Gabrielle Eglen - Dracula's Software and Kittler's Discourse Media

‘He has eyes in the back of his head …’

Objects in the mirror are (…) than they appear (rubric)

Gabrielle Eglen HTS4 Diploma 11 Dracula's Software and Kittler's Discourse Media Doreen Bernath 2019/20

…… mask

…… stitch

…… split

…… glitch

……

The radical visual perception theories and experiments of the 1980s are revisited to create a new theory of the contemporary

eye(s)

.1

inside’outside

up /

kcab

down

front \

The eye and the body are intertwined. Speed and scale absorbed, back and forth. Motion a generative tool, the gaze is taken for a walk.

A series of quotes are interspersed in the footnotes (as italics), each of these are taken from Hal Foster’s Vision and Visuality and are used to construct the basis upon which the theory of the essay is based.

When referring to the contemporary eye(s), the words ‘the eye(s)’ are detailed in italics. In some cases the reading of the contemporary eye(s) is intertwined with the reference itself, in some cases it should be ambiguous to the reader as to whether the eye(s) is that of the reference or the theory of the contemporary eye(s) itself.

1

“… Such an opening would function as an apparatus of vision - as an eye. And if the window can be an “eye”, then the eye can be a window.” 2

2

Teyssot, G. 2013. Scopic Regimes. 8 Windows and Screens. A Topology of Everyday Constellations. USA: MIT Press, pp. 252.

The window performs “through a double nature”3 , it seals the interior from the exterior whilst allowing a view to penetrate. A static frame that presupposes a controlled exchange, it establishes a position from the observer to the observed to underline the distance between.4 Looking out and looking in, “… the image of the “window” implies a solution of continuity between the ground supporting the observer and that upon which the representation sits.”5 The window composes a stable image, a perspectival view, “an objective account of space”6 according to a codified set of principles. “… the eye can be a window …”

The window, and therefore, the eye as an “apparatus” of vision implies a "process of subjectification”7 , the subject is produced. An understanding of their world is structured from the separation/connection of interior/exterior. The eye is understood in its form as a frame, a distinct set of boundaries are drawn. The function of the frame reasserts its double nature in “closing” the object “off against the surrounding world and holding it together”8, the image is objectified. The frame is a “pareregon”9, the eye simultaneously constructs the view and remains in separation from it. … the static eye s h i f t s …

The window performs along the ‘/’ of the dichotomy of relations. The rigidity of the frame constrains the single perspectival view, one side is always presupposed by an other, the figure is “bound"10 to the interior. This view is deconstructed by the implication of the body11 in motion, the body is a “visual producer”12. The movement of the mobile eye (in-determinant from the body) sets the relations in active motion.

From a topological perspective, a parallel could be drawn to extend the reading of the eye beyond the window to the door. The frame remains central. Another element (the door) mediates across an axis that cuts the axis of the door frame, the image is choreographed and orientated with respect to movement, an ‘in-between’ state is revealed. A site of continual exchange, the movement across the frame introduces an overlapping of the gaze. The representation tentative. The perspective is not consistent nor continuous, the gaze13 is placed in an unstable position.

The emphasis of the ‘framing’ contemporary eye focus’ upon the nature of the border, the tentative space of the ‘in-between’, “any threshold or marginal zone introduces a reciprocal state - it looks two ways at once”.14 3

Ibid. Teyssot, G. Framing the Gaze, pp. 263.

4

Ibid. Teyssot, G. Pp. 255.

5

Damisch, H. 1994. The Prototype. The Origin of Perspective. London: MIT Press, pp. 102.

6

Brown, L. 2019. Introduction. Beckett, Lacan and the Gaze. Germany: Ibidem-Verlag, pp. 11.

7

Agamben, G. 2009. What is an Apparatus? What is an Apparatus? And Other Essays. USA: Stanford University Press, pp. 21.

8

Ibid. Teyssot, G. Pp. 270.

9

Ibid. Teyssot, G. Pp. 252.

