The Virtual Space Theory

This is the last in a series of posts that discuss the paintings of Jean-Léon Gérôme from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory. This time, we will look at them using the Theory’s principle of contextography.

A Short Intro to Contextography

To demonstrate The Virtual Space Theory’s principle of contextography, let’s first look at the following two images. One is Gérôme’s painting Pollice Verso, the most famous of his series of paintings showing events in the ancient Roman Colosseum. The second is a contemporary photograph of the ruins of the Roman Colosseum.

The two images have some things in common as well as some obvious differences. If we were to describe them using the common terminology for discussing such matters, what would we say? We might start by saying that one is a painting and the other is a photograph. We would probably regard the photograph as being ‘real’ and proceed to question the nature of the painting in that respect. For example, the hand gesture with the thumb pointing down had never been seen in an image before Gérôme made this painting, because the ancient records of it are only verbal and do not provide an accurate enough description (which also means that Gérome’s contribution to our lives extends even to the form of the Facebook “like” icon). So does this mean that the painting is imaginary, or is it an authentic representation? As another example, we also know that this painting was the direct inspiration for the making of the film Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000). So does this mean that the film is a copy and that the painting is the original?

The Virtual Space Theory approaches such questions by discussing them from another angle altogether. Before anything else, it considers the visible contents of any pictorial image as being located inside of virtual space. Does this mean that all images are equal? Of course not. But instead of discussing the differences between the images themselves, The Virtual Space Theory shifts the discussion to the differences between the places that are seen through them.

In the above examples, once we can consider both as showing virtual places, we will see that what sets them apart is their context: One virtual place is a historical reconstruction of a particular physical location (with arguable accuracy), and the other virtual place is a contemporary documentation of the same physical location. Using the same terms, we could proceed to discuss the virtual place seen in the film Gladiator, and discover that it shares nearly the same context as that of the place seen in the painting.

The Virtual Space Theory proposes that virtual places that share similar contexts can be considered to be ‘neighbors’ in virtual space, or in other words, to be located inside of the same ‘context zone’. Accordingly, virtual places that have different contexts – even if their images are otherwise similar – can be considered to be located in completely different parts of virtual space. Contextography, then, is The Virtual Space Theory’s principle for determining what the contexts of virtual space are and mapping the relative locations of virtual places inside of it. This topic is further explained in another post, and fully elaborated in my book “The Architecture of Virtual Space”.

A Contextographical Dispute

The Virtual Space Theory’s principle of contextography provides another facet to an understanding of the historical conflict between the Impressionist and Academic approaches to the making of paintings. From this point of view, one of the main disagreements between the two rival sides was in determining which contexts of virtual space are worthy of having virtual places made in them.

In that sense, the virtual places made by the Impressionists were all neighbors in virtual space, since they belonged to one single context: Virtual places that are an interpreted documentation of physical places. The Impressionists, despite their non-committal approach to technical accuracy, clearly stuck to existing physical locations from which to create their virtual places – which gave them all a very particular as well as consistent context.

Academicism, on the other hand, and Jean-Léon Gérôme in particular, took the exact opposite approach. The virtual places he made belonged to a wholly different set of contexts: Some of his virtual places were free reconstructions of places from the past, and some were fabricated documentations of a non-existing present. Despite his fervent dedication to utmost accuracy in his painting technique, when it came to contexts he intentionally created virtual places that do not have an equivalent in the physical world – which puts them in another context altogether, and thus in another part of virtual space.

Gérôme’s argument with the Impressionists, then, can be seen simply as a matter of where inside of virtual space virtual places should be created. A painting worthy of the title of ‘Art’, he believed, should create a richly detailed virtual place, and should be made for the sections of virtual space which have only a partial relation to the everyday world in which we live.

Succeeding generations of painters did not agree – but filmmakers surely did.

Following the previous post, this post proceeds to discuss the paintings of Jean-Léon Gérôme from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory. Discussing the two together is particularly interesting since the Theory sheds light on some of the unique aspects of Gérôme’s work:

Constructing from photographs

The academic art which Gérôme stood for considered classical antiquity to be its ideal model of reference, and thus one of the only worthy settings for a painting. Yet rather than just imagining ancient Greek or Roman settings in his studio, Gérôme’s way of following this program was to travel to the Orient in search of living cultures that still embodied some of what ancient Greece or Rome might have been like. With a photographer as his travel companion, he documented places of interest and then returned to his Paris studio. There, he combined chosen elements from various photographs following his own constructed vision of a place, and made his paintings based on the results of that process. To his audience he may have seemed to present a documentation of the Orient, yet the places which he showed were very much his own creation – a romanticized and mythicized image of the Orient for Western eyes, which exists only as a virtual place in virtual space.

