessaryor seven opass,and beforehe seven, hreeand a ha lf,and before he hreeand a half,a minuteand hreequarters, nd so on untlllheend, heinvisible nd, hroughenuous abyrinthsf time. s there n actanend?Does he mazehavea center?Commentingn thephenomenologicalonceptionf time,morepre-cisely n Husserl'samous iagram howinghe series f nowpointssinkingnto hepast, vauriceMerleau-Pontyontends ritically,Tlmels not a line buta networkof intentionalities."s,n he otherhand,JorgeLuisBorges, he mostsevere f all criticsof linearity,ays, lknowof one Greek abyrinth hich sa single traight ine,"And headds,Alonghat ine o manyphilosophersave ost hemselves..",,


21/56


22/56

hand,and memoryon theother,but between wo differentormsof the atter: etention nd ocollection.nlywhat hasbeenpresented(throughmpression,etention, ndprotention)an be re-presentedthroughacts such as recollect ion. he sinkingdown ntopastnessillustratedn he diagrams allwithin he realm fpresentationandsince here s no a priori imitationo the ieldof re'tentionne couldeven nquirewhy anyoneever orgetsanything.What s flowing snot reallyhe temporalmodes hemselvespast,present,uture) utrather heconsciousnessf thesemodes.The low tself s nothingbut he continuousnticipationf protentionalonsciousnessnd hesinking f impressionnto etention,ndyet, f there eallys suchaflowat thevery oundationf subjectivity,ow do wegainknowledgeof it? Husserlnsists hat he low notonlymakespossiblehe ap-ipearance f objectsntime; t alsoappearso itself. hemost unda-\ ,tmental orm of self-consciousnessakesplaceon this_p_laneihe/ theoryof the suqect s by necessity lsoa theoryof li'ne.Pl'enome-nblogyat itsmost uadamentatevel s crififrrjioEjy. n-ini; evet tthe absolutelow, he "constitutingnd constituted oinclde, ndyetnaturallyheycannotcoincidenevery espect."3?hismeans hatthe lowappearso itself it s self-constituting,"ccordingo Husserl),but never n thepoint-like elf-presencef a now.Thus, he flowappearso itse lf naccordance ithan essential elay. heprimalm-pression oes not appear o itselfas impression,ut s givenonlypostjactuallynachtrdgrbh)hrough he sinking f mpressionnto e-lention. his ranscendentalyncope similaro theonewe encoun-tered n the reading f Douglas's erSandmann implies seriousdisturbance f the complete eltimmediacy f the subjectunder-stood n Cadesianerms.The subjecthereappears s fractured.

| ,,Accordingo an nevitablennerchronology,appear o myself salways lready ast.

Husserl'sheory f a constitutingubject mphasizeshat heego t-self snever o be found n the worldof obiects.Thesubiect snot athing; t constituteshe worldof thingshat appearn spaceand imebut s itselfnot ocatedn theworld. n this sense,he subiect sthelimitof theworld it'snot nthe worJd ut not nsomeotherworld'eith6i)ihis mplieshat he vocabutarye usewhendescribinghingsnappenrngn our emporalworld s notvalid or the levelof the"absolutelow" So arewe condemnedo silence bout henatureof the low?Husserl oesnot hinkso, becausewe can name heflow ndirectlyhrough he employment f metaphors:,Wehavenoalternativeerebut to say: his low s something e speakof hconformitywith what s constituted,but it is not ,somethinginoblective ime.' t isabso/ute ubjectivjty..".@Even he concept ,flow,,,saysHusserl,s a metaphor.Other hjnkers avedeveloped thermetaphorso capture he innerworkings f time.Thereareonlymoreor lessconvincing nalogiesjhe pointand he ine Aristofle,Kant); hecircleor spiral Hegel,Nietzsche);he coneand thepyr-amid Bergson)ihe network t\y'erleau-ponty);he gift(Heidegger);thecrystal nd he old Deleuze);he abyrinthBorges);heChineseroof(Frangoisulien).3,heseare all versions f chronoiogy. hesuccessive atureof all anguagemakes t impossibleor us o talkabout hingshatarenot emporal, s Borges ointsout n his ,His-tory of Eternity." usserl's ilemmas similar. here sno languagethatcan describehe evel f transcendentalubjectivity,ince venthe emporal rder hatwe take orgrantedsconstitutedn this ev-el.The flow"s not n ime it is not emporat uI emparalizing.lts notn time; athei t makes,thexperiencef timepossible.f one

33 SEE CHAPIER Tll/O OF FBANQOS JUL EN S DU 'IEMPS.' EIFMEIVI D'UNEPH]LOSOPHIEDU VIVRE1PARISED T ON GF'SSEI & F/OUELLE, 2@1), FOR A DISCIJSSON OF THE NOTIONOF YU Z'OIJ, THEIWO PABTSOF A TRAO ONAL FOOF AND TS FELEVANCEFOF A CHINESE UNDEFSIANDING OF TIME


23/56

pursueshe concept f time o itsorigin, t ceaseso displayemporalproperties. usserl ives he "orlgin" name hai in he endmustbe understoods one urthermetaphoflhe"living resent." very t-tempt o categorizet in ermsof "events,"processes,"nd"phases"is a kindof reif ication nd hencea falsification. truephenomenol-ogy ot tlrne,a lrue chronotogy.s awareof its bwn imitations ndultimatelv f t own utilitv s a doctdne.