10

Crary, J. 1988. Modernizing Vision. Vision and Visuality. USA: Bay Press, pp. 33.

“The privileging of the body as a visual producer began to collapse the distinction between inner and outer upon which the camera obscure depended. Once the objects of vision are coextensive with one’s own body, vision becomes dislocated and depositioned onto a single imminent plane. The bipolar set up vanishes.

Thirdly, subjective vision is found to be distinctly temporal, an unfolding of processes within the body, thus undoing notions of a direct correspondence between perception and object.”

11

12

Ibid. Foster, H. Preface. Pp. xi.

Holm, L. 2010. Preface. Brunelleschi, Lacan, Le Corbusier : Architecture, Space and the Construction of Subjectivity. UK: Routledge, pp. xi.

“The subject functions as a screen upon which images are projected. The screen is triangulated between a focal point of representation and an absent object of desire, more a position than a object.”

13

14

Ibid. Teyssot, G. Pp. 270.

The Eye in ‘Motion’ - the amalgam of the monocular - mask -

binocular

vision

“topsy turvy”15

“feet would walk on the “ceiling”, taps would drip “u

p

w

a

r

d

s.”

”

- the tentative image -

Kohler, I and Erismann, T. 1950. Inversion Goggles. Austria: University of Innsbruck. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jKUVpBJalNQ [Accessed: December 1st, 2019].

15

The eye, as an apparatus, is monocular. Each eye frames a different image. The plural, eyes, “reconcile dissimilar and therefore provisional and tentative images presented to each”.16

G.M. Stratton’s ‘binocular vision goggles’ are an apparatus consisting of a pair of inverted spectacles sealed with black tape. In the self-experiment over a period of eight days, Stratton placed a singular lens over his right eye and covered his left eye with a patch.

The glasses inverted the ‘framed’ image upside-down and left-right. On the fifth day, Stratton found the image to be upright, upon concentrating on it he was able to re-invert it. The brain is presented as malleable, the feedback of the image of the eye is stitched to the other organs of the body. The ‘visual’ body in space both informs and is informed of the feedback, the eye constructs a supposition of the body in space. The boundary of the frame is flipped and expanded.

The experiment reduced vision to a single eye, with two being “too much to bear”17, this masked vision introduces the concepts of the split, the stitch and the glitch in relation to the contemporary eye(s). Each concept is formed in relation to the speed and scale of reconciliation of the image between the eyes. It also introduces the relationship between “external behaviour and vision”18 , the body in motion and the eye a continual feedback loop. Each drop, trip, collision and bump reasserting the instability of the image.

In a single point perspectival image (closely intertwined with the concept of the eye as a frame) the “visible tracks”19 of the subject can trace the distance back to the immobile eye and thus the body in space. Stratton’s use of the eye introduces a series of new geometries to trace an inverted image back to the eye and again the body in space. The temporal process of the movement of the subject in space distorts such geometries, it aligns the senses of a body “set to work”, it affirms the subject “as a composite structure”20.

16

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 33.

Clark. J. 2 George Stratton. 10 Scientists Who Were Their Own Guinea Pigs. Available at: https://science.howstuffworks.com/ innovation/scientific-experiments/10-scientists-self-experimenters9.htm [Accessed: December 1st, 2019].

17

18

19 20

Ibid. Kohler, I and Erismann, T. Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 43.

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 41.

“Subject not as a unitary “tabula rasa”, but as a composite structure on which a wide range of techniques and forces could produce a manifold of experiences that are all equally “reality”.”

Part One the photograph

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

- stitch The Overlapped Gaze 'Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?’

