A G Id ncG s t t h e Eve(s)
anïïïheBocfy'''
in Perspectivalism and Cyberspace
Courtney Danielle Coyne
N HIS TEXT The Work of Art in the Age of
Reproduction,
Mechanical
Walter Benjamin proclaims: " D u r i n g
long periods o f history, the mode o f h u m a n sense perception changes w i t h humanity's entire mode o f existence.
T h e manner i n w h i c h h u m a n sense perception is organized, the m e d i u m i n w h i c h i t is accomplished, is determ i n e d not only by nature b u t by historical circumstances
as well.
1
Yet some sixty years since Benjamin's
and some
five-hundred
Illuminations
years after the Renaissance's
(re)founding o f perspectival practice and theory, very
little has actually transpired to change our current conditions o f perception, especially i n the realm o f architecture. Today's available
technologies,
those, w h i c h
Benjamin refers to as the m e d i u m have indeed evolved.
However, the ongoing transformation f r o m mechanical
to electronic media has o n l y served to restrict our mode
o f perception and further empower the hegemony o f the
eyes. T h e relationship between architectural drawings
(methods o f re-presentation) and conceptions o f space
( b u i l t and u n b u i l t works) remains subjugated by a p r o saic reliance u p o n the mechanics o f optics. I t could even
be argued that the contemporary practices and theories
surrounding image p r o d u c t i o n have become even more
ocularly dependent than those o r i g i n a t i n g i n the quattJ.J. Grandville, First Dream: Crime and Expiation, 1847.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale.
rocento.
149
Locating the eye(s) and the body i n the principal graphic
mathematician and architect, A n t o n i o d u Tucci Manetti.
and written treatises of the previous centuries can foster a ber-
However, it was not until some fifty years later that perspec-
rer understanding o f rhe implications o f drawings o n our
tive was first projected into the practice and theory o f archi-
currenr conceprions o f space. More specifically, ir can provide
tecture. The invesrigarions o f Filipo Brunelleschi and Leon
measure and insight to the present polemic surrounding
Barrista Alberti provided rhe real catalysts to perspective's
architectural re-presentation i n todays computer epoch.
evolurion... and eventual feign.
A l t h o u g h rhere exists records o f architectural drawings
Filipo Brunelleschi, the (self)proclaimed, practical inven-
daring from as early as 2100 BC, regardless o f the fact that
tor o f perspective, based his perspectival ptaxis on a const-
2
6
Gteek and Roman architects utilized scale drawings to
rucr o f panels, mirrors, and peepholes. H e strucrured his
construct their temples, and despite standard techniques
visual pyramid w i t h perspectival threads - velo - rhat, con-
for drawing (plans and elevations) having been established
ceptually, projected outward from the eye. A l t h o u g h these
d u r i n g the M i d d l e Ages, this discourse w i l l rake its depar-
velo were envisioned to radiate beyond the frame into an
ture i n Renaissance perspectivalism. Prior to today's cyber-
infinite, external reality, they actually pulled conically
space simularions, rhe Renaissance's (re) invention o f per-
inward. Perceprion o f the w o r l d via perspective drawing
spective provided the most pivotal development i n the
was contained w i t h i n and l i m i t e d to the eye. A t the apogee
pictorial re-presenration o f space. Perspective delineated
o f Brunelleschi's visual pyramid peered a celesrial, i m m o -
the fitst instance where architects became "truly" capable
bile, and disincarnated eye.
o f rendering their spatial intentions.
W i t h the w r i r i n g o f Delia Pittura i n 1435, Leon Battista
A critique o f rhe foregoing relationships between re-presenration and conceptions o f space can help emend the
way i n w h i c h we instrument and develop our current
application and understanding o f computers w i r h i n the
pracrice and study o f archirecrure.
An attempt to see ourselves seeing
Before beginning w i t h a focuson the eye and the body d u r i n g
rhe Renaissance, we must firsr look briefly to the consttuction o f perspective as terminology. The meaning o f the
w o r d perspective'is o f equal importance to that o f its mechanical and theoretical constructions. M u c h o f vision's p r i macy can be rraced to the following etymological origins.
Perspective derives from the Latin verbs perspectiva
meaning seeing rhrough; looking attentively; surveying, and
perspecto meaning to look at to the end; to look all about.
3
T h e adjectives, perspectus and perspicuas are defined as ascertained or fully k n o w n , and clear, transparenr, and light. I t
4
is thus no mystery that perspectiva] practices and theories
throughout the ages have been repearedly equated w i t h the
acquisition and demonstration o f ttuth and knowledge.
