ivana franke The Relation of Perception and Thinking · 2017. 3. 24. · portreti portraits Damil...

oris, broj 95, godina 2015. IVANA FRANKE, Intervju192 193oris, number 95, year 2015 IVANA FRANKE, Interview

Interviewed in Zagreb on 16 October 2014

¶ The work of visual artist Ivana Franke is based on a reflex-ive, conceptual approach that explores the broad field of spatio-temporal perception. Many of her works are char-acterized by their aesthetic elegance or their distinctively atmospheric quality; however, these formal qualities are in the function of the problem-oriented approach and a destabilization of conventions of the spatial and visual experience that places the viewer in an engaged, active

Razgovarali u Zagrebu 16. listopada 2014.

¶ Rad vizualne umjetnice Ivane Franke utemeljen je na refleksivnom, konceptualnom pristupu koji preispituje široko polje prostorno-vremenske percepcije. Mnogi nje-zini radovi odlikuju se estetskom elegancijom ili nagla-šenom atmosferičnošću, no te formalne kvalitete su u funkciji problemskog pristupa i destabiliziranja konvencija prostornih i vizualnih doživljaja koji promatrača postavlja u angažiranu, odnosno aktivnu poziciju. Taj pristup Ivana

Sunčica OstoićMaroje Mrduljaš

razgovaraliinterviewed by

ivana franke

The Relation of Perception and Thinking

ivana franke

Odnos percepcije i mišljenja

fotografijephotography by

Arhiva / Archive Studio Ivana Franke (if); Sandra Aračić (sa); Tommi Gronlund (tg); Ljubaznošću / Courtesy of insert2014 (in); Kristina Lenard (kl); Robert Leš (rl); Ljubaznošću 90–60-90 / Platforme za suvremenu umjetnost / Courtesy of 90–60-90 / Contemporary Art Platform (psu); Goran Vranić (gv)

portretiportraits

Damil Kalogjera

Franke postepeno radikalizira do te razine da umjetnički radovi nestaju kao autonomni fizički objekti, te postaju svojevrsni instrumenti koji djeluju neposredno na neuro-psihički aparat promatrača. Uvjerljivost radova Ivane Franke između ostaloga prozilazi iz studioznog intedisciplinarnog istraživačkog rada koji uključuje razne suradnje s umjetni-cima i arhitektima, ali također i sa znanstvenicima i drugim stručnjacima.

position. This approach is gradually radicalized by Franke to the extent that her works of art disappear as autono-mous physical objects, and become a kind of instruments that directly affect the neuropsychological apparatus of the viewer. The credibility of Franke’s works arises, among other things, from her meticulous interdisciplinary research that involves collaborations with artists and architects, but also with scientists and other experts.


ORIS — Jedno od temeljnih pitanja Vašega opusa vezano je uz mjesto odvijanja radova – što je ono i gdje se nalazi? U radu Seeing with Eyes Closed to pitanje nameće se vrlo eksplicitno, s obzirom na to da posjetitelji imaju zatvorene oči dok su okruženi tehnologijom koja na njih izravno djeluje. Gdje je to mjesto na kojem rad egzistira? ¶ ivana franke — Definirala bih to mjesto odvijanja rada kao sučelje. Biokemičar Otto Rössler bavi se teorijom kaosa i u svojoj knjizi Endophysics: The World as an Interface tvrdi da stvarnost postoji jedino kao sučelje – mjesto sučeljavanja vanjskog i unutrašnjeg svijeta1. Dihotomija vanjskog i unutarnjeg prostora na neki se način dokida. Kod vanj-skog prostora došli smo do zaključka da apsolutna objektivnost ne postoji, tradicionalna težnja znanosti da odvojeni promatrač otkriva zakone prirode je propala. Kvantna fizika nam govori da promatrač sudjeluje u procesu mjerenja i promatranja. S druge strane, negdje krajem 1980-ih, fenomenologija dovodi u pitanje subjektivnost kao apsolutnu kategoriju narativnog seb-stva. Možemo reći da fiksni subjekt ne postoji ni fizički, a ni kao

1 Postaje moguć novi pogled na fiziku koji nalikuje vidnoj agnoziji. Carstvo subjektiv-nog uvećava se u neočekivanom smjeru. Tradicionalnoj (egzo) objektivnosti dodana je (endo) objektivnost usmjerena na promatrača. Mikroskopski kaos u promatraču suodređuje teksturu sna. Otto Rössler, An Introduction to Chaos u International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 10, 1995., str. 5.–13.

oris — One of the basic questions of your work is related to the venue of the works – what is it and where is it located? In your work titled, Seeing with Eyes Closed, this question arises quite explicitly since the viewers have their eyes closed while surrounded by technology that directly affects them. Where is that place where the work exists? ¶ ivana franke — I would define this venue of the work as an interface. Otto Rössler, a biochemist involved in studying the chaos theory, published a book titled, Endophysics: The World as an Interface where he claimed that reality existed only as an interface – an interface between the external and the internal world.1 The dichotomy between the exterior and the interior space is eliminated, to a certain extent. In terms of exterior space, we have concluded that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. The traditional tendency of science involving a separate observer discovering the laws of nature has failed. With quantum physics and onwards, we know that the observer participates in the processes of measuring and

1 A new view on physics becomes possible – of ‘blindsight’ type. The realm of the subjective is enlarged in an unexpected direction. An observer-centered (endo) objectivity is added to the traditional (exo) objectivity. The microscopic chaos in the observer codetermines the texture of the dream. Otto Rössler, An Introduction to Chaos in International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 10, 1995, p. 5–13

psihološka kategorija. Također, recentna teorija svijesti kogni-tivnog znanstvenika Donalda Hoffmana tvrdi da funkcija per-ceptivnih iskustava nije da daju točnu sliku vanjskog svijeta, već da svijest stvara optimalno sučelje specifično za ljudsku vrstu. U Seeing with Eyes Closed, pa i u drugim radovima, pokušavam modificirati to sučelje na način da ono postane primjetljivo, što se događa kada vanjski podražaj i perceptivna reakcija ne kores-pondiraju. Instalacija modificira ono što zovemo vanjski prostor te stvara afekt koji je i mentalni i tjelesni. U Seeing with Eyes Closed naglašen je taj unutarnji aspekt. Rad se zapravo događa u tijelu, odnosno u umu posjetitelja.ORIS — U Seeing with Eyes Closed ne postoji fizički pro-stor; postao je irelevantan. Umjetnički rad ne postoji kao objekt ili artefakt, nego je umjetnički rad mentalna slika koja nastaje kroz sučelje koje ste Vi isprojektirali. Ne radi se čak ni o mentalnoj slici. Doživljaj u odnosu spram frekvencije jest konkretno mjesto odvijanja rada. ¶ ivana franke — Da, doživljaj, ali također i interpretacija doživljaja koja je sasvim subjektivna. Ali nisam sklona pojmovima kao što su percepcija i doživljaj.ORIS — Mislite li da su ti pojmovi već potrošeni ili opterećeni oprečnim tumačenjima i više nam nisu korisni? Umjesto njih, koristite li radije druge pojmove? ¶ ivana franke — Pojam

