19
This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University] On: 19 November 2014, At: 22:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Architectural Theory Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ratr20 MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types John Macarthur Published online: 22 Jul 2009. To cite this article: John Macarthur (2006) MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types, Architectural Theory Review, 11:2, 16-33, DOI: 10.1080/13264820609478584 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264820609478584 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

  • Upload
    john

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 19 November 2014, At: 22:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Theory ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ratr20

MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues inthe contemporaneity of architectureand image typesJohn MacarthurPublished online: 22 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: John Macarthur (2006) MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in thecontemporaneity of architecture and image types, Architectural Theory Review, 11:2, 16-33, DOI:10.1080/13264820609478584

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13264820609478584

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and

image types

JOHN MACARTHUR

,4 concept of movement was deeply embedded in the culture of the twentieth century, and no more so than in architecture where it was variously consid­ered a condition or an aim of modern being. To a large extent the model for architecture was cinema, a technology that brought life to the still image Both the spatio-visual properties of cinema and its popularity seemed 10 make it the partner to architecture. While building technology1 means that buildings today have more capacity for movement than ever before, the converse seems to be the casein image technology At present blockbuster cinema andiiewfonnsoj digital animated images are eroding the distinction between still and moving images, and with that movement' as a lelosfor culture. By comparing old concepts of the picturesque movement effect with emerging image technologies such as virtual reality' ibis paper will suggest that some of the inventions that seem most contem­porary return us to questions that lie at the origins of modernity

Digital technology has occasioned an epoch in the culture of images. While the social, economic and epistemological issues of digital images have been much discussed, many of the questions that they pose for architecture have not. Most interest gathers around phenomena that might assist in predicting future trends, such as the convergence of architectural design and the gaming end of the entertainment industry brought about by common software platforms. Inevitably, fewerare interested in looking backward to see what old ideas about architecture will die, or indeed be refreshed. I would argue, for instance, that perspective has finally achieved the importance that has been claimed for it since the fifteenth century. Linear perspective has only ever been a sales gimmick at the edge ol the orthography with which architects and builders work: and it is common knowledge that it is an inadequate representation of human vision. Vet now the presuppositions ol perspective, of a stable relation of the measured world and the visible world, are in the base code of the software for CAD, animation and cinema—perspective truly is a medium for thinking and making. This paper, however,

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

concerns one ofthe architectural concepts thai I predict willbecome 'historical' because of changes in image technology and culture, namely, the idea that modernity in architecture is based on movement. Our concept of movement, which has relied on a strong distinction of still pictures from 'movies.' is now much weakened.

Cinema and architecture have had a substantial cultural partnership during the twentieth century but developments in the technology of the image mean that this cannot continue, orat least not in the same way. The relationship of architecture v\ ith cinema has relied on a sense ofthe contemporaneousness of modem forms and technologies. The novelty of cinema in the early twentieth century helped Modernist architecture look modern. While the revolution of the movies' over the photographic-picture was a culture-wide event, architecture had something particular at stake: photography was invented about the same time as the archaeological concept ol style and some of its first uses were in the documentation of and restoration of national monuments.1 The chemical and optical bases of cinema existed in earlier photography, just as much of Modernist architecture was implicit in the planning techniques and structuralandservicing technology of the nineteenth century. Cinema became possible by exposing flexible- film rather than glass plates and reducing exposure time so that the film could run through the camera afspecd. This technological advance was crucial but it wasalso implicit in the earlier technology, much as perfection of reinforced concrete in architecture relied on the ferrous structures ofthe nineteenth century. \\ hat made cinema so fundamentally modern, and thus helpful in distinguishing modern architecture from its predecessors, was that its apparent technological novelty quickly came to have a cultural meaning. The mass experience of cinema exhibition and the rapid cycle of cinematic releases caused cinema to be considered as perfectly contemporaneous with life as lived in the modern metropolis. While photographs had come to be associated with documentation and memorial, with dead relatives and ancient buildings, cinema was, as modern architecture hoped to be. in a continuously unfolding present.

Movement plays a central role in Sigfried Gicdion's two highly partisan accounts of the historical place of modern architecture, Space Time and Architecture, of 19H 1 and Mechanisation Takes Command, of 1948.2 According to Giedion. movement was a symptom of the Zeitgeist. Modernity is the movement that we variously experience in transportation, the mechanisation of industry-and in the cinema. Nineteenth century studies such as those of Eticnnc J ules Marey and Eadwcard Muybridge of pre-cincmatic serial images showed how it was possible to understand movement as a form that was proper to modern limes.1 In architecture, there is no better example of this idea than Lc Corbusier's promenade architecturale. Giedion wrote that this employed a concept of space-time leading to new concepts of form. Certainly tor Lc Corbusier's contemporaries, his buildings did not make sense as objects, and he claimed that they were not to be seen from a single viewpoint or understood as static-forms, bin rather to be understood in motion. As he wrote ofthe Maison la Roche:

[The house] will be then a little like an architectural promenade. You enter, the architectural spectacle offers itself successively- to your view: you follow an itinerary and the perspectives develop with a great variety: we play with the afflux

i "

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

of light illuminating the walls or creating shadows. Window bays open views onto the exterior where you rediscover the architectural unity."1

II" architectural form is perceived in duration then it might be better represented in cinema than photography: the newest artistic medium apparently explaining theoldcst through its master.' of time.

When Gicdion wrote ofspace-timeand movement, at a theoretical level he was putting an historical and technological engine under an older idea of form. Mis teacher llcinrich Wolfflin had. in 1886. before the technology of the moving image, made a famous distinction of Renaissance and Baroque architecture on the basis that although both were completely static, the Baroque seemed to possess movement. Giedion bracketed his discussion of Le Corhusier's promenade with images of thespiraling fonnsolBorromini's seventeenth century S.Ivoand Tallin's proposal font mechanized monument to the Communist International/ It might seem then that advanced artists such as Borromini had already, in the seventeenth century, intuited the issues of form that would arise in a mechanized culture, and that in the twentieth century history had finally caught up. act ualizing a concept of movement. Architecture would then have followed the story of cinema, becoming mechanical as pictures had in photography. until mechanization crossed a threshold into a movement that had always been the aim of both art.s. Giedion's ideas are a considerable simplification of the complex relations of technology and culture. 1 prefer to follow Walter Benjamin, an acquaintance of Giedion and a reader of Wolfflin.