EXTENDEDINEMA

A manied ouple, oth ruckdrivers, pendnightandday n hesamevehicle,raveling cross he American ontinent.WhiJe nedrives.the otner ries o get some est.Thewomar prefers rivtng r nignt:the roadsareempty, ndanextraordinaryhangeakesplace.Ea;hnight he andscapes as f ransformedntoa filmplaying nthe argewindshield f the truck.Thewheelsare ike he reelsof a filmpro_lector, nd n he driver,seat, hls magical inerna,soleviewer anenloy nsplendidsolationhespectacle f thoughts nd memorieson the "windscreen.,,ougAltken who met hiscouple t a diner nCalifornja toldmeabout hisnocturnalmetamorphosis,nd t struckme hatsimilar hifts appennhisown works.Takehe earlv ideooiecen ect'ian1992), hichwasproduced v launchirg fit.ncarr_era (attachedo a small,high-poweredocket)nto he sky.Here,essentiai lements f Aitken,s orkarealready resentt movlno e_h.cle: peedmade angibtei n dbstracrandscape rfoldinghroughcontemporaryechnologies f vision.nitiaily nesees he blueofthesky, hen he white ocket,s legant limbody.As t takesofi, hecamerasturneddownwards,egisteringhe textureof theqround.l takesa whireo ulde.stand nat hegra,lvsllrtacesthe asphatjwhere he aunchook place,but hen hingsbecome lear:a oar_k.ng oi, a iewca.s,somebuildi.lgs. nighway. he camera piralsinto he sky.Each ime t spjnswe witness nesameconstellationfbuildingsnd oads .. only hecarshavemoved, ndeveMhingssmaller nd udherawayas hegroundmapexpands.Whenexhibi-ted, he film transferredo video)s played n extreme lowmotion.Frame y frame he urban andscape f southernCalifornjanfoldsbeloreour eyes: he ordinaryeatures f thesuburban ridappearasan entgrnaticattern.

The andscape s seen roma moving entcteecursas a themethroughout isworks.lnautumn 1994),he viewof theclouds roman arrp/ane ndow returns everaltimes s an ntervalof sublimestillness. hewingand he et engine eem o standstilli he distant


24/56

landscape f cloudsmoveswithglacial lowness.Othervehiclesmake heirappearancer car,a bicycle, humanbody EveMhingmovessmooihly, lldes,and dnhs n pertectsync as in a musicvioeo beraled ron arl estr;ctro']sno free o concentratenryonambience nd low From he verybeginning' itken'sworkshavereterencedpeedand rrotior' rhis linkshis endeavo'so anoldergeneration f Californiandists nterestedn aviation nd cars' romJamesTurrell ndChrisBurdeno Robed rwin.Theexperiencefdriving n a Calilornianreeway the feeling t treedom rd lhe plea-sureof frictionless otion has oundmanyexpressions,mongthem rwinb ubilanteportafter eturningo LosAngelesroma tripto Japan:I WAS OAMNG OVER MULHOILAND PASSON THE 'CN OIEGOFREEWAXYOU KNOW MIDDLE OF NO'WHEAE ATABOU' TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MOBNING, WHEN I JUST GOT I'IKE ITIESE WAVES UTEFALLYI MEAN NEVEFHAD A FEELINGOUITELIKE T JUSTWAVESOF WELL'SEI G' JUST INGLING' IT'SLIKE FEALLYKNEW WHO IWAS' WHO I AM "' ' TO BIDEAFOUND IN A CAR IN LOS ANGELESHASBECOME ONE OF MY GBEAT PLEASUFES.4O

Aitkenbelongso perhaps lesseuphoric eneration, ut the sen-sationof driving car and heexperience f moving n vehiclessno doubtof importanceor his art,as is theveryconceptof speedAnotherunmistakably alifornianroject,n manyways elatedolnflectbn,s he high-speedideo uryeyes 1994) hichdocumentsdaredevil onFringer'sttempi o drivea motorcycleowna race-trackat 190milesper hour'However,he cameraattachedo thevehicle reaks own beforeullspeed s reached nstead f a trans-cendence f motionhoped or by a whole radition f predominantlymaleartists, technologicalisruption ets n. UnlikeChrisBurden'splayful -Car 1975), ay,mostof the motorizedehiclesn Aitken's40 FOSERT SWIN, CLTEDN LA\4FENCE WESCHLEB.SEF/NG S FORGFN' IG fIlE NAME AF fHE THII']GOIVFSEFS (BEBKELEYUNIVEFSTY OF CAL FORNIA FRESS' 1S32).P 4'