monitoring. On the other hand, sometime in the late 1980s, the phenomenology questioned the subjectivity as an abso-lute category of narrative self. We can say that a fixed entity exists neither physically, nor as a psychological category. Also, a recent theory of consciousness by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that the function of perceptual experiences is not to give an accurate picture of the outside world, but that it is the consciousness that creates the optimal interface specific to the human species. In Seeing with Eyes Closed, and in my other works as well, I am trying to modify that interface so that it becomes noticeable, which happens when the external stimulus and the perceptual response do not correspond. The installation modifies what we call the exterior space, creating an affect that is both mental and physical. This internal aspect is accentuated in Seeing with Eyes Closed. This work actually happens in the body, that is, in the mind of the viewer.ORIS — In Seeing with Eyes Closed there is no physical space, it has become irrelevant. The work of art exists neither as an object nor as an artifact, but rather as a mental image that emerges through the interface that you design. It is not even a mental image. The experience in relation to the frequency is the specific venue of work. ¶ ivana franke — Yes, the experience, but also the interpretation of the experience that is quite subjective. But I am not inclined to notions such as perception nor experience.ORIS — Do you think that these notions are already worn out, or burdened with conflicting interpretations, and that they are no longer useful to us? Or do you rather use other terms instead? ¶ ivana franke — The concept of interface perhaps refers best to the issue we are talking about, although it marks a spot, rather than a process, and is not sufficient as such. You have posed a question of the perception and the object–light–perception–interpretation sequence. It is necessary to designate all stages of that sequence in words, and that the sequence does not take place in one, but rather in two direc-tions, and that it is located in some place. Theoretically, the notion of perception includes all that, and has a bidirectional meaning to a certain extent, even though it depends on the context, but this sounds quite technical and often excludes the interpretation. Considering the way in which my work affects the viewer, a detailed analysis of the whole process is of essence. Generalization, such as terming it perception or experience, oversimplifies the situation too much, that is to say, it gives inaccurate information. A lot of works could be described as perceptually real and cognitively unreal (or cognitively puzzling), which is to say that the interruption occurs inside the process of perception or separation of the same.


sučelja možda se najbolje referira na problematiku o kojoj govorimo, iako označava mjesto, a ne proces, pa nije dostatan. Vi ste postavili pitanje percepcije i sekvence objekt – svje-tlo – percepcija – interpretacija. Nužno je označiti riječima sve faze te sekvence, te da se ta sekvenca ne odvija u jed-nom smjeru, nego se odvija u dva smjera i nalazi se na nekom mjestu. Teoretski, pojam percepcija sve to uključuje i donekle ima dvosmjerno značenje, iako ovisi u kojem kontekstu, ali zvuči dosta tehnički i često isključuje interpretaciju. S obzi-rom na način na koji moji radovi utječu na gledatelja, bitna je detaljna analiza cijelog procesa. Generaliziranje poput ter-mina percepcija ili doživljaj previše pojednostavljuje situaciju, odnosno daje nepreciznu informaciju. Dosta radova moglo bi se opisati kao perceptually real and cognitively unreal (ili cognitively puzzling), znači unutar procesa percepcije dolazi do prekida ili razdvajanja istog.ORIS — Što je to što je dvosmjerno u djelovanju rada? Rad djeluje prema promatraču, znači li to da promatrač nešto vraća natrag radu? ¶ ivana franke — Način na koji subjekt

ORIS — What is it that is bidirectional in the operation of the work? The work operates towards the viewer. Does that mean that the viewer returns something back to the work? ¶ ivana franke — The way in which a subject views a work does create the work to some extent, depending on the work – it is a double direction of the process of perception. The question is whether the perception is entirely subjective and culturally conditioned, or whether it is anthropologically uni-versal? Is there an objective reality that we consume and that affects us, or do we produce a reality with its individual char-acteristics that are culturally conditioned.ORIS — Thus interpretation also changes perception. Inter-pretation comes as the next step after perception, but maybe it really conditions it as well. If we exposed the viewers from radically different cultures to your work, would their expe-riences be much different? We are still not talking about interpretation here. ¶ ivana franke — There are very big differences in the reactions to my works. The work, In the Faraway Past and in the Future, has recently been displayed in India.2 The way people interpreted it there is extremely elo-quent and refers to the inner world, the mental processes that

2 The exhibition insert 2014, The Sharp Edge of the Global Contemporary, Mati Ghar, Indira Ghandi National Center for Arts, New Delhi.

Crteži posjetitelja koji su doživjeli instalaciju

Ivane Franke na festivalu Device_art u

Zagrebu 2009.

Drawings by visitors who experienced the installation by Ivana

Franke at the Device_art festival in Zagreb

in 2009

(if)

Seeing with Eyes Closed, 2011.

Seeing with Eyes Closed, 2011

(if)

(if)

(if)Drawings by students who experienced the installation We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds (in conjunction with the conference event Eternity, Braunschweig, 2015)

Crteži studenata koji su doživjeli instalaciju We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds (u sklopu konferencije Eternity, Braunschweig, 2015.)

We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds, 2013.

We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds, 2013


promatra rad stvara taj rad u nekoj mjeri, ovisno o radu – to je dvostruki smjer procesa percepcije. Tu se postavlja pitanje je li percepcija u potpunosti subjektivna i kulturološki uvjeto-vana ili antropološki univerzalna? Postoji li neka objektivna stvarnost koju mi konzumiramo i ona utječe na nas, ili mi pro-duciramo stvarnost s individualnim karakteristikama koje su kulturološke.ORIS — Dakle, interpretacija mijenja i percepciju, dolazi kao idući korak nakon percepcije, ali možda ju zaista i

take place when encountering the work. For them, the work is not abstract. When this type of works gets exhibited in the West, it turns out that there is no vocabulary that has been developed so as to be able talk about it. Surely, there is a tradi-tion of introspection in the West too, but the viewer focuses nevertheless on the exterior, on what the work looks like and the formal elements, and he or she defines it as abstract. It is about a civilizational difference which I find very interesting. In the work titled, We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds, viewers sit together in a cylindrical room; they are exposed to strobe lights, and they quasi-hallucinate. Everyone sees something different. I have to consider that, despite being in the same situation, we see the reality differently, and each of the views is true or false at the same time. Which is to say that shared subjectivity takes the place of the dichotomy of subjective and objective thinking.ORIS — What are the experiences with experiencing the work, Seeing with Eyes Closed? ¶ ivana franke — People perceive or interpret Seeing with Eyes Closed in different ways, which can rather generally also be distributed according to regions. For example, in Australia, most of the people I was able to talk to were really looking forward to the work, they were open to that type of experience, whereas, for example, in Germany, most people would say that they felt some dis-comfort because the work was invasive and called into ques-tion the ownership of their own thoughts, which is to say, it induced images within their own minds which they could not control. They do not want to be manipulated, I guess, they are afraid of it. Children, for example, never react like that.ORIS — The intention of that work is not manipulation, but rather the experience itself. Even if you were the most pas-sive viewer, the work would happen, and that direct impact can sometimes be problematic for the audiences because, in order to experience the work, one inevitably has to surrender oneself to its impact. The experience is probably conditioned not only by cultural background, but also by individual psy-chological configurations which is, of course, in turn, partly the result of a culture from which one originates. So that your work certainly encounters a very different range of recep-tions. ¶ ivana franke — This work is something that, to some extent, still counts on these anthropological and uni-versal givens. It is possible to generalize that most human beings, if entering a dark room, will not be able to determine the dimensions of the space, it is a beginning of an experience. What will the experience be like, that is, the interpretation of it–will someone be afraid, will they become claustrophobic, will they experience the expansion of space and euphoria–it is

Mind Crossing, 2015.

Mind Crossing, 2015

(psu)

In the Faraway Past and in the Future, 2014.