The Eye(s) a n d t h e ( A b s t r a c t e d )
From Albert! to Durand
5
Brunelleschi's two-panel system for viewing a perspective d r a w i n g . Courtesy Kevin Forseth.
Body:
Albert posited himself as perspecrive's theoretical inter-
Renaissance perspective originated i n painting, w i t h its
preter. His w o r k furnished Renaissance archirects w i t h the
earliest documentation being attributed to the Florentine
firsr general thesis defining the rules for re-presenring
150
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2
objects 3-dimensionally i n petspective. His discourse was
note however that perspectives were not meant as literal,
structured by the same principal o f intercisione
pictorial illustrations o f the visual w o t l d . A
dellapiramide
visiva used by Brunelleschi. Alberti's canvas was a w i n d o w
7
perspective
dtawing was a visual "slice" o f another reality. Architects
on the w o r l d ; his perspectival method "a planar section o f
looked to the "real" w o r l d only as a means to see beyond
the visual p y r a m i d . " I n Delia Pitturahe
writes: " I inscribe a
(through) i t . Perspectival theory and practice became the
quadrangle... w h i c h is constructed to be an open w i n d o w
ultimate means to attain and illustrate veracity and wisdom.
through w h i c h I see what I want to p a i n t . " A perspectival
8
re-presentation was an optic device for "seeing t h r o u g h . "
As linear, one-point perspective came to manifest the
mathematical regularities o f optics and God's eye view
from afar,
10
i t concurrently disembodied the human body.
This desired rationalization and order could only be
achieved through a distancing. As a result, subject was
divorced from object, and body from the experience o f
space. T h e central vanishing p o i n t and static, symmetrical
geometry o f Renaissance perspectivalism froze the body i n
both time and space. Although initially conceived as a means
A
o f contemplation and measure, the Renaissance body was
quickly disregarded
at the threshold o f perspective's re-
presented w o r l d . I t was de-sensitized and devalued by a
superimposition onto perspective's rational constructs.
Moreover,
the symbolic potential o f perspective
was
overlooked i n exchange for an enframing, optical control.
/
/
/
/
V -** \
r
V
/ • - " " " 7
a
c
I
d
e
f
b
Perspectival construction of the checkerboard-type
"ground square," according to Leon Battista Alberti.
Reconstruction by Erwin Panofsky in Perspective as
Symbolic Form.
For A l b e r t i , perspective was also a narrative - istoria— to
describe and propagate the newfound political, cultural,
religious, and artistic ideals (eye-deals) o f the time. T h e med i u m o f perspective enabled the w o r l d to be possessed into
a transparent text, w h i c h could be registered by the eye
alone. Artists and scholars alike believed "the t r u t h o f the
w o r l d could be reduced to its visual representation..."
5
Perspective images aimed to depict a rationalized and
divine reality based on order, geometric homogeneity, and
balance. They were to symbolize a harmony between the
Vitruvius, Man at the center of the geometric cosmos
(Cesariano edition, 1521).
mathematics o f optics and God's w i l l . I t is i m p o r t a n t to
C O Y N E : A GLANCE
AT THE EYE(S) A N D THE BODY
151
T h e body, as a mechanism o f multi-sensory perception,
seeing," winged-eye w i t h the quotation, or rather question:
is markedly occluded i n the w r i t t e n discourses o f the
" Q u i d Turn?" This is a question that remains perrinenr to
Renaissance. For example, i n Delia Pittura, Alberri upheld
architectural image production i n modernity: " W h a t next?"
the eye, asserting that painting was primarily a mechanism
o f sight. Leonardo da V i n c i , i n his Trattato della Pittura,"
further exalred and promoted the eye w r i t i n g : " T h e eye
carries people to differenr parts o f the w o r l d , ir is the prince
o f mathematics, its sciences are most certain, ir has created
architecture and perspective and divine p a i n t i n g . "
Even Michelangelo, despire being a proponent o f an
embodied mode o f dtawing and b u i l d i n g wenr on ro
proclaim that the compass was i n the eye(s) rather than the
hand.
Matteo
de' Pasti: c o m m e m o r a t i v e medal of Leon Battista
Alberti, 1 5 century. W a s h i n g t o n D.C., National Gallery of
Art.
th
T h e means and med iums w i r h w h i c h space is re-presenred consequenrly influence the thiee-dimensional creat i o n o f space. T h e u n b l i n k i n g and all-powerful eye rhar
was established during rhe Renaissance created entirely new
J
t
r\y{'?V
;
<-*^
y*>rawsp« I
spatial conceprions and consrructs. Explaining this reciprocation between techné and theory E r w i n Panofsky writes:
"Aesthetic space and theoretical space recast perceprual
space i n the guise o f one and the same sensations; i n one
case that sensation is visually symbolized, i n the other i t
appears i n logical f o r m .