In his famous essay "The Work of Art in the Age of its Mechanical Reproduction,'' Benjamin added two important elaborations to the idea that modern architecture and cinema were especially contemporaneous. The first is that they are both popular arts: architecture because it makes the environment and is thus present to all. and cinema because it is enjoyed by all social classes. Compared to the hierarchyofartisticappreciation in an anstocraticsociety. cinemaand architecture seem joined in theiregalitarianism and urhanism. Benjamin (likeSigfried Kracaucn" saw a critical potential in popular cinema.suchas that ofCharlcs Chaplin, in which he saw the same coming into awareness of the working class as in such explicit Soviet propaganda films as Vcrtov's The Man will) the Movie Camera (1929)."

Figure 1 Le Corimsier. Motion la Roche. Paris. 1923 photograph copyright of author

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

Benjamin's second insight is thai cinema and architecture have similar modes ol' reception, which he describes as tactile By this he means that one does not stand back and contemplate buildings or mo\ ies across a distance as one would a great painting, but rather that one is visually immersed in them as part of a whole bodily sensation. These ideas ol the relation ol culture and technology are more subtle and complex than (iicdion's because the disciplines are accorded their own intersecting histories. The tactility ol the ancient an of architecture comes to explain an aspect of the most recent an cinema, while the duranonal aspects of film explain how space could be understood as a fonncd sequence independently of narrative. Benjamin's account of these matters has been folded back into architecture by historians like Beatrix. Colomina. whose description of the cinematic experience ot the Villa Savove is. while free of Zeitgeist and teleology, still quite close to that ofGiedion.' However, before rel urning to the issues raised by present technology, we should delve a little deeper into what movement was at the beginning ol the twentieth century, at the point before it became symptomatic of certain kinds of architectural form. In particular, it will be useful to examine the ambiguities in Benjamin's oppositions ol tactile and optical apperception and of photography to cinema.

It is normally held that Benjamin took the tactile/optical opposition from Alois Riegl, whom he admired and from whose historiography he drew.1" However. I have argued elsewhere that he may have learned it earlier from lleinrich Wolftlin. (iicdion's supervisor, and in a form of which he disapproved." w'olfflin's central analytic category is malcrisch. which means picturesque' in German, although it is usually translated literally as painterly' because b\ this time picturesque' in English had become irreconcilably associated with quaintncss.IJ Wolfrlin, and for that matter Riegl. and the earlier English theorists of the picturesque such as Richard Payne Knight and Sir I vedale Price,' w ere variously developing an opposition between drawing and painting, between colour and form, that has an origin in the debates between the Poussinists and the Rubcnists in the French Academy of the late seventeenth century." Urnsi Gombrich claims that this opposition of the picturesque to figural form was implicit from the beginning of the high Renaissance and the value put then on incidental landscape backgrounds."

Wolfllin thought that Baroque architecture overcame the linear stiffness of Renaissance geometric forms by taking lessons lor the relation of form and appearance from painting.

Everyone knows that, of the possible aspects of a building, the front view is the least picturesque: here (he thing and its appearance fully coincide. But as soon as foreshortening comes in. the appearance separates from the thing, the picture-form [Bild-fonn] becomes different to the object-form, and we speak of a picturesque movement effect. Certainly, in such a picturesque movement-effect, recession plays an essential pan in the impression—the building moves away from us. The visual fact, however, is thai in ibis case objective distinctness retreats behind an appearance in which outline and surfaces have separated from the pure form of the thing.14

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Mat arthur

The observation that an incidental viewpoint onto a Baroque building can be picturesque whereas a frontal view where the symmetry is more apparent is not. is an old idea discussed by William I logarth, Sir Joshua Reynolds and Sir I vcdalc Price.r

Benjamin's disagreement with the picturesque semblance of architecture is clear in a review essa\ " i L932, which must have informed his later insistence on the tactility of architecture in the "Work of Art' essay. In "The Rigorous Study of Art I listory." Benjamin explains the merits of the Vienna school an historians over Wolfflin.1* I le praises an article by Carl Linfen about architectural drawing which "does not take the pictorial detour."' This is clearly a reversal of the values of Wolfflin's picturesque movement effect. According to Benjamin, the imaginary world of architecture differs from that ol painting because:

. . . architecture is not primarily •seen." but rather is imagined as an objective entity I Bestancl] and is sensed by those who approach or even enier ii as a surrounding space H'mraum] sui generis—thai is. without the distancing effect of the edge of the image space [Bildraum]. Thus, what is crucial in the consideration of architecture is not seeing but the apprehension \durchspuren\ of structures.1'1

In his proffering Linfen as a correction of Wolfflin's painterly architecture, we can see that the tacticin of architecture in Benjamin's later "Work of Art" essay is the complete obverse of Wolfflin's idea thai architectural ideation leads from object to semblance. Benjamin here insists that the perception of architecture is spatial before it is visible. Or rather, we sense space visually in a way that differs from our appreciation of pictorial space with its "distancing effect of the edge of the image space." f lere is a more precise, but also less axiomatic difference between cinema and photographs: the latter has. by vinuc of the camera's movement, an open edge and is spatial in a way that a picture of a space cannot be. This is one pan of what Gillcs Dclcuzc calls the movement image. We treat the stable frame of the cinema image differently to the picture in that it is always open to the pan and tilt of the camera and is open to what is out-of-licld. This distinguishes it from a succession of still images.* Virtual Reality (VR) photography allows us to see this aspect of the 'movement image' separately to the depiction of actions.