In the Faraway Past and in the Future, 2014

(in)


uvjetuje. Ako bismo promatrače iz radikalno drugačijih kul-tura izložili Vašim radovima, bi li njihovi doživljaji bili bitno drugačiji? Ovdje još ne govorimo o interpretaciji. ¶ ivana franke — Postoje jako velike razlike u reakcijama na moje radove. Nedavno je u Indiji2 bio izložen rad In the Faraway Past and in the Future. Način interpretacije ljudi tamo je izu-zetno elokventan i odnosi se na nutarnji svijet, na mentalne procese koji se odvijaju u susretu s tim radom. Rad za njih nije apstraktan. Kada se taj tip radova izlaže na Zapadu, pokaže se da ne postoji vokabular koji je razvijen da bi se o tome govo-rilo. Sigurno da i na zapadu postoji tradicija introspekcije, ali promatrač se ipak fokusira na vanjsko, na to kako rad izgleda i na formalne elemente i definira ga kao apstraktnog. Radi se o civilizacijskoj razlici, što je meni vrlo zanimljivo. U radu We Close Our Eyes and See a Flock of Birds posjetitelji sjede u cilindričnoj sobi i zajedno su izloženi stroboskopskom svjetlu i kvazihaluciniraju. Svatko vidi nešto drugo. Moram uzeti u obzir da, iako smo u istoj situaciji, stvarnost vidimo različito, i svaka od njih istovremeno je istinita ili neistinita. To znači da zajednička subjektivnost (shared subjectivity) preuzima mjesto dihotomije subjektivnog i objektivnog razmišljanja.ORIS — Kakva su iskustva s doživljajem rada Seeing with Eyes Closed? ¶ ivana franke — Seeing with Eyes Closed ljudi doživljavaju ili interpretiraju na različite načine koje je, također vrlo generalizirano, moguće podijeliti i po regijama. Na primjer, u Australiji većina ljudi s kojima sam razgovarala jako se veselila radu, otvoreni su tom tipu doživljaja, dok bi npr. u Njemačkoj većina ljudi rekla da osjeća određenu nelagodu zbog toga što je rad invazivan i dovodi u pitanje vlasništvo nad vlastitim mislima, znači inducira slike unutar vlastitog uma koje nije moguće kontrolirati. Pretpostavljam da ne žele biti manipulirani, strah ih je toga. Recimo djeca nikad nemaju takvu reakciju.ORIS — Manipulacija nije intencija tog rada, već upravo doživljaj. Čak i da ste najpasivniji promatrač rad će se dogoditi,

2 Izložba Insert 2014, Cutting Edge of Global Contemporary, Mati Ghar, Indira Ghandi National Center for Arts, New Delhi

a taj izravan utjecaj publici može ponekad biti problematičan, jer da bi doživio rad, neminovno se moraš prepustiti njegovu utjecaju. Doživljaj vjerojatno nije uvjetovan samo kulturo-loškom pozadinom nego i individualnom psihološkom konfi-guracijom koja je, naravno, opet djelomice posljedica kulture iz koje je netko ponikao, tako da Vaši radovi sigurno nailaze na vrlo različit raspon recepcije. ¶ ivana franke — Rad je nešto što donekle ipak računa na te antropologijske i univer-zalne datosti. Moguće je generalizirati da većina ljudskih bića, ako uđu u mračnu sobu, neće moći odrediti dimenzije pro-stora; to je početak nekog doživljaja. Kakav će biti doživljaj, odnosno njegova interpretacija – hoće li nekog biti strah, hoće li imati klaustrofobiju, hoće li doživjeti ekspanziju prostora i euforiju – to je sasvim individualno i rad hoće potaknuti tu interpretaciju. Bitan dio rada je da se dogodi introspekcija i iščitavanje značenja koja su potpuno različitog tipa. Zapravo, to je osnovna funkcija radova – stvaraju situaciju u kojoj smo suočeni s vlastitom reakcijom koju ne možemo eksternalizi-rati ni previdjeti (u principu), niti možemo podrazumijevati da netko tko je s nama vidi, osjeća, doživljava i misli isto, te joj sami moramo izmisliti smisao.ORIS — Vi ne tražite samo refleksiju, Vi tražite i afekt, doživljaj, odnos koji je puno angažiraniji od same refleksije, od racionalizacije. Pa i tjelesniji. Uvrstimo u razmatranje još

quite individual and this work intends to encourage this inter-pretation. An important part of the work is the occurrence of introspection and the reading of meanings that are of totally different kind. Actually, it is the works’ basic function – they create a situation where we are faced with our own reaction which we cannot externalize, neither (in principle) are we able to overlook it, nor does it imply that anyone accompanying us would see, feel, experience, think the same thing, and we are to conceive its meaning all by ourselves.ORIS — You are not looking just for reflection, you are also looking for the affect, the experience, a relationship that is a lot more involved than the reflection alone, than rationaliza-tion. And a lot more physical. Let us introduce another term into this consideration, especially where you mention the phenomenology – the time. Edmund Husserl was of the view that it was the time that was the underlying structure of all our perceptual, contemplative, and other relationships with the world. So it is the time that determines those ways. And what is the time in your works? ¶ ivana franke — I would not take the time as an absolute underlying category. I would take the time as part of the four dimensions we deal with, also conditioned by our sensory apparatus. In everyday life, we have a certain sense of space and time, which is usually rather small, as it refers to what is nearby. Within the experience of the encounter with the work, within that interface there occurs a rupture, a break through the spatial-temporal matrix, in terms of experience. I do not suggest that the matrix changes com-pletely, but that it opens. This creates a sense of something that is far away, or a belonging to a system we cannot see. The feeling that there is a layer of reality other than the one in which we are, which is usually given to us to perceive.ORIS — Why are you interested in these other levels that are not outlined by day, night and space as we experience them on a daily basis? ¶ ivana franke — It is about being open, mentally, to something that is out of the ordinary; in my opin-ion, it is necessary. That dichotomy between anthropological universals and cultural presuppositions is important because

it defines the organization of society. And it has a direction. There is a scientific approach that both deals with objective truths in a top-down direction and acts from a position of power. On the other hand, there is a political entity whose individuality and voice and circumstances should be taken into account. It claims its specificity and cultural conditioning. That is the difference between humanities and natural sciences that are still separated. The subjectivity, which is central to humanities, and the truths of science are no longer valid. The question is how to define the subject and how to define the self, how can this subjectivization be opened, where is the potential for emancipation. I think that this option appears in the moments of destabilization of the common ways of seeing and thinking, in redirecting attention to what is at the periphery – what is present, but not visible, latent. The bor-derline experiences within which we focus on the invisible, the inconceivable, the immeasurable. It is, in a way, like looking beyond the obvious – the transcending and transgression of the boundaries of economic and political conditionalities and our own psychologies. Catherine Malabou is perhaps on a very interesting track.ORIS — She also talks about the plasticity of the brain, about connecting philosophy with neuroscience. I am interested in the way in which contemporary neuroscientific theories or

Postavlja se pitanje je li percepcija u potpunosti subjektivna i kultu-rološki uvjetovana ili antropološki univerzalna

The question is whether the perception is entirely subjective and culturally conditioned, or whether it is anthropologically universal

From the Faraway Past and From the Future, 2014.

