Feed on
Posts
Comments

You Are My House Now

There’s where I was born, still fairly recognisable. And there’s where we moved to when I was about nine. And here’s where we are now. I expect my car is parked along the road somewhere but I can’t be bothered to persuade the cumbersome navigational apparatus to take me down there to check it out.

camera_headGoogle Street View is settling in at the moment. Once the privacy fusspots calm down we can look at our houses for the rest of our lives. That they will calm down is not guaranteed but given what Google knows it’s pretty inevitable. Google knows that we know there’s something wrong about Street View but we can’t quite put our finger on it. This vague unease is more than compensated for by the vague feeling that there’s something right about it. On examination, however, the latter sentiment proves to be a bit odd and we shouldn’t let Google know about it or else they’ll invent a camera that looks through curtains.

The trouble is that when you can see your house on Street View you know it’s your house. Without this massive, globalised, external system of ratification you wouldn’t know it was your house. night_6I mean, of course you’d know it was your house because that’s what you wake up in most days of the week. But sometimes it’s very hard to feel that life in the world, and its attendant material accoutrements, is real. I mean, of course it’s real because you can discuss it with friends and you can agree that, more or less, probably more, you are having similar experiences, which tends to validate the proposition unless you are drawn to philosophise.

Anyway, it’s to do with identity. If the world was any good you could look at your house, by standing outside in the street, say, and the experience would be simple: “That’s my house.” This isn’t to do with mortgages or ownership, by the way. If the world was any good you could stand outside your rental accommodation and something simple but important would still just happen. But it doesn’t.images-4 I mean, you see it, you could touch it if you wanted, you know it’s yours, rental or otherwise, but the angle is wrong. As in film or photography: you have to get the right angle. Angles are, however, premised on a divergence of lines or planes from a common point. In this case the common point is oneself and its pointedness has deteriorated. Identity is found wanting. Its criteria have deteriorated.

Hot air balloonists, especially on their first flights, are often taken over their houses in order to look down upon them. Same with light aircraft flying lessons. You can see how you fit into the scheme of things. Very satisfying. It does wear off though. It may be memorable but its significance fades. In this case, however, the angle is ideal. The greater the vertical distance from your house you can get, within reason, the more it is yours. And the more it is yours the more you are. In the scheme of things.

It’s to do with consumerism. We’ve been taught to test reality and our status in it by evaluating the strength of our feeling for inanimate objects. The feelings have to be good feelings, which they will be if there are sufficient objects and these objects take our love without complaint. The stronger those ties the stronger you are. Again, this isn’t to do with ownership so much as getting back what was yours anyway. Because you deserve it.

186383010_7d8b6ad0abStreet View flattens the world, both literally, as a screen image, and figuratively in the sense that it subsumes it into an arcade game. It is superior to the holiday snap because it permits, or seems to permit, the sensation of being able to engulf an object rather than be engulfed by it. It allows us, in conjunction with Google Earth, to approach the object from above and from the sides and all perspectives in between. In so doing we are simultaneously aware of its location in a scene or a scheme to a far greater degree than the holiday snap allows. The holiday snap, as has been widely noted, has the power to confirm that an experience actually occurred. Unless supported by a physical trace, apparently, the memory of an experience is unreliable. Street View has the power to confirm our parity with the object by dramatising an ideal relationship with it. My place in this world of objects gives me a common point.

My house looks like my house if I go out into the street now. But if I hunt it down on Street View it is a jewel sparkling with heightened houseness. It is seamlessly integrated into the Bayeux Tapestry of the digital arcade. I am a citizen of that arcade. The arcade includes me. It also includes everybody - all the more reason to claim my residency. If, for a moment, I doubt my substance, I can refer to the arcade and it will consolidate, in its virtuality, that which is unsolid.

gps-global-positioning-system-is-keeping-sight-on-youAnother piece of metaphysical electronics that heightens the sensation of being what you already are is GPS. Any mobile phone worth its salt is equipped with a Global Positioning System. Activate it and it will tell where you are wherever you are. It won’t tell you what country or street you are in but it will give you a string of figures that some people, probably not you, can translate, with the aid of maps, into a position. If you had a map you could go from your position to another position. If you had a phone, which you do, you could tell someone else your position. They could rescue you. If you were not in any particular trouble they could say “That sounds like a lovely position.”

GPS, eh? Nobody needs it. Apart from explorers and the imminent lost. The latter may suspect they are about to become lost as a result of having developed weak relationships with objects.