One place, multiple paintings

As part of his approach to the creation of places for his paintings, Jean-Léon Gérôme did something that I am not aware of having been done by traditional painters before him, at least not as systematically: Once he had created a place, he actually presented that same place in several different paintings. To use the terminology of The Virtual Space Theory: Throughout the history of art, for the vast majority of paintings the virtual place that was seen through a particular painting was unique to that work of art, which therefore served as the only available window to it. That is, whenever a painter made a new painting, he also created a new place that served as its setting. Gérôme, however, on more than one occasion, used the same place for several paintings, thus emphasizing that its existence is not bound to the canvas – or in other words, that its actual location is in virtual space.

The most obvious example of this is his virtual place that stands for the Colosseum in ancient Rome. To begin with, it is not a fully accurate historical record but rather his own creation, combining elements from the original arena and other locations in Rome, as well as featuring the Athenian Acropolis in the background. But he did not make only one painting of the event he wanted to present, but rather two paintings: One to show the moments leading up to the event, and another to show the moment after it. And not only that, he used this same place again in order to stage yet another event altogether, making two paintings of this second event as well, using the same dramatic effect of before and after – while all of them occur inside of one single virtual place. The following examples show one scene from each of these two events:

Another aspect of Gérôme’s work from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory will be the topic of the next post.

Which of the following names sounds more familiar to you?

1. Jean-Léon Gérôme

2. Claude Monet

You don’t necessarily need to be an art lover to have at least heard of Claude Monet, to probably know that he was a painter, and maybe even to know that he was one of the main figures of the Impressionist movement. But unless you have a particular interest in art and its history, you have probably never even heard of Jean-Léon Gérôme, let alone become familiar with his paintings.

The difference between the two painters’ current level of renown is due to one of the most dramatic struggles to have ever taken place in the history of art, the aftermath of which raised one side to lasting fame, and dropped the other into relative obscurity. Both painters lived and worked in Paris in the second half of the 19th century, both were exceptionally talented, and both had highly productive careers – but they represented two approaches to art that were directly opposed to one another. This is clearly demonstrated in the following examples:

The Impressionist movement consisted in a group of painters who sought to break free from the centuries-old artistic traditions that were mandated by state institutions, or what was known as ‘the academy’. Gérôme was a key member of the academy, and though he did stretch its rules as well, he was nevertheless one of the fiercest defenders of the highly valued principles for which the academy stood, and he spared no effort to block the Impressionists. Following some thirty years of turmoil, the Impressionists eventually won, Academicism lost, and the art world as we know it today is still at the effect of this quintessential event.

The Musée d’Orsay in Paris recently held the first monographic exhibition of Jean-Léon Gérôme in Paris in over a hundred years. As they were careful to emphasize, this was not an attempt to rehabilitate him but only to revisit his work in view of our own times (after all, it is a major museum of Impressionist art). And indeed, although his work may be very classical and academic, it does reveal aspects that kept up with its time and foreshadowed the art of the 20th century – though not the art of painting, but rather the art of film.

Gérôme’s paintings, perhaps more than those of most painters before him, actually look like snapshots taken from excessively produced Hollywood movies – except that they were painted at a time when movies did not yet exist. Accordingly, some of the most iconic movie scenes of the following century were taken directly from Gérôme’s paintings (Ben-Hur, 1959; Gladiator, 2000) and his dramatic sense of organizing space has influenced many other films as well. Additionally, as the comparison between his painting to the right and the video game image below might suggest, his influence seems to have extended even to present-day video games.

From the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory, Gérôme can be considered to be first and foremost a master-builder of virtual places. His paintings are rich in architecture, and the places he creates are carefully constructed to serve the characters and the events taking place in them. Yet in addition to his ability to create places and produce highly detailed paintings through which to make them accessible, he also pioneered new approaches to the making of the places themselves, which will be discussed in the next post.

The winter holiday season is also a celebration of lights, and many cities pride themselves on the beautiful light installations along their streets and on their buildings. One such type of light installation takes the form of the projection of images onto physical buildings. There are many examples of such light shows, which vary in quality as well as in their degree of architectural emphasis. Here is one recent example from the city of Lyon’s festival of lights:

Another example is the following:

Probably one of the most suitable examples for this discussion, however, is the now famous light projection presented last summer in Kharkov, Ukraine:

Such light projections raise questions regarding both the nature of their visual content as well as their interaction with the buildings onto which they are projected. What is the actual location of what is seen in them? What is the role of the physical building? What happens to it when it receives the projections? This post, therefore, addresses these questions from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory.