From the Faraway Past and From the Future, 2014

(tg)


jedan pojam, a pogotovo kad ste spomenuli fenomenologiju – vrijeme. Edmund Husserl bio je stava da je upravo vrijeme ono što je struktura ispod svih perceptivnih, misaonih i naših drugih odnosa spram svijeta, tako da je vrijeme ono koje određuje te načine; što je vrijeme u Vašim radovima? ¶ ivana franke — Ne bih uzela vrijeme kao apsolutnu primarnu kategoriju. Vrijeme bih uzela kao dio četiri dimenzije s kojima se koristi i, isto tako, uvjetovano našim senzornim aparatom. U svakodnevnici imamo određen osjećaj prostora i vremena koji je najčešće dosta mali – odnosi se na ono što je blizu. Unutar iskustva susreta s radom, unutar tog sučelja događa se rupture, proboj prostorno-temporalne matrice, u smislu doživljaja. Ne ciljam na to da se ta matrica skroz promijeni, nego da se otvori. Stvara se osjećaj postojanja nečeg što je daleko ili pripadnosti sustavu koji ne možemo vidjeti; osjećaj da postoji još neki sloj stvarnosti osim ovog u kojem jesmo, koji nam je uobičajeno dan da ga percipiramo.ORIS — Zašto Vas zanimaju ti drugi nivoi koji nisu zacrtani danju, noću i prostorom kako ga svakodnevno doživljavamo? ¶ ivana franke — Mislim da je nužno mentalno otvaranje nečemu što nije uobičajeno. Ta dihotomija između antropološ-kih univerzalija i kulturoloških uvjetovanosti bitna je jer defi-nira organizaciju društva i ima smjer. Postoji znanstveni pri-stup koji se koristi s objektivnim istinama u top-down smjeru i djeluje s pozicije moći. S druge strane, postoji politički subjekt čija se individualnost, glas i okolnosti trebaju uzeti u obzir. On tvrdi svoju specifičnost i kulturološku uvjetovanost. To je ta razlika između humanističkih i prirodnih znanosti koje su još uvijek razdvojene. Subjektivnost, koja je glavna u humani-stičkim znanostima, i istine znanosti više ne stoje. Pitanje je kako definirati subjekt i kako definirati sebstvo, na koji je način moguće tu subjektivizaciju otvoriti, gdje se nalazi potencijal emancipacije. Mislim da se ta mogućnost pojavljuje u trenu-cima destabilizacije uobičajenih načina gledanja i mišljenja, pri preusmjeravanju pozornosti na ono što se nalazi na rubnim dijelovima – što je prisutno, a ne vidljivo, latentno. Granična iskustva unutar kojih se usredotočujemo na nevidljivo, nepred-stavljivo i nemjerljivo. Na neki način to je gledanje onkraj oči-tog – nadilaženje i kršenje granica ekonomskih i političkih uvjetovanosti i naše vlastite psihologije. Možda je Catherine Malabou na zanimljivom tragu.ORIS — Ona govori i o plasticitetu mozga i povezuje filo-zofiju i neuroznanost. Zanima me na koji način suvremene

Untitled (Entrance), 2007.

Untitled (Entrance), 2007

(if)

Animated Sphere, 2008.

Animated Sphere, 2008

(if)


neuroznanstvene teorije ili istraživanja govore upravo o tome na koji način konstruiramo ono što doživljavamo i ono što vidimo. To je podloga Vašeg rada. ¶ ivana franke — Neu-roznanost je mlada znanost i ona, čini mi se, nema još bazu za konačne zaključke. Zanimljivo je upravo to što se radi o neizmjerno velikom neistraženom prostoru mozga i svijesti. Količina informacija koju kao ljudska bića možemo obraditi u stvarnom vremenu tijekom interakcije s okolinom vrlo je mala. Subjektivni doživljaj i znanje koje se njime generira uglavnom nastaje nadopunjavanjem informacija dobivenim iz okoline s podacima koji su već zabilježeni u arhitekturi našeg mozga – s prijašnjim znanjem. To je slično kao i način na koji iPhone generira fotografiju – ima ugrađen algoritam koji prolazi kroz sve podatke, slike koje su u njemu pohranjene, te pomoću tih informacija nadopunjuje tj. generira sliku jer je leća slabe kvalitete. Ti algoritmi napravljeni su na tragu bioloških pro-cesa. Znači, mi imamo osjećaj da konzumiramo stvarnost kao klasičan fotoaparat – stvarnost je vani, a mi je registriramo unutra, kao objektivnu sliku onoga sto je vani. No, proces je potpuno drugačiji. Mozak funkcionira na način da se pri per-cepciji određenih podražaja lokalizirano aktiviraju specifični dijelovi unutar njega. Crveni krug aktivirat će jedan dio mozga, dok će percepcija lica aktivirati drugu lokaciju. Flicker, titraj ili

bljesak svjetla koji koristim u mnogim radovima je vremensko-vizualna ili vremensko-prostorna jedinica našeg okoliša. Kada je naš mozak suočen s flickerom, on ne zna gdje da pošalje signal i suočava nas s granicama mogućnosti mozga po pitanju percepcije i obrade podataka. Zanimljivo je da algoritmi koji se koriste za prepoznavanje vizualnih objekata u situacijama kada su suočeni s noiseom – vizualnim šumom, slikom bez sadržaja – također izmisle, haluciniraju sadržaj.ORIS — Da, zanimljivo je vidjeti kako se isti fenomeni pojav-ljuju i kod bioloških organizima i kod digitalnih entiteta. Na neki način, dio Vaših radova bavi se procjepima između fizičke i psihičke percepcije, odnosno učincima neočekivanih, nepo-znatih podražaja. ¶ ivana franke — Grupa mojih radova bavi se viđenjem stvari koje nisu tamo, odnosno nečim što vidimo, ali to ne postoji na tom fizičkom mjestu i ne može se izmjeriti. Može ih se nazvati kvazihalucinacijama. Halucinacije se najčešće pojavljuju u patološkim slučajevima ili pod utjeca-jem droga, pripisuju se drugačijim stanjima svijesti, nečem što se nalazi izvan stvarnog ili normalnog. Moj je argument da je svaki doživljaj stvaran i legitiman, budući da ne postoji ade-kvatan način na koji bismo objektivno mogli razlikovati stvarno od nestvarnog u smislu istinitog i iluzornog. Vezano za projekt Seeing with Eyes Closed, zanimljiv je način na koji se pojavljuju

research talk precisely about the ways we construct what we experience and what we see. This is the basis of your work. ¶ ivana franke — Neuroscience is a young science, and it seems to me that it has not yet come up with the basis for final conclusions. What is interesting is that it is about an infinitely large unexplored area of the brain and the consciousness. The amount of information that we, human beings, can process in real time during an interaction with the environment is very small. The subjective experience and knowledge generated by it mainly arises by complementing the information obtained from the environment with the data we have already recorded in the architecture of the brain – with prior knowledge. It is similar to the way the iPhone generates a photo. The iPhone has a built-in algorithm that runs through all data – images that are stored in it, and uses this information to complement, that is, to generate an image as its lens is of poor quality. These algorithms are designed in the vein of biological processes. That is to say, we have a feeling of consuming the reality like a classic camera – the reality is out there, and we register it as an objective picture of what is out there. Nevertheless, the process is completely different. The brain functions in the way that the perception of certain stimuli locally activates specific parts inside it. A red circle will activate one part of the brain,

while the perception of a face will activate another part. A flicker or a flash of light I have used in a number of my works is a temporal-visual or temporal-spatial unit of our environ-ment. When our brain is faced with a flicker, it does not know where to send the signal to, and confronts us with the limits of our brain in terms of perception and processing of data. Interestingly, the algorithms used to identify visual objects in situations when we are faced with noise – visual noise, a pic-ture with no content – invent, hallucinate a content as well.ORIS — Yes, it is interesting to see how the same phenom-ena appear in both biological organisms and digital enti-ties. In a way, part of your works deals with gaps between the physical and mental perceptions, that is, the effects of unexpected, unknown stimuli. ¶ ivana franke — A group of my works deals with seeing things that are not there, that is, with something that we see, but that does not exist in that physical place, and cannot be measured. We can call it a quasi-hallucination. Hallucinations most often occur in pathological cases or under the influence of drugs, they are attributed to a different state of consciousness, something that is beyond the real, or normal. My argument is that every experience is real and legitimate, for there is no adequate way in which we could objectively distinguish between the real and the unreal

Frameworks, u suradnji s P. Miškovićem,

L. Pelivan, T. Plejićem, 2004.

Frameworks, collaboration with P. Mišković, L. Pelivan,

T. Plejić, 2004

(rl)

Room for Running Ghosts, 2011.

