my hideous progeny: the aberrant + grotesque in architecture
Thursday, November 30, 2006
theatre box part two
the stage Here's an image (straight on) of the nearly-completed theatre for the project. Two more dowels/rods will be added to the top; to hold possibly two more curtains (on the right and left) and lighting. Currently, the main curtain is held up by a clamp - the new rods will support this too. They will also serve to allow for pieces of the automata to be suspended.
stage, side view
detail The stage has been constructed of an old frame, some maply ply, and bass wood - all stained.
inside floor boards, storage I've left the top three floorboards detached so that they can be easily drilled and removed, to store whatever is needed below.
the framework/stage for the marionette is underway - right now the pieces are being stained...which is a much slower process than i had anticipated. i'm hoping to get everything assembled tonight, but somehow i think it might be tomorrow morning...
excerpts; Staging the Savage God: the grotesque in performance
image: da Vinci's "study of grotesque heads"
Raft Remshardt's thesis on the grotesque in classical and modern history has a few interesting points; the following quotes are taken directly from his text.
defining grotesque
Supposing a painter chose to put a human head on a horse's neck, or to spread feathers of various colours over the limbs of several different creatures, or to make what in the upper part is a beautiful woman tail off into a hideous fish, could you help laughing when he showed you his efforts? This is how Horace opens his Art of Poetry, urging the neophyte artist to steer clear of "sick man's dreams" and "idle fancies." The type of laughable incongruity Horace hopes his adherents can avoid is the composition of verse - one to which we might attach, avant la lettre, the term "grotesque" - is poignantly invoked as a series of disjointed images focussing on the disturbed integrity of the body and on the impermissible amalgamation of human and beast.
Vitruvius and the grotesque:
Vitruvius, in his De Architectura, grimly castigates what he perceives as flagrant decorated aberations, complaining of a plethora of odd formations "without rhyme or reason." He sees strangely shaped leaves and columns grow into animal heads and figures, mingling the organic with the architectural with the previously unimaginable license, and exclaims: "Such things....never existed, do not now exist, and shall never come into being. For how can the stem of a flower support a roof, or a candelabrum pedimental sculpture? How can a tender shoot carry a human figure, and how can bastard forms composed of flowers and human bodies grow out of roots of tendrils?"
the grotesque and metaphor:
The grotesque...is serious about metaphor; it takes what is essentially a sophisticated trope - so sophisticated, indeed, that cognitive psychology has only a vague understanding of its functioning - and deliberately regards it naively, or incorrectly, or primitively, in hopes perhaps of traversing the graveyard of commonplace metaphor and restoring its onomathic origins. The grotesque takes metaphor literally.
I've begun the construction of the stage/box in which the marionette should be suspended. The backdrop curtain is nearly complete, except for the rod, and appropriate adjustments that can happen once the stage has been built.
dark red/purple/burgundy/etc. velveteen fabric, and bunching The sides were hand-hemmed, and roman shade rings were used to secure back portions of the fabric together to create the effect. grid of rings these rings were removed from traditional roman shade strips and hand stitched to the back of the fabric, largely to avoid thread showing through the velveteen on the front side. ring attachmentrings were tied together with basic string: while this may change once the piece is all together, this side won't be see.
The framework for the theatre is in progress - essentially the new scheme is along the lines of an automated marionette, that should (attempt) to move in response to the sounds from the surrounding projects.
Aesthetically, I find myself still seduced by the imagery of the body as illustrated by Henry Gray. This has started to bleed into influences by the brothers Quay (see previous post) and 19th to early 20th century circus/carnivals. There's something inherently tragic about the deterioration of material, velvet curtains, the harlequin...and the freak show.
The grotesque itself is starting to materialize more and more in the construction of of the theatre, and in the preparation to build the automata marionette. In yet another instance where previous research starts to fall into place, Wikipedia's definition of "grotesque" begins to shed new (and old) light on the project as it unfolds:
In fiction, a character is usually considered a grotesque if he induces both empathy and disgust. (A character who inspires disgust alone is simply a villain or a monster.) Obvious examples would include the physically deformed and the mentally deficient, but people with cringe-worthy social traits are also included. The reader becomes piqued by the grotesque's positive side, and continues reading to see if the character can conquer his darker side.
Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of the most celebrated grotesques in literature. Dr. Frankenstein's monster can also be considered a grotesque.
The project therefore needs to as much represent empathy as it should the monstrous. Looking back at notes from Tuesday's intermediary critique, this was mentioned: while the aesthetic may already by monstrous in our interpretations (teletubby, boobah) - the movement itself also becomes monstrous.
Finally, brief research of the grotesque in theatre has led me to numerous hits, dating back even to Commedia Dell'Arte, Italian theatre that used a series of predetermined (and often grotesque) characters in order to parody society's upper echelons. This is especially important, as this would have been severely punished if executed in any other way. Finally, the characters were standardized so as to be familiar to Italian spectators (ie: Pulcinella is a character that typically was shown with a long nose, and was generally a negative instigator to the shows, often beating other characters).
And now just for humour's sake, here's a scene from Mel Brooks' film Young Frankenstein:
i'm not sure why, but the idea of identical twins making these films is even more unnerving than the grotesque imagery in the following clips. it might be because twins scare me. it might be because in my head, the creators of such imagery could be frightening themselves...so imagining two of them is creepy. but then again, so are suburban housewives.
I'm attempting to accurately convey the images that I want to appear within the torso of the apparatus - ideally, it should emphasize the mechanical but also embody imagery that is more organic. I am completely seduced by the images from Gray's Anatomy, and the amazing juxtaposition that arises from these drawings placed alongside the mechanical. What is so amazing is that while these are essentially technical drawings, they are so well executed that they become art in their own sense. Materially, the whole installation should work within the idea of old + new...old body, new technology; conventional materials, technological breakthroughs; varying view ports reveal information as one becomes more engaged with the piece - much like the pursuit of knowledge...but when it reveals itself, does the user feel relieved, or fearful?
here are the boards from the intermediary review, completed:
After further research into the geometry and composition of the human body (thanks to the Illustrations of Gray's Anatomy - not the TV show, either), I've decided to use these guidelines as a means to organize this installation. i've split my corps esquisse into three (possibly four, time permitting) concepts surrounding the body of the automata: the eye, the torso, and the ear/mouth. the fourth piece would be an appendage that could further interact with the other installations, or that could draw.
ear/mouth - sound input/output The ear/mouth is a piece that can be used to cause a reaction to the sound input and output from other projects. The princess doll compares sound levels, and outputs movement and specific sounds. A piece could therefore be built to intake sound and trigger reactions within the projector. The motor in the toy could allow the creation of a "talking" mouth. In the spirit of the corps esquisse, I've allowed the geometry of the ear to become the mouth, combining these pieces into one housing unit.
eye - projection unit
The projection unit will be constructed of lens retrieved from a projector, and the mechanisms of the teletubby (either the toy itself, or a recreation of the original - depending on what is used in the torso for mechanisms). By using the same circuitry of the teletubby to rotate through a series of images, a variety of imagery can be projected. To do this, the lenses from the original projector will need to be combined with the mechanisms of the toy into new housing - providing an opportunity to work with sight lines and transparencies into the piece. A light sensor in the torso provides an opportunity to actuate movement within.
torso - scrim theatre The projection unit will project onto the torso, which will be built of a skeleton/frame, covered with scrim. The advantages of using scrim include the ability to work with projection from one side, but also backlighting to reveal the inside of the torso. Scrim can also be constructed of flexible fabrics, and therefore the mechanisms inside could push against the fabric - when the mechanism is not backlit, it would therefore create a moving canvas for the projection. This notion fits with the corps esquisse; the torso, presented as "typical" could be visually opened to reveal the inner workings that are mechanical, but also theatrical. For example, the heart could visually beat, gears could move imagery back and forth - the torso therefore becomes a mechanism for movement. While the whole composition may initially be presented as conventional, the inner workings become a means for creating a moving image. The heart, as the center of the being both physically, but also rooted in culture spiritually as the core of our souls, will be housing that instigates most of the movement within the torso - a small motor turning gears will be located here, and should create a variety of movement. The lungs of the torso, constructed of flexible latex or plastic, have two opportunities - firstly, air could be harnessed from another project to create slight fluctuations (ie - a split tube from Carl or Przemek's instruments could add breath) OR, powered air from the torso could in turn feed one of the aforementioned projects. Finally, the breathing lungs could trigger microswitches that in turn could create movement within the torso.
