On 9 Mar 2021, at 12:08, Antoine
Félix Bürcher <contactme.felix[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Daniel and everyone else,
Thank you for your contribution.
I would like to reply by asking you a question.
What do you think about the fact
that normally museums shows works of artists that were done in the past (or
near past) but in the « sabl.live
» the artwork "is in
making" (always live) and after "is not anymore"(because the
time passed) ?
I think it has never been,
because it has always been a move between time and space and never been a
moment un particular, the art is the movement. I say
that it has never been, not because I think it has never been, but because
institutions show artworks in museums "that were been" and "are
now" and "will be" in history. What does that mean to not show
the archive and to show the live ?
Few artists did it, Bruce Nauman
at the end of the 60’s did it. Okay, but he is an
artist, « sabl.live » is an art space so what does that
mean for an art space to do show it live ? What does that tell about our present ?
In that case, I’m wondering how much traceable the artwork is and how
it can be an archive. Everyone can screenshot it by « God’s
eye ». Everyone can have it, it’s free.
Feel free everyone to reply to
this message.
Kiss,
Antoine Félix Bürcher
On 9 Mar 2021, at 12:21, Antoine
Félix Bürcher <contactme.felix[at]gmail.com> wrote:
about the way of considering art.
On 9 Mar 2021, at 12:19, Antoine
Félix Bürcher <contactme.felix[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Also, what does that mean the
fact that the viewer is not walking in the "temple" (or art space or
Museum) but he has access to the a panoptic view (the monitoring room or god’s eye) ? I think it’s another consideration about the way we consider art.
On 12 Mar 2021, at 20:03, Monica
Unser <monica.unser[at]icloud.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I wanted to add some thoughts
maybe more linked at first sight to the “spime” concept Daniel wrote about.
The project of exchanging through
a mailing list about one specific place that is not an empirical space reminded
me directly of the beginning of internet art or Net art (1990s). With this new “space” outside of national and
legal borders, as it was ideologically perceived at its beginnings, artists
thought about the potentialities that the digital space offer to exchange of
thoughts and creation. For some of these pioneer artists the place of art was
the space between two computers, two machines, and the gesture of the exchange
(as you can see in the Simple Net Art Diagram).
The artwork was mainly only visible on the net and was made for it, for a
community that existed and exchanged mainly through Internet forums. The medium
of net art is the connexion (internet connexion or connexion between
the artists abled through the internet), it requires interaction and reaction.
Image: MTAA (Mike Sarf & Tim Whidden), Simple Net Art Diagram, 1997.
I also thought about the mailing
list “Nettime” proposed by Geert Lovink
and Pit Schultz, a useful tool for the internet artists that exchanged through
the same medium we’re using now. The aim is not the
same, we’re thinking about an internet
space on its contours, not creating net art (or maybe we are?), but the
collective aspect of exchanging as the ontological basis of potentialities of
creation in the digital (or now post-digital) era re-contextualised
in my point of view our approach and gave it even more sense.
I wanted to cite this at the
beginning of this exchange to contextualise how
important it is that we are thinking from a non-significantly important
distance to each other on the same non-material space and still it creates a
content and a conceptual texture around the object we’re
approaching; a “spime” that is not an object yet, or maybe is, but lives “only” through this exchange, the
documentation of it with this mailing list that archives all of our impulses
and thoughts, the gaze that we are producing on a common object (SABL), not a
passive contemplation as Daniel wrote but a programmatic active observation.
It can be also linked to the “live” aspect Antoine mentioned, maybe
only this format and temporality allows this conceptual work we are doing on a a continually on-developing object without any archive.
Bisous to all,
Monica
On 1 Apr 2021, at 18:40 Robert Zamboni <robert1zamboni[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Items found in time. SPIME as an
Epistemological reconsideration.
Reading the various inputs shared
by the participants of this mailing list, what emerge to be the focal point of
the discussion is how the dimension ‘time’ is perceived in reference of an object during its
transformations and vice versa: how we perceive the transformative nature of an
object from a given perception of ‘time’.
What I
am trying to address is the concept of SPIME in its double nature of cause and necessity of a historically circumscripted way of thinking the objects. The SPIME - and
SABL as well - force into the consideration of the object the dimension ‘time’ as
a crucial aspect. And a particular type of ‘time’. The
consideration of the objects in their transformative natures through a temporal
direction is something that ever existed in the human cognition, or at least
since the human was equipped with the capabilities needed for the particular
act of the narratological rationalization.