“The camera is not merely a reflecting pool and the photographs are not exactly the mirror, mirror on the wall that speaks with a twisted tongue.”21 The eye behind the camera fixes the subject that “exists in four-dimensional time and space onto a two-dimensional surface”22 , the subject leaves a “fingerprint”23 on the surface of the image. In the images of Lee Friedlander, the “fingerprint” of the subject is mapped into the photograph to reveal the structure of the gaze. The objective limits of the frame and the subjective element of the use of such limits appear stitched within the image. Each image speaks of the frame in relation to the border, the eye of the observer (the photographer) has an apparent awareness of the image in front and behind, it looks two ways at once. The image is seemingly constructed from the ‘interior of ’, outside of the ‘exterior of' and trapped ‘inside of ’ itself. The structure of the gaze is further complicated in certain images such as fig. 4, the apparent montage of the mirror frames a subject whose potential as the photographer is complicated by the presence of another mirror. The subject of the image is therefore confused as being one of multiple possibilities, the eye produces the subject. Each photograph is consistent in the multiple overlaps that are present, there is an awareness of the photographer’s construction and framing of the subject as an image. The subject is further camouflaged in the instability of the temporary collaged image traced in the layers of fleeting reflections of light, fig. 3 and fig.4. The selectivity of the capture appears, the gap is filled in. The contemporary eye stitches, it is naturally engaged to connect multiple directions. The eye mediating between the world and the subject is revealed in the reflection, the gaze seen frozen in time, perpetually transported.

The observer and the subject are inextricably composed in Friedlander’s images, whether evident in the form of a figure or not, complicating their status. The eye behind the camera, monocular in its focus, stitches the image. In the compositional structuring of the images, the eye organises each image according to a series of reflective surfaces. It involves a tripartite split, whether through the objects of the car, the mirror and the screen (fig.1 and fig. 2) or the dimensions of the photographic frame (fig. 3 and fig. 4). The ‘stitch’ of the eye, whilst frozen in time, is not motionless. Giles Deleuze states of the triptych, “there must be a relationship between the separated parts, but this relationship must be neither narrative nor logical”24, these relations could be “matter of fact”. “Two sensations, each having their own level or zone, can also confront each other and make their respective levels communicate.”25 In fig.3 three ‘rhythms' appear present, the door opens from the bathroom to a specific angle; the glass panel of the door receives the light to reflect the empty chair and the trace of the window; the faces glow on the screen, irrespectively frozen as a static moment within a sequence; the “active”, the “passive” and the “attendant”. 26 The variation of the “active” character is present in its potential placement to capture the layering of fleeting, seeping light. The triptych is within a singular frame, the image as a whole mapped from the eye to the twodimensional surface of the image, three separate images appear but are tied together. There could further be seen to be an exchange of the attendant-function27 across the series of ‘framed’ images, the eye moves between the series of dark horizontal lines, in the central panel a line is distorted in its flatness. The contemporary eye therefore maps a series of communications, rhythm is at once both frozen in time and active in nature. The triptych is spoken of not as a “conscious formula” but of a “logic of sensation”.28 In the images of Friedlander, there is a sensation of distortion, of a momentary stitch tentatively colliding fragments. The image moves at the speed of the eye, simultaneously constructing and being subject to a view.

Thomas, A. 2014. Lee Friedlander’s Mirror in the Road. Available at: https://designobserver.com/feature/lee-friedlanders-mirrorin-the-road/38565 [Accessed: November 10th, 2019].

21

22

Flusser, V. 2014. The Gesture of Photographing. Gestures. USA: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 72.

23

Ibid. Flusser, V. Pp. 72.

24

Deleuze, G. 2003ed. Couples and Triptychs. Francis Bacon: Logic of Sensation. UK: Continuum, pp. 69.

25

Ibid. Deleuze, G. Pp. 65.

26

Deleuze talks of the triptych through the medium of the painting.

Ibid. Deleuze, G. What Is a Triptych? Pp. 74-75.

“For the attendant-function can refer to these characters figuratively, since there is always a figuration that persists, even if only secondarily. Yet this same attendant-function can suddenly refer figuratively to a completely different character … there will thus have been a genuine exchange of the attendant-function in the triptych.”

27

28

Ibid. Deleuze, G. What Is a Triptych? Pp. 83.

