from kate maxwell:

In quasi-response to many of the questions posted, it seems to me
as though the Virilio essay dovetails nicely with the other essays
we have read warning against the absolute prioritization of reason.
I thought it was very interesting to trace the rise of invention/
popularity of these various forms of media with their initially
invisible (though upon reflection, clearly illuminated) social impact,
ie the role of cameras in trials...mankind’s unconquerable desire
for some reliable form of understanding has led us to a reliance on
scientific method and the corresponding technology that we do not
wish to admit can be as fallible as our own optical perceptions.
One of the questions I had was concerned with the horrible
metaverse that rapid technological advance has brought us, such
Governor Arnold and the deception of visual media as news now
that digital editing has reached heights far beyond the recognition
of the human eye....have we locked ourselves inside the burning
movie theater as the spectacle devours itself? (a poor metaphor,
yeah, i know)
I was also interested in the ways that the more intangible aspects
of life as a human are slowly being overtaken in our desperate
quest for self-understanding...for example, in my oral history class
(to explain: one records interviews of people’s life story as a way of
gaining new perspective on traditional written history), there have
been many discussions on the gap in understanding created
between the actual tape of the conversation, and the transcript
which becomes official record--many tapes are actually burned,
yet despite the efforts of the most diligent transcribers, worlds of
inflection and intonation are lost forever, much of which provides
essential insight into the meaning of what has been said. Just as
the phone call supplanted the physicality of the written letter and
the explosion of personal e-mail has eliminated almost everything
personal from communication except for the actual choice of
words, have we decided that these less efficient methods of media
hold no intangible quality? To what extent are we willing to trade
faster and shinier toys for a thousand degrees of separation? or i
am just secretly a luddite? i don’t know.....

posted by whkc at 8:32 AM

It seems to me that Virilio had a lot of very interesting, semi-related points to make, but it was at first unclear to me where he was going with them...Bridget did a good job of outlining many of these- I was also confused about the panorama’s role. I think it was brought up because this painterly/architectural technology was immediately taken up (by Napoleon no less) as a potential “instrument of propaganda.” Virilio declares, “The artist now had a double, a being led astray by representational techniques and their reproductive power, not to mention the circumstances surrounding their occurrence, they [their???] very phenomenology” (41). I’m not entirely positive what he is saying here, but I think he is alluding to the artistic-architectural technology of the panorama as an “instrumentalisation” of the public image (41). It was deemed ‘nature at a glance,’ and sought to provide a “complete view” by certain aspects of form and lighting (39-40). It is interesting to note that the panorama was used as a device for “pictorial spectacle,” which relates back to Virilio’s discussion of the spectacle of public execution during the revolution. Tying this all in, the panorama fits into Virilio’s project of describing the way in which the public image was getting mechanized, digitized, filled up with the “light of revolutionary terror.”
posted by Jackie at 10:43 PM

from nazli pirincci:

What strike me the most about Paul Virilio's essay was the 'formation of the image' in the second paragraph. Does really the formation of an image occur through illumination? So if humans repress the invisible, bring everything to surface will everything be formed? Does light symbolize knowlegde here? If people become knowledgable on everything, are they going to have full power and control? This in a way contradicts with the idea that there will always be something unknown. When we say man wanted to illuminate himself I guess that means he wanted to search through everything and maybe in a way carry everything to the public and not leave anything private.

In addition to my comments I also want to emphasize the correlation between Virilio's notion of illumination and Dean's emphasis on the non-existence of the public sphere. I was also really interested in the role of the eyewitness in Virilio's essay. How does an eyewitness effect a case? Can he lead it wrongly or was he really there? What is photography's impact on that?

posted by whkc at 10:23 PM