Room for Running Ghosts, 2011

(sa)


fenomeni kvazihalucinacija izazvanih bljeskajućim svjetlom i zašto su takvi kakvi jesu. Neuroznanstvenica Ida Momenne-jad, koja je sudjelovala u projektu, istraživala je komparacije teorija koje postoje o tome i analizirala kvazieksperimente. Različitim frekvencijama svjetla kod različitih ljudi aktiviraju se različiti putevi u mozgu, što izaziva te kvazihalucinacije. Ovisno o tome koji putevi se aktiviraju, pojavljuju se drugačije slike. Kod većine ljudi to bi bio primarni vizualni korteks koji je vezan uz percepciju osnovnih oblika, pokreta i boja, ali kod određenog broja ljudi aktiviraju se drugi putevi. Doživljaj je percepcija kompleksnih, često figurativnih scena.ORIS — Kad ste počeli raditi taj rad upotrebljavali ste apa-raturu koja se koristi pri tretiranju epileptičara. ¶ ivana franke — Koristila sam Intermittent Photic Stimulator – stroboskop koji se koristi za dijagnosticiranje fotosenzitivne epilepsije. Njime se aktiviraju epileptični napadi kako bi se mogli snimiti na eeg-u. Nuspojava tog procesa viđenje je slika u pokretu tj. kvazihalucinacije.ORIS — Mogu li možda neki od Vaših radova voditi prema eksperimentalnom istraživanju i prozivoditi nova znanja? Kao što Vi koristite znanost, može li znanost učiti od umjetničkih radova na jedan gotovo izravan način? ¶ ivana franke — U kolovozu sam sudjelovala na ecvp-u – Europskoj konferenciji vizualne percepcije, gdje sam u suradnji s Bilgeom Sayimom, koji se bavi vizualnom znanošću, predstavila dva znanstvena rada te izložila jednu malu instalaciju. Ideja je da pomoću saznanja iz svoje prakse, naravno, zajedno sa znanstvenicima iz discipline, artikuliramo argumente koji su relevantni i novi unutar znan-stvenog diskursa. Zanima me redefinicija perceptivne stvarnosti. Najvažnija je analiza kognitivnih procesa kroz eksperimentalnu psihologiju koji vežu perceptivne procese s procesima koje nazi-vamo proširivanjem znanja. Planiramo sudjelovati na konferen-ciji Science of Consciousness sljedeće godine u Arizoni.ORIS — Vaši radovi često nastaju u zajedništvu koje, uz intelektualni i kreativni rad, uključuje i intuitivne, psihološke ili poetske razmjene. Što Vam je važno u tim dinamikama

razmjene? Oslanjanje na nečije znanje, na nečiji osjećaj, na samu interakciju? ¶ ivana franke — Za mene je neophodno ostvariti akitvni dijalog s ljudima iz drugih područja koji rade na istim problemima kao i ja, ali im pristupaju iz drugačije per-spektive. Mislim da je ono što nas najviše veseli i što generira nove ideje strast prema određenom problemu ili pitanju. Ti razgovori i česte suradnje također mi pružaju mogućnost da vidim svoj rad iz drugih kuteva, kao i da artikuliram ili potvrdim svoje intuitivne uvide. Često surađujem s arhitektima čija je praksa po definiciji kolaborativna te sam od njih puno nau-čila o dinamici interakcija – koje sigurno uključuju sve što ste spomenuli, i više. Spomenula bih značajne suradnje s Petrom Miškovićem, Studiom Up, 3lhd-om...ORIS — Govorili smo o percepciji. No, što su materijali Vaših radova? ¶ ivana franke — Čovjek i prostor? Na neki način modificiram situaciju koja uvjetuje doživljaj, modificiram odre-đeni prostor i njegove vizualne i prostorne karakteristike, naj-češće pomoću svjetla, i često prozirnih materijala, s obzirom na afekt ili osjetilni efekt koji on može proizvesti u kontaktu s posjetiteljem, kao i posljedični kognitivni proces. Uglav-nom, krećem od određenih fenomena koje mogu primijetiti u svakodnevnom životu, u okolini, a koji su rubni fenomeni koje često filtriramo iz vidokruga neobraćanjem pažnje. Jedan fenomen s kojim radim je specular highlight – shine ili reflek-sija, ali ne refleksija slike, nego refleksija u smislu apsolutne plohe, refleksija svjetla koju možemo vidjeti na svim sjajnim predmetima oko nas. Ona se ne ponaša kao dio objekta, kao što se ponašaju npr. boje ili tonovi, nego se čini kao da ima život za sebe. Ona zapravo skače s jednog objekta na drugi, pri čemu zadržava sličan intenzitet svjetla. Grupiranje highli-ghta stvara fenomen koji se u vizualnim znanostima zove animacy – objekt koji gledamo dobiva karakteristike živog bića. Također, radi se o doživljaju koji je perceptivno stvaran: jasno vidimo to što vidimo, no kognitivno nestvaran – ne možemo ga interpetirati budući da ne postoje kategorije iz vanjskog svijeta koje su ubilježene u našem perceptivnom sustavu pomoću kojih bismo to što vidimo mogli karakterizi-rati i definirati, imenovati. Također, kretanje tog nepostojećeg objekta ne slijedi zakone kretanja objekata na koje smo navikli. Radi se o nemogućem objektu koji izaziva percepcijsku zago-netnost (perceptual mysteriousness). Drugi bi bio fenomen refleksije slika iz okoline na staklu, odnosno transparentnim sjajnim materijalima, koje sadrže informacije o drugom mjestu, ali istovremeno i informacije o istom mjestu. To je fenomen koji nazivam vizualnim odjecima (visual echoes), uvijek je pri-sutan u okolini, ali ga filtriramo iz vidnog polja budući da nema praktičnu funkciju, postoji kao noise itd...

in terms of true and illusory. In connection with the project, Seeing with Eyes Closed, what is interesting is the way in which the phenomena of quasi-hallucinations induced by flashing appear, and why they are the way they are. Ida Momennejad, a neuroscientist who participated in the project, studied the comparisons of theories that exist about it, and analyzed the quasi-experiments. In different people, different frequencies of light activate different pathways in their brains, causing these quasi-hallucinations. Depending on which paths are activated, different images appear. For most people, this would be the primary visual cortex, which is linked to the per-ception of basic shapes, movements and colors; in a number of people, however, other paths are triggered, their experience is a perception of complex, often figurative scenes.ORIS — When you started to work on this work, you used an apparatus that is normally used in the treatment of epilepsy. ¶ ivana franke — I used the Intermittent Photic Stimula-tor, a stroboscope used to diagnose photosensitive epilepsy. It triggers epileptic seizures so that they can be recorded on the eeg. Seeing moving pictures, or quasi-hallucinations, is a side effect of this process.ORIS — Can some of your works lead to experimental research and generate new knowledge? As you use science yourself, is it possible for science to learn from works of art in an almost direct way? ¶ ivana franke — In August, I par-ticipated at the ecvp, the European Conference on Visual Perception, where, in collaboration with Bilge Sayim, a vision scientist, I presented two scientific papers, and exhibited a small installation. The idea is, by using the knowledge from our practice, of course, together with scientists from that discipline, to articulate arguments that are relevant and novel for the scientific discourse. I am interested in rede-fining the perception of reality. The most important thing is the analysis, by means of experimental psychology, of cognitive processes that connect perceptual processes with processes we call the expanding of knowledge. Next year, we

