\n\n\n\n
Bodies Confronted by Technologies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The opening scene of\u00a0Point of View<\/em>\u00a0(2013), a performance by choreographer Benjamin Vandewalle, shows a dancer attached to an apparatus manipulated by another dancer. With black tape and belts his chest is connected to a rod mounted with light spots and handycams. While moving, the dancer is illuminated by the light source connected to his body; he interacts with his own shadow. As he moves, his actions are filmed from this same moving apparatus, and are projected on the rear wall. The result is a poetic dialogue between the real body on stage, its shadow, and the virtual (re)presentations of that body. When other dancers enter the scene, the whole constellation changes. The obvious relation between body, camera and projected image is disrupted. The simultaneous projection of the dancers\u2019 movements from different points of view creates a set of visually disturbing illusions by reframing, turning, doubling and mirroring their bodies. The phenomenological perception of real and virtual bodies intermingles in a kaleidoscopic experience. An online theater critic aptly described the performance as \u201ca choreographed and live filmed perception experiment.\u201d (Dosogne, 2013)<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was no coincidence that this performance had its first run after a symposium entitled \u201cThe Optics of Art.1<\/sup>\u201d The title refers to the central question, which was approached from different angles: how and from what position do we perceive reality, and to what extent does this position define our image of that reality? The International Film Festival in Ghent, and more particularly an exhibition on Belgian physicist Joseph Plateau (1801-1883) provided an setting for exchanges between artists and researchers interested in optical technology, perception and movement. Joseph Plateau is known for his experimental research on the principles of vision. Early in his career he organized\u00a0physiques amusantes<\/em>, or salon physics\u2013small s\u00e9ances for a live audience, in which he demonstrated the principles of optical illusions via his \u201cdemonstration apparatus.\u201d Plateau\u2019s legacy as a visionary scientist was the starting point for\u00a0The Optics of Art<\/em>\u00a0symposium, which brought contemporary media and performance artists Benjamin Vandewalle, Julien Maire and Sarah Vanagt into dialogue with scholars from theater studies, history of science and cognitive neurology, to discuss artistic and theoretical results of experiments with optics and technology. The aim was to situate Plateau\u2019s research in optics in a broader context, by exploring the relationship between optics and performance. In what follows I will discuss how the role of these artists radically shifts from being an actor confronted with technology to being a lecturer-performer, exploring and questioning the apparatus of vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vandewalle\u2019s\u00a0Point of View<\/em>\u00a0is a good example of how the integration of live video on stage \u201copens up a multiplicity of perspectives \u2013 as Marvin Carlson puts it \u2013 a variety of ways of seeing that \u201cnever coalesce into a unified vision\u201d (Carlson, 2008, p. 24). With this choreography for dancers, cameras and projection, Vandewalle explicitly explores questions of perception, movement and distinctive simultaneous viewpoints. The audience is challenged by the discrepancy of what one expects to see and what is actually on display: we witness how the real movements on stage \u2013 walking, kneeling, rolling on the floor \u2013 turn into projected images of that same dancing body as if it were flying, floating, falling. Inevitably one starts doubting his own perception. How can a body stand still and move at the same time?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The extensive use on stage of analogue and digital media such as film, live video, microphones and computer programs to disrupt, fragment and refract the text and bodies of \u201ccharacters\u201d has become a characterizing feature of contemporary theater and performance. Back in 1999 Hans-Thies Lehmann identified the \u201ccaesura of the media society\u201d as one of the most crucial contexts for what has since been called the \u201cpostdramatic turn\u201d in theater. (Lehmann, 2006, p. 22)\u00a0In his famous work, Lehmann roughly distinguishes between different modes of media use. In one scenario, media are\u00a0occasionally\u00a0<\/em>used, without this use fundamentally defining the theatrical conception. In such cases, media have a mere functional role. Or, in a second mode, its aesthetic or form serves as a source of\u00a0inspiration\u00a0<\/em>for theater, without the media technology playing a major role in the production itself. Vandewalle\u2019s previous performance\u00a0One\u00a0\/\u00a0Zero<\/em>\u00a0(2011) is a good example. With visual artist Erki De Vries he experimented with the aesthetic codes of cinema. The basic principle is that of stop-motion: different images are displayed one after another, each time interrupted by a moment of complete darkness. The cinematic movement is indefinitely delayed. \u201cIt\u2019s like a dance, but without seeing the movement\u201d Vandewalle points out; \u201ceach of us has to compile the movement from the individual still images.