1 2
\
1) Filarete, Construzione
Legittima
in Trattato
diArchitettura, C o d . Magi. f.v. 177. Florence, Biblioteca N a z i o n a l e .
2) Leonardo da Vinci, Camera Ottica, Ms. f .r. 8. Paris, Institut
de France. 3) Leonardo da Vinci, The Human Eye, Ms. f.r. 8.
Paris, Institut de France.
G i a c o m o Barozzi da Vignola, depiction of velo in Due
Rególe di Prospettiva
Practia, 1583. Rome.
Unfortunately, what was established as a space o f symbolic content soon became a dispassionate and intellectua-
Yet, i t is perhaps rhe Matteo de' Pasti, a commemorative
lized space. Space o f the body was subsequently
aban-
medal o f A l b e r t i that best personifies rhe polemic o f per-
doned i n exchange for space o f the m i n d . Boundaries be-
spective's ocularcentric regime. O n the fronr side o f the coin
tween exterior (eye) and interior (body) became clearly
is a profile image o f A l b e r t i . A profile image, o f course,
demarcared. Re-presentations intended to extend beyond
delineares only one eye. O n the reverse side is a soaring, "all-
the bounds o f the painter's canvas and into infinity, instead
152
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2
became stagnant, fixated, and devoid o f meaningful projec-
body's l i m i t e d projection through a blind reliance u p o n
t i o n . Architecture developed as voids and the body has
perspectival vision and technology. Dtirer's constructs can be
since been isolated, forgotten . . . abject.
viewed as one o f the governing visual antecedent to the
By the sixteenth century, the empirical practice and religious theoty governing perspective had begun to break
non-immersive computer generated perspectives, produced
today.
down. T h e m e d i u m o f perspective had begun its transmu-
By the beginning o f the seventeenth century, any o f the
tation into a scientifically systematized doctrine. The world
remaining traces o f the Renaissance's holistic canons o f
would no longer be re-presented or perceived as divine
space had
rhetoric.
expressions o f a m o d e m culture challenging the tradi-
Rather than perspective images attempting to m i t r o r
dissolved.
Baroque
architecture
provided
tionally established notions o f conceiving and re-presen-
themselves back into reality, they turned inwards, failing to
t i n g space. A single, ideal, and static center was denied i n
look out. T h e w o r k o f Albrecht Durer clearly portrays how
b o t h Baroque space and re-presentation. T h e body remai-
perspective's gaze became unidirectional and petrifying. I n
ned autonomous as i n the Renaissance, b u t was n o w
his Artist Drawing a Reclining Woman, the veil o f perspective
viewing w i t h i n a fluid, dilated space o f optical illusions.
sterilizes the subject, despite its intentions to arouse. The
The Baroque body existed mere as a receptacle for its eyes.
artist, even more so than his Renaissance predecessors, is
T h e overabundance o f disorienting and ecstatic images,
distanced by the m e d i u m o f perspective. Durer's perspec-
again, privileged visual colonization o f space over that o f
tival machine demonstrates the dangers o f theory's literal
an embodied experience o f space.
construction i n t o practice.
T h e seventeenth century also witnessed a change i n the
religious understanding o f the w o r l d . T h e outbreak o f m o dern science created a rupture between the whimsical and
the rational, the symbolic
and
the mechanic,
thus
significantly reconfiguring the hinge between re-presentat i o n and space. The major aim o f re-presentation became one
o f reduction rather than enlightenment.
T h e Scientific R e v o l u t i o n coupled w i t h the works o f
R e n é Descartes and G é r a r d Desargues caused perspectival practice and theory t o regress i n t o a purely anaAlbrecht Durer, Artist Drawing a Reclining Woman in
Treatise on Measurement (second edition, 1583);
reproduced from The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht
Durer.