vrdeos elong o a post-mechanicalraand will nevitablvoliaose.rl wouldaopear hat t'sonly neirdrsirlegrationhat correscroseoexpressing hat he artist,nmanyof hisworks, s trying o captureia nchsense f timeandnarrativetructureslaboratenougho giveexpressiono heterogeneitynd cornplexity.na worldwhere ele_presence nd ele-robotics reno longerust he ngredientsf sci_ence ictionnovels r utopian isions ut eaturesaken orqrantedin oureverydayrves.he veryconcepts l p,ace.movemert, ndve.locitymustbe renegotiated.n he globalomnipresenceroducedby todaysdig,lal echnorogres,xperiencedif,.te o ongerollowsInear rderof successive oments. athei t becomes,n he wordsofPa-uTfifilid,asystemof representationf a physicalworldwherefuture, resent, ndpastbecomenterlinedigures f underexposure.exposure, ndoverexposure.',4iormore hana decade,Aitken,sworKs ave ystematicallyxploredheperceptual,affative,ndoo_elicpossrbil,rrespened p by heglobar nv,rcnment roduced v.ew tech'lolog;esf communtcation.na wolrdbrimming ithdrgitalinformation, e havemovedbeyond he age whenmachines reseenprimarilys extensionsf the muscularystem. odav,sechno_ jlogies remethodsof extendinghe nervoJS ystembey;nd lhetraditionalonfines f the human ody.Theyseem apable f alteringtheverycoreof experience the perception f a continuouslowofevents crossime.

Theconventionalonception f time n he Westernradition,nsc!enceas wel as in philosophy,asbeen hat of a lineof now_points.The ecurringmagesor llustratinghestructuref temporalitvfromArsroLreshyslcs lt heway o Hussei's henomenologyt rme_consciousness is thatof the pointand the ine.Husserl,samousInetaphor,s pointedout above,sthatof thecomet,sail:what sl)resentn thestrictsense s the burning omet tself;whereashe41 PAl)LVlFtLtA, AUR tNERrlAILONDONSAGE 2OOO),p3s.


25/56

past,seenas a longseriesof now-points oneby, makesup theradiantailwhich apersnto nvisibilitynd nally blivionThe deaofa movingbody- be it acomet,a truck or a high-powered odelrocket unctionings an llustrationf time s, t seems, s old as heveryconcept f linearime tself.But his inear otion f temporalityis alsosomethinghat some hinkers s wellas artistshaveendea-vored o overcome, ndAitken s clearly mong hem Earlyworkssuchas nllectlon ndfuryeyesseem o push he inearmodel avehicleraveling t extreme peed, erticaLlyr horizontally o itslimit, ndbeyond.n ater nstallations,he struggleo dismantleinear-ity has ed o newdistributionsf timeandspace, roducingntricate -labyrinihs f foldedspace/time. he elaborate ystemo{ lows andpulsesn workssuchas diamondsea 1997), /ectrlc arth 1999),and nteriorsQOA2) annot ereducedo a linear arrative,et aloneto a clear emporal uccesson.n an nterview,itken iscussedheprobemsof expressingn alternative,orecomplex, nderstandingof imeiFILMANOVIDEOSTRUCiIJRFOUF EXPEFILNCT N A LINIAF WAY SIMPLYBECAUSETHEVREMOVINGIMAGES ON A STRIP OF EMULSION OF TOPE. THEY CFEATEA STORY OUT OF EVEAYTHING BECAUSEIT'S NHERENITOTHE MEDIUMAND TO THE STRUCTUFE F MONTAGE. UT'OFCOUBSE,WE EXPEFIENCETIME N A MUCH MORECOMPLEXWAY THE OIJESTION OR ME IS' HOWCAN BREAKTFOUGH

THIS DEA, VHICH S REINFOFCED ONSTANTLY? O!I/CAN IMAKE'NME SOMEHOWCOLLAPSOREXPAND, O I HAT T \O LONGEFUNFOIDS IN THIS ONENARFOWFOqM' 4)

Aitken ften eturnso the mportance f finding ewand richermo-oelsof narrat r, and,as a consequence.ew ways f approachingtemporality.n hemostambitiousnstallations,t js no onger ques-tion ofpushinghe inearmodelof time o the vergeof collapse, utrather f suggestingmoresophisticatedndcomplexnetworkshatallow or emporal eterogeneityn a multiplicityf non synchronous42 SAL]LANTON ATHOLJSANDWOFDS OI]GATKEN AFTFOFUM.MAY20oO