\u201d Finally, the Wooster Group\u2019s high-tech, intermedia aesthetics is one of Lehmann\u2019s favorite examples of a third mode, in which media are\u00a0constitutive\u00a0<\/em>of certain forms of theater. (Lehmann, 2006, p. 167-168)\u00a0Vandewalle\u2019s\u00a0Point of View<\/em>\u00a0also belongs to this category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, here I would like to discuss another mode, not mentioned by Lehmann \u2013 the mode in which media, and more particularly the camera, becomes\u00a0a central object of investigation<\/em>. This is the case in the work of Benjamin Vandewalle, Julien Maire and Sarah Vanagt, who share a remarkable interest in the tension between \u201cold\u201d (or obsolete) and new optical media, and the way visual technology articulates inquiries into optics, cognition and visuality. The camera in the practice of these artists is not a medium for the actor\u2019s play, but becomes the objective itself. Their theaters are laboratories for exploring what Jonathan Crary has called \u201cregimes of seeing\u201d; to investigate \u201chow seeing works\u201d (Crary, 1990, p. 3)\u00a0in today\u2019s mediatized environment. In that sense, these performances continue a scientific tradition of optical inquiry, which traditionally tended to make a spectacle of its own experiments:\u00a0th\u00e9\u00e2tre scientifique<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0physique amusante<\/em>. In nineteenth-century Paris and London, the theater was a popular venue to demonstrate optical science in spectacular ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Media artist Julien Maire is inspired by earlier examples of science on theatrical display. He often performs as a surgeon or anatomist, literally dissecting and amputating cameras and other optical machines, like magic lanterns, slide projectors and webcams. His dramaturgic setting is reminiscent of the anatomy lesson, one of the early sites where modern spectatorship was constructed (see figure 2). (Bleeker, 2008)\u00a0Manipulations of the slide-projector for\u00a0Demi-Pas\u00a0<\/em>(2002), and the camera in\u00a0Exploding Camera<\/em>\u00a0(2007) or\u00a0Open Core<\/em>\u00a0(2009) do not simply function as a poetic deconstruction of image-making technology (see figure 3). These performative installations function, in the words of Edwin Carels, as \u201ca laboratory to do research on our cognitive responses to an image.\u201d (Carels, 2012, p. 189)\u00a0These investigations result in original prototypes. As hybrids between media-archaeology and new (digital) technological constellations, he produces new visual experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sarah and Katrien Vanagt share this fascination with anatomical dissection and the origin of the image, especially in their contemporary rereading of historical theories of vision and the workings of the eye. Based on the Latin writings of the physician Plempius from 1632, they experimented with a\u00a0camera obscura<\/em>\u00a0and the eye of a freshly slaughtered cow as lens. More particularly in his 1632\u00a0Ophthalmographia<\/em>, Plempius emphasizes that anyone may carry out this experiment, at home, \u201cdemanding little effort and expense.\u201d Plempius moreover describes how the cow\u2019s eye \u201cin the darkened room\u201d allows the experimenter to see \u201cbehind the eye [\u2026] a painting that perfectly represents all objects from the outside world2<\/sup>.\u201d\u00a0In the short film\u00a0In Waking Hour<\/em>s (2015) we see historian Katrien Vanagt as a twenty-first century disciple of Plempius3<\/sup>. Filmmaker Sarah Vanagt captures how this modern \u201cPlempia\u201d meticulously follows her teacher\u2019s instructions. For the occasion of a symposium in Brussels, Katrien Vanagt re-enacted the experiments described by Plempius live in an anatomy theater setting, and after dissecting the animal\u2019s eye, the audience could witness the birth of the image upon the eye4<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a similar vein, we can understand Vandewalle\u2019s\u00a0Point of View<\/em>\u00a0as an optical experiment. By playing with and manipulating the classical viewing mechanism (dispositive<\/em>), he emphasizes the artificiality of our perception \u201cthat is always constructed or mediated.5<\/sup>\u201d\u00a0His latest creation\u00a0PERi-SPHERE<\/em>\u00a0(2015), illustrates my argument.