BEAP

TH

E E

XH

IB

IT

IO

NS

B I E N N A L E O F E L E C T R O N I C A R T S P E R T H

I M M E R S I O N

B I O F E E L

S C R E E N

02

>>

I M M E R S I O N

B I O F E E L

S C R E E N

SSCCRREEEENN

Screen:Device to shelter from heat, light, draught, observation;mesh over doors to keep out insects;wooden or stone partition in church;shelter, protect from detection;scrutinise, examine for potential motives;examine for presence of disease, weapons, etc; white silvered surface on which photographic images areprojected. (Collins Pocket Reference English Dictionary, 1988; p: 430)

Eye:As I sat on the church pew this morningwaiting for the Christening service to begin, I found myself in the midst of an in-depthocular exploration of the church’s interiorarchitecture. This was quite a pleasantexperience after being somewhat bemused bythe massive construction site bannerassaulting the external skin of the building.As my gaze wandered from window towindow, painting to painting, buttress tobuttress, an excerpt from a quote came tomind; "The eye seduces the imagination".

While pondering this little snippet I continuedmy visual exploration seeking out the woodenor stone partition in the church. I smiled whenFather Ted requested that we, as a group,denounce Satan; I couldn't help it. My cat'salias is Spawn of Satan and I had a mentalimage of a Garfield influenced crucifixion onthe back fly-wire screen. It may have been my backlog of Catholic induced guilt (it resurfaces whenever I enter a church) butI had a terrible fear of being struck down bya bolt of lightning. I had hoped that a piece ofmesh would shield me from the scrutinousgaze of the clergy; it didn’t happen. However,the rather tall man sitting on the pew infront appeared to do the trick. (cont...)

pauline williams

++

john curtin gallery play...

john curtin galleryamanda aldersonpaul capornbec deandavid fusselldonna ettrick michelle glasermia lalannemarie-louise xavierchris wellstrish kentbrogan bunt

central tafe/arcane bookshoprebecca dagnallchristian de vietri heather webb kai faigénbaum cavity

kurbtania doropoulos

cbddavid christian mark christian

spectrumvikki wilson

midland/myerdavid brazier merrilyn fairskyepilar matatarryn gill

SSCCRREEEENN

amanda alderson

paul caporn, bec dean and david fussellblue lagoon video, installation, performance, text, 2002

detail image by donna ettrick digital digits 2001

stills from the interactive work, doctor pancoast's cabinet de curiosités.created by michelle glaser, mia lalanne, marie-louise xavier and chris wells.

trish kentconfessional detail from digital print

brogan bunthotel still from interactive work

My thought process has beeninterrupted by the melodic buzzof a moth bouncing against thelight globe. It must havehappened across the demonicslash in the fly wire, theremains of Spawn of Satan’slatest possession. If it werenot for the mosquitoessiphoning a steady flow ofblood from my ankles it wouldhave been quite an ambientmoment.

In formulating the curatorial premise forScreen I had considered the eye as the

receptor of lived and cinematicexperiences. The ocular nature of imagegathering is the focal point of the bodilyprocess and is representative of the 20

media based works shown at the variousexhibition sites in and beyond Perth.

As I contemplate these notions I am againdrawn to the eye as seducer of the

imagination. Sight and mind, or rather theprocesses of sight and recognition, seemvirtually impossible to isolate from each

other. I feel that it is the eye viarecognition that seduces the imagination.

Considering the infinite number of imagesthat pass through the body’s processes ofrecognition, one may question; how doesthe eye, operating as receptor, decipherthe images that make the journey along

the numerous optic pathways to the brainfor coding, decoding or storage?

According to the Hitchhikers Guide to theGalaxy, we may have brains the size of a

planet, even so, is that big enough tocontain the massive process of our

continuous ocular dialogues?

IMAGE:In his essay The Image Matrix“Analog is having a burial anddigital is dancing on its grave”,Arthur Kroker states,

“...sliced through anddiced, combined andrecombined the body isan image matrix...theimage maintains thepretence that it hassomething to do withthe history of the eyeprecisely because itsreal electro-opticalhistory focuses on theshutting down of theeye of the flesh and theopening up of theresidual eye of the deadcode…the image archiveis reduced to thesteady flicker of thecyberneticcode...perfectlypreserved, perfectlycoded, alwaysretrievable…”.

Welcome to the mainframe!

cura

tors

sta

tem

ent

++

Within the film Matrix (1999), Morpheusintroduces Neo to his 'true reality'.

