The Living Screen project produces new poetics, made possible by fusing bio-technology into a living cinematic apparatus. It embodies and anticipates renewed cinematic techniques and modes of expression, while also offering an alternative approach to understanding Bio-Art, which is, ‘Bio-Art as a Freak Show’.
The project examines early cinema history and brings film theory into play to approach ones engagement with a Bio-Kino. Screens are grown or scavenged from different tissue sources and nano-movies are projected over these living canvases, via the bio-projector. (The projection is 25-50 µ (microns) in size).
The Living Screen is a new species, a living cinematic apparatus. When we gaze through it, we are engaging with a machine-organism. This work is a research and development project exploring what occurs when we cinematically engage with a living screen. It employs film theory to bring into question ones spectatorship with Bio-Kino.
The screens are alive, transform, react and change over time and eventually die. Therefore, it contorts the projected nano-movie in unknown ways, and confront the spectators with issues such as life, death, virtuality and reality.
There are four elements to the Living Screen project:
1. The bio - projector is the machinery of the cinematic apparatus that includes the projector device, the microscope and the optical lenses.
2. The Living Screen functions as part of the cinematic apparatus. Different types of screens, prepared and obtained from varying tissue cultures, are projected onto the screen, each one of them symbolic in a different way. The properties of these screens inform the content of the projected nano-movies.
3. The nano-movies conceptually link the living screen that they are being projected onto.
4. The spectator is you. When you peer through the bio-projector, and gaze at the nano-movie being projected onto the Living Screen, you become the final ingredient in this Bio-Kino apparatus.
The combination of film theory and bio-art is as of yet unexplored from our particular approach. In overlaying digital pixels over biological pixels we intend to explore the tension between the inanimate and the animate and the digital versus the biological. We hope that spectators will undergo a powerful engagement with the living screen. This projection chooses the raw, fleshy, unprocessed aesthetics over the hyperrealism of the digital.
The Living Screen has many connections to primitive cinema, early motion pictures that pre-date 1905 that fall under the category of the ‘cinema of attractions’. Tom Gunning defines the ‘cinema of attractions’ as a form of confrontation that addresses the audience directly. “Rather than being an involvement with narrative action or empathy with character psychology, the cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious awareness of the film image engaging with the viewers’ curiosity.”
The screens will transform, react and change over time and eventually die. This is the confrontation that the spectator must face. “Confrontation rules the ‘cinema of attractions’ in both the form of its films and their mode of exhibition. The directness of this act of display allows an emphasis of the thrill itself – the immediate reaction of the viewer.” What thrill will the spectator receive when it clearly confronts the spectator about life and death.
Ms Tania Visosevic
Mr Guy Ben Ary
Mr Bruce Murphy