The
temporal dimension of a SPIME however is intrinsically bonded in its coming
into being.
I’ll try to get this as straight as
possible: for a SPIME to be as such, the temporal information is essential,
thus the reason for its name. When we consider a SPIME we cannot think about a
precise moment of its transformative existence as synecdochical - as an ideal, ‘mature’, concluded form - of its being.
We have access simultaneously to every moment of its existence.
When we
think about an item, let’s say a hammer for example, we
will tend to think about the most stereotypical shape of a hammer, a precise
moment of its life that we load with an exemplar meaning of its existence in toto.
And this
moment will be the moment in which the hammer is most capable of fulfilling its
purpose.
The
appeal of the concept of SPIME, from my understanding, comes from its potential
to elude this sort of stereotypization. And its
potential to summon in the same instant every moment of it, all at once,
possibly. The potential seems to be to definitely evade that problematic behavior
that Hegel called roughly ‘to reduce something to its past’. In this
sense I feel the concept of SPIME so related to the popular accusations for an ‘end of history’ as
well as art history. This can be also related to what Antoine said about
considering ‘art as a movement’: the
necessity of considering the phenomena in their transformation, rather than a synecdochical moment of ‘ideal’ conclusion.
Ultimately
the potential seems to be to consider the object from a point of view different
from the one of its telos, its purpose.
Obviously
one of the reasons for the concept of SPIME to come into being is to be
optimized and be reshaped according to the information collected during its
tracking. I would, however, try to address this intuition: what are the
consequences of thinking an object in a ‘temporal simultaneity’?
I
remember a phrase from Anselm Kiefer’s Notizbücher, writing about the representative value of the ‘form’ book
for the occidental understanding of history as a montage of meaningful moments
bonded with each other. He also wrote about the necessity of a ‘Kernbohrung’, a ‘coring’ as
his particular way of thinking history; the action of going through the layers
of the narrative made up of the pages of the book. Concepts like SPIME, and
spaces like SABL, make the proposal for a ‘coring’ very natural and feasible.
The
metaphorical form of the book seems transformed seeing its pages turned into
acetate sheets that let the observer’s
gaze go through them, perceiving all the moments at once.
This voluntarily unserious image highlights the issue perhaps hidden in our
speculations: that of orientation. Is it possible that such a gaze - its
appeals aside - , the ability to observe all moments
of an event/object, could
result in some sort of disorientation?
On 3 Apr 2021, at 12:49, daniel prenleloup <prenleloup.d[at]gmail.com> wrote:
When Felix speaks of "being
in Live" I believe that the definition is closely linked to the temporal
element that the persistent gaze exerts on the "being" as much as it
remains conscious of its being in Live.
The narrative in this case is
once again that of returning, as the spime returns to
its "beginning", it is improved, redesigned after each cycle of entry
into a set of relations... the "sense" of an action produced within
SABL inevitably returns to the "gaze" that initially legitimized it,
namely the 4 cameras that constitute SABL itself.
It is for this reason that the
question concerns, if taken in these terms, precisely the risk that this
awareness reduces any form of intervention "in live" to a tautology,
vicarious of the space that solidly remains once the actors have left, as a
disturbing glimpse of our absence embodied by our watching it.
The reciprocity of influences
established between the narratological act and its possibility to direct the transformativity of "history" through a telos,
risks as it is known to produce a funnel effect where only some narratives
survive because of their power.
So I would say that a positive
reinterpretation of this presumed simultaneous accessibility* of whom Robert
wrote, is given when the saturation of potential access points collapses on the
actual impossibility of orienting oneself through all of them, precisely
because of their excess.
The partiality of subjects versus
the ubiquity of mediums.
I am reminded of the case of Mr.
Burns from The Simpsons when during an episode he goes for a check-up and
discovers that
all the viruses that try to hit
him simultaneously end up blocking "access", leaving him
"perfectly" healthy.
When Felix asks what means to
Reflect on SABL today*, I find, is a bit like reflecting on the thumbnail of
the door in the image. Which is configured for mr.Burns, and perhaps for us, as the only real
detectable symptom of something else.
My initial tendency to dispose of
SABL by prefiguring its "plastic" value alludes to this "show
and tell" operation, which has been said so far, implies a real agency.
Nevertheless, I shall hope for my
future interventions some kind of immersion that can field the partiality I
alluded to.
All the best,
Daniel.
