ayda sevin
Lev Manovich identifies three types of screens in the second chapter of The Language of New Media: Classical screen, dynamic screen and computer screen. The first one refers to the traditional understanding of a screen: “It is a flat rectangular surface … for frontal viewing [which] acts as a window into another space.”1 As Manovich states, a Renaissance painting or a modern computer display exemplifies well a classical screen.2 On the other hand, the dynamic screen that includes all aspects of the classical screen has an extra feature, which is the possibility of displaying “an image changing over time.”3 Obviously, what Manovich refers are the screens of television and cinema. As he underlines, the dynamic screen “fully surfaces” the relationship between the image and the spectator by means of focusing all attention for “complete illusion and visual plenitude”4 and isolating the viewer from its physical space.
Although television and cinema viewing differs in several aspects, they consequently fall into the same “viewing regime” according to Manovich, since they depend on the same identification process even if the extent to which this works may differ. Yet, according to him, the arrival of the computer screen has brought a completely different viewing regime. The computer screen consists of several windows and neither of them “completely dominates the viewer’s attention.” In other words, [t]
he viewer no longer concentrates on a single image.”5
On the other hand, “with VR, the screen disappears altogether.” The viewer’s visual field is completely filled, and s/he no longer looks through a window. In this case, the physical space and the virtual space coincide.6
Therefore, Manovich introduces a new era, in which the identification based viewing regime of the dynamic screen gives its place to the disappearing of the screen. In this respect, not only VR, which completely invades the visual field, but also the practice of splitting the screen into many windows is considered as a kind of disappearance of the screen.7
In this context, considering multiple windows and VR as a new era in terms of the screen, this paper will analyze the ways in which these innovations can possibly change the conventional understandings about the image and the inside/outside oppositions that they generate. To that end, some of Jacques Derrida’s views will be applied to these new notions of screen (or screen-less-ness in the case of VR) and then whether this new era might deconstruct traditional understandings of the image and the frame, as well as the associated inside/outside distinctions will be discussed.
In this respect, a similar pattern with Peter Brunette and David Wills, who in Screen/Play: Derrida and
1. Manovich, Lev, The Language of New Media, p.95 2. Ibid
3. Ibid, 96 4. Ibid 5. Ibid, 97 6. Ibid 7. Ibid
Film Theory apply Derrida’s thoughts to cinema, will be followed.
Jacques Derrida’s essay “Parergon,” in The Truth in Painting refers to Kant’s Critique of Judgment in order to subvert the coherence of the image, which is a form of self-presence. The main point that arises from Derrida’s reading of Kant -which is actually one of the central points of deconstruction- is the problematic of how to separate inside from outside.
Parergon is what is supplementary or secondary to the work of art (Greek: para (beside);
ergon (work)). However, as Derrida argues, making such distinctions as to what is inside and what is outside of a work of art is not really possible. For instance, is the frame of a painting outside or inside it? Is it a part of the painting or not? As Derrida concludes, the frame has a completely relational status in terms of an inside and outside. In other words, the inside of the frame can only be determined in terms of an outside, and vice versa.8
What happens when the computer screen and VR are considered in this respect? First of all, in the case of computer screen, the frame is not only something material –i.e. the physical frame of the computer screen-, since the outside of its borders is considered as the real world against the virtual one on the screen. Therefore, there happens to exist another -non-material- frame. This applies to VR as well. Although it does not have a material frame at all, it clearly creates a real and virtual distinction. In other words, the image, its very existence somehow creates a frame by itself.