connections,elays, nddefenals. nambitious ork hatnegotiatesall of thesessuess themultiscreennstallation/amond ea,shotduringseveral eeks n theNamibian esert nsouthwestern frica.It stadedwith he artist's uzzlement t a hugeblanksection n amapof thesouthern skeleton oast.', ryingo gather nformationabout his zone,all he artistcould earnwas hat t isknownasDiamond rea1 and2, and hat t hasbeensealed ff rom he restoi the worldsince1908.Behindhecomputer-controlledencesiesa vast erritory more han70,000square ilometers that containsthe world'soldestdesed, he Namib, s wellas an enormous ia_mondmine.Aitken's amera egistersmoothbanksof sand, ines fundulationroduced y the wind,andsharpshadows ontrastinofelosof compleLearknesswtth hoseof the red ^.or esertsand.The andscape, ith tsdistinctand aimoststylized hapesandlines, isplays rUficialualiUes.t times, t seems o transmutentoan mage an trnage f empUness,erging n abstraction. itkenexpoundst Of he fiveweeks spent nthe ,zone,,the geographicbarnershat restrlctedhe spacemadeup thenarrative.he and_scape tself rovided n mmeasurablemptiness, straight orizonllnedividing and,sl!y,andocean.,,dn hemldstof the vastempti_ness,almostentirely evojdof people, highly ophisticated inlngndustrys at workaroundheclock.The ntelligent achineseemto functionndependentlyf any human nvolvement.heydig fordramonds,ransponsandand rocks,and evensurvey he territory,protectingheirproperty ggressively.hecamera ans ences,me_tallicscaffolding,n excavator;t zooms non surveillanceamerasand egisters hugeblackhelicopterovering ith he rotor lappingrnslowmotion.Evenf nothingeally appens eyondheautomatedmovements,he whole ndustrja omplex xudes n omlnous ndthreateningtmosphere.

43 FFANCESCO ONAM 'DOLJG ITKEN:MAK NG WORKW THOUTBOUNOAR]ES..L4SH,AFT


26/56

It s heverycontrast elween atuand echnology hat ecomesthe hemeof thepiece, ndAitkenakespainso presenthesceneryin slow akesof vastness,nterwoven ithcomputerized achines- withoutmakinghis own moralpointoJview

elt:"Thecamerabe-camea s;lenl ye ocused n caolurrnglghtand spacerori a non-judgmental erspectiveHere he focuswas on somethingncrediblyelusive.n its nstallationorm, hework cycleswlthout eginnrngrend."44 esee he rustyunderbelly f a truckand barbedwire; henwe seewildhorsesunningreelyhroughhe desenroll ing'nhesand.We see hemechanicalmovements f a surveillanceamera'andwe get a close-up i a horse's ye'blinkingn he sun Even fthecontrast etween ature ndmachineepresents clear ensionin hework, t's hegeneralmechanization,nvolvinghe ndustrialoevcesas wellas tl'e andscapewhch "nakes he trongestmpres-sion,pushing /bmond ea beyond he traditionalature/cu[uredivide. hecycles f nature thesun, hewaves arenot necessanlyin opoositiono the artifacts xploitinghe naturalesourcesOn amore peculativeevel, llmovementseem o participalen hesameiterativerocess,which s perhaps cycleof death ather han oflife.Nevertheless,hewildhorses unninghroughhe desert till e-presentife,and he grasshopperna wall s alive ven f t behavesalmostmechanically.hevery ew humans eem o be reduced oservinghe elaboratemachinery't is as if heautomatedndustrialcomplexs animated etdevoidof life Everythingrganic'as Freudclaimsn Beyond he Pleasure rinciple' as he nherent rive o re-turn o an earlier nd more undamentaltateof existencelhat ofthe norganic. ife s but a detourbetween noriginal tateof deathand a futuredeath o whicheveMhingalive s essentiallytrivingFreud irstcameacrossthisdeathdrive,Thanatos, hen nvestigat-ing whal he called epetitionompulsrone ' the tendency f cer-tainpatientso returnobsessivelyo the most raumatic nd hurtful

: *

experiences. eath,Freudmaintains,xistswithin ifeas a DrinciDleof repetitionr mechanical rjve o returno theiroriginal tateofinorganlcmatter hatprecedes ll ormsof organic ife, ioiogical swellas ntellectual.he oop,withoutbeginning r end,af diamondseacan be readasa grandiosellustrationf a returno the mechanicalprocesses f the norganic roducedhroughmankind'smostadvancedechnologies.hroughhe mplementationf rational al-culationn combination ith a limiesswillto power, lfe n its mostadvancedorms urnsagainsttselfo produce metallic nvironmentof death.A bleakand distantmoonover he emptydesert s thesolewitness o this nfrnitelyircular toryaboutdiamonds, reed,andsublimemachines.