August Schmarsow. a contemporary of Wolfflin, made the earliest clear argument for what became the dominant doctrine of twentieth century architecture—thai we perceive architecture as space formed in movement.

The less we are willing to behave like exclusively visual beings and be satisfied with only one viewpoint, the more freely will we make use of the change of position in order to grasp the material individuality of the object from as many sides as possible.-" The linguistic terms that we use for space, such as 'extension.' 'expanse.' and 'direction.' suggest continuous activity on our part as we transfer our own feeling

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

of movement directly to the static spatial form. We cannot express its relation to ourselves in any way oilier than by imagining that we are in motion, measuring the length, width, and depth, or by attributing to the static lines, surfaces, and volumes the movement that our eyes and our kinesthetic sensations suggest to us. even though we survey the dimensions while standing still. The spatial construct is a human creation and cannot confront the creative or appreciative subject as if it were a cold, crystallized form.-'

Wolfflin also writes extensivelyof movement, not asa relation to space, but ratherasafundamcntalaspect ol the painterly, or picturesque. In his studies of architecture Wolfflin never writes of the movement of an observer but only of the movement somehow captured in the still architectural form. If we think of Modernism as the measure ol relative progressiveness of the thinkers of the late nineteenth century, Wolfflin seems rather antiquated when compared to Schmarsow. Woifflin's concept of movement falls within the traditional language of imitation, and the problematic of ulpiclurapoesis? or how a painter could collapse narrative and action into a single view. Nevertheless, now, after Modernism. or at least alter the particular contemporaneity of architecture and cinema. Wolfflin has something to tell us of new image regimes. Benjamin also made a major contribution to modern thought on mimesis, and in his writing on imitation and on body posture in acting he is close to Wolfflin.-' While-Benjamin's writing on photography is consistent with the opposition of still and moving images that we have been following, it can lead us back to questions of movement as an imitative form.

In the "Workol Art' essay Benjamin treats photography' as a chemical-optical process of reproduction in which the difference between still and moving images is a matter of degree. Benjamin's very long history of the relation of reproduction technology and an goes into numismatics and ancient Roman portrait busts. In this time frame the decreased exposure times and flexible lilmstrips that allowed photography to become cinema would seem to be a minor detail. What then does Benjamin make of the advent of cinema in the only slightly longer history of photography? In the "Little I listorj of Photography" of 19.il. Benjamin ventures that the great photographs are those of its first decades (he mentions David Octavius I lill,Julia Margaret Cameron and N'adar), before its industrialization and the possibilities of profit/" After this, photography falls into a role of consolation, its catch-cry being: "the world is beautiful." Benjamin mentions Eugene Atgct and August Sander as escaping this cliche through their Systematic investigation of the conditions of what they photograph. Of what can be said of the future of photography Benjamin is most interested in the miniaturization of cameras that made possible the unstudied and responsive photographs that we call snap-shots.' The first such camera, the Lcica, was manufactured lor sale as late as 1925 and it relied on the fast film stock developed for cinema cameras. Aboui this he writes:

The camera is getting smaller and smaller, ever readier to capture fleeting and secret images whose shock effect paralyses the associative mechanisms in the beholder. This is where inscription must come into play, which includes the photography of the literarization of the conditions of life, and without which all

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

photographic construction must remain arrested in the approximate. [...] Won't inscription become the most important pan of the photograph? Such are the questions in which the interval of ninety years that separate us from the age of the daguerreotype discharges its historical tension. It is in the illumination of these sparks that the first photographs emerge, beautiful and unapproachable, from the darkness of our grandfathers' day.-'"

I'or those who read the "Work of Art" too easily as the description of a technological telos, these remarks may seem surprising. We might have expected that the non-aura tic art of cinema will demolish the "beauty and inapproachabiliry' of the photograph, and that this critique of the mystique of the photograph would be powered by the dear technological superiority of the moving image. However. Benjamin's hopes for photography are exactly in the spark between its auratic. miraculous status in 1840 and the technical possibilities of the 1930s, the improvements in photographic apparatus that spun out of the development of cinema.

The inscription' that Benjamin finds in both the old photographv and in that which is to come is a relation of technology to lived life. He believes that the long exposure time and the kind of poses taken in old photographs is what makes them great. The wealthy sitters lor the very expensive early photographs confronted the new apparatus over a matter of minutes in supported body postures and fixed facial expressions. Benjamin says, "the subject (as it were) grew into the picture." and it is this that contrasts significantly with the instantaneit\ of the snapshot/" Although there is clear telos of decreased exposure time which sets the images apart. Benjamin is interested in the way that each technology makes the body coming into the image apparent. Delcuze uses a similarschema to analyse the paintings of Francis Bacon. In particular, he claims that the stilled movement of the painted image in which no action can be visible can better describe the affective aspect of movement:

In short it is not movement that explains the levels of sensation, it is the levels of sensation that explain what remains of movement. And, in fact, what interests Bacon is not exactly movement, although his painting makes movement verv intense and violent. But in the end. it is a movement 'in-place,' a spasm, which reveals a completely different problem characteristic of Bacon: the action of invisible forces on the body...-'

With regard to the laces that Benjamin admired in old photographs, we could use a distinction Dclcu/.c makes in describing the affection image or the close-up in cinema. The face is a singular stable organization by which we identity the person, but it is also animated by the micro movements of the facial expression that reflects the action happening out of shot.-'" The first of these, 'faceilication.' is \\ hat Benjamin sees in old photographs, the face anterior to expression; while the second, facecity,' is the tiny movements and transition that make facial expression communicative, which cannot be posed, but which the fast shutter of modern photography can capture. Deleuze references the distinction of faceilication and facecity to Wdlfflin's dialectic ol the linear and painterly, and this sheds further light

■ >

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/0(,

on the differences ;ii stake in movement. WoTfrlin was not interested in movement through buildings, and hence not in what Dclcuzc calls the 'movement image.' It is rather the affection image.' the way that the stable, notionally still image that we have in ga/.ingat a building facade can seem like a witness, an observer reacting to actions that are out-of-shot.' Deleuze takes from Wolfflin, as much as from Bergson. an anthropopathic theory of affect, which goes back to ancient doctrines of mimesis and was given a modern form by Charles Darwin. "This theory claims that the imitation of the expression of an emotion can cause that emotion. It is precisely this notion of movement as expression, as affecting, that Wolfflin finds in the still face of the buildings around which we move, and which Benjamin finds in the inscription ol life into photography.