lytical system. Its p r i m a r y application was the c o n t r o l
and dominance o f knowledge. T h e new scientific belief
that reality c o u l d t r u l y (absolutely) be
re-presented
t h r o u g h descriptive, geometric quantities e l i m i n a t e d
Dürers artist exists ironically both w i t h i n and perpetually outside the image. Because the artist's perception o f
the nude is purely retinal (denying b o d i l y involvement),
she is consequently transfigured into a cold and infertile
mass o f stone. T h i s act o f petrifaction and sterilization
occurred even more readily i n the translation from architectural re-presentations to b u i l t works. Perspective as an
art, as a science, and as a technology, had become an end
u n t o itself. First, spectator was detached from spectacle,
and then the ubiquitous eye was fully disembodied and
estranged. Artist Drawing
C O Y N E : A GLANCE
a Reclining Woman potttays the
AT THE EYE(S) A N D THE BODY
any o f the o r g i n a l vestiges o f thauma or m y t h , w h i c h
had been i m b u e d i n perspective images. G e o m e t r y was
stripped o f any p r i o r symbolic virtues - p o t e n t i a l for
meaning. T h e new objective was to depict w i t h accuracy (moto actionale) rather t h a n to depict the essence o f
a b u i l d i n g (moto mentali). T h e mechanics o f Descartes'
g r i d d e d , Cartesian order eradicated all predilections for
meaning, and w i t h i t the body. There was, again, t o be
b u t one optimal v i e w p o i n t , and one remote, bodiless
eye i n the generation and experience o f re-presentations
and space.
153
However, the emphasis on Baroque and Rococo space
soon shifted. Towards the later half o f the eighteenth
century, the Industrial Revolution had returned architecture's focus back on re-presenrarion. T h e w o r k o f the m i l i tary engineer and physicist, Gaspatd M o n g e , proved
insrrumental i n generating a renewed obsession i n representational techniques. H e fabricated a standardized
m e r h o d - First Angle Projection - for accurately re-present i n g the correlation between frontal, side, and uppet
views o f an object. T h i s system realized the previous aims
o f a u t o n o m y pursued by Gerard Desargues and others.
Monge's "object" q u i c k l y became architecture, and his
"views" translated to elevation, section, and plan. F r o m
this p o i n t o n , technical d r a w i n g w o u l d develop i n t o its
A b r a h a m Bosse, Maniere
Universelle
de Mr
Desargues
pour Pratiquer
la Perspective
par Petit-Pied
comme le
G e o m e t r a l , 1647. Paris.
o w n art f o r m . . . its o w n end.
A t the t u r n o f the nineteenth century, Jacques Nicolas
Louis Durand's rrearise Precis des Lecons launched an i n -
By rhe beginning o f the eighreenrh cenrury, the limitations o f geometry and Descarres' perspectivalism had
begun to be exclaimed. Consequently, the importance o f
architectural drawings was Transferred back ro a practice o f
direct, empirical spatial m a n i p u l a t i o n . A r c h i t e c t u r a l re-
srrumental attack on the heart o f architecrural rheory
and practice, and w i t h i t its methods o f re-presenring
space. I n due course, architectural education became
formalized (i.e. Ecole Polytechnique) and the architectural profession i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d .
presentations, as they once existed i n antiquity and the
M i d d l e Ages, became secondary to process and built works.
Through this transformation, the previously d o m i n a n t Cartesian viewpoint became inaccessible ro rhe body and its eyes.
This is evident in both the period's Rococo buildings and
frescos.
A n d r e a Pozzo, Trompe-I'ceil ceiling fresco, 1707.
154
J.N.L. Durand, Typological combinations, 1809.
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2
all else, efficiency and economy. His discourse was struc-
The Eyes and the (telepresent) Body
in Modernity
tured t h r o u g h a taxonomy o f architecture; architectural
The current study and practice o f architecture continue the
re-presentation and space as the sum o f their units. A l o -
privileging o f sight, yet i n a manner that is unique from that
gical order was coveted i n place o f the symbolic. Durand's
o f the previously discussed predecessors. I f technology is
T h e primary objectives o f Durand's theory were, above
theory and practice were never to address emotion or parti-
understood, as Benjamin claims, to change the mode o f h u -
cipation. Re-presentation and space were simply a matter
man sense perception, than the most significant change
o f typology. Successful b u i l d i n g was c o n t i n g e n t u p o n
since the inception o f computers has simply been an increase
k n o w i n g architecture's elements and types, and the rules
i n ocular madness. A n increased occlusion and abjection o f
for properly c o m b i n i n g them.
the body.
Under Durand's regime, not only was perspective con-
Computers have succeeded i n prying open the previously,
sidered nonessential and superfluous, any meaningful
hermetically-sealed, other eye. This has only resulted i n
correlation between the other graphic projections (plans,
binocular obsessions. The speed o f sight has accelerated
sections, and elevations) was negated. He asserted that the
from peeping and gazing to glancing. M o d e r n eyes dart
plan d r a w i n g was to be the p r i m a r y projection used to re-
and move. They are transient and floating, scanning
present a building because i t permitted the quickest and
simultaneously as both the absent-minded observer and
clearest means to solve and depict a project's economic
the panoptic surveyot.
efficiency.