27/56


28/56

a ll-i 'd creen). ho .seouesleredlore na room sobsas sl^eis -lens o Ine nterview.l'e i'rageso' lhe adisls pa"eltsareseparaledby anaclditionalrojection f anearthrnover's echanicalrmover-turningbrickand rubble Almond'smostexplicitly utobiographicalwo.^, racianapproacnesemooral'ty a orutalwa y Asa bo vAlmond trainspotted"as a wayof escapinghe smallEnglishownof Wlgan,wherehe wasborn,which ntroduced im o the worldoftimerables rd clocks. r the surrmerot 2003 he olaceda 'Tlass'veflipclockoutsldehe GiardininVenlce' ndperhaps llhlsworksarechrolonele"s n o1eway or anothe'Ofter severaldye"s f lempoal'lty make hemselveseltl he imemeasured y mechanlcalevlces;the temporality f thehumanbody;evencosmic ime' marked achdayby the rlsingandsettingof thesun lr'A RealTimePie\)e 1995)'a wall-size roiectionf the artist's ondon tudiowas ransmittediasatelliteo an abandonedhop which iewers ouldenter)n anotherpan of town. t's nota dramaticmagen anywaylyou seea aole'achai', lan,ard a drgitallock n , ]ewdJ. o o.1e nlershe oorn:nothing appens except, very ixtysecondshe numberslipover'causing surprisinglyoudcrashThisgoeson for wenty-fourours'and n he ime t takes he room o get darkand hen ightagaln hecrash ccurs ,440 imesWhatwearetaking ar t n,orhavebe -comepartof, s nothing ut a hugeclock,broadcastivea coupleofmilesacrosshe greatcity.Althoughhework s technologicallyomplicatedtheartist equiredassistancerom he BBC),t'snot he echnologyo muchas a theo-retical onundrumhat seems o interest lmond Atterall,A RealI/mePibce oesn'tpresent swithanythlng e don'tget n our ivingroomsevery ayvia iveTV In act, t otfersus much ess;but here'the focuson themedium tself,on the ive mage,makes he fiaslotheoretical redicament onspicuous:patialdistance,emporalpresence. e are here," odily resentn his oom,but also there,",narothe|oo1l,no tdi'eclly e'ceivableJl roletheress iven

Understood y Almondas a performancewith imeand spaceasthe protagonists),his pieceseemso havedevelopedn wo directronsrone rather rad ional,producing beautifuleriesof images;the otheraddinga psychologlcalwist.The irstdirectionecl oTuesday1440Minutes), 997, onsistingf photographshatdocu_ment hechanging aturalight n he studioeachminuteor wenty_fourhours, esultingn twentyjourtableaux f sixtyphotographseach.Therelation etweenhe rigidgridand heseamless lendingof lightand darknessesultsnan elegant ieceaboutcosmic imeand he human esireo impose tructuren experience.hesecondd rectloned o a work relayedivevia satelllteo the corridors fhighculture. M.P Pentanvi 11997)s a truiynnovativeiece.Ha_vLng close riend n ail,Almond ecidedo stagea live ransmissionlrorna cellat Her \.4ajesty'srison n NorthLondon.Relayed iariatelliterorn he prison,he mage f an emptycellappearedive orlwo hours t the ICA nLondon. heold andwornspace, laustroItrobicand depresslng,ffersno surprise, ut he deafeningoundlrom heguards utside the constant langing f metal atesandll() shrillnoiseof keys ockingand unlocking is a realshock.The',r undbuilds o a crescendo, nd oneanticipates,venhopes or,| ( rneinaleruption f violence.i never oores.Wlrirl s t thatsso puzzling bout eal-t ime rojectionsresentedn,I r ut context? obeginwith, hey,re nique;he yhappen nce.I rllr)rodhroughechnologiesf massdistribution.hevare nonethe_h,',ri ngulai n hat heyhavean open uturetwe don,tknowwhat's1l,,1r1110appen.his salquiteevident,utsti l lworth mphasizing,',lfrr) t seemso relievehe artworkof thepredicamentiagnosedlr ltofjamn's endlesslyeproduced ssayon mechanicaeproduc_l,, lr l lrere sa videotapeersion f H.M.ppentonvil le,bu t he ori_rllrrl workof an happened nlyonce. One an magine nynumberI l ,,lr|rIlaneouseal imeprolectionsf the same mageryallspati-,rllylirilinct. lt temporally,t wouldstilibe meaningfulo specify n


29/56

"originaL"ransm sion, .e.,a unique ventno matterhow s mpleor comprex.lThe "otherc nema"of arusts uch as Almond,Ahtila,and Douglas

i certainlymarksa step n he history f the ad ofmoving magery.n/ thelrmultFprojectionstalations,emporal vents re"spatialized"'' so hat heycanbecome pprehendedithln culpturalnd architec-/. tu'a' rcIhet hanslrictlv irerratic e'ms..lfcrne'na ou d produce/ wl^atDeleu/e alled rystal-i.nagesaplurng or a1 lstalt tl'e i']ner\ - workings i time tself , hen he emporapossjbilitjesf this"other\ clnema," xploringmore ntricateormsof paralLelismnd synchroj/ nicity. reevengatet I hesi"nL,taney or severasiows i flovi']g

\ rmageryrarts he possib'rityiolbnlyotoenseand emoora'ynrlf-: layeredmagery ut aso of ntricate onstellationsnd uxtapositions.\ -lnaF6i1;lhe'r'-areblenty f new ools o questioninearityn all tsiorms. ime, o doubt,s Almond'sentra heme, hrono gyhi sdiscipline. nd I wouldargue hat t p aysa keyrole n the worksofall he artistsdiscussedn this essay; n this sense heyare all, /"chronologists."Ahtilaoncesaid, The deaof linearity othersme,i a$does henotion f causalltyhataccompaniest and heassump-tion hat a storyshould ecome nderstandabehroughhal ormula.-,, I don't hink hat he mlndworks lke hat."16o is his he mostperti-' nent ssue: o portrayhe mind n its ullcomplexity?