Most of these nuancesand co-dependencies in ourconceptsof image types were lost over the twentieth century. The differing social practices and cultures built around photography and cinema have gone largely unnoticed while the miracle of the moving image continues to shine, dividing the nineteenth century and photography from modernity. But the last decade has seen the conceptual distinction of the still and moving image that dominated the twentieth century fade rapidly, the technological difference between them growing less sharp and more complex. Just this morning when I opened Google Image, a new category—videos—appeared." Pora user whose weh browser has the right plug-ins there is little difference between still and moving images as media. Indeed most moving images arc presented as still key-frames' that one clicks to begin, and this is quite similar to clicking a thumbnail 10 open a high-resolution image. The differences between images arc ones of the size of the data set, which govern how quickly they can be delivered and how much processing power is required to put them on the screen. An image attracts me and I click it. more information arrives: something of the same size that moves, or a still image of much greater detail. Image detail and duration are equally aspects of a quantity of information, and the presentation of images means making choices, tairly fluidly between resolution and movement within the constraint of information size

Tom Gunning has argued that the special effects of contemporary blockbuster movies are returning cinema to something like its original form of pure spectacle." There is much in common between the car chases of an action film such as Bad Boys II and the first film screened by the brothers Lumicrc in Paris in 1895, which showed a cavalry charge." To an extent the helicopter camera work, digital montage, and pyrotechnics of Bad Boys U exist simply to return to us the bodily excitement that the audience must have felt at the Lumicre's cavalry charge. There is a degree to which the motion of such lilms does not serve any movement, at least not in the sense of narrative or durational structure. The motion of the image makes the car chase or the cavalry charge more realistic, more convincing and involving, but this is a matter of verisimilitude: the motion of the cavalry makes the image affecting at the same level as colour, or higher resolution might. In the him (Hadialor. for instance, there is little pretence at plot or character development. '■ Plot, editing pace, character and the motion of the characters and the camera all play their pan in making a compelling 100 minute presentation of an image of the Colosseum, and the triumph of the film is the computer model of the building. The whole film has somethingof the solidity and stasis of that model; the characters, plot and the audience simply move around it, looking from different angles.

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

What Gladiator lacks, or is less concerned with, are the classic aspects of Cinematic movement in montage or editing which docs not in itself rely on motion. We are all familiar with cartoon strip narratives such as Herges famous Adventures of Tin Tin. These possess movement in the sense of sequence, pace, and the direction of attention that comes from wide view and close up. Indeed sophisticated picture novels like Tin Tin make especially clear the central fact of cinematic language, montage, the possibilities of cutting between events in a sequence, or simultaneous events, and generally representing the relation of space and time. If Tin Tin seems too mundane or to narrative-driven to make my point then an alternative example would be the photo novels and documentaries of John Bcrgcr and Jean Moir. which are collections ol images ol varying size, given minimal sequencing by their placement in the book, and yet which have that sense of cinematic movement.'" The most striking example of this effect is Chris Marker's Leijetee. a 28-minute science I iction film shot entirely in stills where duration and sequence of the images' presentation seems to contain a movement that is without motion/" Or rather, the motion belongs to the camera, relative to the still image, motion is an editorial effect rather than a qualify of the image.

VR photography has developed and been adopted so quickly that it is hard to imagine that it did not always exist, or to understand that in some ways this simple technology is a very radical thing. I recall an enthusiastic student explaining web-distributed VR imagery to me in the early '90s when neither of us had seen it. but it must have already existed in patents and labs elsewhere. Now VR is a common sales technique that many of us experience in choosing a hotel room or real estate. Websites offer images in which the user can pan the camera position around the room in a photographic panorama, and the more elaborate sites link several panoramas with hotspots. Consumer digital cameras now often come with stitching software that allows such images to be produced very easily. This simplest form of the VR is a claim panorama little different in concept to Robert Barker's patent of 1787. But it is only a matter of degree that distinguishes these primitive panorama forms from the high-resolution full-screen spherical VR images that are produced with specialised cameras and software. As websites exhibiting these images grow,' and the price of the hardware and software for producing them drops, the VR will most likely proliferate. The images arc wonderful and affecting, and what they lack in the embodied viewing of large scale nineteenth century painted panoramas, they make up for with the ability to pan and tilt across images of extremely high verisimilitude, and to zoom into incidental details that only photography can provide. Apart from the narrative sequence, there is remarkably little difference between a high-resolution VR photograph and a spectacular' like Gladiator. While there is much to think about in these marvellous images, here I will focus on what I believe to be their central conceptual and historical interest. These are neither moving images nor still pictures, they are both, and thus they undo the opposition of still and moving images that had been one coordinate of twentieth century culture.