are planning to participate in the Science of Consciousness conference in Arizona.ORIS — Your works are often created in participation with others, which, along with intellectual and creative work, also includes intuitive, psychological or poetic exchanges. What is important to you in these dynamics of exchange? Relying on one’s knowledge, on one’s feeling, on the interaction itself? ¶ ivana franke — For me, it is necessary to realize an active dialogue with people from other areas who are working on the same problems as me, but who access these problems from a different perspective. I think that what makes us most happy, and what generates new ideas, is our passion for a particular issue or question. For me, these conversations and frequent collaborations are also an opportunity to see my work from other angles, as well as to articulate or confirm my intuitive insights. I often collaborate with architects whose practices are collaborative by definition. I have learned a lot from them about the dynamics of interactions – which certainly includes everything you have mentioned, even more. I would like to mention the significant collaborations with Petar Mišković, Studio Up, 3lhd, etc.ORIS — We were talking about perception. But what are the materials of your works? ¶ ivana franke — Man and space? I modify, to a certain extent, a situation that conditions the experience. I modify a certain space and its visual and spatial characteristics, most often by means of light and, frequently, translucent materials, with regard to emotion or sensory effect which it can produce in contact with the viewer, as well as the consequent cognitive process. Basically, I start with certain phe-nomena which I can perceive in everyday life, in the environ-ment; these are marginal phenomena which we often filter out of sight by not paying attention. One phenomenon I work with is the specular highlight - shine or reflection - not reflections of an image, but the reflection in terms of absolute plane, the reflection of light that we see on all shiny objects that surround us. It does not act as part of the object, as for instance, colors or tones do, it rather seems as if it has a life of itself. Actually, it jumps from one object to another, while maintaining a similar intensity of light. Grouping the highlights creates a phenom-enon that is called animacy in visual sciences – the object we see acquires the characteristics of a living being. It is also about an experience which is perceptually real, we clearly see what we see, but cognitively unreal – we cannot interpret it for there are no categories in the outside world that were recorded in our perceptual system, and by which we could characterize what we see, and thus define it, name it. Also, the movement of this nonexistent object does not follow the laws of motion of the

Krećem od određenih rubnih fenomena koje mogu primijetiti u svakodnevnom životu, u okolini, a koje često filtriramo iz vidokruga

I start with certain marginal phenomena which I can perceive in everyday life, in the environment, which we often filter out of sight


ORIS — Pomišljam na dva rada s refleksijama – jedan je Latency s Venecijanskog bijenala, a dugi je Sky Carpet iz Umjet-ničkog paviljona u Zagrebu. ¶ ivana franke — Latency (Sala Luzzatto) je izveden kao opna od pleksiglasa unutar prostora Carla Scarpe. Ideja je bila pojačavanje Scarpine osnovne ideje prožimanja vanjskog i unutarnjeg prostora. Fantastična arhi-tektura nije mijenjana, nego je ostavljena kao osnova i kao prvi vidljivi sloj (layer), a dodan mu je sloj refleksije vanjskog pro-stora. Sky Carpet također otvara novi prostor unutar postoje-ćeg. Na cijelom podu postavljam foliju koja je donekle valovita i reflektira svjetlost s nadsvjetla koje je manipulirano na taj način da uvijek daje sličnu razinu rasvjete na razini sumraka i stvara bazenčić ispod svake osobe. Odraz je slijedi, tako da hoda po vodi.

objects to which we are accustomed. It is an impossible object that causes perceptual mysteriousness. The second one would be the phenomenon of the reflection of images from our envi-ronment on glass or other transparent glossy materials that contain information about another place, but also about the same place at the same time. It is a phenomenon I call visual echoes. It is always present in the environment, but we filter it out of the field of view because it has no practical function, it only exists as noise etc.ORIS — I can think of two works dealing with reflections – one of them is the Latency from the Venice Biennale, and the other one is the Sky Carpet from the Art Pavilion in Zagreb. ¶ ivana franke — The Latency (Sala Luzatto) was designed as a plexiglass membrane inside the Carlo Scarpa’s space. The idea was to boost Scarpa’s basic idea of fusing the exterior and interior space. The fantastic architecture was not modified, but left as the base and the first visible layer, and the reflection layer of the exterior space was added to it. The Sky Carpet also opens a new space within the existing one. I lay a thin film, which is slightly wavy, onto the entire floor. The film reflects the light from the skylight that is manipulated in the way that it always gives a similar level of lighting at the level of dusk, thus creating a little pond below each person. The reflection follows them so that they walk on water.ORIS — Both works are situated in quite specific archi-tectural spaces. One of them is Carlo Scarpa’s modernist intervention in a historic environment, the other one is the eclectic Art Pavilion in Zagreb. How important to you are the properties of space itself when you start working? Do you conceive a concept or topic of the work beforehand, and then start looking for a space, or does the space condition the con-cept of your work? Or their symbiosis and relationship occur through the process of development of the project? ¶ ivana franke — One group of my works is basically related to the architecture within which it resides, and is constructed on the principle of symbiosis with those spaces. Another group of my works completely abolishes space, for instance, if I create com-plete darkness, although architecture always frames the work.ORIS — A good example of this first symbiotic principle is the work for the Museum of Hunting and Nature (Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature) in Paris. ¶ ivana franke — It is a really unique, curious and surreal museum, which hosts a permanent exhibition of works of art of the twentieth century, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and stuffed animals.ORIS — Like a cabinet of curiosities, a Wunderkammer. ¶ ivana franke — Inside the museum, I displayed an instal-lation titled, Wand, which adds another level of curiosity, it

makes it even more mysterious. As a forest made of transpar-ent films that partly reflects the space, multiplying it within itself. The view goes through it, but it also distorts it. In some instances, the installation is completely invisible. It only becomes visible when it physically prevents the movement, while in other moments, it opens other spaces by means of

ORIS — Oba rada nalaze se u specifičnim arhitektonskim prostorima. Jedan je modernistička intervencija Carla Scarpe u povijesnom ambijentu, a drugi je eklektički Umjetnički pavi-ljon u Zagrebu. Koliko su Vam bitna sama svojstva prostora kad započinjete raditi? Osmislite li koncepciju ili temu rada pa tražite prostor, ili prostor uvjetuje koncepciju rada? Ili kroz razvoj projekta dolazi do njihove simbioze i odnosa? ¶ ivana franke — Jedna grupa mojih radova u osnovi je vezana za arhitekturu unutar koje se nalazi i građena je na principu simbioze s tim prostorima. Druga grupa radova u potpunosti dokida prostor, primjerice ako stvaram potpuni mrak, iako je arhitektura uvijek okvir rada.ORIS — Dobar primjer ovog prvog simbiotičkog principa je rad za Muzej lova i prirode u Parizu. ¶ ivana franke — To je stvarno specifičan, začudan i nadrealan muzej u kojem se u stalnom postavu nalaze umjetnička djela petnaestog, šesna-estog i dvadesetog stoljeća i preparirane životinje.ORIS — Kao kabinet čudesa, Wunderkammer. ¶ ivana franke — Unutar muzeja postavila sam instalaciju Wand

The Wand, 2012.

The Wand, 2012

(if)

Latency (Sala Colonne), 2007.

Latency (Sala Colonne), 2007

(gv)

Latency (Sala Luzatto), 2007.

