| | | | | | windowless worlds, their co-presence on the wall connects them immediately in our mind, hooking them so to speak one onto the other, as a dialogue of sorts is imagined between them. The dual presentation in fact makes it as impossible to analyze the second painting by itself as to ignore its impact on the original one. In other words, unless we switch off one of the projectors, the relations between the two images will draw all our attention. The eyes go back and forth, establishing rapports, verifying differences, assessing this detail in one, examining the technique in the other. If one were to verify the exact pattern followed by our eyes during that time, the graph would show but a series of saccadic horizontal motions, back and forth between the two sites. Another way to get at this phenomenon is to think out the differences between Cinerama and Abel Gance's Polyvision project. In the first apparatus, all efforts were made to minimize the lines between the three images projected on the screen so that the action could flow seamlessly within it. In Polyvision, on the contrary, the three images were often different from one another while still participating in the same narrative. For instance, there could be a close-up of Napoleon in the center frame whereas the two adjacent frames would show his army marching. In summation, as soon as we abandon the single image presentation (however constructed), we stop concentrating on what is contained within it and focus instead on the relations between the images in question. It matters little for my argument whether this reaction is learned or not: this is what we do when a second image intrudes into the field, altering by its very existence the lone discourse of the first. | | | | | | | | | When an image succeeds another instead of lying alongside it, the exchange just described is much less perceptible because of the instantaneity of the transition. We looked at something and now another image has taken its place on the screen. Instead of an exciting juxtaposition, we witness at once the ruthless elimination of one picture (to use Eisenstein's language) and, in the next instant, we are forced to respond to the basic, immediate needs of a new one: to identify people, their surroundings, the situation, etc. Yet, despite the swiftness of the exchange, some mental traces from the previous set of informations will remain, coloring what we see next. And, vice versa, the new image in time may come to modulate | | | | |