W'olfflin's distinguishing of the Baroque by the 'movement' of its buildings might seem like an analogy. But he meant something more like VR or La Jetee—we move our attention across the face of the building like Marker's camera passes across his photographic prints, but in imagination we attribute ibis motion to the building because its form, like that of Marker's narrative, constitutes the

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/00

movement. Following WolfHin and Giedion, many architects, from Erich Mendelsohn toZaha I ladid. have assumed that movement is not onlya fact of perceiving architecture but an aim of the design. This is because of thai other sense of movement, the movement of affect. When we say a building moves us. emotionally, could this be caused by movement? The equation would go like this: we move our bodies and eves through space, but attribute that movement-as-motion to the building: but having witnessed this imaginary' movement of the building, we ourselves are moved, not physically but by a change in our emotive Mate. There are a couple of problems with this account. The first is that it is too simple an anthropomorphism. If we can lend human properties like movement to inanimate obiccts like buildings, then why not also rocks, clouds, etc., at which point architectural movement is indistinguishable from imagination perse. The second is that the account is too mechanistic, motion causing movement. We can see that in the fact that Marker's technique in Lajelee has become well known, at risk of being a kind of cliche. It is how Ken Bums dramatized the American Civil War,* using archival images to bring the nineteenth century to life. Now on the Public Broadcasting Service website, school children can make their own moving image documentary. After choosing a theme. selection of images and soundtrack, the software produces a narrative from a nearly random sequence and the movement of still images.'" The screen saver in Macintosh computers has a random image selector, which can pan and zoom at random. Apple call this the Ken Burns Effect and playing with the function quickly demonstrates that simple motion docs not in itself produce movement at the level of form, nor does sensation alone trigger feeling.

The relative triviality of some of my examples might seem to overemphasise the technology that is at stake in the new less differentiated moving image. But there are numerous high culture examples that will do just as well and perhaps more compelling^ make the point that it is a nexus of technological and cultural change that we are examining. Andy Warhol's film of his friend John Giorno asleep was made with a Bolex small format camera that could only shoot four minutes of film.* The live hour twenty-one minute movie' of a motionless person was made up of simple duplications. Nevertheless, the concept of using motion picture to describe empirical stillness rather than the mechanical stillness of the photograph has inspired a variety of artists, the most recent and prominent being Bill Viola." In the scries The Passions, Viola exhibits moving images of people standing still and looking into the camera, and these are displayed on large flat screens which hang on the wall like paintings in ordinary lighting.'-' The people in the pictures are still, or rather directionless—each is moving—breathing, blinking, shifting their posture slightly. This gives them a startlingly realistic presence at the same time that it distances one from them. The images arc on loops and there is no beginning, middle or end, nor any meaning to the image's duration other than its verisimilitude in representing the micro movements of the still body. Violas work combines the latest image hardware with some of ouroldest ideas of "pictures': the works hang on the wall in a space, not facing an audience, and they are open to inspection for a minute or an hour. Viola's project of representing states of emotion, combined with his heavy-handed quotations from an history, is in some ways rather distasteful. An earlier project. Jean-Luc (iodard's Passion, is a much more sophisticated approach to art history and to the impossibility of filming movement.''' But there is no denying the peculiarly affecting stillness of Viola's work when compared to (iodard's image projected in a darkened room, in a cinematic apparatus that constructs

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

the viewer as already disembodied. Viola makes present the stillness ol the bodv in the balance of its muscular-skeletal structure under gravity, I lere the technology ol the motion image reveals 10 us the world in which we move—our imagination of the movement of buildings is equally an imagination that we might be still, like diem.

Through the twentieth century the paradigm of architectural affect has been Le Corbusier's architectural promenade, and for many today, a building that moves the emotions is one that also moves the body: through thresholds, articulating sight with route and goal. Forothers, the familiarity ofihisstratcgy has become too well known. Stephen Moll's Kiasma. the Museum of Contemporary An in I lelsinki, for instance, is as articulate and well-judged development of an architecture of movement as one could wish for.'' It even references the Maison la Roche in its main foyer space with a ramp rising against a curving wall. As it happens, I also find Kiasma vaguely distasteful—it gives me an impression that my movement in the building is already choreographed and that the feelings that I should have there have been pre-determined. This docs not happen to me at the Maison la Roche. The comparison here is not one of the skill of the architect or the merit of the building, although that could be an issue. I venture a different argument. The difference in my affect-ability on the two occasions is a matter of history. Figure 2 Stephen I loll. Kiasma Helsinki Museum

ofConlemporan Art. 199.1-98 photograph copyright of author Woifflin thought that art could not be understood,

but only felt. One could think about an. but only-appropriate ii affectively. I low then could Woifflin research the Baroque architecture of seventeenth century Rome? In answering this question he developed a concept ol style as a phenomenon and a category in the historiography of art." Style had. he claimed, a double relation, first, an historically situated origin in expression of the native demeanour of a people and an age. and then in fundamental psychological processes of perception, which are trans-historical. Woifflin could feel the second, but only understand the first, and for woifflin this dissociated feeling is the evidence with which the historian of an must deal, and not in the social conditions under which the an was made, which can only be understood non-anistically. Benjamin, following Riegl, put die matter even more strongly in his work on the Baroque, claiming that experience itself is historical. This insight led him to suggest that modernist architecture and cinema was not merely the occasion of unprecedented experiences.

2d

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

but. rather, thai experience itself had changed. For Benjamin the trans-historical, creaturcly feeling that we have in our apprehension of past an is not entirely present, but contains in it the affective aspects ol the social conditions under which ii was made. I lence Benjamin claimed that the affective world of the Baroque (the sense in the art of that time of decline and ruin) made the Baroque a critical historical parallel to the situation of the 1930s. While the delirium of Baroque form has little to tell us of the reductive poverty ol experience' of modern architecture, they speak together of an honest pessimism as to the possibilities for an during the wars of religion and the rise of Fascism.

My feeling of overdctcrmination at Kiasma. and my acceptance of very similar spatial relations at the Maison la Roche, could then be explained like this. I can admire and accept the choreography of movement in Le Corbusier because I understand it as past an. I am not the subject of this an. but I can choose to be by understanding the relative historical relation of the buildingand myself. While I ler/og and de Meuron have sources at least as old as Moll's, their work seems to me more Contemporary, Partly this is because their use of applied images on building facades speaks to a world where imagery is proliferating. What interests me more in I ler/og and de Meuron's work is not the technology bin the culture of the image, and in panicular the historical break they make with an architecture of movement by the use ol still pictures on their buildings.