Latency (Sala Luzatto), 2007

(gv)


koja dodaje još jedan stupanj začudnosti, čini ga još mistič-nijim; kao šuma od prozirnih folija koja djelomično reflektira prostor i umnožava ga samog u sebe. Pogled prolazi kroz nju, ali ga i iskrivljuje. U nekim trenucima instalacija je u potpunosti nevidljiva, postaje vidljiva tek kada fizički spriječi kretanje, a u nekim otvara druge prostore pomoću odraza. Ovisno o razini rasvjete reflektiraju se slike koje su iza ili sa strane, a koje se preklapaju s odrazom promatrača. Postoji više razina slike koje su simultano prisutne.ORIS — U situacijama kada stvarate potpuni mrak, čemu služi ukidanje prostora? ¶ ivana franke — Stvaranju novog prostora.ORIS — To je ono što smo mi nazvali prostor naprema uprostorenju. Ukineš prostor i onda uprostoriš određenu ideju, koncept kroz neki novi medij. Svjetlo i refleksija tu se pojavljuju kao materijal. Jako je velika dinamika unutar Vaših prostora koji su dokinuti. Moji doživljaji većine tih radova su takvi da je stanje u koje te oni dovode izuzetno dina-mično i stalno promjenjivo. Takav je rad bio Latency (Sala Colonne) u Palazzu Querini Stampalia u Veneciji. ¶ ivana franke — Prostor naprema uprostorenju koncepta izvrsna je

definicija. U radu Latency radi se o potpunoj izolaciji highlight fenomena i prostor je dokinut u potpunosti da bi perceptivni efekt bio precizan. Taj tip radova može se izvesti i u prostoru koji nije potpuno mračan, ali stvara drugi tip doživljaja i dina-mike. Dokidanje prostora doprinosi pojačavanju intenziteta ciljanog aspekta vizualno-prostornog doživljaja.ORIS — Neki radovi započeti su kao prostorni modeli koji se promatraju kao objekti da bi u daljnjoj nadgradnji postali ambijenti koji preuzmu i prostor i posjetitelja. ¶ ivana franke — Ti modeli su mentalne vježbe i istraživanje razli-čitih prostornih koncepcija koje koristim – i modeli i crteži, koji ne funkcioniraju na istom principu doživljaja kao instalacije i veći ambijenti. Velik broj tih radova bavi se idejama prostora, npr. multidimenzionalnog prostora koji na perceptivnoj razini ne daju informaciju koja je vezana za te dimenzije. Postoji razlika između koncepcije i doživljaja, a pogotovo u odnosu na percepciju dimenzija. Puno sam radila s multistabilnom percepcijom (multistable perception).ORIS — Koja je to razlika između teorija i aplikacije? Što se događa kad se matematička teorija preseli u percipirajući objekt? ¶ ivana franke — Prostorne prakse i metodologije danas su uključene u mnoge discipline – arhitekturu, zemljopis, matematiku, statistiku, psihologiju – kao različiti kognitivni koncepti. Mentalne reprezentacije prostora i prostornih kon-cepata sve su kompleksnije i potrebno je istražiti odnos fizičkog doživljaja i različitih reprezentacija, te njihova ispreplitanja. U velikom broju navedenih disciplina mentalno se koristimo s višim dimenzijama, dok smo doživljajno skučeni na 3 + 1. Repre-zentacije viših dimenzija su kontraintuitivne u fizičkom smislu.ORIS — Kako to primjenjujete na pitanja percepcije? ¶ ivana

reflection. Depending on the level of light, images which are behind or on the side, and which overlap with the reflection of the viewer are reflected. There are multiple levels of images that are simultaneously present.ORIS — In situations where you create complete darkness, what is the purpose of the elimination of space? ¶ ivana franke — A creation of new space.ORIS — It is what we call space vs. spatialization. You anni-hilate the space, and then you spatialize a certain idea, a con-cept through a new medium. Here the light and the reflection emerge as a material. There is a great dynamics within your spaces that are eliminated. My own experience of most of these works is that they lead you to a state that is extremely dynamic and constantly changing. One such work was the Latency (Sala Colonne) at the Palazzo Querini Stampalia in Venice. ¶ ivana franke — Space vs. spatialization of concept is an excellent definition. The Latency was about a complete iso-lation of the highlight phenomenon; the space was eliminated completely to make the perceptual effect precise. That type of work can also be done in a space which is not completely dark, but creates another type of experience and dynamics. The

elimination of space contributes to reinforcing the intensity of the targeted aspect of the visual-spatial experience.ORIS — Some of the works started as spatial models that were viewed as objects, only to become environments that took over the space and the viewer in a further upgrade. ¶ ivana franke — These models are mental exercises, an exploration of various spatial concepts that I use – both mod-els and drawings, which do not operate on the same expe-rience principle as installations and larger environments. A large number of these works deals with the ideas of space, for instance, a multidimensional space, which on the perceived level does not provide information that is related to those dimensions. There is a difference between the concept and the experience, particularly in relation to the perception of dimensions. I have worked a lot with multistable perception.ORIS — What exactly is the difference between the theories and the application? What happens when a mathematical the-ory moves to a perceiving object? ¶ ivana franke — Spatial practices and methodologies are nowadays included as differ-ent cognitive concepts in many disciplines such as architec-ture, geography, mathematics, statistics, psychology. Mental representations of space and spatial concepts are increasingly complex, and it is necessary to explore the relationship between physical experience and different representations, as well their intertwining. In a large number of these disciplines, we deal mentally with higher dimensions whereas, experientially, we are confined to 3 +1. In the physical sense, the representations of higher dimensions are counter-intuitive.ORIS — How do you apply this to the questions of percep-tion? ¶ ivana franke — The question is whether it is possible

Flicker, titraj ili bljesak svjetla koji koristim u mnogim radovima je vre-mensko-vizualna ili vremensko-pro-storna jedinica našeg okoliša

A flicker or flash of light I have used in a number of my works is a temporal-visual or temporal-spatial unit of our environment

Thinking Dimensions, 2010.

Thinking Dimensions, 2010

(if)


franke — Pitanje jest je li moguće promijeniti i izvježbati percepciju, razviti način gledanja kako bi se više dimenzije isto tako mogle vizualno doživjeti. Tu temu istraživala sam u seriji crteža Thinking Dimensions, te također u projektu Potential Degrees of Freedom. U procesu crtanja matematičkih grafova koji predstavljaju više dimenzije događaju se iskustva vizualnog čitanja viših dimenzija, no one se na kraju pretapaju u određeni uzorak (pattern). Možemo li spojiti konceptualno mišljenje o prostoru viših dimenzija i ono što možemo doživjeti, iskusiti kroz osjetila, za sada je neodgovoreno pitanje. U suradnji s timom znanstvenika počinjem raditi na projektu vizualizacije četverodimenzionalnog tijela u trodimenzionalnom prostoru gdje se nadamo doći do nekih uvida. Koristimo analogiju s pričom Flatland: A romance of many dimensions gdje biće iz 2D svijeta pokušava zamisliti treću i više dimenzije. Na ana-logiji percepcija dimenzija radila sam koristeći multistabilne fenomene u kojima se slika preokreće, prebacuje se iz jednog položaja u drugi: nešto što u jednom trenu vidimo naprijed u drugom se pojavljuje u pozadini. Poziciju onoga koji per-cipira ne možemo kontrolirati ni definirati i ta neodređenost

daje dojam postojanja više dimenzija istovremeno. Vezano za taj fenomen razvila sam dosta radova koji se bave odnosom između dvije, tri, četiri dimenzije.ORIS — Koji su to konkretni primjeri? ¶ ivana franke — U radu Frame of Reference krenula sam od dvodimenzionalnih reprezentacija kocke: aksonometrijske, izometrijske i perspek-tivne, i iz tih crteža izvela sam pravila za konstrukciju trodimen-zionalnih objekata. Kada gledamo crtež bilo kojeg od tih dvodi-menzionalnih načina prikazivanja, vidimo, odnosno razumijemo kocku. Kada se crteži doslovno oprostore, dobivamo objekte čije forme mentalno ne povezujemo s kockom. No, budući da su izrađeni od pleksiglasa i prozirni, s otisnutim crtežima pojavljuje se fenomen multistabilne percepcije, te ih – trodimenzionalne objekte – ponovno vidimo kao 2D prikaze kocke. Dakle, broj dimenzija koje vidimo i koje su prisutne te naša interpretacija objekta slijede drugačija pravila nego u svakodnevnici, odnosno čine ta pravila vidljivim kao mentalnu konstrukciju.ORIS — No, Vi idete dalje od problematike odnosa samog prostora i njegove reprezentacije. I optički efekti u Vašim radovima nisu sami sebi svrha, oni imaju jedan drugi smisao.