On 15 Apr 2021, at 13:10, Monica
Unser <monica.unser[at]icloud.com> wrote:
Dear All,
Your thoughts on the spime directly linked to the essence of the sabl and to what this space allows us to watch are for me
directly linked to a reflection on the body and the performative. I think the
consequences of thinking the objects shown through the sabl
as these “cored”
objects in a “temporal simultaneity” just like Robert wrote, are
maybe the same we can experience by participating as a public to a performance
piece. We are in front of a body moving, expressing something, on a still
on-going transformation with no assumed finality or no expected representation.
But this is if we think purely of what a performance should be, not what a
performance actually is with all the pictures, video, media communication and
sometime re-presentation in museum-friendly forms as we observe in the current
art world. The embodied act as a medium seems in the theoretical aspect to
escape the problem of the musealisation of objects
that then loose their “life” and are strictly linked and implemented to
concepts, explanations, historical contexts. But I think that how it is
empirically working right now does’t
really apply to this pure theorisation.
In a certain way the sabl contextualises the objets it shows: through the description and links of
references on the website. But once the residency is over, nothing is archived
anymore. Maybe this strict rebuttal to archive the art that is shown inscribes
the objects even more in this “live” embodied aspect we’re
seeking to approach through performances but usually fail (or not?).
And for this I would like to
write about the “bugs”
and “errors”
we can all observe on the platform. If a body starts moving, dancing, sometimes
the video-cameras don’t follow – the potentiality of
the bay moving takes a form of control on the device. It is not a clear film of
what is going on in the space, but the device has its own life too and “expresses” something too by destorting the signal that is arriving to us. Daniel you
wrote about ubiquity – in fact the panoptic aesthetic of the dispositive puts
the watcher in an omniscient position. He is able to see in the dark, there are
no blind spots. But these bugs question this, and maybe it is where the
disorientation Robert wrote about starts or maybe ends?
Would we be more disoriented to
have access to a full “control
room”, a full ubiquity – this whole saturated accessibility Daniel wrote about?
Or are we intrinsically so voyeur that we like it and feel disturbed by the
bugs that block this ubiquity? Maybe it is disorienting to not be able to go
backwards, to accelerate or to see in a higher quality one specific detail. We
feel like we are omniscient on what is happening, but maybe at the end we realise we are not. The object we see has its own power
over our view and it can be frustrating.
I will leave you this thoughts
and questions, feel free to disagree.
Love,
Monica
On May 7 2021, at 10:42, Robert
Zamboni <robert1zamboni[at]gmail.com> wrote:
I feel like the questions SABL
rises are all related to the particular issue of governmentality. In
particular, the government utilizing logistics. In other words, translation of
complex experience in a given set of valuable information - as Monica put it
'to strictly link and implement to concepts, explanations, historical
contexts'. SABL is problematic probably because it pushes in both directions at
once: from a certain point of view it looks like the constant gaze of the
webcams could offer the non-plus-ultra of control. on the other end, all the
information suddenly disappears as the product of the artist/performer exits
the door, returning to the infinitus moltitudo of the world outside SABL. Just today morning I was
reading a passage in Agamben's text 'Stasis. Civil War as a political paradigm' where the author cites Aristotle's interesting
description of the civil war as something both mandatory and as something to be
forgotten necessarily. What's interesting to me is the definition of Aristotle
of forgetfulness as 'the most political way of
dealing with (dramatic) past events'. In this particular sense, what Aristotle
was addressing as 'remembrance' was the reintroduction of a past event in a
present scenario, loading it with meaning. Today, similarly to the ancient greek civil war, also the work of art seems to be repulsive
of being reintroduced in the present as a meaningful memory, paradoxically
vanishing from the past as well.
To track or not to track, to
remember or to forget. This seems to be the question that rises from a place
like SABL. At both ends of these two opposites lays the problem of
disorientation. The 'information overload' of the spime-ish
object, that being constantly tracked lose every kind of symbolical narration,
becoming alienated; the total relegation of the event at a historical 'state of
exception'.
To answer very briefly your
question, Monica: from my point of view the 'error', the 'glitch' is where the
disorientation ends, reminding me that what I'm looking at is just an image, a
particular point of view. The temporal lag is what restores the partiality,
reintroducing some sort of meaning. On the other end is instead the omniscience
that gave me that uncanny feeling of disorientation.