Site 20-20

The site is no longer down. It is up. The puppy has been upgraded to a trim young dog. Good.

Site Horror

The site is down. It has evaporated, leaving only text and images behind. I haven’t a clue how to get it back. But I know someone who does. He is coming next Tuesday. Sorry. It’s like losing a puppy.

Getting into Pictures

It’s a shock when you go to the pictures to see ‘The Reader’ because there, on the screen, albeit heavily disguised, is Kate Winslet doing her day job. So ubiquitous is she in the prints and matrices that it is easy to equate her with those whose day job is simply being seen, at night, entering and leaving clubs, unbaggaged by any previous history of achievement. In a banal inversion her work as an actress in movies becomes a way of getting her photographs in newspapers. If, therefore, you want to get into newspapers, all you have to do is become a successful actress. How hard can that be?

kate.jpgKate, as I like to think of her, is an actress of substance yet, as a denizen of the least important pages of any print publication currently in existence, becomes readily interchangeable with Peaches and Kelly and is thereby strongly associated with the fascination (I use the word guardedly) of pure presence. This isn’t something clever: it involves being without doing ( i.e. breathing) and is the product of a process of deracination launched in the Thatcherist 80s when ideas about the nature of individualism, borrowed in part from  60s notions of ‘the beautiful person’ (i.e. one whose (imagined) essence is more apparent than their personality) were hystericised to the point that distinctiveness was valued more than value. This baldness of being was the cynical complement to the process of asset stripping the employment future that young people had previously assumed was theirs to negotiate. In the absence of conventional markers for identity it became important to provide an economy version that licensed the user to ‘be somebody’ merely by stating that they were somebody. In one sense, of course, we are all somebody. In the hypnotised version that isn’t enough: we must feel that we are special despite the fact that we might just be disposable. It isn’t just that you become somebody by telling people that you are somebody - you must believe that they believe you. A deal can be struck: I will believe that you are somebody if you will believe that I am somebody.

In this new but occasional Strength Weekly feature I transcribe snatches of speech that have stuck in my mind over the years. I attempt briefly to analyse their probable significance and their staying power. When I say ’stuck in my mind’ I mean that these snippets present themselves to consciousness over and over without being actively summoned. They just pop up. This may mean that they are important in some way. Or it may not.

Driving west along the M4 in the early 70s with Ian. He says “You’re very close to that car in front.” I say “Yeah.” He says “What if his brake lights weren’t working?”
brakelight.jpgI had never had a thought like that. I had had anxious thoughts but none with the special intricacy of Ian’s thought. A whole new way of looking at the world - a dull way - opened up. You could be in a situation which contained the potential for risk - take any situation, for example - and you could analyse its components with a view to identifying weaknesses that could precipitate disaster.

This is, of course, not without its merits. However, as I have observed, it is dull. That the snippet often comes to mind is, however, mildly unsettling. It suggests that one is cruising off the coast of a very worrying place. On the plus side, I suppose, is the fact that sometimes when I’m driving along the motorway the thought comes up and I brake slightly in order to recede from a car in front. This has to be a good thing.

This Will Teach You

At a nearby table in the pub two women, one early twenties one early thirties, are dining on burgers and chips. Beside the younger woman, in a high chair, is her pretty child of perhaps ten months. The mother, as I took it, turns to her friend and says “Look at this.” She holds up a chip near her baby girl’s mouth then withdraws it. She pushes it forward again then withdraws it. The child bursts into tears. The mother smiles and continues with her meal. Some minutes later she gives the girl a chip.

Educational. From the Latin educare, to bring up or rear and the Latin educere, to lead out. The latter is a compound of ex, out and ducere, to lead.

The Mind

The manager of Strength Weekly would like to apologise for the lack of posts over the last calendar month. This was due to the editor’s mind becoming empty. The process of everyday thinking was not suspended so much as diluted. His thoughts were unexceptional. He considered presenting unexceptional thoughts in a way that would somehow excuse or disguise their lack of exceptionality. It was found that even thoughts of this especially ordinary nature were not forthcoming. This is not to say that things were not happening. Many things were happening. Interesting things.

After Christmas

pine.jpg

The latest chapter in a a grimly unfolding drama is trailed in an article in The Guardian titled ‘Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst’, wherein respected climatologists agree that ‘carbon emissions (are) soaring out of control’. The piece opens with a description of the scene at a recent climate conference when Kevin Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, tells his audience about certain current findings that left ‘Even committed green campaigners …terrified.’

