Crevice

p.260:
“There is an emphasis on the appearance of fragility, expressed in multiple, often transparent or translucent layers. These seemingly delicate layers, however, may actually be fabricated out of steel mesh or tempered glass or, in a garment, a sheer microfiber that resists tearing or repels stains. Layers - within both built and sewn structures - remain distinct and are repeated, sometimes extravagantly, for in stance, in the work of Shigeru Ban. … In both building and clothing designs, the generation of layers - whether wrought out of glass or silk georgette - suggests that there is strength in resilience. Fragility if first acknowledged, even embraced, then defied.”

“The repetition of edges is a strategy used sometimes by painters (Paul Cezanne, for example) to convey the difficulty of identifying with precision just exactly where the body and its clothing meet the spaces and objects around it. How does one distinguish the place where a person’s back actually touches a chair? Where does a head end and a hat begin? What is the line between figure and ground, self and world?”

Some images of two houses/buildings designed by Shigaru Ban. The first three images are of “Curtain Wall House” (Tokyo, 1993-1995), the second two of “Naked House” (Saitama, Japan, 1999-2000).

Came across a couple of images in “Skin + Bones” that might be useful.

This Alber Ebaz shirt caught my eye - not sure why. I think I responded to the apparent movement in the shirt on the model’s body. If it was re designed for a man it might be a little too schoolboyish? (in Skin + Bones, p.95)

Completely different kettle of fish - I like the sense of age in the jacket, and also that it is moving towards almost a straightjacket look (in Skin + Bones, p.151)

Finally, this Vivienne Westwood image (Skin + Bones, p.244-245). I liked the semi-formality, but in particular was really into the weathered nature of the man’s outfit (down to the shoes).

Just a little bit more Tanizaki (In Praise of Shadows) … this bit is from the ‘Afterword’ by Thomas J. Harper (p.48).

“But for Tanizaki a museum piece is no cause for rejoicing. An art must live as part of our daily lives or we had better give it up. We can admire it for what it once was, and try to understand what made it so - as Tanizaki does in In Praise of Shadows - but to pretend that we can still participate in it is mere posturing.”

I am not sure if this rings true for me - but I am interested in the notion of pretence in terms of participation. And how this ‘floor’ we are creating is, in very plain terms, a DIVIDE. Between an audience and a performer. It suggests ‘participation’ (and also b/c audience is enclosed by walls) but at its heart is division. Them and me.

“Mrs. Tanizaki tells a story of when her late husband decided, as he frequently did, to build a new house. The architect arrived and announced with pride, ‘I’ve read your In Praise of Shadows, Mr. Tanizaki, and know exactly what you want.’ To which Tanizakie replied, ‘But no, I could never live in a house like that.’ There is perhaps as much resignation as humour in his answer.”

I just like that line … “I could never live in a house like that”.

Tanazaki, Jun’ichiro (1977). In Praise of Shadows. Translated by Thomas J. Harper. Leete’s Island Books: Stony Creek, CT.

Some notes/thoughts/quotes from this book - which in part is an essay on the differences between Japanese and Western considerations and enjoyment of shadow.

p.22: “The light from the pale white paper, powerless to dispel the heavy darkness of the alcove, is instead repelled by the darkness, creating a world of confusion where dark and light are indistinguishable. Have not you yourselves sensed a difference in the light that suffuses such a room, a rare tranquility not found in ordinary light? Have you never felt a sort of fear in the face of the ageless, a fear that in that room you might lose all consciousness of the passage of time, that untold years might pass and upon emerging you should find you had grown old and gray?”

p.29: “… the whole body so lean and gaunt as to seem out of proportion with the face, hands, and feet, so lacking in substance as to give the impression not of flesh but of a stick - must not the traditions Japanese woman have had just such a physique? A few are still about - the aged lady in an old-fashioned household, some few geisha, They remind me of stick dolls, for in fact they are nothing more than poles upon which to hang clothes. As with the dolls their substance is made up of layer upon layer of clothing, bereft of which only an ungainly pole remains. But in the past this was sufficient. For a woman who lived in the dark it was enough if she had a faint, white face - a full body was unnecessary.”

Although this last quote is a little ‘wayward’ in terms of Crevice - it reminded me of Paula talking about layers of clothing, and I also wondered about how ‘fleshed’ my presence is under the boards. Might the clothes (in video be ‘fitted’), whilst under the boards they are looser, ill-fitted … a mark of shifting flesh, weight, nutrition….

So, where do I begin? I think from reading your entries and interests, that the most important question we have to ask ourselves in terms of costume, is how the costume relates to the environment- (Once you’ve decided exactly what the environment represents, that is!) Does it compliment it? Reflect it? Contrast it- (in colour, shape, abstraction)? There is quite a bit of info on the idea of the House (and buildings in general) reflecting and reminding us of ourselves- of our identity being linked to the Home. I quite like the idea that a ‘living structure is always a record of prior development’– that the person in this space is the result of his past- maybe wears his past on him– layers and layers of clothes one on top of the other? There is also the notion that we can most be ‘ourselves’ at home. What does this imply? What are people when they are most themselves?

I also like the idea of there being costume changes and/or costumes in the space- This could be a good way of tackling your ideas and interest in ‘perspective’ and the human ‘diamond’- . But again, I think that going in this direction really relies again on what the relationship is between what you are wearing and what the space is saying/doing.

Are you still thinking about animating the clothing at certain points? I think this could be a great way of dealing with the above issues- I like also that the clothes then become an important element in the work– that you are not just wearing a ‘costume’- but that the very idea of ‘clothes’ becomes something that the audience can then think about.