On 10 May 2021, at 10:56, daniel prenleloup <prenleloup.d[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Some of you have repeatedly
discussed the problem of museification, interpreting
it in terms of certain implications concerning the controversial relationship
between artworks and institutions, the risk that the first ones might become
fetishes, that their cultural capital might be privatized or, more generally,
that they might lose their vitality, as in the case of a performance
rebroadcast until boredom.
To remember or to forget?
To escape, to escape, or to
remain imprisoned in the mirror of one's own gaze.
As much as we try to keep alive
the mordant between the subjects of the triad "institution" - works -
users, trying to shade more and more on that gerarchy
that still hovers like a parent's legacy on children, the solution could be
less obvious than it seems.
In an interesting passage within
Hito Steyerl's "Duty free Art", the artist
refers to those dynamics that characterise "the
economy of presence in the art world" Contrary (and with a certain sense
of irony) to the Fluxian promises of the 1960s, the
presence of the artist at all sorts of cultural events seems to evoke the
promise of unmediated communication, apparently not alienated - exclusive
manifestation that results in synthesis as one of the primary fronts in
speculative economies that continue to invest in the symbolic narrative of the
unique and exclusive, namely the unrepeatable.
The question is once again
controversial, technology is not extraneous to this economy of presence, and
can unexpectedly stimulate or an antithetical growing exaltation, (such as
VIP-passes at fairs - private Talks with the artist with a limited number of
participants) or a state of promiscuous monopolized ubiquity (meaning that
omnipresence in the media which only with a direct proportionality of the
administration tools can actually be dealt, for which a broadband connection is
not enough).
In the same paragraph, Steyerl proposes a proxy politics that deploys alternative
strategies of presence, dummies, delegates, bots, etc., or what one might call
a sensual-absence (like the strategic absences of workers' movements, at list
being absent but at the right time and in the right way).
To repeat once again the
performative act of the subject as an "unrepeatable event" would be,
in my opinion, to contradict what we set out to do from the beginning of this
exchange... how can we manage to "be there" live, keeping active the
same spirit that has brought us to this moment? SABL has so far been a
conceptual intersection for reflecting on some of the existence conditions and
modalities of those cultural agents that exchange their forces in unpredictable
currents and motions, but now that we are approaching the surface, what will
emerge?
I spoke about escape at the
beginning, our progressive approach towards the inner space has so far, been a
way of deconstructing its appearances, weighting its critical aspects,
evaluating its infrastructure, as if we were reunited as conspirators in front
of a map, sketched out little by little on those same sheets of acetate to
which Robert referred, and filled with everyone's notes, some of which were
erased and questioned, while others remained firm references of the unfolding
discourse. In front of that map, as we rush towards its centre,
we could now choose to read a plan, as if we had prepared for a strike or an
imminent crisis, or again, as if we had prepared to evade.
Besos to all,
Daniel
On 10 May 2021, at 21:54, Monica
Unser <monica.unser[at]icloud.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Our last reflections are very
close to a questioning around this fetishization of the link between the
artistic domain and the domain of the “lived” or “authentically experienced” – the co-presence, the irrepeatable Daniel wrote about. During this pandemic time we have often experienced the same fetishization for
talks taking place on zoom for example. Even if they were sometimes
retransmitted on YouTube afterwards, it was necessary to try to be present at
the right time in the right “place” – the website – to be present “in” it, to be able to ask
questions for instance. Let's start with this non-sensual alternative to
presence (to use Hito Steyerl's words) that SABL also
offers.
Why not get out of this
fetishization of the authentic? I would argue that the "authentic"
work takes place in this very moment, by our exchanges. The relational
aesthetics, as theorized for example by Nicolas Bourriaud,
starts from the same maxims of co-presence, participation of the public and
exchange as intrinsic to the experience that would be the perception of a work
of art - contrary to the supposedly passive contemplation of the art that we
could have in museums before the "contemporary art era". I propose
then to consider this exchange of mails, this conceptual forum, as a form of
relational aesthetics. Through this exchange we create by putting in relation
our thoughts, and we will reach an audience by making these thoughts available
and visible on the platform. We show that what appears to be the site of an
omniscient voyeurism blocked by a certain gaze structure imposed by the device,
is actually much more. First, SABL is material. Daniel questions how we will
approach the surface of the site without being empirically present
there – how can we then act in SABL? We will start from its materiality, to
question it, because
it is this very materiality that causes the disorientation that Robert wrote
about. We can play with this material/medium: a room that has as many white
walls as camera views, a wooden floor, sound and image transmission devices
that retransmit “live"
what is happening inside, with the bugs that are part of this same materiality.