There was an incident in the commission and design for the Maison La Roche that will allow me to elaborate, if not prove my point,"' One of the major aspects of the brief tor the house was a picture gallen. La Roche was a patron and collector of the Purist paintings of Ferdinand Lcger. Lc Corbusier and Amedec Ozcnfani that would hang in this gallery that formed the major event of the promenade architccturale. I lowevcr. Le Corbusier was offended by the manner in which Ozenfant and Lc Roche hung the space. I le wrote to Ozenfant: "The La Roche house should not take on the look of a house of a (postage-stamp) collector. I insist absolutely that certain pans of the architecture should be entirely free of paintings, so as to create a double effect of pure architecture on the one hand and pure paintings on the other."'" Le Corbusier designed storage so that la Roche could put away paintings that he was not presently looking at. La Roche declined to build the storage. Now. this rather strange dispute cannot be explained as rivalry between the ans in any simple sense. At a philosophical and artistic level the paintings and building were complementary and many paintings were Le Corbusier's. so why the interdiction against pictures? As La Roche put the dilemma later:

What can I say? No doubt you have reason for complaint if the impact of your walls, of whom I have been one of the chief admirers, is ruined . , . The house, once built, was so beautiful that on seeing it I cried: "Its almost a pity to put paintings into it!" Nevertheless 1 did so. How could I have clone otherwise? Do I not have certain obligations with regard to my painters, of whom you yourself are one? I commissioned from you a "frame for my collection." You provided me with a "poem of walls." Which of us two is most to blame?'"

r

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

One reason might have been that to hang a picture raises the whole problematic of ornament—the architectural need for supplementation, the potential failure of its claims to autonomy. But I think that there is also another reason. The problem with pictures for Le Corbusier is thai they challenge the trajectory of architecture in becoming image, of giving haptic experience a kind of form. By an extraordinary predetermination of body position and viewpoint, the Maison la Roche has a sequential and unfolding visual field that is coordinated formally: it has images as a film has images. To an extern, the architecture needs the still space of pictures fordurational lived experience to become imagistic. Rosalind Krauss has argued that Le Corbusier's design assumes a frontal view of the paintings, while v icwingarchitectureisamattcrof rotation. Paintinglxxomes ideation, necessanlv Hat and disembodied. While architecture is the "fruition of a lived perspective [...] pictorial space is that which cannot be entered or circulated through."'" Although she does not cite him. and probably does not intend to make this connection. Krauss' description is remarkably close to W'olfflin's picturesque movement-effect, and to earlier picturesque theory, Krauss does not seem aware of the 1925 dispute overa much denser hang than she saw, but in any case, her supposition of Le Corbusier's articulation of painting and architecture by viewpoint underplays his real antipathy, and the same conflict that Benjamin identified between objective space and the semblance ol space in W'olfflin's pictorial architecture. Le Corbusier's fear is not that pictures would compete with architectureforourspatialscnsc.and therefore need to be seen flat on and their space idealised. It is rather that they would cover the walls. The problem is not perceptual but one of conflicting concepts of the image as an artefact The relation of the picture as object to its imagined spatiality hinders the'picturesque movement-effect'by which the objective relations of space could be grasped as a mental image of one's experience of space. It is no coincidence that in the curved ramp space of Kiasma, which refers so clearly to the precedent ol the Maison la Roche, no pictures arc hung. Like a billboard in a beautiful landscape, the flatncssofthc pictorial support would remind us that thebuilding is quotidian space in which we wandcraround, not a filmic spectacle rolling before our eves

ller/.og and de Meuron's use of applied images is neither very original nor unprecedented. Modernists were aware of the traditions of fresco and sgraffito. Legcrpaintcd panels forinstallation in Le Corbusier's Pavilion de I'Esprit Nouveau (1925). and in 1943,with the architects |.L. Sen and Sigfried Giedion. called fora new civic iconography ofkinetie

Figure > Herzog and de Matron. Ebersu tilde Senior Technical School Library, 1996-98

photograph copyright oj author

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

sculp!nix-, lire works and large-scale projection and murals.' But until recently, the technology lor applying large-scale weatherproof images has not been very successful and neither has there been the conceptual work to reconcile such explicit ornamentation with an aesthetic account of Modernism. I ler/ogand cle Meuron have worked on both fronts: their work is remarkable tor its severe reduction of spatial qualities and their use ol applied images. Together these moves announce a kind ol end tor picturesque/cinematic architecture ol the Corbusian sort.

The Eberswalde Library (Germany, 1993-6) is a mute box totally covered in pictures commissioned from the photographer Thomas Ruff (lig. 2:14). Ruff chose the images from his archive of Newspaper Photos, which he had been assembling since 1981. Ruffs an practice involves rcphotographing and enlarging these images so that the dot screen of the newsprint is visible, mounting them as art, then priming and exhibiting them in a salon hang not unlike the facade of the Library. In his commission for the Library, Ruff chose apparently varied images that he considered expressive of the situation of an old forestry college in the East, after the reunification of Germany. These include a painting of Alexander von I lumbolt. photographs of students studying, the Berlin wall under construction, toy train sets and experimental aircraft." The pictures suggest a loose thematic unity while also presenting a variety of sell-consisting and unrelated spatial depths. According to Gchard Mack, the architects conceived ol this design in the tradition of Sgraffito decoration in the traditional buildings of German towns