At the base of the torso is the reproduction center - a component that is included in the scientific basis for determining life. While this may not reproduce another installation, it can be stimulated, and it is possible that this area could act as a drawing machine, or simply as an actuator for starting movement. In this sense, the torso spawns it's own progeny, in the form of reaction or thoughts. The backlight is easily built - either by switching sound output from one of the circuits to light energy, or by using the sound signal to trigger a relay that will turn the light on or off.
Questions
While I am not thrilled with the way the previous two images have scanned, they do begin to show how I will be compiling the inner workings of the torso - which is pretty complex. I'm wondering if I should stick to fewer components - is there too much happening right now?
I'm a little confused as to what is required for Tuesday's review - is it the developed concept of where we are going with this, built work, everything and anything...I am sure that things will develop further as I begin to construct pieces, and it will be a work in progress always. Can you elaborate further on what 30% completion means? Secondly, the outline describes the portfolio; are layouts now a part of Tuesday's deadline?
Ultimately I look forward to critiques and criticisms before I take this any further- it's been a remarkably frustrating week and it will be good to get some feedback.
based on the guidelines that i had previously set for myself, i have gathered three new toys to pull to pieces. fortunately many of the toys that i checked out yesterday are limited to their use, so it allows a more natural corps esquisse to occur - esssentially the best parts are picked for their individual qualities, and how they fit into the composition as a whole will determine the programme of the final piece:
super elasti luffy - kyle picked this up at BJ Supertoys, because he looked like someone we know. although he is primarily sound-based with no moving parts, i felt that as the toy required direct interaction with the body in order to speak, that he counted. the long arms and legs of the toy include elastic thread and stretchy plastic; when pulled, the toy makes a number of strange noises. although the box says that the toy "hable en ingles," he isn't very clear.
magic mates voice activated cinderella - another amazing find at BJ Supertoys, the cinderella doll responds to the volume of a child's voice. she responds to sound, but often inappropriately and nonsensically. when a noise is too loud, she will ask you to "speak softly, please." another disney attempt and teaching little girls that they should be seen and not heard?
thrift-store boobah (pictured above) - these guys came out after teletubbies. the first coincidence is that a lower-end version was at bj supertoys, but it only had sound qualities, and therefore was out of my framework (i wanted the body to play a role in the toy's use). a few steps to the thrift store next door allowed me to find this thing - two microswitches (buttons) make the toy sing and dance. the second strange coincidence is that i used to set many of these puppies off simultaneously in superstore when they were commercially available.
My current goal, to create some form of automata, stems from fusing ideas of the corps esquisse and the research gained through the study of Frankenstein/Hephaestus/Prometheus. I feel that it could be compelling to create an autonomous being, fully capable of reacting/responding to its stimuli. While it is unlikely that the 'feeling' that I'm interested in might not be achievable through any means other than fiction, the piece could function much in the same way as the project completed in Montreal - the autonomous whale that responded to its environment and created its opus through the external conditions that were present. The challenge in fusing this project with the theory of the corps esquisse lies in keeping the piece free of my current preconceptions of "what" is a body, mind, heart, eye, etc. I have therefore established a framework for keeping "body pieces" randomized:
at this point, I am trying to maintain that all objects used are found objects.
all major components should come from beings that are of the same "species" as the elmo circuit that I'm starting with - namely toys.
right now, I am restricting all major components to pieces that are composed as bodies. I think that it would be excellent to see how things can fit together, especially in ways that are alien to the current construction of the pieces (namely, the arm is an arm in the casing, but can it act as an ear?)