The stitch distorts perception, each perspective present is dissimilar yet united by the seeming clarity of the frame(s). The eye catalogues the density. The contingencies of the object(s) and their spatial relations sharpen the back and forth. In fig.1 the line undergoes multiple shifts in balance, the telephone pole stable and determinant in the top right corner of the image floats away in the distance of the mirror, retreating in perspective tantalisingly slanted. The line of one of such poles is extended by the line of the railway carriage cut by the limits of the frame before splitting in two. The axis of each line diverts into the distance clashing at momentary points. The eye fractures the moving line, an element steps in to render the scene incomplete in understanding. The composition is traced back to the ‘in-between’, neither here nor there.

The contemporary eye is not a “conscious formula” of construction, mirroring the triptych, its principle mode the ‘stitch’ collides the subject and the eye as an “autonomous zone of activity”29. Its workings revealed and distorted in the framing within the frame.

“ O n e

h a s

n o

c h o i c e

T h r o u g h

e x p e r i e n c e ,

b u t

i s

t h a t

a l l . ”

b u t w e

t o

l o o k

c o m e

t o

a t

o n e ’ s

b e l i e v e

3 0

29

Galloway, A. R. 2012. Preface. The Interface Effect. UK: Polity, pp. vii.

30

Murakami, H. 1999. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. UK: Vintage Publishing.

r e f l e c t i o n t h a t

t h e

i n

i m a g e

t h e i s

m i r r o r. c o r r e c t ,

Part Two the device

(the field)

(the gallery)

- split The (Dis)embodied Eye

F l

ing

O a t

a b o v e t h e b o d y,

the eye communicates. Its perception is distributed across a body (inseparable from motion), it

moves

on

its

own.

In the device of Hiroo Awata the eye is ‘extracted’ and attached to an airship. The monocular roaming eye is a fl oating wide angle camera, it is manoeuvred with the use of a string acting as an extension from the arm.31 Using the movement of the arm the string is intended to control the image of the eye, this relationship is not depicted in the above diagram, an attempt to stabilise an unstable relation. The individual takes the eye, the gaze, for a walk. The eye is intertwined with the movement of the body, the body with the eye. The environment gestures a movement. The body is in control of the vision it presents.

A wide angle image is taken by a convex mirror and video camera, the camera is equipped with a wireless video transmitter and attached to an airship. The camera relays a projected image to cover the full field of view of the participant, light from a projector is scattered by a convex mirror.

31

The device of Awata plays with the stitching of the eye(s), unfolding the ‘stitch’ and extending its emphasis across an ephemeral distance.

The distance is diminished through the prosthetic, the eye, at once both above the body and in front of the body. The image of the floating eye is wirelessly transmitted from above and played before the individuals eyes, waiting behind a domed screen in a spherical helmet. An internal in-between-ness is suspended. The eye transmits, the eye distorts. The projected image is relayed and encompasses the full field of vision of the eyes of the individual enclosed in the dome, an “ensphered vision”. The eye collects, the eye records, the eye transmits, the eye composes. The eyes of the individual are intrinsically presented with the workings of the floating eye (at a slight delay), they discern and communicate, the information is stitched across and throughout. The response is instantaneous, the only guarantee a continually shifting image. Vision split, perception stitched. The individual subject is made into an image.

The device plays with the subject and the camouflage of the subject. Vision is separated from the body and the body is placed within the ‘field of vision’ of the eye. “Everything escaping jurisdiction” is included in the visual field to “jeopardise the perception of metric uniformity”.32 The ordinary, unexpected. The floating eye relays its own movement, it walks around looking at itself amongst the surrounding scene it composes. The view is from above, distorted to the side, the eye as an apparatus has no option to be used “in the ‘right’ way”33. The image is purely absorbed and assumed. It “orients” and “secures” “discourses of beings”, a “new I is constituted through the negation and at the same time assumption of an old I”. 34 The body is a transparent and camouflaged being. The conclusion that “subjective vision is found to be distinctly temporal”35 is unfolded and further expanded, “the mobile observer”36 distorts the notion of the image relayed as a visible trace of position. The contemporary eye is a container of multiple layers, peeling and encircling.37 It is a trace of a sensation, the eye flickers.