Durand's quest for the power inherent i n u l t i m a t e
forms led to yet another rationalized, rectangular, g r i d ded system for composing, re-presenting, and construct i n g architecture. W h i l e the grid the equal to was instituted to reduce problems and costs, i t concurrently d i m i nished meaning.
Composition was never to be a question o f the body or its
participation i n space. I t was rather a commodified, mechanic process o f memorization. Méchanisme de la compositions
foremost task was to emphasize the eyes' power and control.
Visibility, a voyeuristic seeing w i t h o u t being seen was
equated w i t h power. W i t h the panopticon as his model,
D u r a n d sought to construct perfect, all-seeing machines.
Character was at no time a criterion w i t h i n Durand's
method; yet i t was not something that was completely
unattainable. Character could be achieved through efficiently satisfying a project s programmatic requirements. H a p piness could be attained through utility. Everything that
was inefficient and pragmatic was irrelevant and denied
w i t h i n Durand's system. T h e moral nature o f a re-presentation or a building rested solely in its usefulness.
W h i l e Durand's offensive can be credited w i t h helping
A glance to the future. Ivan Sutherland, designer of Virtual
Reality, testing a prototype helmet equipped with television screens before the eyes.
project architecture i n t o the technological w o r l d , i t can
also be blamed for the supervisory gaze and meaningless
Before venturing into a critique o f cyberspace re-presen-
dedication to efficiency, w h i c h plague contemporary prac-
tations (simulations) it is important to note that there are
tices and theories of re-presentation.
primarily two ways i n w h i c h to glance at the eyes and the
COYNE: A GLANCE
AT THE EYE(S) A N D THE BODY
155
body i n modernity; both accounts are contingent u p o n the
to question architecture, architecture must now critically
application o f the currenr computer technologies. For rhe
challenge its means o f re-presentation. "As l o n g as architec-
sake o f clarity, these two modes w i l l be referred to hence-
ture refuses to take up the problem o f vision, i t w i l l remain
forth as non-immersive and immersive.
w i t h i n a Renaissance or Classical view o f irs discourse."
15
Use o f compurers as n o t h i n g more than advanced, high-
M o d e r n Technology possesses the necessary means to
tech perspecrival machines is non-immersive, and only
depose the hegemony o f the eyes and return ro a multi-sen-
serves to prolong and intensify the hegemony o f the eyes.
sory knowledge o f rhe body. Computers combined w i t h
I n non-immersive re-presenrations, the eyes and the body
bodily, participatory involvement rerain the potential to
remain i n an elevated and distant position, outside the
create alternative forms o f re-presentation. Perhaps even
tealm o f experience. Non-immersive practice and rheory
significantly altering our current conditions o f perception
transfigure one inro a voyeur. I t is therefore i m p o r t a n t to
for the better. There exists the possibility o f a fiber optic, or
ask: Is this outside spectator, this voyeur, to be considered a
rather a fiber hapric renaissance, i f computers are utilized
v i c t i m or the master o f the situation? Does this new bino-
Through an embodied consciousness. Technology need not
cular dependence foster empowerment or impotence?
continue the incessant bifurcation between eyes and body,
A non-immersive approach negates the possibility for
multi-sensory meaning. Where the quattrocento once u t i -
and body from the re-presentation, creation, and percept i o n o f space.
lized perspecrive to conceive o f a divine w o r l d [huperouranios topos) ,
1 3
modernity's mass-produced, non-immer-
sive images engender a commodified w o r l d . I f gazing at a
painting was once an invitation to contemplation, then
today's digitized perspectives can be seen as invitations to
consume.
I t again becomes crucial ro question. Are non-immersive
compurer perspectives, especially those depicting architecture, n o t h i n g more than scrupulously constructed advertisements intended to tempt and seduce? Has rhe commodificarion o f these computer images lead ro crearions o f
space that are nothing more rhan mere rhree-dimensional
extrusions o f two-dimensional media? Is the aim to portray
an absence or a presence? Perhaps perspective has
finally
Gensler Associates, Life Space
XXI, California.
succeeded i n extending beyond its frames — i n t o a totalizing
aesthetic.
T h e second application o f computers, and rhar, which is
T h e narrarive f u n c r i o n o f Renaissance perspectivalism
mosr consequential ro this discourse, is the use o f computers
remains concealed under contemporary proclivities towards
to generate and access cyberspace - an immersive use.
deconstructing meaning. Benjamin addresses this transirion
Herein lies the potential to properly (re)inrroduce rhe body
from an embodied poetic to a discarnate prosaic writing:
to the practice and theory o f image production. Jusr as ir was
"The replacement o f the older narration by information...
i m p o r t a n t to examine the etymological and physical con-
reflects the increasing atrophy o f experience."
