Hello, I finished thinking about the final presentation and I am clearer what I want to do. I will present everything with the website. There will be an introduction with the black screen when you can only hear the sound of stone cutting. The presentation then is divided into two or three main parts. In the first part, I present the different methods of formatting, regardless of their content and explain how the function of the frame. (In other words, I am explaining ways of seeing.*) In the second part, my double (which I talk to via google handout) takes over the screen and explains the role of content being format and may lay out how one could read a wandering from the quarry to the tables, situating six worlds in parallel: 1. the making of the project in school/office; 2. the making of the building as explored by modernists and an absurd clashing between form and format; 3. the making of media as in the gallery/news. At the end, all we see is a zigzaging between different frames which don’t really make sense or reveal any meaning. However, my argument is based on two main claims: Considering “the medium is the message” (McLuhan), the arrangement of frames is the format which negotiates the relationship between content and context, always working on a psychological mechanism of belonging or not belonging. As I am trying to define my subjective point of view, I propose different fragmented views on the relationship between objects which are presented to the audience nested on the screen. Since some objects stand out through their size from the screen, which presents everything as equal at first, they form the figure which removes itself from the ground on which they sit. The relationship is doubled, as revealed through my twin on google hangout. (ok I know this sounds confusing to some out there) So what is this, where is the meaning? The thing is, I am playing a Duchampian game. As the audience looks at the content of the screen, they are being recorded and live streamed. The screen is considered the door from Etant donnés, while the assemblage behind the door is but my cabinet of curiosities (a bunch of formatted things captured through my eyes). The view I am imposing is not a totalitarian one but remains fragmented through all stages. It is at the end, when the contents of the screen “granulate” into a void, that the only format which is left is the presentation screen. Turns out that it is just a large glass within which content as format and content as meaning coexist, yet never touch. Meaning lies in the eyes of the beholder and is always in transit. Only the livestream of the audience staring at a blank screen remains. The circle is closed and I leave the room. Now, there is a glitch which gives it away. One of the images didn’t change back to its original state as I switch from google hangout back to the presentation in the lecture room and reveals the duchampian setup: I nested the Large Glass, in which the physical and imagined realities never meet, inside the Etant donnés. Alright, I admit it is quite poetic and ambitious…I need to get my two acts together, rewrite the thesis to be explained, as Berger does it, exactly when I point from one thing to another. I need help with that -> Orchestration & Clarification!
*thanks John Berger, you saved me.