film review worth \NENNE 2 BEST SUPPORT ING pcreess: GWYNETHS BREASTS WLNNEE- BE sv RIFT WLNNEK~ BES NWiove. -fOMEDY words by Tara DeLong - “| You say Anoptic | say (P)anoptic: rf Lets Call the Whole Thing Off by: Demian Petryshyn Anoptic, is the title of the latest show at the Western Front gallery and the first installation of ~scope, a year long exhibitions project focusing on experimental film at the Front. This film installation represents the collaborative effort of Derrick Barnett and Jonathan Middleton- two recent grads from Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design (E.C.1.A.D.). Anoptic, deals with issues of surveillance and spec- tacle. Upon entering the space, at the Front, one is confront- -ed with a ten foot high, projected, image of a surveillance camera. The image is a ten second loop of 35mm footage transferred to VHS. The first reference that springs to mind when one sees this work is Foucault’s Panoptic theory. However, what we are actually witnessing is a surveillance camera being surveilled. This inversion offers a new perspec- tive on the internalization of surveillance. Barnett and Middleton speak about the relation- ship between the surveillance camera and the 35mm camera in terms of a confrontation of power. The agency of these two devises lie in their scopic fields of view. Because both cameras appear in the others view a type of "dog fight" occurs; with no victor. The agency or power of the surveillance camera and the 35m camera stem from the power of surveillance and spectacle respectively. However, due to Barnett and Middleton’s placement of these two devices, in relation to each other, both the activities of surveillance and spectacle are diffused. Normally when one stands in front of a surveil- lance camera one is being surveilled. There is a knowledge that there may be someone watching on the other end. This knowledge leads to a self editing of action or self discipline. Barnett and Middleton (BM) write, "there is failure of power in the security camera’s inability to witness the audience of the film, the audience loses the sense of being watched as they have come to be spectators." Similarly, the power of the 35mm camera which resides in spectacle is also defeated. "Film, particularly the 35mm format commonly used in Hollywood, has the capacity to endow everyday objects and events with importance. Film is beautiful, labor intensive and financially demanding"(BM). The spectacle of film is defeated in Anoptic through the use of alienation devices. Some examples are the medium of projec- tion, the use of minimalism in the installation and humour. For the purposes of this installation Barnett and Middleton have chosen to transfer the 35mm footage to VHS, for projec- tion. Because of this the image quality suffers and the audi- ence becomes acutely aware of the nature of the image they are viewing. This awareness manifests a degree of displeasure that works against the spectacle of the projected image. This show also pays homage to a minimalist approach. Despite the complexity of a projected image, the gallery space is spartan. This absence of distraction allows the audience to better focus on the image but also has the effect of investing the space with elevated importance. The use of minimalism in this installation makes the audience consider themselves and their physical relation to the work. This self. - awareness defeats the element of spectacle that "carries us away". It is certainly an experience that is contrary to that of a traditional 35mm film experience. Another element that should not be ignored in this work is humour. The notion of surveilling a surveillance device is, in my opinion, funny. Also the use of 35mm film to capture such a banal and static image suggests a high degree of disproportionality; considering the cost and labor intensity of the medium. This is also funny. Initially, one sees the joke and laughs, however, after the realization of humor occurs a realization of the failure of the work to be spectacular follows. The humor first attracts us but then leaves us with the feeling that the work is wholly un-spectacular. It.is clear at this point that Barnett and Middleton are not only tackling the specta- cle of film but also of the "art show". In the end Anoptic, fails to provide the audience with a sense of spectacle or of being surveilled. The manifes- tations of power for both the cameras in the show are disman- tled. However, this work does not fail in bringing another per- spective to the oft traveled road of panopticisim and surveil- lance. The show is well worth seeing and I would suggest everyone take the short bus ride down to the Front and check it out. I should also mention that the poster for the show is also worth a look; it contains a paper written by Clint Examining Anoptic, the first of a series of experimental film exhibitions at the Front. Burnham which informs the show and brings yet another per- spective to the discourse of surveillance. One thing he sug- gests, is that by even reading something, like this article, you are, in some way, being surveilled. As mentioned earlier, both Barnett and Middleton are recent graduates of E.C.I.A.D.. Since leaving this school both have been active in the art community and beyond. Barnett has been spending his time doing graphic design; we can look forward to seeing more of his work in Clint Burnham’s upcoming book. Middleton has been showing his film Superhero, at various festivals Including the Vancouver and Chicago international film festivals. This is not to say that Barnett brought the design elements to Anoptic and Middleton the filmic. When asked about this they responded that it was a fluid collaboration and that lines could not be drawn where one persons contribution ended and another’s began. It is also interesting to note that when they speak about their collaboration they do not consider it a formal structure but rather a natural evolution of the project. When asked about the experience of showing at the Front, they had nothing but praise for the institution and their co-curators Antonia Hirsch and Fiona Bowie. They did mention, however, that the experience of the opening was a little overwhelming, "they [audience members] can be hating it and standing right next to you." comments Barnett. However, I doubt that this experience has discouraged them at all considering they are thinking about taking this.show "on ‘ the road". So go see it while you can. Anoptic Derek Barnett and Jonathan Middleton January 9 