Perhaps
structions o f perspective, i t is equally i m p o t t a n t to ques-
roday's images and their resultant spaces are simply
tion the fabrication o f cyberspace, as well as its relation to
awairing meaning. But than from where? F r o m whom?
the eyes and the body as well.
14
N e w modes o f perception demand new conditions, new
Cyberspace is a term that was first created by W i l l i a m
mediums, and new theories. We must constantly oscillate
Gibson i n his science-fiction novel Neuromancer. He describes
between questions o f re-presentation and questions o f space.
cyberspace as: "a graphic representation o f data abstracted
Just as re-presentations have been used throughout history
from the banks o f every computer i n the h u m a n system.
156
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2
Unthinkable complexity. Lines o f light ranged i n the n o n -
tion and quickness. Ironically, these hyper-realities have
space o f the m i n d , clusters and constellations o f data. Like
come to resemble the current reality. Susan Sontag writes:
city lights, receding.""
He depicts a world i n which h u m -
" I n the past a discontentment w i t h reality expressed itself
ans interface directly (bodily) w i t h computers (data) at a
as longing for another w o r l d . I n modern society, a discon-
totally convincing level o f realism. His virtual world is not so
tentment w i t h reality exptesses itself forcefully and most
distant from the present cultural and historical moment.
hauntingly by the longing to reproduce this o n e . "
5
19
We
I n place o f the previously discussed two-dimensional,
must then ask: Are cyberspace simulations merely attempts
non-immersive re-presentations, we n o w find immersive,
to extend the "real" world? Attempts to be over-real? Are
quasi-physical, three-dimensional environments. Cyber-
questions concerning reality not altogether irrelevant seen i n
space is both re-presentation and corporal (corpo-real)
the light o f cyberspace? W i l l our notions about reality (spa-
environment where body and machine can coalesce i n t o a
tial realities) n o t be totally redefined or perhaps even
single-space-entity. I t is an (im) material construction o f
eliminated due to the existence o f cyberspace simulations?
translucent walls and screens, fabricated out o f images and
Because cyberspace realities are corporal realities, they
light. L u c i d i t y is no longer a virtue, as instruments o f con-
demand a b o d i l y presence. U n l i k e Cartesian perspectiv-
cealment - masks, veils, filters, and screens — are coveted.
alism's projections and spaces, they are perceived and
Ambiguity, uncertainty, and the b l u r r i n g o f the acuity o f
accessed t h r o u g h a co-operation o f vision w i t h the other
the eyes are meant to excite, whilst the n o t i o n o f an
senses. We are p e r m i t t e d to see and interact. Instead o f
absolute t r u t h bores, repels, and often frightens.
existing at a distance, these other realities are contingent
Cyberspace is fluid, anisotropic, and dynamic space, where
the body is free to move using a combination o f its sense facul-
u p o n direct, b o d i l y interaction - interface. T h e y require
confrontation and i n h a b i t a t i o n .
ties,. I t is an artificial yet tangible world, where the distinctions
between re-presentation and space, and the boundaries
between interior and exterior are i n constant flux. I n one and
the same instance, cyberspace collapses the existing
time-
space continuum i n order to generate its own, simulated "realtime-sqare." This blurring o f limits consequently extends a
previously unavailable invitation to ecstasy (ekstasis). As Jane
17
Gallop explains: "Ecstasy is when you are no longer w i t h i n
your own frame: some sort o f going outside takes place."
18
W i t h this new medium, vision is no longer the primary
impetus for projecting the body into space. Re-presentations are no longer a question o f projecting a three-dimensional image onto' a two-dimensional surface, but rather,
projecting the body 'into' a three-dimensional simulation.
Cyberspace simulations are three-dimensional realities
generated 'in' three-dimensional realms. They are constructed
o n , i n , and beyond translucent screens. Space is not and
cannot be contained i n the traditional sense o f a t w o dimensional surface or the Albertian frame.
Comparable to the Renaissance, today's computer simulations yearn to re-present realities that cannot be fully realized- realities beyond. However, disparate from perspectivalism, cyberspace realities are temporal, heterogeneous, and
fragmented. T h e y are governed by information consump-
COYNE: A GLANCE
AT THE EYE(S) A N D THE BODY
An immersive virtual reality system being tested at
NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
Courtesy NASA.