Secondly, the SABL is a platform. We can slip in links, texts, a direct way of
awareness for whoever wants to read them. We act within it by addressing an
audience, or at least the authority of a potential always-present omniscient
gaze. The relational may not be through the "body to body” dimension, but
if we get out of this fetishization of co-presence, the relational does take
place. What is happening right now in this exchange between us is the proof. As
Paul Virilio states in L'inertie polaire,
what was commonly considered as a distance, an inability to move and act
(inertia) is now becoming a new "place" in itself, that of an
instantaneous transmission. Given that we can participate in "live"
online events and exhibition, what happens to the definition of representation
and its presumably opposite – authenticity? And is it really necessary to
question it?
Let's start from the material,
let's start from the distance, from the non-presence of our bodies, to play
with a place that lends itself almost instinctively to the performative and
whose temporality is constructed by a constant potential gaze of whoever
decides to venture on the site.
Kisses kisses,
Monica
On 16 May 2021, at 23:55, daniel prenleloup <prenleloup.d[at]gmail.com> wrote:
Buongiorno!
Parlando di estetica relazionale, di
arte partecipativa e di economie della presenza, sembra risuonare la domanda:
Chi o cosa supererà l’ordalia del vero? Ovviamente
una domanda che suona come una provocazione, un problema aperto che meriterebbe
una riflessione ben più estesa, lungi dal tentare di identificare il “vero” come una categoria universale, rimane tuttavia il quesito
sul dominio della domanda stessa, ossia sul “quando” e sul “dove” sia lecito domandare del vero. Penso
ai nostri ultimi interventi come allo sforzo di localizzare questo “dominio”, quando parlo di
evasione e di assenza-sensuale, intendo perciò il tentativo di fuggire da quei
processi di soggettivazione che SABL innescherebbe se facessimo fronte alla
materialità del suo spazio come “performer” ideali in carne e ossa.
Prendiamo in prestito allora tutte
quelle narrazioni ( di isolamento e non solo ) nelle
quali il discorso diacronico del succedersi di eventi vacilla
irrimediabilmente, nel cinema come nella letteratura, il Gap che si viene a
costituire ci porta a sperimentare modi alternativi di riferire il tempo e di
conseguenza i soggetti. La mente, per esempio diviene spesso il vettore del
cambiamento, una sorta di diario, costituendosi come intima coscienza del divenire.
Penso al caso di Jack London, ed il Vagabondo delle
stelle, dove il protagonista viaggia attraverso le memorie perdute dei suoi
antenati mentre il suo corpo rimane imprigionato nella camicia di forza, dove
l'identità
del
protagonista viene meno, mischiandosi nei flutti del tempo. Mi vengono in mente
tutti quei film nei quali il corpo diviene irrimediabilmente tutt’uno con la psiche, nella sua
debolezza o forza, soffocato dall’incedere dei giorni e dimentico della vita o proteso
nell'idea del ritorno ad essa ; quando l'ordine del
quotidiano viene scalzato dai linguaggi segreti che nascono nell’ombra di invisibili apofenie,
frutto di insospettabili affetti, con idee, oggetti e spazi.
***
ENG
Speaking of relational
aesthetics, participatory art and economies of presence, the question seems to
resonate: Who or what will overcome the ordeal of truth? Obviously
a question that sounds like a provocation, an open problem that deserves a much
broader reflection, far from attempting to identify the "true" as a
universal category, the question remains, however, about the domain of the
question itself, that is, about "when" and "where" it is
legitimate to ask about the true. I think of our last interventions as an
effort to locate this "domain", and when I speak of evasion and of
absence-sensual, I therefore mean the attempt to escape from those processes of
subjectification that SABL would trigger if we were to approach the materiality
of its space as ideal "performers" in flesh and bones.
Let us then adopt all those
narrations (of isolation and not only) in which the diachronic discourse of the
succession of events vacillates irremediably, in cinema as in literature, the
Gap that is created leads us to experiment with alternative ways of referring
to time and consequently to subjects. The mind, for example, often becomes the
vector of change, a sort of diary, constituting itself as an intimate
consciousness of becoming. I think of the case of Jack London, and the
"Wanderer of the Stars", where the protagonist travels through the
lost memories of his ancestors while his body remains trapped in a
straitjacket, where the identity of the protagonist is lost, mingling with the
waves of time. I am reminded of all those films in which the body becomes
irremediably at one with the psyche, in its weakness or strength, suffocated by
the passing of the days and forgetful of life or reaching out to the idea of
returning to it; When the order of the everyday is undermined by the secret
languages that are born in the shadows of invisible apophonies,
the fruit of unsuspected affections, with ideas, objects and spaces.