\u00a0PERi-SPHERE<\/em>\u00a0is a small performative installation, using a periscope. Obviously a periscope is an instrument for observing from a concealed position. It was mainly used for military purposes, to look without risk from bunkers, trenches, tanks and submarines6<\/sup>.\u00a0Vandewalle developed an analogue version of this same idea, describing it as a performative object in which the viewer is immediately involved in the process of looking. The viewer is placed inside the apparatus, giving him a viewing position from within the technology. The apparatus in this case does not merely function as an extension of the eye, as an analogue translation of the viewer\u2019s point of vision. Instead, the periscope provides an image of the immediate environment, but from a different point of view. What one sees is thus disconnected from the viewer\u2019s exact physical position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Optics has always been a central interest to both artists and scientists. Renaissance artists adopted the geometry of linear perspective and Greek optics in general. But they were equally interested in the qualities of reflected and refracted light on different materials. Historians of science have studied how pictorial artists transformed scientific knowledge of the physics of light, and how treatises on perspective offered general theories of perception. (Dupr\u00e9, 2011, p. 35-60)\u00a0The nineteenth century saw an increasing scientific interest in the relationship between optics, vision and perception. Optical illusions were considered an interesting means to study how the brain processed information. One result of the scientific work undertaken in this field was the creation of a number of optical toys specifically designed to trick the mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1827 physician John Ayrton Paris wrote a scientific book for children, which contains the first description of the principle of a scientific toy called the thaumatrope<\/em>. A disk of cardboard with a picture on each side is attached to two pieces of string. When the strings are twirled quickly between the fingers the two faces of the disc appear to blend into one picture. This phenomenon was known as \u201cthe persistence of vision.\u201d It was believed that a visual impression persists on the retina (though it is actually in the brain) for a brief interval. In 1832, scientists Joseph Plateau in Belgium and Simon Stampfer in Austria simultaneously and independently further explored this playful visual illusion, based on the Farady wheel effect, creating the \u201cthe first true moving picture toy.\u201d Their inventions were commercialized under the name of phantasmascope (and later fantascope) in London and the Stroboskop in Vienna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The thaumatrope, phantasmascope and the Stroboskop are beautiful examples of what have since been called \u201cphilosophical toys.\u201d The term refers to a variety of optical toys, kinetic toys and\u00a0jouets s\u00e9ditieux<\/em>, originating in the early nineteenth century. These instruments enabled the experimental study of natural phenomena, particularly concerning vision, but they provided amusement too. They were found to have a popular as well as a scientific attraction7<\/sup>,\u00a0challenging the boundaries of science, arts and popular culture, in between theory and practice, knowledge and amusement. (Dvo\u0159\u00e1k, 2013, p. 173-196)\u00a0Especially in the context of visual science, philosophical toys reflected the emergence of science as an experimental discipline. The toys\u2019 scientific impact was dramatic, echoing their popular appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Optical media and their magical visual effects easily found their way into the theater. A beautiful example of this interchange between scientific developments and artistic and popular pursuits in the 19th<\/sup>\u00a0century is Emile Reynaud\u2019s\u00a0Th\u00e9\u00e2tre optique<\/em>. After reading an article entitled \u201cLa vision et ses illusions d\u2019optique\u201d (1870) in the magazine\u00a0La Nature<\/em>, Reynaud decided to refine Plateau\u2019s stroboscopic disc. The former assistant of Abbe Moigno (an important popularizer of science) developed the\u00a0praxinoscope-th\u00e9\u00e2tre<\/em>. This \u201clilliputian theater\u201d was based on the praxinoscope, a \u201cdevice to obtain the illusion of movement with the aid of moving mirrors,\u201d as the title of his 1877 patent reads8<\/sup>.