157
A cyber body cannot be regarded as a body i n the tradi-
years been long enough? I f the practices and theories
tional sense. I t is a simulated, "out-of-body" body, w h i c h
structuring cyberspace simularions become standardized and
exists i n one space while occupying another. Ir is simul-
sysrematized they will undoubtedly result i n the crearion o f
raneously absenr and presenr - telepresent. I t exists i n a
still lifes m u c h like those created by D ü r e r s perspectival
suspended state somewhere between dream and reality.
draftsman. The m e d i u m - the computer - must n o t
Unlike the negated perspectival body, a cyber body possesses
become an end unto itself.
rhe ability to b o t h hover i n and zoom through space.
Movement and speed are "key,"
20
as stagnant viewing is
replaced by bodily monitoring (a body-centeted view).
O u t f i t t e d w i t h a head-mounted display ( H M D ) , a
pressure-sensitive data suit, and data gloves, the human body
(quasi)physically enters a re-presentation. Through rhis act o f
entry and inhabitation, a re-presenration is instantly enlarged
to 1:1 scale. Previously unavailable elements o f choice and
control are inrroduced w i t h the cyber body's newfound
autonomy o f movemenr. There is no single, optimal, or
predetermined focal poinr i n cyberspace simularions, but
instead infinite foci. I n this "real-rime-space," the body has
the opportunity to rejoin, not replace the eyes. Here, spectator can become player, participant, and actot.
Yer, as w i t h all new technologies, we must approach rhis
new method o f re-presentation w i t h both confidence and
circumspecrion. M a n y nightmares do, aftet all, begin as
fanrasy-filled dreams. This new, elecrronic image machine,
like all technologies, can also become its own nemesis. The
multi-sensory perceiving o f cyberspace has rhe capacity to
both enhance and stifle the visualizations and experiences o f
architecture.
T h e r m a l image by Richard L o w e b e r g , BioArts Laboratory, California.
For each potential, thete lurks a danger. There is the risk
o f producing too many images and too much stimuli. A n
The denial o f rhe body and its authority i n the re-presen-
over-stimulation can quickly result i n ambiguous, confus-
tation, conception, and experience o f space w i l l inevitably
ing, and displaced architecture. There exisrs the ever-presenr
and invariably continue. Tendencies towards archirecture as
remprarion o f conrrol the looming threar o f erecting yet an-
a retinal aft w i l l unfortuna tely always exist. W h a t is most
other prosaic hierarchy. I f rhis occurs ir w i l l only bring
imporrant, howevet, is that they do not continue to prevail.
about monotony and sterility, inevitably k i l l i n g the erotic
There w i l l always be archirects, theorisrs, and philosophers
impulse.
who believe rhar a buildings two-dimensional re-presenra-
T h e most significant risk o f this new method involves
t i o n i n magazines and journals is more important than that
the body. Just as the Cattesian body was dislocated o n the
o f its three-dimensional experience. Unfortunately, we w i l l
surface o f a gridded plane, the cyber body can also easily be
always find those w h o displace the site o f the building to the
displaced. We must take precautions so that i t does not
realm o f exhibitions and graphic publications,
become a "meat puppet" lost i n a virtual abyss o f simula-
w h o degrade architectute to mete media.
tions. I f the body is lost i n cyberspace w h o knows h o w long
21
-
those
I n order to escape the totalizations produced by the
it could take to retrieve ir again. Archirecture cannot afford
coupling o f vision and computer technology, we must recall
to have the body disappear yet again. Hasn't five hundred
yet another Benjamin observation: "Buildings are appropri-
158
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2
ated i n a twofold manner: by use and by perception, or rather,
by touch and by sight. Such appropriation cannot be understood in tetms o f the attentive concenttation o f a tourist befote
a famous b u i l d i n g " . Just as perspective once provided a new
22
mode o f perceiving (looking at and designing) the w o r l d ,
today's cyberspace simulations can provide new, multi-sensory conditions for perceiving and conceiving the world.
T h e gap that Cartesian epistemology created between spectator and spectacle can be sutured through a thoughtful
human-computer interface, through an embodied vision.
Embodied space calls for embodied re-presentation - both
in theory and i n practice.
The true task facing modernity is not to radically expel
perspectivalism, but more accurately to critique it i n relation
to the application o f the current computer technologies. A r chitecture must question vision's dominance by implementing and exploiting today's available technologies w i t h the
intention o f returning to the wisdom o f the body and its senses. Architects must problematize the interrelationship
between re-presentations and built works. Today's re-presen-
The body as mediator. Insert your cyber body here,
tational tools must be embraced w i t h the intention o f providing meaning through electronic-human sensing. Architecture
must problematize the j o i n t between what we see and what
we sense. O u r bodies, both absolute and simulated, must be
recognized as the starting-point for the perception and conception o f the world. O n l y then will the possibility exist to
lose oneself completely 'in' a re-presentation - only then can
perceiver and perception become one.
