The more light, the less sight, and the less there is in the interior that allows 'man' to find comfort and protection, to find a ground from which to look. The light, while not exactly absent or available for representation, is not present either--it surprises and blinds the present, disrupts teh space of looking and opens an interior, opens it to a force over which it can exert little control (127).
What draws me towards Keenan's discussion of windows and public, is his dichotomization: he claims that looking is owning, but being shown something is to be owned. How can these be mutually exclusive, and how is there no interplay?
His later discussion of framing, and the media in "Publicity and Indifference" also seems to contradict this initial division. If "no image speaks for itself" (113), it follows that the viewer must take an active role in understanding and interpreting the image. At least part of the framing must be subjective. Ultimately, is it up to the audience to decide how much glare and how much image any window presents?
No comments:
Post a Comment