The ‘Floating Eye’ seeks to “synthetically present somatosensory information”.38 The terms ‘device’ and ‘interface’ are used interchangeably by Awata. To refer to Alexander Galloway’s writings on the interface, "an interface is not something that appears before you but rather is a gateway that opens up and allows passage to some place beyond.”39 Awata presents the “reach” of the contemporary eye as “dramatically” expanding, the accompanying “distortion” is understood to introduce a “loss of physicality”.

Vision is “lodged”40 in a body, a body that is numbed. The contemporary eye is thus pursued as a “passage” to physicality, its dislocation and disembodiment an embodiment in itself. The reassertion of “the traces of its (the eye’s) own functioning” deceives what you perceive, the eye is never intuitive.

“To succeed, then, is at best self-deception and at worst self-annihilation . One must work hard to cast the glow of unwork.

Operability engenders inoperability” 41

32

Ibid. Damisch, H. Pp. 94.

33

Ibid. Agamben, G. What is an Apparatus? Pp. 21.

34

Ibid. Agamben, G. Pp. 20.

35

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 45.

36

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 42.

37

Ibid. Galloway, A. R. The Unworkable Interface, pp. 31.

deviceart.org “Somatosensory is a complex combination of information detected by sensory receptors distributed on the skin and the sense of force applied to muscles and joints.”

38

39

Ibid. Galloway, A. Pp. 30.

40

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 43.

41

Ibid. Galloway, A. Pp. 25.

Part Three the situated experience

- glitch The Equal and Veridical Eye

the eye and the atmosphere “ s l i g h t

w i n d

disturbs

t h e

a i r s h i p ”

4 2

‘Inside’ or ‘outside’ disturbances manifest, currents of air and slight breezes of wind flip the ‘image’ of the floating eye. With regard to the interface effect, “non-functionality remains essential for functionality”43 , the exchange between the eye and the eyes is “formalised” through the ‘failure’ in exchange, a glitch. In the (dis)embodied eye the ‘failure’ is the negotiation of the eye and the atmosphere, the minute changes or forces exerting their pressure on the eye to effect the tentative vision of the stitching of the split monocular. The relation of the contemporary eye and the body is consistently presenting itself through movement, the image is always intertwined with the body but relies on its stabilisation and destabilisation. Disturbance constitutes of the subject.

Floating Eye Installation by Hiroo Awata. Available at: https://www.f-sport.lt/play/4865669/floating-eye-installation-by-hirooiwata-diginfo.html [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

42

43

Ibid. Galloway, A. Pp, 26.

(- buffering -)

the representation and the real collide

The “binocular vision goggles” that opened the essay demonstrated the ability of the eye to stitch back the image and proliferate it.

The experiment introduced the concept of constructing and re-constructing the orientation of the contemporary eye. The monocular eye learnt from the glitches in the positioning of the body in space to compose an understanding of the re-positioning of the body, however the stitch between the split of the eyes was perceived to be too overwhelming.

An experiment conducted with two Norwegian Premier League football teams, ‘Sandefjord and Mjøndalen’, reaffirms the actual state of the “binocular” vision goggles. The teams are recorded playing a game of football using virtual reality glasses, both eyes were used, the glasses played a live feed of the game to the players in plan view. A camera fitted into the roof of the interior arena transmitted an image to each player of the live ‘reality’ that they occupied. Small dots motion across the field to play out a game where positions and relations to the object (the ball) are typically scripted, the image is reproduced and propagated to maximum effect. Speed is slowed to a waddle, colours are blurred … the goalkeeper anticipates the ball and gently lowers himself to lie across the goal line, the tackle takes place off the ball, the keeper moves in the opposite direction to the call, the chance is missed as the defender taps the ball a matter of metres clear …

The ‘actual’ game is played out as a ‘real’ event that feeds back into the ‘actual’ game. A goal is scored. Due to the delay between the perceived image and the actual event, the player winds his leg back to kick it forward but the ball clips his heel and enters the net. The goalkeeper dives to make a save after the ball has gone past him into the net. A lag occurs, a buffer between the roaming eyes and their exerted influence upon movement. The stitch delays, this delay is the reconciliation of an image, the relative speed is perhaps a process influenced by frequency of use. The sensory mapping of the body is activated by the touch of the object (the ball) and awakened through situated experience. The contemporary eyes, an amalgam of sensations, a transmission of the ‘real’.

