February 19, 2008
Reflections on the Frame
Some questions to consider:
1) How many frames are allowed?
2) Does a frame need to enclose? Is it possible that the content within the frame can escape via loose boundaries?
3) Are frames seen differently by people? how many perspectives are allowed upon viewing or thinking about a frame?
4) Is a frame even necessary? Can an idea, thought, tangible object go without being surrounded by a frame?
5) What is the structure of the frame? Can something be framed without it being seen? Or is some sort of evidence (perhaps remnants) of the framing need to occur?
6) What happens when the content within a frame is unframed? Does the content get lost?
7) Can there be multiple frames surrounding one thing in layers? (i.e. a subystem of frames)
When I searched for ideas on the concept of the frame I realized that there are no rules that apply to what can be framed, what the frame might look like, and where the frame comes from and lives, etc. I hope these pictures can begin to justify some of these implications and maybe trigger some answers to a few of the questions I have posted above.
Framing in Super Vision
There is multiple framing occurring on page 178 of Super Vision. The first is the framing of the human body, as a way to provide an outline of it, a structure. We see the raw forms of muscle, tissue, organs, and bones. They exist to us in their most real state, for no skin is concealing them. In this case, the skin only provides an outline of, a frame for the interior. It is also possible that the skin can be seen as framing because it provides boundaries in this image. We see the areas in which organs are enclosed, and the areas in which there is space void of such things.
One may also see the frame being the basic skeleton of this 3-D display. The skeleton provides the support; it is what holds together whatever muscle and organs we are seeing.
Framing is also occurring in a sense that this image provides a way of knowing, a way of looking at things from a different perspective. It illustrates to the viewer the functions of the complex systems of the human body.
On page 168 we see how the perspective of an x-ray provides framing to the image (flowers) that is being examined. We are given a new way to identify the flower as we are able to not only see it, but to see through it. The x-ray gives a new type of framing that the human eyes cannot. The petals which provide the frame (layers of protection) of the flower as well as the interior of the flower can be viewed simultaneously. Looking at this, I believe that both coexist, I don’t need to assume anymore.
Seeing through it
February 12, 2008
Volume in Multimedia
In looking at how the spaces of any work are altered when volume is removed, I am reminded of Satoru Takahashi’s (a professor at the School of Art & Design) artwork. I recently learned of his installations and how multimedia allows for three-dimensionality that other forms cannot offer, such as flattened surfaces. From his work, one can also see how the environment shapes the meaning of each installation. This reminds me of how the same word in a poem can be used in two different ways, or even how the same word can be seen in two different poems. The meaning of the word often changes. Similarly, the context, or the place, allows the artwork to undergo a metamorphosis. Takahashi attempts to investigate rhetorical questions such as "who are we?" and "where are we going?" and perhaps using 2-D forms would be restricting. The possibility of maximizing the volume of these questions would be constrained by flat surfaces.