Moreover, the outside world becomes internalized within the image, since it includes what is called the real/the outside. In fact, this process can be explained with what Derrida calls invagination:
[Invagination] is one of the terms...for deconstructing the fundamental division between inside and outside...since the vagina...can be seen in a sense as exterior tissue that has been folded inside, and thus as exterior and interior at the same time...This internalized pocket of externality can in fact be larger than the exterior that is said to enclose it. The concept can be applied to film by considering that genre distinctions are usually seen as existing outside or drawing their definition from outside the individual film, but actually always inside it at the same time through citation and reference and through each text’s individual semiotic functioning, which must always apply to a code that exists without .9
Since the term invagination signifies the fluidity of the distinctions between inside and outside, it is necessary to identify and analyze the ways in which these distinctions are constructed and reinforced as strict separations. However, this attempt is in advance obscured by some factors:
The oppositions and their stability are created by cultures and histories (including the history of a genre, a medium, a theory and so on). Yet, is it really possible to talk about such entities in the case of computer screen and/or virtual reality? Evidently, there are many speculations, arguments, theories and interpretations about the new digital world -especially about computer and its multiple window regime, which are readily under experience. However, the multiple window viewing regime does not actually have a history when compared to cinema for instance. As for VR, it does not have yet a history at all.
Nevertheless, one may argue that the computer screen already embraces the histories of other mediums, since it is a multi-media environment. Yet, the question of what kind of texts will be
8. Brunette, Peter and David Wills, Screen/Play: Derrida and Film Theory, p.101-103 9. Derrida, Jacques, “Parergon” in The Truth in Painting, p.55
presented through the mediation of VR can only be assumed at the moment. The most apparent and probable one is the assumption of a beyond-image/simulation. In other words, what the users (are going to) encounter in VR is of course still an image and simulation; yet, one feels like giving another term for this experience as the older ones are not sufficient. In fact, even the term user will probably fall short of the VR experience and will eventually be replaced by another term. However, this leads one back to the notions of the real and the image, which means that the realization of VR is somewhat an extended and more immersive version of the already known experience of identification. Thus, it can be argued that it also bears in itself a history of the image in general.
In fact, since the history of image indicates the metaphysics of presence in a Derridian perspective, which is something to be deconstructed in his own terms again; assuming a history for the computer screen and VR is a bit tricky. If the histories for these technologies -at least in terms of grounded theoretical or philosophical backgrounds- were to be denied, this would make everything easier, since it would be like starting a fresh new page without well-established authentic inside/
outside divisions. The ease would be doubled by the fact that these technologies have obvious potentials for deconstruction by means of their structures. Yet, it is not unproblematic to make such a denial, especially if the evolutionary progress and the close relationships between digital and analog understandings of the image are considered.
Now, leaving the question of history aside, the computer screen and virtual reality are going to be analyzed (sometimes separately, sometimes comparatively) in terms of frame and image -and therefore in terms of the relationship between inside and outside.
First of all, regarding the computer screen, the assumed wholeness and coherence of the image easily disappears. In other words, the discrepancies of time and place are so apparent in multiple windows that one cannot talk about a coherent understanding of image. Yet, in the case of VR, the image seems to be coherent and whole more than ever. At this point, it can be argued that the excessively realistic image conveys self-presence, and therefore assumes a privileged position.
The signified somehow vanishes, leaving its entire place to the signifier. Nonetheless, this is still a metaphysical presence in Derridian terms, since referentiality is still there, referring to an ultimate real however close it might be.
Even so, too much realism also deconstructs its own hierarchies; since resting on the side of the signifier (It is still referential, but it is so quickly mediated that it is almost immediate) underlines the fact that the distinction between inside and outside gives way to a mere signified -either in or out.
On the other hand, multiple windows do not let categorization. For instance, different web pages can be categorized, and particular genres might be created for the sake of establishing a theoretical framework of the Internet. However, the fact that their very structure is multiple -i.e. what are viewed are multiple windows simultaneously makes the processes of inclusion and exclusion a totally different one. In other words, the multiplicity of frames displaces the notion of frame.
In addition to these, the question of look in computer screen and VR challenge the coherence and integrity of the image as well. In these cases, the focus and perspective of the viewer is no more controlled, regulated. In VR, the perspective is totally created by the viewer. Although it seems that the organization of particular windows still control the line of look to be traced, the multiple window environment with its interactivity and plentitude gives more choice to the user.