Since light projections can change in time different segments of a projection may employ different types of images altogether. In this case, some segments present abstract patterns of light onto the building, some segments present pictorial images onto it, and some actually transform and redefine the building itself. The first two types use the building as merely a neutral screen on which to project light patterns that are essentially independent of the building, which could be easily replaced with another building without fundamentally altering the nature of the resulting light show. In such cases, therefore, the term ‘virtual’ applies only to the visual content seen in the pictorial segments of a projection, but not to the light projection itself.

The truly fascinating segments of such light shows, however, are those which directly relate to the architectural structure of the building itself. The visual content of such a light projection is an alternative version of that building – whether deforming, collapsing, or evolving – presented in the exact same physical location as the original physical building, while appearing to replace it. Additionally, the magic of the last example is in its seamless transitions between the different types of images, and their resulting in a single continuous presentation made for a specific physical location.

This type of light projection is probably best understood by comparing it to the ages-old art of ‘trompe l’oeil’ mural paintings. Made already in antiquity and reaching wide production during the Baroque period, these were interior paintings made on walls and ceilings so as to appear to extend the space of the rooms in which they were painted. In the book The Architecture of Virtual Space, I proposed that their key difference compared to regular pictorial paintings is that in addition to creating virtual places, trompe l’oeil mural paintings present their virtual places as if they were a direct extension of the physical location in which they were painted.

For example, Fra Angelico’s Madonna of the Shadows from 1439, with its painted columns and their shadows, gives its whole scene a sense of direct presence in the convent of San Marco where it was painted:

Contemporary uses of trompe l’oeil paintings probably tend be found more on outdoor surfaces, providing added interest to not-so-interesting locations. One example is the work of mural painter John Pugh:

Architectural light projections, therefore, combine the effect of outdoor trompe l’oeil paintings with the added dimension of time. The buildings they create are completely virtual and are located inside of virtual space, yet through their particular way of presentation they make us perceive them as if they were actually located inside of the physical world. This is achieved by two main means. First, the architecture of the created virtual building is designed in full accordance with that of the existing physical building onto which it is projected. Second, the context of the virtual building’s presentation in an already-physical location inevitably adjusts our perception such that we accept what we see as if it too were located in the physical world – right there along with the street, the trees, the wind, and our own physical selves.

In addition, when such a transformation is successful, then even the parts of the show that are regular pictorial projections of a non-architectural nature receive a rare added depth of their own. Normally, the effect of a pictorial image is to make us perceive a virtual place that is located somewhere else – that is, somewhere inside of virtual space. In this case, however, the successful integration of pictorial images with the virtual building makes them appear as if their visual content were actually located within the volume of the virtual building itself. And since the projection of the virtual building onto the physical building already makes the virtual building appear to be located in the physical world, then even the content of the pictorial images now seem to be part of the physical world just as well!

By the use of this cunning device, then, a virtual fish could be made to appear as if it were swimming behind and in front of the façade of a physical building in the physical world… or in other words – as it would seem – a virtual fish in physical space.

One of the key approaches of The Virtual Space Theory is to provide an interpretation of the visual arts which would reconcile the apparent rift between old media and new media. Such reconciliation is achieved by proposing a wider context which seamlessly encompasses the old as well as the new.

The technological developments of recent decades and their effect on visual media can easily give the impression that everything has changed: The creation tools are different, the means of presentation are different, and the visual language is different – not to mention the differences in values and subject matter. Accordingly, new theories have increasingly been developed in an attempt to understand the nature of these ‘new media’. From this perspective, older theories of art that were based mostly on the medium of painting seem practically outmoded, archaic, and irrelevant.

The Virtual Space Theory proposes that while the new theories of visual media are of course valid, they are still a matter of choice. That is, if one wants to understand recent developments by using the mindset of older theories, it is actually possible to do so. What is obviously missing for doing that, however, is the availability of an adapted version of these principles which would successfully also incorporate the contemporary vocabulary and phenomena. Such a proposed adaptation is exactly what The Virtual Space Theory is about, as fully elaborated in the book The Architecture of Virtual Space.

The Virtual Space Theory, as its name suggests, surely approaches contemporary topics such as virtuality, digital technology, and the latest visual media – yet it does so by relying heavily on the traditional approaches to the arts. The Virtual Space Theory is founded on the writings of art theorists such as Ernst Gombrich and Erwin Panofsky, who clearly represent the classical tradition of European art between the Renaissance and the early 20th century. Such a choice of references may seem peculiar to someone who is versed in the contemporary art discourse, which considers itself free from these older mindsets. And yet, a careful review of the old principles proved them to be surprisingly useful for understanding the latest media as well.