\u00a0A few years later he perfected the projecting praxinoscope into what has become known as the\u00a0Th\u00e9\u00e2tre optique<\/em>. With this catoptric theater, Reynaud presented a show of \u201cPantomimes lumineuses\u201d at the Mus\u00e9e Grevin in Paris. The well-known engraving of the event was published in the scientific journal\u00a0La Nature,<\/em>\u00a0illustrating the optical illusion at play9<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the past, experimental science and aesthetics shared many fundamental concerns. Making the invisible visible (or rather, making the imperceptible perceptible) by some sort of mediation is one of them. In examining the role of optical technology in contemporary performance and media art, my viewpoint will be to see them as theaters of science, as experimental platforms for measuring and qualifying the impact of these technologies on cognitive perception. Their optical instruments are objects in which scientific and aesthetic approaches intersect and overlap. This is why I propose to consider the role of the camera in these contemporary performances as comparable to the potential ascribed to modern philosophical toys. The performances\u2019 embedded technology, as engines of the imaginary, collect, conserve and reveal foundational conceptions of vision and cognition, (Stafford, 2001)\u00a0The role of a performer thus shifts from an actor embodying a character, enhanced by the use of live video, to a lecture-performer; he or she becomes a media archaeologist who excavates old or extinct media, and then becomes a surgeon who dissects and analyzes the apparatuses of vision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In considering contemporary performance and media artists as media archaeologists and their technologies as \u201cphilosophical toys,\u201d my approach aligns itself with parallel models of historiographical excavation. Looking to Pearson and Shanks\u2019s seminal work on archaeology as an approach to performance studies, (Pearson and Shanks, 2001) we see that archaeology is understood less as the discovery of the past than as the establishing of an active relationship with what is left of the past. Rather then treating archaeological remains as representative tokens of a past now fragmented and to be conserved, the authors stress the return of the past in the present, but in a different guise. In the same vein, media archaeology is understood by scholars as a way to prise media history from the prevailing capitalist and teleological logic of technological progress. This emerging sub-field of media research is considered as an approach in academic research as well as in artistic practice. It does not offer a clear-cut methodology, but is necessarily a \u201ctravelling discipline\u201d to use Mieke Bal\u2019s phrase, cited in the introduction to Huhtamo and Parikka\u2019s introduction to\u00a0Media Archaeology.<\/em> (Huhtamo and Parikka, 2011)\u00a0Media archaeologists use multiple sources and diverse methods, but share a common rejection of dominant teleological accounts of media and technological history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Old or out-dated technologies have undeniably a playful, even childlike attraction, which can even result in techno fetishism. However, by playing with optical instruments, contemporary artists not only revitalize their fascinating and magical appeal. They also illuminate the present through the past, and open up reflections on optics, media and cognition today. In her essay \u201cThe Dream Life of Technology\u201d media artist Zoe Beloff described how through the computer she can make connections not just in theory but in practice \u201cbetween the birth of technologies of the past in relation to the media revolution of the present.\u201d She also describes the subject of her work as something that \u201coperates in a playful spirit of philosophical inquiry.\u201d (Beloff, 1997)\u00a0In his 1987 account on \u201cScientific Toys,\u201d science historian Gerard L\u2019Estrange Turner addresses\u00a0homo ludens\u00a0<\/em>as \u201ca fundamental but often overlooked aspect when considering how human beings acquire knowledge.\u201d The way in which yesterday\u2019s science so often becomes today\u2019s recreation does not make it any less scientific. Indeed, much scientific (and other) knowledge is absorbed consciously or unconsciously through play. (Turner, 1987, p. 384)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Philosophical toys give us a glimpse into the way our cognitive system works, creating dynamic experimental spaces within which knowledge and perception are processed and constituted. The spectators of philosophical toys are entertained. At the same time they actively participate in the process, and engage in quasi-scientific experimental instruction. Borrowing again from Beloff, the philosophical toy is an object \u201cto think with.