I can’t quite imagine the space as you describe it exactly- and because my computer is so slow, I can’t access many of the images and videos that you have posted on your website. I gather that the space will be white- so again, it is important to think how the colour of the costume will relate to the space. I imagine the space will also be quite rigid and hard looking. Does the costume reflect this aesthetic or is it soft and floppy and organic?

These are a collection of images scanned from “Envisioning Architecture”. I am still responding to the more ’scratchy’ style of drawing. Unstable, neurotic even.

Watching a pretty bad documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright last night - but in the middle of it they had this little bit of crappy animation of “Falling Water” being drawn. Thought I’d post it here for a look. One thing though, is possibility of having the image moved in front of camera (ie in FCP) - like they do here. So as the image is animated, the camera is panning across it.

The documentary is from BBC4 and was called, “Frank Lloyd Wright: Murder, Myth and Modernism” (I did you not).

 Falling Water - animation [0:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Image from “Architecture’s New Media”, p.185.
Just as something to look at! Interesting to note that the size is almost exactly same as we are looking at - 10 feet by 10 feet, but this VR Cave only allows 3 viewers.
Thoughts? I guess the possibility of obscured images, of small sections available to some audience members (and not others) is alluring to me …

Quinn, B. (2003). The Fashion of Architecture. Berg: New York.

Amazon link here.

p.2: “… both disciplines remain rooted to the basic task of enclosing space around the human form”

p.5: “The connections between the two disciplines are significant: both rely heavily upon human proportions, mathematics and geometry to create the protective layers in which we cocoon ourselves. Fashion and architecture revolve around the scale of the human form to signify their dimensions, requiring an understanding of mass as well as space. They both operate within the same spatial frameworks to manage energy and material, and map the boundaries of the body by creating climatic environmental systems around it. Garments are wrapped around the body in successive layers of underwear, outer clothing and overcoats that define the outer core of the body, while tiers of sleeping bags, tents and shelters symbolically expand into houses and skyscrapers. Within this system the garments can be seen as more than mere clothing - they form part of a structure that negotiates the relationship between private spaces and public arenas, both defining our identity and place in society” (my emphasis).

Private and public arenas. Nude - dog like. Bad boy bubby. Have clothes of ‘video’ littered (or folded or hanging?) in underspace - ie the clothes I am wearing in the video materials …

Actually - this image (from p.44) is plausible as a sketch - ie to sketch the clothing into the image - and then animate it that as well. Is it plausible (possible) to have the clothes worn as animations - in the video?? Not sure where I’m going with this one.

This is me there, this is me …. here. I am story-less.

(actual) clothes hanging in entrance???

I am having trouble getting away from very raw ‘underworld’ look …

p.8: “Rei Kawakubo views the body as the common ground between fashion and architecture, and describes it as a site where she can experiment with expressions of space, volume and proportion.”

animating still images of my clothing. have clothing in all the images of interior - hat stand, jacket hanging (again see p.44 image here), wardrobe … clothed in virtuality (literally and metaphoricall).

hmmm … clothed in virtuality. cloaked in virtuality.

virtual cloak. cloak anima.

p.16: “Architects often think of fashion as the third layer around the body. ‘You have the onion peel effect,’ said Patrik Schumacher, of Zaha Hadid Architecdcts. ‘You have the cityscape which is organized into dwellings. Then the dwelling surrounds the human, who gets under the duvet wearing a pair of pajamas. There are different densities of space around the body in this system. Some near, some distant, but all have relative values to the human form.’ Just as architects design the interiors that we live in and adapt techonological systems to monitor the human body, they bring the layers of qrchitecture ever closer, shrinking the distance between body and building” (my emphasis).

layers of space - in this underworld perhaps there is nothing on me. I am ‘non-dwelling’ (both physically and psychologically).
caught.
excised.
extracted.

p.16: “Like architects, conceptual fashion designers experience space as one act. By interupting space as perceptual, intellectual and physical phenomena, they integrate fashion and form with principles or architecture and spatiality. As space is enclosed by garments, enveloped by architecture and occupied by bodies, it is made tangible in constructed forms. The cocooning folds of fashion garments and the dense membranes of architecture take on the meanings of havens and sanctuaries, while public spaces can generate a sense of human alienation or mediate social instability” (my emphasis).

This idea of a sanctuary is staying with me at present. A retreat of sorts. A Dunkirk …

wardrobe - filled with jackets the same as my video one? wardrobe in animation that is.

What of visual feedforward of underworld on video - flickers of ‘me’ there - but presented on screen? (prior to being viewed beneath the boards) … or flashes of clothed and naked versions - in same posture …

p.20-21: “Before the advent of surveillance technology, modern architecture was designed to exert regulation and control over individuals and the masses, a premise that ranked high on the modernist agenda. Beyond its aesthetic role, architecture’s engagement with the visual is mediated by its ability to conceal and to reveal, to hide and to watch” (my emphasis).

There is much to be played with in this context - of revealing the underneath. In the first reveal a simple prolonged flash of light on the body, to darkness, then relocating (the body), and another flash …

or perhaps tracking lights across the floor - like a kind of strobe - but not through the boards …

Edge.

There is much to be read/consider from this book …

Later.

Oh - one last image. It’s of Prada store in NYC. Not sure it’s here, but there was something about screening images around people …and also the sense of perspective present in this image.

And here’s a word …

Egress.