More restrictions will be added if I find that I need to restrict this further.
Le Corps Esquisse
Le corps esquisse, defined as "The exquisite corpse" (esquisse can also be translated to 'sketch') is a surrealist game that involves different people composing one "body" - being drawing or text. In drawing form, the game begins with one person composing the head of a being, and then folding the drawing to keep it hidden. The next then composes the torso of the being, ignorant to the head; the next draws the legs with no knowledge of the previous drawings. While the result is an absurd image, the exercise breaks preconceived ideas about the form of a "body."
History Timeline
The text is similar, as are the images, but I felt that it was appropriate to post the graphic timeline of my research thus far. It has been broken down into a literary timeline, and spiritual - linking the findings from Frankenstein, to Hephaestus, to Prometheus, and back.
Prometheus (un)Bound: everything in its right place
The (abridged) Myth of Prometheus
Prometheus, in Greek myth, is credited with the creation of mankind (his brother with the creation of animals). Modeled in the likeness of the gods, and brought to life by Athena, man worshiped Prometheus. This angered Zeus, who in turn forbade Prometheus to teach man the ways of civilization. Crossing Zeus, Prometheus not only taught man about civilization, but also committed the ultimate sin in stealing fire from Mount Olympus to give to his creations. For this, Zeus punished him severely: Prometheus was chained to a rock, and an eagle (Ethon) was sent to peck out his liver each day.
Man From Clay: "My form is a filthy type of yours."
The creation of man and some stories of the creation of automata are strikingly similar:
In Greek myth, Prometheus creates man in the shape/image of the gods, from clay.
In Biblical myth, God creates man in the shape/image of himself, from clay. The story of Adam and Eve is referenced in the beginning of Shelley's novel,
Regardless of any influence that existing myth may have had on the writing of Genesis in the old testament, the similarities are striking. In both the Old Testament and Greek mythology, humans are brought into the world, and in both texts there is talk of an afterlife; a place where one's soul resides (namely Heaven/Hell, or the Underworld ruled by the god Hades). Now, when juxtaposed with stories of the creation of automata:
Jewish folklore describes the story of "Golem" - the automaton created by Rabbi Leow. The story has similarities of Shelley's Frankenstein monster, especially when examining the representations of the being in pop culture (which are different than the being portrayed in the novel.) While the Golem is responsible for destruction, he differs in that he was created as a means of protection of the Jewish community in Prague. Again, the Golem is created from clay.
Frankenstein's monster is the only being of all the aforementioned 'creation' stories that is not made of clay. He is, however, made of decaying human parts - and as organic elements decompose, they are reduced to dust.
Does the composition of , or does the "soul" depend on a divine creator?
"Frankenstein is the picture of a finite and flawed god at war with, and eventually overcome by, his creation." -Joyce Carol Oates
The Frankenstein monster is tragically similar to Adam and to Prometheus's man: in all stories, the creations express emotion, feeling, and desire companionship. And, as a higher power breathes life into their "man," so do Dr. Frankenstein and Rabbi Leow. Differences between the Golem and Shelley's Monster lie in the aid of the devine - God helps Leow to create the Golem, while Dr. Frankenstein relies primarily on scientific means. Shelley's commentary on the pursuit of (divine) knowledge as a dangerous one comes full circle.
"Frankenstein breaks through the barrier that separates man from God and gives apparent life, but in doing so gives only death-in-life...Frankenstein's desperate creature attains the state of pure spirit through his extraordinary situation and is racked by a consciousness in which every thought is a fresh disease" -Harold Bloom
Frankenstein to Prometheus, Prometheus to Hephaestus
Dr. Frankenstein as the modern Prometheus is overcome by his creature, but suffers for his creations in the same way as his Greek counterpart. The creation of woman, in Prometheus's case, differs in that the female form was crafted by another - Hephaestus. (Strangely, the woman - Pandora - was sent to unleash the horrors of the world upon mankind...a story that may be likened to the story of Eve, the apple, and the sub-sequential expulsion from Eden.) Frankenstein's fear to create a female companion for his monster must stem from his unwillingness to create a pair capable of reproduction - the beginning of a new race. While the notion of a self-propagating race of monsters (or even automata) is terrifying, it is not unlike the stories surrounding the creation of man. Furthermore, the monster experiences many of the same emotions and feelings as mankind... So where does the soul of an automaton reside, if not alongside ours?