Let us look at a couple of straightforward examples to demonstrate the point. From a contemporary view of art, a painting such as Il Guercino’s ceiling fresco Aurora would initially seem to have nothing in common with current trends in visual media, to the point of being perceived anywhere from inaccessibly remote to downright boring.

Similarly, a film such as Tron Legacy (the upcoming sequel to the original Tron from 1982 – one of the first major films to employ digital techniques), when seen from the point of view of the classical tradition, might very well be suspected of superficiality, irreverence, and a lack of substance.

From the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory, however, both of the above examples can be understood along the exact same set of principles. These examples may obviously differ in their artistic intentions, production techniques, or forms of presentation, yet they also have much in common: Both of them generate an experience of space where in fact there is none (and as well populate it with their own idea of a hero on a two-wheeled vehicle), and both provide a physical object in the physical world through which to give access to this created space. In terms of The Virtual Space Theory, they are equal in that they both result in the creation of a virtual place in virtual space.

Such an observation, along with further observations that stem from The Virtual Space Theory, is the direct consequence of having a single overall model for understanding all forms of pictorial images – free of the constraints of various periods, mediums, techniques, or purposes, as well as the respective theories that come along with them. Thus, by introducing a wider context that is common to both the old and the new, The Virtual Space Theory allows the old to be revealed as fresh and fascinating, and the new to have depth and merit.

If you visited the section of this website which describes the book and went through its table of contents, you probably came across a peculiar word: contextography. This is a term which is introduced by The Virtual Space Theory in order to address some of the questions that inevitably arise due to its alternative approach to pictorial images and virtuality.

The Virtual Space Theory accepts digital technology’s victory in producing photorealistic images and therefore approaches the question of how to differentiate between pictorial images by shifting the discussion to virtual space itself. In other words, it proposes that all pictorial images present virtual places, whether they were made with a computer, a paintbrush, or a camera. The difference between various pictorial images, then, is not considered to be in whether or not what is seen in them is virtual, but rather in the context of the resulting virtual places.

For example, the following painting by El Greco from around 1610 shows the grim fate of Laocoön, the Trojan priest from the Homeric legend of Troy, who dared to defy the Gods and warn the Trojans of their impending doom:

This painting is also shown in the book as an example of architecture performing the role of the background of a painting – in this case, showing the city of Troy. And yet there is another painting which El Greco made in more or less the same period, and which looks very similar:

The second painting is a view of the city of Toledo in Spain, where El Greco lived and worked. Seeing this painting now raises questions as to the nature of the city we just saw in the first painting, doesn’t it? Indeed, the technique El Greco used in creating the city of Troy for his Laocoön painting was to stand on a hill across from Toledo and use it as a reference for the Troy of his resulting painting. Maybe El Greco even did this with some symbolic reference in mind to the people and city of Toledo, but this makes no difference to our discussion. The city we see in the first painting is not Toledo; it is Troy. Only the city in the second painting is Toledo.

To be more accurate, they are both virtual places, and despite their similar technique of production as well as similar visual content, they have totally different contexts. The context of the first virtual place is that of a reconstruction of a physical place which might have existed sometime in the distant past. In that sense, it has a very similar context as that of the film Troy (Wolfgang Petersen, 2004) made some four hundred years later:

Returning the discussion to El Greco’s second painting, however, the context of the virtual place presented by it is rather that of a documentation of a physical place which existed at the time the image was made, and which the person making it was actually present in. In that sense, it has a very similar context as that of the following contemporary photograph of Toledo:

The Virtual Space Theory, then, approaches the study of the various contexts of virtual space by reinterpreting them in geographical terms – hence the term ‘contextography’. It proposes that each such context can be considered as a section or a zone within virtual space, inside of which the virtual places that share this context are to be found. In that sense, the virtual place of El Greco’s Toledo painting and the virtual place of the above photograph are close neighbors in virtual space, and both are located very far away from the virtual place of El Greco’s Laocoön painting.

What contextography provides is an alternative system for differentiating between pictorial images, in a way that is independent of their medium, visual content, or technique of production. The book elaborates this system far beyond the discussion in this post, and maps out nearly 20 such distinct ‘context zones’ and their relation to each other. That work may still be extended further someday, but at this stage I think it is quite detailed enough to make the point.