\u201d In the traditional magic trick, the illusion remains mysterious because the magician keeps the secret close. But the philosophical toy has the potential to entertain and at the same time explore, expose and problematize questions about technology and perception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the scientific theaters of Vandewalle, Maire and Vanagt, the focus becomes the viewing subject as it experiences itself in relation to everyday media technology. The theater situation turns the nature of seeing itself into the object of conscious perception. As live experimenters with visual media, these artists playfully explore the potential and limits of perception. They are not actors confronted with technology, but lecturer-performers playfully exploring the apparatus of vision. Moreover, the work of this generation of \u201cmedia-archaeologists\u201d questions the ontological characteristics of the image, and the history of image-making technology. They experimentally explore alternative visual approaches for our contemporary, technology-saturated environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1] The symposium \u201cThe Optics of Art\u201d took place on 11 October 2013. It was on my initiative organized by the Research Centre for Visual Poetics (University of Antwerp); C\u0153ur Volant, platform voor het Bewegende Beeld and KASK \/HoGent. The exhibition \u201cHet Plateau Effect,\u201d curated by Edwin Carels, showed the actuality of Plateau with ten installations by David Blair, Juliana Borinski, Anna Franceschini, Adele Horne, Ann Veronica Janssens, Julien Maire, Simon Payne, Ief Spincemaille, and Benjamin Verhoeven. More information can be found on the Visual Poetics website: www.visualpoetics.be<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2] Cited in the announcement of the documentary film In Waking Hours<\/em> (2015, directed by Sarah Vanagt and Katrien Vanagt) on the website of filmmaker Sarah Vanagt: www.balthasar.be. For more information on Plempius see: Vanagt, Katrien. \u201cEarly Modern Medical Thinking on Vision and the Camera Obscura. V.F. Plempius\u2019 Ophthalmographia,\u201d in Horstmanshoff, Manfred, Helen King, and Claus Zittel (eds.), Blood, Sweat and Tears. The Changing Concepts of Physiology from Antiquity into Early Modern Europe<\/em>, BRILL, Leiden, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3] The installation version of In Waking Hours<\/em> at the Rotterdam Film Festival in 2015 reconstructs in a domestic setting three key moments from the cultural history of the human gaze.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4] Both film and performance were shown for the occasion of Deep Time of the Theatre, a two-day symposium I organized on contemporary theater and archaeology of media, 03-04 December 2015, a collaboration between the Universit\u00e9 libre de Bruxelles (Filli\u00e8re Arts du spectacle vivant) and the University of Antwerp\u2019s Research Center for Visual Poetics. More information can be found on the Visual Poetics website: www.visualpoetics.be<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5] Quote by Benjamin Vandewalle during the above-mentioned \u201cOptics of Art\u201d Symposium, 11 October 2013 in Ghent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6] Recently Apple Inc. designed an application bearing the same name. Promising the possibility to \u201cexplore the world through someone else\u2019s eyes,\u201d the app enables the circulation of live video.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7] Psychologist Nicholas Wade emphasizes the fact that unlike \u201cphilosophical instruments\u201d (instruments of the natural philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries used for demonstrations and experimental analyses), philosophical toys are meant to be also amusing and accessible to the broader public (Wade, Nicholas J. \u201cPhilosophical Instruments and Toys: Optical Devices Extending the Art of Seeing,\u201d Journal of the History of the Neurosciences: Basic and Clinical Perspectives<\/em>, vol. 13, no. 1, 2004, p. 102-124).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8] Only in an 1879 addition to this patent, he added the theatrical variant of the optical toy. It was based on the principle of optical compensation of prismatic mirrors (Mannoni, Laurent, David Robinson, and Donata Pesenti Campagnoni. Light And Movement. Incunabula Of The Motion Picture<\/em>, 1420-1896, n.p., Torino, Museo nazionale del cinema, 1995, p. 232-33).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [9] Full title of this weekly magazine founded and edited by Gaston Tissandier in 1873, was La Nature: Revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts et \u00e0 l\u2019industrie<\/em>. The engraving was published in the issue of 23 July 1892.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Beloff, Zoe, \u00abThe Dream Life of Technology.\u00bb, en ligne, <www.zoebeloff.com>, janvier 1997.