to change and practice perception, to develop a way of looking so as to be able to also visually experience higher dimensions. I was exploring that topic in a series of drawings titled Thinking Dimensions, as well as in the project titled Potential Degrees of Freedom. In the process of drawing mathematical graphs rep-resenting higher dimensions there have been experiences of visual reading of higher dimensions, but they eventually blend into a certain pattern. It has so far been an unanswered ques-tion whether we can connect conceptual thinking about a space of higher dimensions with what we can experience – perceive through the senses. In cooperation with a team of scientists, I have begun working on a project of visualization of a four-dimensional body in a three-dimensional space where we hope to get some insight. We use the analogy with a novella titled, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, where a being from the two-dimensional world tries to imagine the third and higher dimensions. When working on the analogy of perceptions of dimensions I used multistable phenomena. The image flips, switches from one position to another – something that we see in the front in one point emerges in the background in another.

We can neither control nor define the position of the perceiver, and this ambiguity gives an impression of several dimensions simultaneously. With regard to that phenomenon, I developed a number of works which deal with the relationship between two, three or four dimensions.ORIS — Can you name some specific examples? ¶ ivana franke — In a work titled, Frame of Reference, I started off with two-dimensional representations of a cube: axonometric, isometric and perspective, and from these drawings I derived rules for the construction of three-dimensional objects. When we look at a drawing of any of these two-dimensional rep-resentation modes, we see, that is, we understand a cube. When the drawings are spatialized, literally, what we obtain are objects which forms we do not mentally associate with a cube. However, since they are made of plexiglass and are transparent, inprinted with drawings, a phenomenon of multi-stable perception occurs, and we again see them – the three-dimensional objects – as the two-dimensional representation of a cube. Thus the number of dimensions that we see and that are present, and our interpretation of the object follow

Frame of Reference,

2006.

Frame of Reference,

2006

(cv)

Potential Degrees of Freedom, 2014.

Potential Degrees of Freedom, 2014

(if)


¶ ivana franke — Tehnički, osnovna tema mog istraži-vanja je odnos percepcije i mišljenja ili spoznaje, primarno unutar područja estetskog iskustva, te prostornih i vizualnih okvira. Zanima me tema odnosa između pitanja što vidim? i što to znači?, odnosno proces iščitavanja značenja iz onoga što vidimo. Taj proces čitanja značenja iz osjetilnih, vizualnih i prostornih informacija koje su nam realno dostupne u najvećoj je mjeri automatski i transparentan, nismo ga svjesni i to nam omogućava nesmetano funkcioniranje u svakodnevnom životu, no također nas intelektualno ograničava. Fokus mojih istraživa-nja su iskustva – situacije i fenomeni koji se pojavljuju na rubo-vima naše vizualne i prostorne percepcije u kojima taj proces postaje vidljiv jer ne možemo automatski iščitati značenje. To su često vizualni podražaji koji nam se čine efemernima, dvo-smislenima, ili tajanstvenima – perceptivno su jasni, no kogni-tivno zagonetni, odnosno logički nemogući te potiču sumnju u točnost vlastite percepcije. Radi se o promatranju svijeta s ruba, s granice našeg kapaciteta gledanja, gdje ono što obično ne možemo vidjeti ulazi u kadar kao osjećaj, halucinacija, prazan prostor, intuicija, vrtoglavica. To su pojave koje imaju potencijal otvoriti naše umove prema nepoznatom, drugom.ORIS — Gdje nas vodi taj pogled s ruba, o kakvim je uvi-dima riječ? ¶ ivana franke — Ono što nazivamo stvarnost dostupno nam je kroz svjesno iskustvo koje uključuje opažanje, imaginaciju, mišljenje, akcije, i to kroz vrlo kratko vrijeme koje provedemo na Zemlji. Ono je u potpunosti uvjetovano našim biološkim organizmom i okolinom te promjenama unutar njih. Ipak, unutar tog ograničenog pogleda na svijet, u pojedinim trenucima dobivamo uvid u to da postoje bezbrojne druge stvarnosti i svjetovi koji nam nisu direktno dostupni, no s kojima smo povezani na nepojmljivo kompleksne načine, s kojima koegzistiramo, dijelimo prisutnost. Također su nam dostupna iskustva postojanja prostora nemjerljivih, kozmičkih razmjera. Ja bih ta iskustva nazvala uvidima u stvarnost te iz te perspektive krenula dalje razmišljati o organizaciji života u društvu na Zemlji.

different rules than in everyday life, that is, they make those rules visible as a mental construct.ORIS — But you go beyond the problems of the relationship between the space itself and its representation. The optical effects in your work are also not an end in themselves, they have a different meaning. ¶ ivana franke — Technically, the main topic of my research is the relationship between per-ception and thinking or cognition, primarily within the field of aesthetic experience, as well as spatial and visual frameworks. I am interested in the relationship between the questions, What do I see? and What does that mean?, that is, in the process of extracting the meaning from what we see. The process of extracting the meaning from sensory visual and spatial infor-mation which is realistically available is largely automatic and transparent. We are unaware of it, which allows us to func-tion smoothly in daily life, but it also limits us intellectually. The focus of my research are the experiences—the situations and phenomena—that emerge at the edges of our visual and spatial perceptions, at which that process becomes visible, because we cannot read the meaning automatically. These are often visual stimuli that seem ephemeral, ambiguous, or mysterious to us – they are clear, perceptively, but cogni-tively, they are enigmatic, that is, logically impossible, thus raising doubt as to the accuracy of their own perception. It is about viewing the world from the edge, from the limit of our viewing capacity, where what we usually cannot see enters the picture as a feeling, hallucination, empty space, intuition, vertigo. They are all phenomena with a potential to open our minds to the unknown, to the other.ORIS — Where does this view from the edge lead us to? What insights does it offer us? ¶ ivana franke — What we call reality is available to us through conscious experience which comprises observation, imagination, thinking, action, namely, through this very short period of time we spend on the Earth. It is completely conditioned by our biological organisms and the environment, and by changes within them. Nevertheless, within that limited view of the world, at certain moments we get insight into these countless other realities and worlds which are not directly available to us, but with which we are linked in inconceivably complex ways, with which we coexist and share our presence. Also available to us are the experi-ences of existence of spaces of immeasurable, cosmic scales. I would call such experiences insights into reality, and from that perspective I would proceed to think about the organization of life in society on the Earth.

ivana franke The Relation of Perception and Thinking · 2017. 3. 24. · portreti portraits Damil...

Documents

Transcript of ivana franke The Relation of Perception and Thinking · 2017. 3. 24. · portreti portraits Damil...