"This is the construct. This is ourloading programme...what you seeis your residual self-image, a mentalprojection of yourself, of your digitalself. The twentieth [twenty-first]century exists now as a neurointeractive simulation, that which wecall the matrix" (Matrix, Wachowski,1999).

For the viewer the matrix, the mainframe, exists as a binary code as seenfrom the mother ship (the vehicle ofdesolate reality). Within the mainframe themotion of metallic green digits continue ontheir vertical voyage with no apparentdestination. As with the Matrix theboundaries between technology and livedexperience blur to the point where thebodily construction of our self-image movebeyond the ‘residual self-image’ to thereal. This notion forms the basis of mypremise for Screen and pre-empted theparticipating artists' ocular investigationinto the blurring of these boundaries. Theresult is a diverse critique of thecinematic and lived experiences thatpermeate our 'paramount realities', oursense of the world.

Kroker goes on to state:“It is our future to disappear intoimages, not only into those externalimage screenings cinema, T.V,video, digital, photography, but alsointo those image matrixes thatharvest human flesh, MRI & CTScans, and thermology”.

The screen as a permeable membrane,has in a sense transcended its physicality,it has been stretched to almosttransparent, no longer simply the whitesilvered surface on which photographicimages are projected.

The participating artists and I haveendeavoured to undertake an investigationinto these issues in relation to cinematicand lived experiences. What youexperience at the various exhibition sitesare independent interpretations of theeye, image and screen.

cura

tors

sta

tem

ent

++

The demonic slash seemsto have also allowed

easy access to a rathercool breeze. It has

caused a distinct changein the moth’s melody via

the now pendulous wind-chime. The cacophony of

moth and chime isdeveloping a sound notdissimilar to the ping of

the ultra sound as itisolates a section of body

to image. Definitely anintriguing ocular

exploration of fleshyinterior architecture but Ithink that is possibly the

making of anotherexhibition beyond Screen

and perhaps not aflashback that I wish to

spend too much time on.

pauline williams

vikki wilsonfilm stills

spectrum

vikki wilsonserial killer permutation engine: a throw of the dice will never abolish chance stills

pilar mata & tarryn gillarmy soldier

midland/myer

david brazier carpet animation film stills

merrilyn fairskye eye contact film stills

rebecca dagnall6108 digital image

central tafe/arcane bookshop

christian de vietri and heather webb the beginning is the end is the beginning digital image

performance of D.A.C.S by cavity

kai faigénbaum conjectural hybrids 2002 captured digital iframe

tania doropoulos / mustaka threepointtwoseconds video slide and audio

kurb

cbd

mark christian pile installation

david christian tabula rasa detail video installation

Screen has been developed with thekind support of the City of Perth,Humanities Division,School of Art,Curtin University of Technology,John Curtin Gallery, John CurtinCentre, MYER Forrest Chase, School of Media, Communicationand Culture, Murdoch University,Central TAFE, spECtrUm Gallery and BEAP.

The State of Western Australia hasmade an investment in this projectthrough ArtsWA in association withthe Lotteries Commission.

Pauline would like to thank thefollowing people for their endlesssupport and encouragement (andtolerance): constant advisors Paul Thomas, Professor Ted Snell,Dr. Ann Schilo and Barbara Cotter;also: School of Art, John CurtinGallery Staff, Elaine Seymour, Ricky Arnold, Robert Wootton,Sharon Flindell, Helen Curtis, Gail Cameron, Predrag Delibasich,John Van Ruelen, Bec Dean, Rob Finlayson, Brogan Bunt,Michelle Glaser, my family and thefabulous participating artists.

Artist Biographies are available viathe BEAP website: www.beap.org

The good Dr. Pancoast would liketo acknowledge the grand closetsound by Trevor Hilton andillustrations by Helen Smith, Gina Moore and Richard Giblett. The many facets of the Doctor’sCloset were photographed byRobert Frith. From an idea developed with Nic Beames. With perfromers NealLucanus and Fiona Cornelisse

David Brazier would like to thankAndrew Hill, Tim Burns, Ryan andBen for their assistance in theconstruction of Carpet Animation.

Vikki Wilson would like to thankperformer, contributing writer: Erin Hefferon, sound: Rick Mason,Lindsay Vickery, programmingconsultant: Cam Merton,The Australia Council, DerekKreckler at WAAPA's centre of Artand Technology

acknow

ledgem

ents