“the body(eye) was a priori a productive body(eye): it(they) existed to be set to work”44

The experiment references a work of Harun Farocki titled “Deep Play”. The installation is a 12 screen perspective of the 2006 football World Cup Final displayed on a series of screens, each relaying a different representation of the game. Relationships and tactics of the sport are typically shown to the spectator using the birds-eye view. Linkages, connections and plays become evident as relationships are mapped according to relative distance, a scaled image to no rule. The spectator reaches an understanding and exerts an expectation of a movement of the player. In the experiment VR game, the image is also “classified, assessed and transferred”45 , the field of view is ungovernable. The position of the eye and its magnification of distance and apparent size in the field of vision is not coherent. Hal Foster spoke of a “decoding and deterritorialisation of vision”, the ‘wide’ angle eye enables multiple distorting perceptions to inform a single ‘narrative’. Set in motion, a focus of an image could be seen as exchangeable and interchangeable, each object one of a field of many, movement becomes the only indicator of place.

The contemporary eye(s) are not seamless,

44

download and decode to begin …

Ibid. Crary, J. Pp. 36.

Farocki, H. 2007. Deep Play. Germany: Harun Farocki Filmproduktion. Available at: https://www.harunfarocki.de/installations/ 2000s/2007/deep-play.html [Accessed: October 7th, 2019].

45

The contemporary eye(s)

the body is a visual eye; the eye a visual body

The contemporary eye(s) introduced the concepts of the tentative roaming eye(s), the floating (dis)embodied eye(s), the gaze in motion, the eye(s) as a passage to physicality and deterritorialised vision, movement is seen to structure the visual field. The eye(s) are nomadic.

The non-monocular contemporary eye(s) distort the stabilising and structuring of the subject in space. To reference the theory of the gaze, the screen which is typically described to constitute the split structure of the subject now appears to be layered, the subject a collection of mediated data. The subject, as a screen upon which the images are projected, distorts the distance between the subject and its object(s), the (dis)embodied eye fills the gap, the subject tempers the line. “Space comes to the subject as an image”46, a framed image whose very nature becomes an unstable construct in its ability to be recreated. The eye both conditions and translates the subject. The eye(s) are carried forward into space, they are accustomed to the multiple, cataloguing in time.

“Vision without a frame means this suppression of any distance”, vision considered in relation to a frame whose border constitutes a threshold (a passage) overlaps the gaze, the image plane expands and distorts. Not only are “seer and seen … caught in the same element”47 , the subject is a screen of inverted gazing, dissipated front, back and side to side. The eye a parasite? The noise in the visual field, the communication from the individual to space.

The eye(s) are constantly part of a motion and in motion, as an apparatus of the individual the eye(s) incessantly capture the self now as one of the beings. The eye(s) are governable and ungovernable all at once, their capture, their presence a constant process of entanglement.

46

Ibid. Holm, L. Pp. 12.

47

Brown, L. Pp. 25.

Bibliography.

Agamben, G. 2009. What is an Apparatus? And Other Essays. USA: Stanford University Press.

Brown, L. 2019. Beckett, Lacan and the Gaze. Germany: Ibidem-Verlag.

Damisch, H. 1994. The Origin of Perspective. London: MIT Press.

Deleuze, G. 2003ed. Francis Bacon: Logic of Sensation. UK: Continuum.

Flusser, V. 2014. Gestures. USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Foster, H. 1988. Vision and Visuality. USA: Bay Press.

Friedlander, L. 2010. America by Car. USA: Distributed Art Publishers.

Galloway, A. R. 2012. The Interface Effect. UK: Polity.

