Tried to write the current intent of the film –
The project destabilises our reliance on images, as the contemporary construct through which we consume culture. It embraces the ‘photoshop instability’ of the image, making it an operative artefact for the production of architecture. From being the medium that flattens an event and make the final representation of it, the image becomes a starting point.
In a sequence of moments, the image is striped from its original narrative, making it referential only to what preceded it and what will follow it. In itself, it is a raw material to project onto new narratives. The subject of the image is questioned as there is a sense of uncertainty regarding which aspect of it will connect to a new scene: Jeff Wall’s inhabited apartment appears through its clutter, and disappears through a window’s view; a room appears through an aerial flythrough, and disappears as we step inside a model. The medium, the frame, the subject(s) and the orientation – together compositing the image – become tools to redefine it, and eventually depart from it. From a stable construct, the image turns to an unstable tableau.
Freeing the subjects from their context, they become scaleless sculptural geometry that can be re-read and decoded. Together with a fixed view, they make a connection between scenes. With context, scale, medium and orientation constantly being redefined, the film itself is the only possible site for the project.
MATCH CUT could be a great cinematic technique to further explore.
It is a cut within a scene that makes sense spatially. This can be between two different objects, two different spaces, or two different compositions in which an object in two shots graphically match.
Kubrick has done it best –
Compilation of match cuts (Kubrick at 2:05)
Thinking how to incorporate the idea of the caption, since naming the view is important. I think I once read a text written by Brett about the evolution of the caption but still didn’t find it.