Ruffs image cycle is in dialogue w ith a building of blunt object-form where there is no sense of space being formed in a sequence of visual experience. At Eberswalde, architecture has apparently been reduced to the rationalisation of use. and construction, and thedevelopmentof the material processes lor etching images into concrete and glass. The thing is an object, a box; and it simply displaces space around it with no apparent design. In fact, this reduction of space to object foregrounds the curatorial nous of the architects in commissioning a neo-neo-objectivist photographer to decorate their sachlichkeii building. The Eberswalde Library invokes the modernist vocabulary of Ludw ig Mies van cler Rohe and Walter Gropius. and Ruff invokes the photography of Alexander Rodchenko and Sander, but the combination is something that would have been impossible in the 1920s. Eberswalde Library uses a grammar of the Renaissance—of the image before it was assumed to be a picture, of architecture before it was jealous of its image—but it is equally sure of us historical position after modernism.'2

f-'orthesame reason that LcCorbusicrthought pictures were a threat to the promenade architccturale, the image program of the Eberswalde Library actively negates the possibility of space being formed out of visual apperception. It is too axiomatic to sec this as a matter of pictures or architecture w ith Lc Corbusier. or of pictures and architecture with I Icrzog and de Meuron. There is another level ol relation. Pictures do not conflict with the Villa la Roche at all levels: they arc its abstract model. Lc Corbusier wanted hapiic experience to be lixed. to make a kind of artefact of which one can have regard, to construct a mental image on the model of actual image artefacts such as the picture, or the cinema. It is this model that (he phenomenal viewing of actual pictures might disrupt. By contrast. Ruffs pictures (newspaper reportage become an on the facade of the Library) make a stiff critique

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

of the whole idea of visual experience being formed or finalized—or having its perlcti partner in the moving image.

Acknowledgments Christopher Brisbin's insightful questions about the relations of image culture and technology and his PhD studies that are in progress under my direction at The I nivcrsiry of Queensland have been a major spur to this inquiry. Thanks to Rosemary Hawker for making a crucial connection in the argument, and to C.cvork I lartoonian and Andrew Leach.

Endnotes 1 Ccr\in Robinson andJwl I Icrschman.A/v/vVavw/W/ww^

from IH.>') to the present. New York, NY: Architectural League of New York; Cambridge: MIT Press. 198": James Ackcrman. "On the Origins of Architectural Photography," in James S. Ackcrman and Jill Slosburg-\ckvnnm.Origins. Imitation, Contentions: representation in tlvtisual arts.Gimbridgc.M^^^^ League of New York, 2001. pp. 95-124.

2 Sigfried Giedion.Mechanization TakesCommand:acouirihniionioauouymoushiston. New York: Oxford University Press.. 1948: Sigfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture, the growth of a new tradition. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard I'liivcrsitv Press. 190".

3 Giedion. Mechanization Takes Command, pp. l~-30.

4 Ir(;orbusicrandVi'illvKoesiger.O««r«'eoH//;/rfp. Zurich: Lditionsd'architecturelirlcnbach. I946,vol:1910-1929. 00.

5 Giedion. Space, Time and Architecture, pp. 118-119.

(> Walter Benjamin. "The Work of .An in the .Age of its Mechanical Reproduction," in Illuminations. 11. Arendt, New York: Schocken Books. 1968.

Siegfried Kracauer and Thomas Y, Levin. The Mass Ornament. Weimar essays. Cambridge May..: I larvard University Press, 1995.

8 Dziga Venov. "Tlie Man with the Movei Camera." I SSR. 1929.

9 Beatriz Colomina. Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mast Media. Cambridge. Mass, and London: MIT Press. 1994.

10 Michael W.Jennings. Dialectical Images: Waller Benjamin's theory of literary criticism, Ithaca, NY; Cornell University Press. 198". p. 154.

11 John Macarthur. "The Picturesque MovemcniLffcct:motionandarchitecturalaffecis in W'blftlin and Benjamin." Australian c- Sew Zealand Journal of Art, 2-3 (2001/2) 136-157. Also forthcoming: John Macarthur. The Picturesque: architecture, disgust and other irregularities. London: Routledge. 2007.

12 On Wolftlin's use of maleriscb sec Joan Goldhammcr I Ian. "lleinrich W'olfflin: an Intellectual Biography''. unpublished Ph.D. dissenation. University of California Berkeley. 1981. Literally w/rt/erod> refers to the wafer or painter, not to the picture, so the translation painterly' is not incorrect etymologicallv. but it is inaccurate of German usage. The same equivocation as to whether picturesqucness lies in pictorial form or the sunabilit\ of things to be painted also lies at the origin of the English usage, and the translators' neologism painterly'

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

attempted to clear this up. The translation issue can be confirmed in its reciprocation. The Oxford English Dictionary's entry for painterly' says: "Like, or pertaining 10. a painter; characteristic of a painter, artistic; spec, ol a style "I painting, characterized by qualities of colour, stroke, and texture rather than of contour or line." The second clause is pure Wolffiin, as is clear from the Dictionary's usage of citations: there is one sixteenth century and one nineteenth century example, and then fourteen from 19"S hack to 1932. the year of publication of the translation Principles of All llisloiy. when the Times Literary Supplement writes. "painterK.' a translation of the German word malerisch. which can also mean picturesque."

13 Richard Payne Knight. .A;; Analytical Inanity into Ihe Principles of Taste, nth edn. London. 1808; I Yedalc Price. Essays on the Picturesque: as compared with the Sublime and the Beautiful and. on The I se of studying Pictures for Ihe Purpose of improving Real Landscape. 3 vols. London. 1810.

U The argument began in the French academy in 16"2 when the painter Phillippe de Champagne attacked the paintings of Titian and lauded the works of Nicolas I'oussin. Michael Clark. Poussinisme. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2 June 2005 2001 cued in and available from: ht[p://www.oxfordrcfcrcncc.comA'iew,s/ ENTRY.html5subview=Main&entn,=i4.el365|.

15 E, 11. Gombrich, "The Renaissance Theory of An and the Rise of Landscape." in Norm and Form, London: Phaidon, 1966.

Id I leinrich Wollilin. Principles of Art History: The Problem ofthe Development of Style in Later Art. trans. M. I) lloiunger. New York: Dover. 1950, p. 25.

17 William Hogarth and Ronald Paulson, The Analysis of Beauty. New Haven. Conn.: Paul Mellon Centre for Brush An by Yale University Press. 199". p. 29:Joshua Rcvnoldsand \hrn \\oun\. AJourne]1 toElauders and Holland: Art. patrons, and public. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 1990 p. 60; Price. Essays on the Picturesque. 2. p, 298.