(Arepresentationf self?Withother echnicalmeans, distshavepursued imilar oalsbefore. ne couldargue hat someof DanGraham'smost mportant ieces ndeavoro representhe struc-tureof subjeclivityn all ts emporal ompexity.na statement boutthe emporal pecifcsof his 1974 nstallat ion pposingMinorsandVideoMonitors on Time Delay whichconsistsof two mirrors, wovideocameras, nd wo videomonitorswith ume delay Graham

explainswhat hepersonenteringhis arrangementncounterst,Aspectatorookingn hedirection f the mirror,ees jl a continuouspresent imereflection f hissurroundingpace."a?hat s whatwenormalyexpect o get fromperception a trustworthyeportofwhat s there,mmediately frontof us andgiveno the senses. utthe nstallationad uirherevels, o longer ossibleo accountorwithmetaphors f percepUon.heviewer lsoencounters,.pl him-self as observer."his sthe levelof self-reflectionraditionallye-scribedwith hemirror scentral netaphor. raham ddsone moreevel: [3]on the reflectedmonitor rnage,ivesecondsn thepast,hrsareaas seenby the rninorof the opposite rea."Onecouldclaimthat he system sequippedwithmernory .e., hingsdon't ust disappearonce heyareno longerperceived.nsteadheyaregivenasecond un, iveseconds ater. n1974,crahamproduced largenumber f works nvolvlngelays nd delayedenderingsf alreadydelayed magery.\,4orearelullyhanany otheradist I knowof,Graham crutinizeshe functioningf subject ity,and ikea pheno-menologistegivesdueattentiono the emporalmodesof mentallife.Husserl, s we saw,consideredemporaty he rnostbasic evelof subjectivity:is doctrineof the mind s alsoa doctrineof Ume.Hedistinguishedetween ifferent indsof past ime and differentkindsof futurity and meticulouslycrutinjzedhe various apacitiesthatallow he subjecto relate o them.-This temporal olyphony'is hestatewe ive ncontinuously,nd hereare ntricateormsofinternal eay and synchronicity.riting boutone of Graham,s974installations,hien'y e Duve tates: Withextremelyimple echnicalmeans,DanGraham as abricatedhe perfect ecorder nd heabsoluteistorical'subject. ')4

41Dt\CRAu4Mwop-Joo-C60,fDv.po\\_aqo,w,pDrJ),LDoofr' 943 THEFRYDEDUVE DAN GFAHAI!{ NDTHE CRII OUEOF ARTISTIC LfiONOMt' N BFOUWEB P 53.


30/56

So how s one o understandhese ecent reations lthin hehis-toryot videoad andpost-cinematicxperimentation?n he 1970s'the firstdecadeof videoad,the mostcommon patial pplicationfthe mediumwas hat of the closedcircuitArtists uch asGraham'BruceNauman, ndJoanJonasallproduced orkscontalningeed-back oopsof livecameras nd monitors,nstallationsnto whichviewers re nvitedo enter.Drawnnio he visualmachineryheyarenot onlyviewers ut nstantly so partof thatwhichcouldbe seen'i.e.,notonlyperceivingubjects ut alsobodiesorced nto hepas-sive oleof theperceivedbject ln Nauman'slaustrophobicorri-dors andGraham'sime delay ooms he viewersun ntodisplacedirnageryf themselvesn monitorsThemoment ouenter ouareimplicatedn physicallyndkinestheticallyurprising,vendisturbing,ways. n an essayon PierreHuyghe'sStreamsideDay Follies2003)'an elaboratenstallationremieredt NewYork'sDia n Chelsea ndsymboljcallyositionedightbelowGraham'sefectivepavilion nlhe ouilding rooftop,David oselilspe|soutone wayo' assessingthe shift rornclosed-circuitideo o projection. lthoughmanycon-temporary ractitionersf videoad emphasizehe active oleof thevieweras a kindof co creatoror edltorof thework, onecan stillclaim hat heorolections such epresents step backwardwhenit comes o viewerpanicipation:rojection nderminesneof thernostprogress:vespects t tne c,oseo-circuitpparalus np'oyedby adistssuchas G.aham:lt s conceotualizalio']' speclatorshrpas nteractive,ven f the nteracuonffordeds he arguably assiveoneof Insert ingles bodywithin 'nedia ircu;lnordero see lrelayed ack o oneself, ften n distodedorm."'" Comparedocommercialinema, ontemporaryideoprojection' t course,es-tablishes n active pectatot t doesn't ul l he viewernto heposFtionof a consurnerf a ready-rnadeisualpolitics