23
Computers as extensions o f Descartes' Cartesian planes,
or as an extension o f the body, is not nearly as important as
the computer as a medium to extend the body back i n t o representations, back into the creation, perception, and
experience o f architecture. T h e body must be recognized as
the agent rather than the classical servant. I t must be taken
as the p o i n t o f departure and be the point to which the
discourse unceasingly returns.
COYNE: A GLANCE
AT THE EYE(S) A N D THE BODY
159
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction," in Illuminations, ed. and with an introduction
by Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken
Books, 1969), I I I . p.222.
The earliest, still-existing, architectural drawing dates from
ca. 2100 BC. It is a roughly scaled, linear drafting of a landscape plan for a tamarisk grove situated in front of the Egyptian
temple at El-Dier el-Bahari near Memphis. The medium is
ink on limestone. (Metropolitan Museum o f Modern Art,
Museum Excavations, 1920-22, Rogers Fund 1922).
The New College and Latin and English Dictionary, trans.
John C. Traupman, Ph.D. (New York: AMSCO School Publications, Inc., 1966), p.224.
Ibid., p.224.
Theory has, interestingly enough, always been bound to sight
and visuality. We need only look to the Greek origins of the
word theory in order to understand the reciprocal
relationship between theory and vision. The Greek word
thedria stems from thea meaning seeing, and hora meaning
care.Thus, as Marco Frascari claims, theory—thedria-is "then
measured on careful seeing." ["A Secret Semiotic Skiagraphy:
The Corporal Theater of Meaning in Vincenzo Scamozzi's
Idea o f Architecture," in VIA #11 "Shadow," (Philadelphia:
Journal of the Graduate School of Fine Arts, University o f
Pennsylvania, 1990]. Renaissance artists and scholars simply
intensified this parallel berween knowledge, and rhe acuity
and clarity of vision.
Leon Battista Alberti substantiated this assertion by crediting
Brunelleschi with the practical invention of perspective in his
1435 treatise, Delia Pittura.
In Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media,
Beatriz Colomina makes note of the fact that the etymology
of the English word window combines both wind and eye
(Cambridge: The M I T Press, 1969). p.378.
Leon Battista Alberti, Delia Pittura (written 1435, published
1511). [On Painting, trans. John R. Spencer (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1966), p.56].
Alberto Perez-Gomez and Louise Pelletier, Architectural Representation BeyondPerspectivism, in Perspecta 27, The YaleArchitecturalJournaKNew Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), p.5.
Martin Jay, "Scopic Regimes of Modernity," in Dia Art Foundation Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Number 2, ed. by
Hal Fostet (Seattle: Bay Press, 1988), p.17.
Leonardo da Vinci, Treatise on Painting, ed. by P. McMahon, 2
vols. (Princeron, 1956).
Erwin Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, trans. Christopher S.Wood (New York: Zone Books, 1991), p.45.
160
13. A place beyond the heavens.
14. Walter Benjamin, "Some Motifs in Baudelaire," in Illuminations, ed. with an introduction by Hannah Arendt, trans.
Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), I I . p.159.
15. Petet Eisenman, "Visions Unfolding: Architecture in the Age
of Electronic Media" in Theorizing a New AgendaforArchitecture, ed. by Kate Nesbitt (New Yotk: Princeton Architectural
Press, 1996), p.558.
16. William Gibson, Neuromancer, (London: Grafton, 1986), p.51.
17. Ekstasis stems from the Greek ex meaning out and histanai
meaning to place. Thus, ecstasy could also be understood as
placed out.
18. Jane Gallop, Thinking Through the Body (Columbia University
Press, 1988), E 152.
19. Susan Sontag, On Photography (New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 1973).
20. Note that the use of the word, key, in this context implies
both essentialand a means of access.
21. Beatriz Colomina provides an extensive critique of architecture as a system of representations in her book Privacy and
Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge:
The MIT Press, 1969).
22. Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction," in Illuminations, XV. p.240.
23. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation,
Volume 1, trans. E.F.J. Payne (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 1969), p.178.
Courtney Danielle Coyne
Ph.D. Student, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts,
School of Architecture, Copenhagen, Denmark.
NORDISK ARKITEKTURFORSKNING 1 9 9 8 : 1 - 2