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Bleeker, Maaike,\u00a0Anatomy Live. Performance and the Operating Theater<\/em>, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Carels, Edwin, \u00abThe Productivity of the Prototype: On Julien Maire\u2019s Cinema of Contraptions\u00bb dans Vanderbeeken, Robrecht et al<\/em>.,\u00a0Bastard or Playmate? Adapting Theater, Mutating Media and Contemporary Performing Arts<\/em>, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2012, p.\u00a0178-192.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Carlson, Marvin, \u00abHas Video Killed the Theater Star? Some German responses\u00bb,\u00a0Contemporary Theater Review<\/em>, vol.\u00a018, no<\/sup>\u00a01, 2008, p.\u00a020-29.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Crary, Jonathan,\u00a0Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century<\/em>, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1990.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Dosogne, Ludo, \u00abPoint of View \u2013 Benjamin Vandewalle\u00bb, en ligne, <www.cobra.be>, 14 octobre2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Dupr\u00e9, Sven, \u00abThe Historiography of Perspective and Reflexy-Const in Netherlandish Art\u00bb,\u00a0Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art\u00a0\/\u00a0Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek<\/em>, vol.\u00a061, 2011, p.\u00a035-60.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Dvo\u0159\u00e1k, Tom\u00e1\u0161, \u00abPhilosophical Toys Today\u00bb,\u00a0Teorie v\u011bdy\u00a0\/\u00a0Theory of Science<\/em>, vol.\u00a035, no<\/sup>\u00a02, 2013, p.\u00a0173-196.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Huhtamo, Erki et Parikka, Jussi,\u00a0Media Archaeology. Approaches, Applications, and Implications<\/em>, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Lehmann, Hans-Thies,\u00a0Postdramatic Theater<\/em>, Londres, Routledge, 2006.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Mannoni, Laurent, David Robinson, et Donata Pesenti Campagnoni,\u00a0Light And Movement. Incunabula Of The Motion Picture, 1420-1896<\/em>, n.p., Torino, Museo nazionale del cinema, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Pearson, Mike et Michael Shanks,\u00a0Theater\u00a0\/\u00a0Archaeology<\/em>, Londres, Routledge, 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Stafford, Barbara Maria et Frances Terpak.\u00a0Devices of Wonder: From the World in a Box to Images on a Screen,\u00a0<\/em>Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, Getty Research Institute, 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Turner, Gerard L\u2019Estrange, \u00abPresidential Address: \u2018Scientific Toys\u2019\u00bb,\u00a0British Journal for the History of Science<\/em>, vol.\u00a020, 1987, p.\u00a0377-398.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Vanagt, Katrien, \u00abEarly Modern Medical Thinking on Vision and the Camera Obscura. V.F. Plempius\u2019 Ophthalmographia\u00bb in Horstmanshoff, Manfred, Helen King, et Claus Zittel,\u00a0Blood, Sweat and Tears. The Changing Concepts of Physiology from Antiquity into Early Modern Europe<\/em>, Leyden, BRILL, 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 Wade, Nicholas J., \u00abPhilosophical Instruments and Toys: Optical Devices Extending the Art of Seeing\u00bb,\u00a0Journal of the History of the Neurosciences: Basic and Clinical Perspectives<\/em>, vol.\u00a013, no<\/sup>\u00a01, 2004, p.\u00a0102-124.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Literally \u00ab a place to observe, \u00bb the \u00ab theatron \u00bb has been an experimental platform for optical technologies, and, more recently, for cameras and projection devices. Integrating live video on the contemporary stage not only facilitates the actor\u2019s performance, it often functions as an extension of vision, opening up multiple perspectives by introducing cinematic principles of framing, montage … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[25],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":286,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270\/revisions\/286"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Point-of-view.jpeg\")
The Role of the Camera<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Dissecting Technology in the Anatomy Theater<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Anatomy-lesson.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Open-core.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/in-waking-hours.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/peri-sphere.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/peri-sphere-2.jpeg\")
Scientific Theater<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/in-rotation.jpeg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/archee.uqam.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/first-public-performance.jpeg\")
Media Archaeology<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Notes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Bibliographie<\/h2>\n\n\n\n