Anderson had every reason to be gloomy but there is a chance that, if he had purchased for his archives a copy of The Guardian containing the report, he might have had his mood pleasantly lifted. Folded round the paper’s G2 supplement is a sheet of wrapping paper for Christmas designed by Sienna Miller. It is the latest in a series of wrapping papers designed by people who are very famous today. Such as Johnny Depp. Johnny Depp designed a sheet of wrapping paper only the other day. Another famous person who designed wrapping paper on another day was Kylie Minogue. Kylie’s had ribbons on. Sienna’s had red lips on. They were probably her lips, there is no way of knowing for sure. And Victoria Beckham. She did one.

These wrapping papers. They are all shit. They are a disgrace. They are mad. I wouldn’t wrap my bottom in them.

When you are very famous there is a kind of light that shines all around you. The light means that you have so much value that it comes out of you. The light will light up everything that you do and give it value too. For example suppose you have had no training in anything. It doesn’t matter. Suppose for example you had had no training in graphic design or illustration or drawing or photography. Suppose you had no skills in these fields despite not having been trained in any way. That wouldn’t really matter.

I think Johnny Depp would be a very good surgeon. He is certainly very attractive. I think Victoria Beckham would be a good middle distance runner in the Olympic Games in London in 2012. She is certainly very well dressed.

It’s quite possible that training is overrated. And skill. You just need a sort of light that shines all around you.

Captivated

koko.gifIn order to model human movement for incorporation into film animation Max Fleischer, in 1915, devised a system called rotoscoping that would allow animators to trace over live-action film. Koko the Clown was the first figure thus generated. The apparatus was refined over the decades and by the late 70s came to be used in such special effects as the lightsabers in the first three ‘Star Wars’ features. In the early 80s computers began to be used for the analysis of movement. The process involved attaching potentiometers to a body and using the output to drive computer animated figures for choreographic studies and clinical assessment of movement abnormalities.

merce.jpgA little later, to quote from this useful article, optical tracking systems were developed. ‘Optical trackers typically use small markers attached to the body - either flashing LEDs or small reflecting dots - and a series of two or more cameras focused on the performance space. A combination of special hardware and software pick out the markers in each camera’s visual field and, by comparing the images, calculate the three-dimensional position of each marker through time.’ By 1994 the operation was digitised and by 1996 could be seen comprehensively threaded through the effects in ‘Titanic’.

The technology continues to develop, of course, and increasingly assumes a cultural importance quite distinct from its technical achievements. Two of my students pointed out that the use of the ‘bubble suit’, worn by actors in current motion capture practice, features the actor transformed into a puppet for the purpose of modelling realistic movement for a puppet. The actor will enact the moves that are, effectively, imprinted on to the screen figure. The puppet thus animated will have movement capacities that border on the uncanny and will, in excitable circles, prompt the already fatigued assertion that ‘Computer Generated Imagery will soon replace real actors!’ We can dispense with this non-debate by coolly observing ‘It will never happen.’

What, however, is happening, in part due to neo-folkloric attitudes to CGI, is an inexorable process of abasement in relation to animated figures and their imagined power. Despite using movement that is not their own, the CGI figures have an efficiency that results in their being experienced, at some level, as a species of vampiric contender. Puppets and dolls in popular culture (get box-set here) have long been associated with having murderous designs on their unsuspecting human stewards (see definitive scholarly study here). The imprinting of these malignancies onto cartoon characters has been a slower process, impeded by the narratives and personalities attached to the colourful 2Ds masquerading as 3Ds - a cartoon villain is clearly villainous and therefore not to be found in any way uncanny.

zombie.jpgAt the point where borrowed or ‘captured’ movement becomes acceptably realistic, its bearer - the animated figure - becomes unsettling, regardless of character imprinting and physiognomy. It is more goblin than elf and, insofar as it seems to have substance rather than mere spirit, more zombie than spectre. If we persist with the fairyfication, then the animated figure is an embodiment of  an advanced and complicated technology that may be viewed as a stealer of souls, a producer of doubles and an adept at the switcheroo previously practised by the fairies that took your baby away and left you with a spooky changeling. The industrial champions of CGI compound all this with their ’soon be better than the real thing’ boastfulness.

The animation technologies are themselves embodiments of technological slave systems, in the sense that a machine or component may control another machine or component. To be controlled by a machine is to be forcibly machinised and might suggest a condition in which one’s movements were constantly surveilled or even captured. The term ‘motion capture’ is efficient, especially when shifted from the movies to the experience of having the status of a component.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »