HOME

Beyond the Image

In “The Overexposed City”, Virilio describes a process of “de-realization” where new technological space-time challenges the material reality of the city with a new city based on light emissions. Because of the consideration to the advent of new representational technology, this assertion lies within a larger framework of critical thought that is concerned with the disconnect between man and an authentic reality, resulting from the increased emphasis on the image i.e. Benjamin, Debord, and Klein. For Benjamin, man ingests images (through photography, film, and architecture), rather than placing himself into the world of the image to individually and thus critically comprehend it. According to Debord, we live in a society in which individuals no longer actually experience events, but in which all action is instead conducted through the represented image, and one must break through the “spectacle” to reach the authentic. The work of Klein advocates the realization of matter to suggest that there is a fundamental reality beyond the image, free of any intermediaries.

In contrast to this, Antonioni questions the possibility of perceiving any reality that is not mediated by images. Through his film, “Blow Up”, he asserts that the camera is the means to reveal the truth. He describes a mediation between the perceiving subject and the perceived object, or in this case, the disjuncture between the mechanical recording of the camera, and the subjective perception of the main character (Thomas). This theme is revealed through the unfolding narration of the film. Assuming the reader of this paper has some familiarity with the film, the key lies in the interpretation of the events in the park where Thomas captures a couple in the landscape. Upon examination of the enlarged photographs of the scene, Thomas notices a man in the bushes and believes he has just prevented a murder. This realization through the enlarged still image is an instance of what Benjamin refers to as putting “the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (Benjamin 221). This suggests that Thomas begins to trust the mechanical representation of the camera rather than his own recollection of events. The second examination of the photographs in which Thomas enlarges them even further to discover a body reinforces his trust in the camera. However, the further enlargement of the photograph only reduces the image to abstraction (loss of aura). In other words, the object the image represents begins to lose its materiality as it is closely scrutinized in the enlargement of it. The ambiguity and interpretation of the image is so strong that he must return to the park at night (without his camera) to confirm that the corpse is there. However, upon return the next morning (this time with the camera) the corpse is no longer there. This is to say that the true meaning of the events in the park can only be brought to light through the mediating function of the camera.

In this way, reality must first be contextualized before it can offer up meaning. The film frames the consequences of the loss of contextual evidence and the subsequent questioning of both representational (image) and nonrepresentational memory as any guarantee of the “real”. The implications on how this affects how people perceive the architecture, can be related to what Virilio describes as “Post architecture”. Much like how the camera in “Blow up” was able to conjure a perceived reality, Virilio argues that technology, in this case telecommunications, constructs an imperceptible reality that even though invisible, is just as “real” as masonry and road systems (matter). Virilio keeps the delineation that one is material the other is immaterial representations (images), occupying no real space (548). On the other hand, if Antonioni is correct, then there is no fundamental reality beyond the image as Debord and Klein suggest, and architecture therefore becomes a matter of semiotics and subjective meaning (postmodernism).

It is my initial instinct to believe, like Debord and Klein, that there still is an authentic reality beyond the image. It could be argued that this authenticity is just a mere phenomenological construction that is the result of the desire for a concrete past (nostalgia), but with this logic, the same could be said of the spectacle. It is only when the desire for the authentic becomes politicized (externalized), does this fundamental reality cease to exist and become dangerous (e.g. fascism). In this case, the subjective desire for an authentic reality leads to the systematic oppression of personal freedoms. It only takes a look to the current geopolitical state of affairs in comparison to the writings of Debord to know how far inside the system we are. Even the Situationist project that Debord advocates has been politicized to the point that it needs its own ‘derive’ to break from its reliance on the spectacle (Watts Riots). To me, the desire for the authentic is unsystematically based off physiological/material interactions. Perhaps due to the influence of Buddhism in my personal life, I have a bit of an affinity for the notion of the ‘void’ that Klein suggest: a nirvana-like state that is void of worldly influences; a neutral zone where one is inspired to pay attention to ones own sensibilities, and to reality as opposed to representation.