Un abbraccio,
Daniel
On 17 May 2021, at 11:25, Robert
Zamboni <robert1zamboni[at]gmail.com> wrote:
The idea of 'being in live' as a new topos of transmission
is surely florid and could be the viaticum for a positive
understanding of the contemporary phenomenon of excess of
narratives that Daniel talked about and which moves hand in hand
with datafication and so-called surveillance capitalism. From this Idea Monica brought up I will try
to sum up a brief conclusion to my speculations about SABL: Being live permits
a factum to become admittedly an event, the platform of the site dodges the
problem of the politicization of information by avoiding the practice of recording.
Airing an event without fixing any meaningful or representative information of
it opens the spectator to the form of liberty of the un-edited (in both the
senses of unreleased and not edited), thus reenacting the form of the presence
we usually think about as 'analogical'. The instantaneous transmission Virilio wrote about could be perhaps this: an unmediated
experience of an event, in the sense that no recorded judgement is prior or
successive of the event itself.
The economy of presence is still
here, without addressing the problematic dichotomies of authentic and
inauthentic, actual and virtual, corporal or digital, but perhaps summoning
another: Understood in this sense, the question of the presence Hito Steyerl and Daniel wrote about doesn't configure as a medial problem, but rather an economo-political
one (to be intended as the tension between oikos and
polis, private and common). Presence presents
itself as the space of the 'state of exception', reserved to the impolitical, i.e. what does not get fixed in a sensus communis (literally a common meaning). The Presence I'm referring to is nothing less than
the presence of the spectator in front of the monitor of his computer, in the cosiness of his apartment, ready to be struck by an event
he knows practically nothing about, reassured by the awareness of his
appreciation or disdain remaining private and untransposed.
SABL looks like an attempt to cutout a space of bare life in a usually
politicized space like the one of the web.
In other words, Monica is right
when addressing this mailing list as an attachment to the dispositif of
SABL. But what I would highlight here is the very problematic aspect of
policies of interpretation that SABL brings into play. From the very mnestic processes to the establishment of a truly
historical time as a community sense. I would like to insist on this problem of
'what to remember' which, in some ways, resonates with Daniel's evocative
figure from The Ordeal of Truth. SABL put us in front of the problem of what is
our memory and what is the memory of the other.
Continuing what Daniel began,
that's one of the main themes of the brief book Voyage autour de ma chambre from
the author Xavier de Maistre, where the protagonist,
confined in a room for forty-two days while
awaiting trial, consoles himself from the impossibility of leaving by willingly
exchanging his possibility of experiencing the world for identification with
the characters in his books; historical myths, narratives of an outdated past,
memories that expand themself to the point of becoming his present.
On 18 May
2021, at 11:34, Robert Zamboni <robert1zamboni[at]gmail.com> wrote:
The Idea of
SABL as a sculpture IMO reaches an interesting turning point (or at least a
florid continuation) from the well-known considerations of the Movimento Spazialista, rather
than one of the artists such as Emilio Vedova when we
think about the space as a 3D model. This 3D reconstruction has been my
personal way to think the space during this exchange of emails, a factual
interface to approach an otherwise unreachable space. Proxy, sculpture,
interface; all these categories seem to be summed up in this demi-object. On
the other end, this constant view of the perfect reconstruction of SABL,
floating in the emptiness of the .blend file
surroundings was gradually reinforcing in me two ideas: the first, to
strengthen the disorientation given by the unknown out-of-sabl;
the second, to find myself constantly aware of the cold immanence of the 3D
model. This was constantly 'late': I would sit down at the computer and open
SABL and the .blend file at the same time, to discover
with frustration how some invisible hand had changed the arrangement of the
furniture in the SABL filmed by the cameras, while my personal SABL remained
inert, almost waiting for my intervention. at some point I simply stopped
updating it, reducing SABL to a standard template. 'click to edit'. I had
restraint SABL to an untopical past. I propose
to make the two collide, in an indistricable superposition
of actuality and factuality. moving present and fixed past. life and history. A
not only spatial but also a temporal cage.