18 Walter Benjamin. Michael W. Jennings, and Marcus Paul Bullock. Selected Writings. Cambridge. Mass.: Belknap Press. 1996.2, pp. 666-672.

19 Benjamin, Selected Writings. 2. p. 670. 20 Gilles Deleuze, Cinema I: The Movement Image, trans. II. Tomlinson and 15.1 labbcrjam. London: Athlonc

Press,. 1980. pp. 12-1". While there is no space to argue this here, the framed totality of the painted image is specific to pictures.' and not. lor instance, to frescos and murals. The sense that we have of a picture as a unified visual field corresponding toa coherence space depicted arises in French painting theory, particularly that ol Roger de Piles. This point is argued h\ Thomas Puttfarkcn. Tbe Discovery of Pictorial Composition: theories of usual order in painting 1400-1800, New I laven. Conn., and London: Yale University Press,. 2000.

21 Schmarsow, quoted in Harry Francis Mallgrave and Eleftherios Ikonomou, Empathy Form and Space-problems in (ieniiau aesthetics I87.r I89.i. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the Arts and I lumanitics. 199-t. p. 64.

22 Schmarsow. quoted in Mallgrave and Ikonomou, Empathy. Form and Space, p. 291.

23 Rensselacr W. Lee.''/ Pictura Poesis, the humanist theory of painting. New York: WW Norton, 194(1.

24 Walter Benjamin. What is Epic Theatre?" in Illuminations. New York: Schokcn Books. 1955. 25 Walter Benjamin. "Little I listory of Photography," mSelecled writings. Walter Benjamin. Michael W. Jennings,

and Marcus Paul Bullock icdi. Cambridge. Mass.: Belknap Press. II: 1990.

20 Benjamin. "Little I listory of Photography," p. 52".

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

Macarthur

2~ Benjamin. "Little 1 listorv of Photography," p. Sin.

28 GiBes Delcu/.c. Francis Bacon: the logic of sensation. Minneapolis: I'niversitv of Minnesota Press. 200.4. p. 36.

29 Deleuzc. Cinema I. pp. 8~-88.

30 Charles Darwin, Paul Ekman and Phillip Prodger. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998118~2|. On Wolfflin's theory of these matters see: Mallgrave and Ikonomou. Empathy. Eorm and Space, p. 43 and passim,

.41 http://video.google.com.aiV 32 Tom Gunning. "ThcCinemaof Attraction: Eariyfilm. Its SpectatorandtheAvani-Garde,"W^A»g/#(1986):

<i.4~0.

33 Michael Bay. Bad Boys II. | IrSA|. 2004; Auguste l.umicrc and Louis Lumiere, First programs, i Sandy I look. Conn;] 198", vidcorccording.

41 Ridley Scott. Gladiator. [Australia|. 2000. vidcorccording. .45 John and Jean Mohr Berger. Another Way of Telling. London: Readers and Writers. 1982. ,4() Chris Marker, la Jetee. (Surbinon. England |: Connoisseur/Academy Video, |19-|. 3" http://www.panoramas.dk

48 Geoffrey C, Ward. Ken Burns, and Ric Burns. TbeCivtl War [ISA], 1989, vidcorccording. .49 The Civil War. a film by Ken Burns. Public Broadcast Service, [cited 1-ith September 2006|. available from

http://www.pbs.org/civilwar iO Andy Warhol..Sleep. 19()4.\Varholstars. [cited lHthSeptember2006|,availablefrom http://www.warholstars.

org.

4 1 Bill Viola, [cited l4th September 200o'. available from http://www.billviola.corn.

42 Bill Viola ct al. The Passions: video stills by Bill Viola. Los Angeles. 200,4.

-i4 Jean-Luc Godard. Passion, [S.l.|,videorecording. 4-i Kiasma. Museum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki. | cited 14th Sept 200»|. available from hitp://www.kiasma.

li is PYedcric|Schv\artz.'(;athedralsandShc^:&)nceptsofStyleinWolfflinandAdc^o,'W«f6OTnflwCn^M€

"6. 1999.4-48.

4d 1 simplify a complex dispute that also concerned lighting and how the putative succession of Purism over Cubism was to be expressed. Nevertheless, according to Tim Bcnton. the significance aspect of the dispute is the density of the hanging as it affects the visibility of the architecture. The dispute is documented in letters between Lc Coriiusier. La Roche and O/cnfant. Sec Tim Benton. Charlotte Benton. and Dennis Sharpe. The Villas ofl.e Corbusier: I9~'0 -19.W. New I laven and London: Yale I diversity Press. 198"". pp. 65-70.

47 Le Corbusier, letter to O/enfant. 16th April 1925. Dossier La Roche. Doc.506, quoted in Benton et al. Villas ofLe Corbusier. p. 6".

48 Lc Corbusicr. letter to Ozcnfant. 16th April 1925. Dossier La Roche. Doc.506, quoted in Villas of Le Corbusier.

49 Rosalind Krauss. "l.egcr. Le Corbusier, and Purism." Artforum 10.8.119~2): s2.

^2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: MODERN MOVEMENT: on some issues in the contemporaneity of architecture and image types

ATR 11:2/06

50 J.I.. Sen. F. Legcr. and s. Giedion, 'Nine Points on Monumentality." m Architecture Culture, I94.i-1968: A DocumentaryAnthology. ed.Joan (K kman and Edward Eigen. Columbia Bunks ot Architecture. New York: Columbia l 'nivcrsiiv Graduate School of Architecture. Planning Rizzoli. 1993. pp. 29-30.

T1 Gerhard Mack and Valeria Liebermann. Eberswalde Library: Herzog & De Meuron, vol, 3. Architecture Landscape Urbanism. London: Architectural Association. 2000.

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

25 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014