49 OAVJD OSELII " NS DE TNE L]GHT CUBE '4FTFOFUM MAFCH 2OO4 P 154

"Nosimple ine,hat seam," aysCarol . Clovern a shodessay nDouglas'serSandmann th its verticalpllt hat runs hroughheprojection.@t marksa ternporal ap,as we'veseen,andcreateskindof syncopation hichcuts right hroughourperceptualield,thus,producing disturbingense f dlsharmony,ot o sayschizophren . This issures a kindof wound,savsCloverand relatestto thediscussion fthe suture f classicalinema. ilm tudies avefordecadesheorizedhe gapsandsplits n imeandspace ncine-maticnarrationnd n he spectators'elat n to what stakingplaceon the screen: Thecut that akesus roma manwalkingn hisbedroomo the samemanon themorning ubway,heseries f cutsthat acilitatehe alternationi shotsbetweenwo people'sacesinconversation,nd soon, aredeepand wide,and athoughour nar-rative nd cinematic onditioningnd our deepdesire orvisualcoherence nd plenltudemayallowus o overlookhern,we mustfeel hemon some evel."s1lassical olllvr'oodinemasconstructed in a fashionhat makeshesecuts nvisible.n act,we hardlyever eel hedeepwounds.Theworksof Douglas ndHuyghe ringthewounds o the surface.Herenothing shidden,and he toolsaredisplayedn sucha fashlon hatnobody an orgethat his sal lhighly difical tuff,and hat heres nothing atural bout he waysstories re oldon he screenhrough omplex diting echniquesn-tenton effacinghernarks f the edtingsp ce.As peterGidal ointsaul inMaterialist ilm,ed ing n he nterest f the seamlesslowol narrativetillzesules hatdemand considerablemountof selfetfacing uts.Theyare here,but theyare notperceived s cuts.Gidal's redo,echoedby numerous ractitionersf structuralistrmaterialistilm, epresents critique f thissystemof sef-etface-ments: Wherehere s an edit, a cut, t must notbe hidden.'.,50 CAFOL J CLOVEF, 'DEF SANDMANN " N WATSON.TI]ATEF. CLOVER P 76

O2 PFTEF G DAL, ]I,'/4IB/AI|ST F/LA,' LONDON A NEW YOFK: ROUIrEDGE, 19S9) P.3,


31/56

"Afterall,cinernas nothing uttakesandedlting. heres nothingelse," aysAlainBadiou,whodefines inema s he "seventhrt" na veryspecific ense: here implys nothing lsehat wouldconsti-tute"the ilm."53inemas the mpureart, an art hat s essentiallydependentpona "general pace"n which the ilm" elateso theotherafts andunfoldsts own specificitys a kindof contaminationThus, the lm" exists nly hroughts relationshipo thatwhich t snot, .e., o the otherarts. t doesnot add tselfo the othersix pre-tendingo beon he sameevel s hem.Rather,aysBadiou' ine-ma s he"plusone"of the artsanda readymplieshem "lt operateson the otherarts,using hem as ts startingpoint, n a movementthat subtractshem rom hemselves.""noday's ost-cinematicx-perimentationhouldnot beseenas an a'ttempto inventa newgenre,discipline r ad formwith ts own dentityArtists ikeAhtila'Douglas, nd Aitkenare notthe nventors f another inema halseeks ts own speclficityhroughpurifcation.On he contrary,heymake isiblewhathasbeen hereal lalong: he mpurity ndhetero-geneity f cinemaquacinema.Cinema'sorceas a contemporaryart,saysBadiou,iespreciselyn turning he mpurity f everydea.nroan dea n its own righT. o expo andvlsualizehe parasit'smand nconsistencyypicalof the "plusone"art since ts nceptionsto display inema'smostspeciflceature its dependencen andoroductiventeraction th the otherarts.Cinema ot onlyoperates n the otherads in a parasiticmode' talsobranches ut nlo an extendeoeld. In recent earswe haveseencinemamigraientootherobjects, sdesigner ruceMauputsit." So manvartistsodayworkwithina cinematicramewod


32/56

perimentationintent n capturing level f subjectivexperlencethatprecedes bjectificationavoids rtobjects nd nstead tagesexperimentalnvironmentsnd perceptual ituationswhichofcoursebv no meansmplieshat heirproductions renot materiallyand echnicallvomplex). hesubjects not a thing,not an entity,andechoinghe GermanRomanticsand' nadveriently,usserl, hoalso nsistedhat he deepestevel f subjectivltyludes ll raditio-naladiculation),dornonsists,Thesubjects all hemorea subjectthe ess t is soi and he more t imaginestself o beand o be anobiective ntity or tself,he ess t is a subiect$ Theambitiono re-present level f experiencehat s notpossibleo reduceo anyform of obiectnaturallyeads o formsof art that ry to do withoutcommodities.he subiects not a thing,but rathert is a conditionof possibilityf things; ndan an tryingo capturehispre-objectivezone s desperatelyn search fa newmediurnThus,anart arisesthat ries o avoidobjects ll ogether, nd hewidespreaduspicionof the commodityorm isgivena philosophicaloundationmoreprofoundhan hecritique f theworkings f the culturalndustry s-sociatedwith henameAdorno.(OrshouldAdorno's nderstandingf theself-identicalubject s ahisioricallyroduced onstruct e developedurthero as o alsoaccount or versions f the subjectmorecomplex han he reified"hardness" f self-consciousnesshich,as heputs t, mimics heexperience f physical bjects?f thenotionof subjectivitynques-tionwouldalsoencompass dimension f "non-obiective"nd"pre-reflective"hought hat continuouslyvades ll objectification'then henorron t hisloricaronstructionould olcourse be muchstrongerSucha constructivi stdeawouldalsobe closero the ap-proach f thisessay, hich akesphenomenologys usl on.-v"el,