Readings:
Bloom, Harold, edt. Frakenstein: Modern Critical Interpretations New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 1987.
Oates, Joyce Carol. "Frankenstein's Fallen Angel" Frakenstein: Modern Critical Interpretations. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 1987. 67-80 numbers.
Notes from Hephaestus, or, The Soul of the Machine I've returned to the reading about the soul of the machine as a result of my research concerning Frankenstein (see previous post).
Hephaestus as Myth
Hephaestus, in Greek myth, is the son of Hera. The reading speculates that while it is "inappropriate" to assume that the matron goddess has borne a son through parthenogenesis, it is a necessary retaliation to the birth of Athena from Zeus's head. In the myth, Hera is ashamed of the physical appearance of her son, and throws him away from Mount Olympus. He is raised by sea-goddesses, but upon his return to Olympus, is welcomed by Hera. Hephaestus becomes the patron god of the blacksmith, craftsmen and fire. He creates several Automatons to aid him with his work - arguable one of the first references to mechanical robotics/automata in history. Note: Parallels are easily drawn here between the story of Hephaestus, and the story of Frankenstein. Both are the creation of one parent, both are seen as "hideous progeny." It's easy to wonder how different history would be if Hera had denied Hephaestus a second time, just as Frankenstein in Shelley's novel. Would the god of fire, blacksmithing and the machine still exist with the same reverence as today? How would this change our perceptions of technology?
The Human Body, Represented as Machine
Experimentation with automata in the 1700s by Jacques de Vaucanson led him to believe that any part of the human body could essentially be replaced with mechanism: his most famous invention was an automated duck that could move, quack, and flap its wings. Interestingly, the duck was capable of swallowing and digesting food. A closer look at biomechanics allows us to see that while our body performs many tasks at a chemical level, mechanically it is composed of many familiar, simple machines:
"As most of the 400 Voluntary muscles of the human body are attached to the bones in a manner which diminishes the force exerted below the actual tension of the muscles, the adoption of machinery constitutes a reversal of the 'natural' use of the system of levers which we call our skeleton."
The joints in our skeletal system are largely Levers of the Third Order. Force is applied between the fulcrum (pivot point) and the load; joints acting as the fulcrum, the muscles along the arm performing the effort, and the load resting at the end.
The Soul of the Machine
D'Albe's text furthers the notions of the soul of the machine; the following passage is a strong argument towards the affirmative:
"Now, a weapon in a man's hand, so long as it is in active use as a weapon, is a part of the man himself. It is true that he can lose it without perishing himself, but he can also lose an arm or a leg and still survive. The mere fact that the man's blood circulates in his natural leg and not in a wooden leg he may substitute for it makes no essential difference. And we know that a man's leg, like all the cells of his body, is largely compound of inert matter such as food products and waste products, besides nine-tenths water - an inorganic substance. A wooden leg, or any weapon which a man may use, may therefore be regarded as a limb of the man's body, so long, that is, as it is in active use. And if a "soul" animates that man's body and drives it to perform deeds of valor, the same soul will animate his weapon. The soul of the weapon is the soul of the man who uses it. There is an increasing tendency in modern thought to abolish the distinction bertween soul and body and to regard them as one and indivisible. Adopting that view, we may assert that the use ofhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif a weapon means the enlargement of a man's body and the simultaneous expansion of his soul. Every weapon, every tool, every machine is the embodiment of a human thought and purpose. The user adopts that thought and purpose, and behold - the machine has found its soul!"
The argument, that any machine or tool that is created by man embodies not only the soul of the creator, but also that of the user.
Reading: D'Albe, E.E. Fournier. Hephaestus, or, The Soul of the Machine New York: E.P. Dutton & Company. 1925.