to February 13 Tuesday to Saturday 12 to 5 pm at the Front Gallery 303 East 8th Ave. Influx: Magazine February 1999 23 a film review worth JQQQwords Ore, : Chest oe ret AMIDE R~ BEST SUPPRRT Ne ABN Hunee wees WENNEe-BEST RPT: WiNNee~ BES (20D by Tara DeLong ae ntslo? You say Anoptic | say (P)anoptic: Lets Call the Whole Thing Off ( iia) by: Demian Petryshyn Anopi is de ile of the latest show atthe Western Front gallery and the fist installation of copy a yea long exhibitions project focusing on experimental Sm atthe Front Ths film installation represents the collaborative etfort of Derrick Barnet and Jonathan Middleton- two recent grads from Emily Cart Insite of Ar and Design (E.C.LA D). “Anoptc, deals with issues of surveillance and spec- tacle. Upon entering the space, at the Font, one is conffont- witha ten foot high, projected, image of a surveillance ‘camera, The image is a ten second loop of 35mm footage transferred to VHS, The first reference that springs to mind ‘when one secs this work is Foucault's Panoptic theory However, what we are actualy witnessing sa surveillance ‘camera being surveilled. This inversion offers a new perspec- tive on the internalization of surveillance. Barnct and Middleton speak about the elation ship berwoon the surveillance camera and the 35am camera in terms ofa confrontation of power. The agency of these two. devises le in thee scopic fields of view. Because both cameras appear in the others view a type of "dog ight” curs: with no “The agency or power of the surveillance camera ‘and the 35m camera stem ffom the power of surveillance and Spectacle respectively: However, due to Barnet and “Middleton's placement of these two devices, inflation to ‘ach other, both the activitics of surveillance and spectacle ae diffused. Normally when one stands infront of a surveil lance camera one s being surveiled, There i a knowledge thar there may be someone watching onthe other end. This knowledge leads ta self eiting of action or self discipline ‘Barnett and Middleton (BM) write, “there is failure of power i the security camera's inability ro witness the audience of the film, the audience loses the sense of being Watched a6 they have come to be spectators” Similarly, the power ofthe 35mm camera which resides in spectacle also defeated, "Film, particularly the ‘35mm format commonly used in Hollywood, has the capacity to endow everyday objects and events with importance. Film {s beautiful labor intensive and financially demanding” (BM). “The spectacle of film is defeated in Anoptic through the use of alien devices. Some examples ate the medium of projec tion, the use of minimalism inthe installation and humour, For the purposes of this installation Barnett and Midleton have choven to transfer the 35mm footage to VHS, for proc tion, Because ofthis the image quality suffers and the au tence becomes acutely aware ofthe nature ofthe image they fare viewing, This awareness manifests a degree of displeasure that works against the spectacle ofthe projected image. This show also pays homage to a minimalist approach. Despite the complexity ofa projected image, the tallery spac is spartan. This absence of distraction allows the ftudience ro beter focus on the image but also has the effect of investing the space with elevated importance. The use of ‘minimalism inthis installation makes the audience consider themselves and their physical relation tothe work, This self awareness defeats the element of spectacle that "catis us fas Tei certainly an experience that x conteay to that of 2 traditional 35mm film experience “Another clement that should not be ignored inthis work is humour. The notion of sureilng a surveillance {evi in my opinion, funny. Also the use of 35mm film to fapture such a banal and static image suggests a high degree of disproportional; considering the cost and labor intensity ‘ofthe medium, This i also funny. Initial, one sees the joke and laughs, however, after the realization of humor occurs 2 realization ofthe failure ofthe work to be spectacular follows ‘The humor fist attracts us bus then leaves us with the feling shat the work s wholly un-spectaculae. Tt is lea a this point that Barnett and Middleton are not only tackling the spect cle of fim but ako ofthe "art show” Ta the end Anopic fils to provide the audience swith a sense of spectacle or of being surveilled. The manifes- tations of power for both the cameras in the show are dismar fled. However this work does not fail in bringing another per- spective tothe oft traveled road of panopticisim and surve lance. The show i well worth seeing and I would suggest ‘everyone take the short bus ride down tothe Front and chéck itout. I should also mention thatthe poster for the show is also worth a look it contains a paper Written by Clint Examining Anoptic, the first of a series of experimental film exhibitions at the Front. ‘Burnham which informs the show and brings yet another per- spective tothe discourse of sur ‘ess is that by even reading some fe, in some way, being surveled, ‘As mentioned eater, both Barnett and Middleton are recent graduates of ECLA.D.. Since leaving this school both have been active in the art community and beyond. Barnet has been spending his time doing graphic design; we «ean look forard to seeing more of his workin Clint Burnham's upcoming book. Middleton has been showing his film Superhero, at various festivals Inckuding the Vancouver and Chicago international fil festivals. This is not to say that Barnett brought the design clements to Anoptic and ‘Middleton the filmic. When asked about ths they responded that it was a uid collaboration and that lines could not be sawn where one persons contribution ended and another's ‘began. Is also interesting to note that when they speak about thee collaboration they do not consider ita formal ‘rueture but rather a natural evolution ofthe projet ‘When asked about the experience of showing a the Front, they had nothing bu praise forthe institution and their co-curators Antonia Hirsch and Fiona Bowie. They did mention, however, thatthe experience of the opening was a litle overwhelming, “they (audience members} can be hating itand standing right next to you.” comments Barnet. However, I doubt that this experience has discouraged them aall considering they are thinking about taking thisshow "on the road” So go see it while you can ‘Anoptic Derek Barnett and Jonathan Middleton January 9 to February 13 Tuesday to Saturday 12 to 5 pm at the Front Gallery 303 East Sth Ave. Influx* Magazine February 1999 23