BJEK|, NS,C/IVr'OFrE(FMNKFUFT AM MAIN:SUHFKAMq 1969) P 165

sronol ananalytic f finitudehat establishesemporality t thevery-&igin,or rather s the veryorigin, f finitehought.perhapseuery.''-""-.-subjecUvaUonroducestsown sphere f ucidity n--dtsown ,,unthought"hrough ts specificotding f time.lf the most undamental imension f subjecUvitys time,everyphenomenologywill endup also beinga chronology.As thesubjectreturnso itself nsearch f a sphere f original ivenness,t findsthe "living resent" t the oundation f tsown being.This urnsoutto be nota zoneof monolithicelf-presenceut a heterogeneous_,origin.Accoroingo husserl, he oresent spermeated y absenceand otherness;nlywhen ettingn what sother han tseif, an tremainwhdt t truly s. Thus, t cannotbe interpreteds a Drincioleoi exclusion,losing heego off rom hat whjch s foreign nddif-ferent.Given he fundamentaloleof variousormsof alterity,heliving resentmust nstead e seenas ncludjng principle f hos-pitality.ouseHusserl's etaphor,onsciousnesss nota bag illedwithpresent ontentshat aresupposedo compensateor hingsabsent.snstead,onsciousnesss capable f ntending hat s otherthan tself;t is capable f transcendence.his s an deaHusserlshareswithBergson. or nstance, o imageof the pastcan com-pensateor the past tself.Whenwe intenda pastevent hroughrecollection e are not ntending omekindof replica r picture,Bergsonwrites, The magepureand simplevill not ake mebackto thepast,unless, ndeed,t was nthe past hat I sought t.'eThus,we arecapable f eaplngnt o he past.This eap, r,!ump,to anotheremporal one sperhaps nexpectedn the workof aph osopher onsideredo be preoccupied rimarily ith he notionof continuity. he ifeof the mind sby no rneans ontinuous. n

60 HENRIBEFGSON,M/'EFANO MEI'OFY, IIANS. N M P&MEF AND W S@TI PAIMEF (NEWYOFI


33/56

the contrary ubjectivitys comparableo a Chlnese ox.A mazelikeconfigurationf flowsgivennside achother:perception,mpathy,rnemory nticipation,nd antasy reating nested rrangement.eall nhabitmany imezones imultaneously.his hetero-chronology,"to useBorisGroys's oncept,s the most normal f predicaments.We live n different imesSubjectivitytself s nowhereo be seen.This s fully n accordancewith hephenomenologicalotion f a flowof time-consciousnessthatappearso itselfonly ndirectlynd nevern a straightforwardfashion. he "flow"which s "absolute ubjectivity"anneverbegraspedhrough bjectifyingeilectionccordingo Husserl, ecausethe momenthe low s objectifiedhrough eflectivects, t hasal-ready anished.t seemshat he deepestevel f temporalityppearsonly ndirectlyhrough ariousormsof spatializationana work ofad evervisualizeuchan ntricatetructure?he ormatof a traditio-nal eatureilm can never eflecthowperceptionandmemoryworks,saysAhtila.Obvioustherownworksendeavoro do so'andworkslike oday cedainly intat a richerstructureo accommodatemultiplicity f flows.The "otherclnema" f today thatof Ahtila'nodoubt,bul also hat olTacilaDean emerges s an altempt o insert spatialmodelsnto he emporal imension,nd o "installime"-.inspace.nstallingime s a matterof choosinghe rightspatialmodel.he mostadequateschematism"llowinghe ranslationftemporal ropertiesntospace.Loops, ircularity,nd rotation remodesof visualization,odesof(in)stallingime.What heyhaven commons heirabilityo makemovingmages ndentire equenceseturn Circularitys a cipherof time s an mportanteaturen Dean's rojects, erhapsmostconspicuouslyresenlinFernsehturm2OO0),film shot nside herevolvingestaurantf Berlin'samous elevisionowerand one oftheGDR'smostmemorable onuments. rlginally,t tookone hour

for he restauranto do a iull otation. fter60 minutesoneookatthe ull360'of the city'shorizon),nehad o teavehe highly oughtafter eat.Today, fter he disappearancef Communism,herota-tio

Documents

Birnbaum Chronology