Moreover, by means of the usage of sound in the computer screen and VR, the consistency of the image is once more taken into question. If artificial sound is used in VR, this means that the user, who feels like existing in another physical space, will be disturbed by the fact
that his/her voice is still not there. Even if s/he can talk, what will happen to various sounds that s/
he would be producing if s/he were in a real physical space? Similarly, the artificiality of sound as something attached to the image will always make itself recognized in the computer screen. A very obvious example might be the coming of sound from a window, while it does not even cover the screen (minimized). Such kind of an experience prevents the user from constructing strict binary oppositions regarding an inside and an outside.
Similarly, the sense of smell will always challenge the notion of image as a whole, and the oppositions such a notion reinforces. While playing a VR game, the player will naturally feel the smells coming from its surrounding environment. In this case, the extreme realness of the game will be disturbed. Therefore, the logocentric privilege of the image, and of realism, will get into trouble.
On the other hand, the user is always in tactile relations (with the computer itself, and with his/her environment) while interacting with the computer screen. The extreme dependence upon the outside physical world in order to use the computer destroys in advance the privilege given to the image by the logocentric metaphysics of presence.
Later in the second chapter of The Language of New Media, Manovich analyzes the relationships between the screen and the body. He concludes that in all types of screen (including computer screen and VR), the body is still immobile to a great extent10. In this respect, the question of immobility will be examined from a different viewpoint.
The impression of reality mentioned above so far and its deconstruction is once more proved by means of this point of movement. The discourse on the integrity of the image is structured on the movement of the image. Yet, it is usually forgotten that the image equally depends on stability. Movement and stability coexist at the same time.
Both in the computer screen and the VR, not only the construction, but also the viewing of the image always traces the absence of the image as well as its presence. In the case of VR, this fact may seem irrelevant at first sight. However, it should be considered that the experience of the real is not always in motion. The presence of discontinuities can never be separated from the presence of movements; they are interrelated with each other. Therefore, once more the divisions of inside/outside get blurred.
As a last point, the question of signature will be emphasized in light of Derrida’s discussions in “Signature, Event, Context.” According to Derrida, rather than claiming a present intention, a signature is always something repeatable and citable. In this case, the external intention cannot signify the inner meaning of a text, even though it is generally supposed that way. In such an understanding, the intention determines the frame. However, there cannot actually be a proper name, which is again a kind of logocentric claim of essence and self-identity.11
If computer screen and VR were to be considered in this respect, the problematic of signature, author and intention reveals itself at once. First of all, these texts (any text within the computer environment and VR texts) are not produced by a single person. The authors of these new media products are usually either anonymous or they consist of a large group of people.
On the other hand, even legal citing possibilities are extreme in the case of computer.
Of course, various kinds of authenticities can be identified in terms of design, structure and content.
Yet the extent to which invagination takes place cannot be denied. Reasonably, the fact that these
10. Manovich, Lev, The Language of New Media, p.103-111
11. Derrida, Jacques, “Signature, Event, Context” in Limited Inc., p.1-25
technologies do not have a history (if a single, proper history is ever possible) as mentioned above strengthens the impossibility of invagination in this new phase. In this case, locating the meaning into inside or outside and therefore claiming a stable, coherent and self-present identity for it is shown to be contradictory and invalid.
In conclusion, if new media -and particularly computer screen and virtual reality- has a recent history, or as Manovich states that it should be written while we are experiencing it; making use of a Derridian perspective, which is tried to be formulated in this paper, can be meaningful.
Both VR and computer screen are deconstructive innovations by means of their very natures.
At least, they challenge the classical and dynamic screen as Manovich identifies and illustrates.
Following this trace and considering the metaphysics of presence and its limitations, theoretical non-frameworks can perhaps be generated.
Works Cited
Brunette, Peter and David Wills. Screen/Play: Derrida and Film Theory. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1989.
Derrida, Jacques. The Truth in Painting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. Evanstone, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1988.
Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2001.