In 2005, the Croatian 'interdisciplinary artist'
Ivana
Müller (°1972) made the 'net-site specific' performance 'You
are there but I cannot see you': 'A video about
absence, presence and other strategies that make theatre theatre and
Internet Internet'.
This performance deserves closer scrutiny for
various reasons.
ANALYSIS
Let us begin with a description.
1. (→ 3'30") We hear the performer type a text and see it appear
on the screen. The text describes the hypothetical situation that the
performer is on the stage of a theatre - a 'big black room'
- where
we are the spectators.
We are dealing here with written words that conjure up (visual, auditory and interoceptive) images - not with presence in flesh and blood, bur rather
with imagined presence in an imagined space (mediated
mimesis).
2. (→ 4'30") The performer, who is now visible on the screen,
reminds us that she is merely sitting behind her screen and we behind
ours. Although we see the performer and hear her words, she is
not present in flesh and blood, but merely as an audiovisual appearance (unmediated
mimesis). Her words do not conjure up images, but just refer to the
situation behind and before the screen.
3. (→ 7'50") We hear the performer type a text and see the
letters appear on the screen. The performer, who is transformed into a
writing narrator again, describes how the lights are coming up on the stage in a
theatre with 150 red seats, how she enters from the left etc. We are
dealing with words that conjure up images, like in (1), with the sole
difference that there are no auditory, but only visual and interoceptive
images.
4. (→ 8'50") We see the performer and hear her say that we
are not in a theatre, but behind our screens - the same formula as in
(2).
5. (→ 9'50") We continue to see the performer, but hear her
invite us to imagine her wearing diverse costumes. The imitation of the performer (unmediated mimesis) is combined with the imagination of her
performing (mediated mimesis).
6. (→ 12'10") The performer disappears, and we see and hear
her typing a text on the screen again. She describes how she dances on
the scene, while the sound of the typing is drowned by music - the fugue
from Mozart's Adagio & Fugue in C Minor K. 546. A
(merely visual) mental representation (mediated mimesis) is thus
combined with music (unmediated mimesis).
7. (→ 12''50") There is a blackout: we no longer hear the
music, and the imagined performer stops dancing. The text on the screen
says that we hear the performer breathing, and that her breathing is
becoming quieter and quieter, whereas only the sound of the typing is
fading.
There is a switch from audible music to imagined breathing (mediated
mimesis) combined with audible typing.
8. (→ 13.30) The text on the screen tells us that we applaud, very
loudly (whereas there is nothing to be heard), together with the
remaining 149 spectators. We are dealing here with imagined applause (mediated
mimesis), like in (7).
9. (→ 15.00) We see the performer, and hear her say that we are
not clapping with or hands and that the performance is finished.
NINE KINDS OF IMAGES IN NINE COMBINATIONS
This video is a rather complex phenomenon. At least nine kinds of images
can be discerned. To begin with, there are the images that are genuinely
perceptible: the face as a visual image of the speaker, the voice as an
auditory image, the sound of the typing performer, and, finally, the
music. Next, there is the equally perceptible visual image of a narrator (letters on the
screen) and the auditory image of that same narrator (recorded voice).
And, finally, there are the 'mental images' that are conjured up by the
spoken or written words of the narrator - visual images (like the 'dark
room' and the red seats'), auditory images (the breathing and the
clapping) and interoceptive images (tensions, expectations and so on).
In the scheme below, the normal discursive words are marked with pink,
the narrative words that conjure up images with grey, and the
'inner images' with yellow.
In the consecutive nine sections, the elements are combined as follows:
interoc. image |
||||||||||||
auditory image |
||||||||||||
visual image |
||||||||||||
visual image narrator (letters) |
conjuring | ↑ | ||||||||||
auditory image narrator |
conjuring | ↑ | ||||||||||
sound (auditory image of typing) |
||||||||||||
music (auditory image of dancers) |
||||||||||||
auditory image of speaker |
||||||||||||
visual image of speaker |
||||||||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
THEATRE OR CLASSROOM
Why did we go to such great lengths in analysing this video?
In the first place, this performance of Ivana Müller is very appropriate
to illustrate that there are many forms of mimesis and that these many
forms of mimesis can be combined into complex 'images'. Provided that some more
possibilities would be included, it could well serve as an illustration
to my text on Mimesis.
Next, we would like to highlight that we are not dealing here with
theatre, nor with 'a video', but rather with a lecture - a discourse -
where 'mental images' of a theatrical performance are used as an
illustration of statements like 'this is not theatre, this is a video'.
The lecture consists of two parts. In a first part, the lecturer has us
imagine a theatrical performance (the yellow boxes). She thereby
demonstrates diverse methods of conjuring up an 'inner image' of a
theatrical performance. An interesting device is the use of the fading
of the sound of the typing as an
analog sign to
conjure up the waning of the breathing in (7).
The effect is so convincing, that I had to scroll back to
ascertain whether the breathing was audible or merely an 'inner image".
In a second part, the lecturer makes statements about the difference
between 'theatre' and 'video''.
It is apparent, then, that the conjuring up of a theatrical performance
is not an end in itself, but rather a means of substantiating a
statement: the 'theatrical performance in the head' is merely the
empirical material on which a discussion is built. We are dealing here
with mere instrumental mimesis.
FILMED LECTURE OR PERFORMANCE/THEATRE
On the other hand, the lecture is not a real lecture - not a lecture by
a lecturer in flesh and blood, but rather a mere recording - an image -
of such a lecture. That strengthens the impression that the lecture is
not a lecture, but rather a 'performance' - a 'theatrical performance'.
The suggestion is further enhanced in that the lecturer is also a
narrator, and is thus easily equated with an actor. This assimilation
would disappear as soon as the spectator would receive the instructions
for his imagination in the form of a neutral voice over or as a printed text.
Only when we fully realise this can we clearly state that we are not
dealing here with some kind of theatre or performance, but with the
image - the
imitation - of a discourse on theatre.
LECTURER OR SOPHIST
Finally, we want to make it clear that the discourse itself is erroneous.
The thesis of Ivana Müller is that 'theatre is not video' - or, on a
deeper level, that there is no 'presence' whatsoever in theatre and
video alike. What she actually demonstrates is something totally different: that
the audiovisual rendering of a lecture is not a real lesson and that the
'inner image' of a theatrical performance is not a real performance.
CONCLUSION
We are not dealing here with (the) genuine art (of making images), but
with pseudo-art - meta-art, in casu: a discourse on the image, art about art.
That could have been an interesting lesson, but it turns out to be
rather an impediment to a proper understanding...
© Stefan Beyst, January 2012, translated January 2012.
Referrers: Ivana Müller