Holm, L. 2010. Brunelleschi, Lacan, Le Corbusier : Architecture, Space and the Construction of Subjectivity. UK: Routledge.

Kittler, F. A. 1999. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. USA: Stanford University Press.

Teyssot, G. 2013. A Topology of Everyday Constellations. USA: MIT Press.

Websites.

Farocki, H. 2007. Deep Play. Germany: Harun Farocki Filmproduktion. Available at: https://www.harunfarocki.de/installations/ 2000s/2007/deep-play.html [Accessed: October 7th, 2019].

Iwata Device Art Project. 2008. What is Device Art? Japan: Iwata Device Art Project. Available at: http://www.deviceart.org [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

Hiroo Awata Floating Eye. Japan: Institute of Advanced Media Arts and Sciences. Available at: https://www.iamas.ac.jp/ interaction/i01/works/E/hiroo.html [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

Iwata Device Art Project. 2008. Digital by Design. Japan: Iwata Device Art Project. http://eva.vrlab.esys.tsukuba.ac.jp/vrlab_web/ Kusahara-digitaldesign.php [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

2017. Inverted Vision. Available at: http://www.come-sundown.com/blog/2017/2/14/inverted-vision [Accessed: November 25th, 2019].

Sachse, P, Beermann, U, Martini, M, Maran, T, Domeier, M and Furtner, M. R. 2017. “The world is upside down” - The Innsbruck Goggle Experiments of Theodor Erismann (1883-1961) and Ivo Kohler (1915-1985). Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ 87a9/68174ee240f307e81df8d0d88f02edaf6e60.pdf [Accessed: December 1st, 2019].

Clark. J. 2 George Stratton. 10 Scientists Who Were Their Own Guinea Pigs. Available at: https://science.howstuffworks.com/ innovation/scientific-experiments/10-scientists-self-experimenters9.htm [Accessed: December 1st, 2019].

Thomas, A. 2014. Lee Friedlander’s Mirror in the Road. Available at: https://designobserver.com/feature/lee-friedlanders-mirror-inthe-road/38565 [Accessed: November 10th, 2019].

Images. (listed in order) Kohler, I and Erismann, T. 1950. Inversion Goggles. Austria: University of Innsbruck. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jKUVpBJalNQ [Accessed: December 1st, 2019].

George M. Stratton. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Stratton [Accessed: November 25th, 2019].

2011. Mississippi, 2008. Lee Friedlander: America By Car - in pictures. UK: The Guardian. Available at: https:// www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2011/sep/02/lee-friedlander-america-by-car-in-pictures [Accessed: December 2nd, 2019].

Carroll, S. 2011. Lee Friedlander – America by car. Available at: https://seancarroll89.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/lee-friedlanderamerica-by-car/ [Accessed: December 2nd, 2019].

Nashville, 1963. LEE FRIEDLANDER: THE LITTLE SCREENS. USA: Fraenkel Gallery. Available at: https:// fraenkelgallery.com/portfolios/the-little-screens [Accessed: November 10th, 2019].

Hillcrest, New York, 1970. USA: Fraenkel Gallery. Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/lee-friedlander/hillcrest-new-york-afecCEKUQ21PtQb0e4pKLZA2 [Accessed: November 10th, 2019].

Floating Eye Installation by Hiroo Awata. Available at: https://www.f-sport.lt/play/4865669/floating-eye-installation-by-hiroo-iwatadiginfo.html [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

Virtual Reality Laboratory. 2001. Floating Eye. Arts Electronica Festival. Japan: University of Tsukuba. Available at: http:// eva.vrlab.esys.tsukuba.ac.jp/exhibitions [Accessed: November 23rd, 2019].

2015. Golden Goal - Virtual Reality Football. Norway: TV2. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBQt3-ezBQs [Accessed: November 25th, 2019].

New Orleans, Self-Portrait, 1968. USA: Fraenkel Gallery. Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/lee-friedlander/new-orleans-selfportrait-a-Co4WY1ouQ_jZ86ywUFEBIA2 [Accessed: December 4th, 2019].