Susan Gibb writes:
Going out a bit later this morning (oh, all right; my second cigarette!) it was lighter as the morning warned of its arrival, visible through the darkness as a screen 12 inches high by 8 feet long of the garage door window. Though dim with dawn, I see the maple branches, leaves in front of a colorless old colonial that is my neighbors house. I can recall sitting in this same spot with the door wide open, and the house, the trees, the road, my own front yard and driveway become a part of this same scene. If I walk up to the door and peer out of the window, I know Ill see much more. And if I open it, the world is mine.
This post reminds me of borders and circles. Numerous borders and planes. This is a sort of painted image. Then a stepping into the hologram.
Hologram? But doesn’t it actually become more real as one is beyond and within the borders? Looking at a scene through a window might be considered at the same level of looking at a painting within a frame.
Sure, the painting is just as real as the world outside the window, yet we read both. Reality may not be at issue here; in fact, reality may steer us into walls. Rather, representational spaces and their important differences and similarities and how we behave with them, create them, and talk about them.
For example, you wrote a great blog post and Neha wrote a poem “in” the space of the weblog, a form within a form within a form all supported by assembled code (is a poem in a weblog read differently than a poem in a paper journal?)supported by electron spin. Both of you were able to “manipulate” the theater, to shape the outcome at many levels (in the making). Now consider the “theater” where you watch a movie, the outcome of which you can’t change (as in The Lord of the Rings), although the meanings may change. (Remember how OJ changes that section of “Kugelmass” where OJ Simpson is mentioned?) Isn’t the entire experience of the movie shaped at many levels, the seats, the lights along the ceiling corners? And won’t that experience change yet again by the DVD?
Perhaps my grappling with the concept of reality is exactly what often has me bouncing off of walls.
Concentrating then on story space, this is akin to vantage point in looking at a space within a frame. The focus point as well (the window only) cannot avoid the peripheral interferance, though the interface is only with the image within that space. Standing in the dark, the focus on the image within the window space indeed is different than when daylight surrounds the viewer. But does the image change as well? I suppose it does–immersion, relationship, becomes important if one is aware of it.