The Virtual Space Theory

An inherent characteristic in the making of pictorial images is that their visual pattern can sometimes be interpreted in more ways than one. Unlike in the discussion of the previous post, however, the two interpretations I am referring to here are not the pattern on a surface vs. the space that can be seen through it, but rather two different spatial contents altogether. This is most familiar in the many optical illusions found in images that seem to have different visual contents depending on how one looks at them, such as the famous examples of ‘old woman or young woman’, and ‘rabbit or duck’. In other words, such images are ‘ambiguous’.

Normally, this ambiguity is actually a limitation of the art of image-making. As a result, a whole range of conventions and techniques have been developed over the centuries precisely in order to overcome it and produce images that would have only one consistent visual interpretation. Yet an alternative approach to the issue of ambiguity was to actually embrace this limitation and incorporate it into a part of making art. An example of this is some of the work of Salvador Dalí: his painting Raphaelesque Head Exploding simultaneously shows a human head as well as the interior of a dome.

Sometimes, also an image that presents a seemingly continuous space can still include within it parts that are made in an ambiguous way. When seen as a whole, then, the result simultaneously seems correct and incorrect, and provides a visual experience that is quite different from either the physical world or most pictorial images. This is the principle behind some of M.C. Escher’s work. In the following example, Convex and Concave, the two spaces on the left and the right are visually consistent each in itself as well as compositionally symmetrical, yet they are incompatible with each other. However, by drawing ambiguous elements along the part of the image where the two spaces connect, they appear as if they create one continuous visual space, even though such a space would be physically impossible.

Similar principles have also been applied to moving images such as TV commercials and music videos. In the following example (which is also mentioned in the book), a car commercial presents the abilities of the advertised car to handle challenging road conditions. This is done by showing it driving through an urban environment that can be visually interpreted in several ways simultaneously:

The last example combines the ambiguity of the optical illusions discussed above together with the issue of pictorial and non-pictorial images discussed in the previous post. It is a music video of the Chemical Brothers’ song Let Forever Be, which was directed by Michel Gondry:

What I find so brilliant about this video is that it expresses in a moving image the same kind of concerns that have preoccupied painters and art theorists for generations:

First, it employs rudimentary film editing techniques (such as various forms of image duplication) in a way that, at least to me, seems to echo some of the approaches of modernist painting as discussed in the previous post. That is – as seen in Pablo Picasso’s Violin – it uses multiple pictorial fragments as mere elements from which to construct a flat arrangement of paint (or pixels) on a surface.

Second, the video reinterprets the resulting image pattern as if it were itself a pictorial description of another kind of visible world, one which actually looks just like that resulting image. By repeatedly moving back and forth from one visual interpretation, to the flat pattern of the resulting image, and to another visual interpretation altogether – this video demonstrates the whole issue of the ambiguity of pictorial images in an ingenious and playful way.

From the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory, therefore, this video uses the added dimension of movement in time to suggest that an ambiguous visual pattern is simply one single window to two distinct virtual places.

A TV commercial that aired recently is yet another good example of the irrelevance of the popular notion of trying to determine what’s real in pictorial images:

This commercial’s success in creating a buzz, apart from its considerable humor, wit, and boldness, comes from the fact that it also sparks a discussion among its viewers regarding the inevitable question “How did they do that?” or, more specifically, “Is it real?” As already discussed in two earlier posts, the answer will challenge our notion of what’s real once again.

Among the many events that are packed into this commercial, I would like to focus on its continuous transition between three locations: a bathroom, a boat deck, and a beach. According to The Virtual Space Theory, since we see all these places through a pictorial image, they are all virtual places in virtual space – regardless of whether they might have an equivalent in the physical world or not. Therefore, in such a context, one part of the question “Is it real?” is whether these virtual places truly reflect physical places in the physical world, or whether they were computer-generated. The other part of that question is whether the visual transition between such physical places indeed happened while the commercial was shot, or whether it was stitched together after filming.

The answer is that – apart from the transformation of objects in the actor’s hand – everything you see happened in front of the camera in one shot: this whole commercial was filmed in a single physical location. Its production crew built a section of a full-scale boat on a beach, along with a mock-up of a bathroom suspended from above by a crane, as well as a hidden mechanical system for sliding the actor onto the back of a horse. These were then all set in motion as the camera was rolling, and after three days of repeated shooting, they finally managed to get it all to work properly in one continuous sequence (you can check it out for yourself in an interview with the people who created it).

What this means, in popular terminology, is that “Yes, it’s all real!” And yet, there’s a catch. If we expand our notion of what’s real by just a bit, we realize that to seriously consider what we see in this commercial as being real is actually quite absurd. Even though the places we see in this commercial do exist in the physical world, the beach is the only one of them that is real. The bathroom has a physical existence, but it is not a real bathroom – it has a missing wall, and it is not part of any real house. The boat has a physical existence, but is not a real boat either – it is only half-built, and it can neither float nor sail.

The point is that what actually interests us in watching this commercial is not to see bathroom mock-ups hovering over half-boats, but to observe a virtual world where a man can seamlessly switch locations to match his mood and speech. Our curiosity may make us wonder how it was made in the physical world, but only because we were charmed by what we saw in virtual space. Therefore, in that sense, the only real bathroom, real boat, real beach, and real transition between them are the virtual bathroom, virtual boat, and virtual beach in virtual space – as seen in the virtual world of this TV commercial.

Film stars do not necessarily always have to be actors – they can also be places. Paris and New York, for example, are very popular film stars, having appeared in countless films. Usually the film role of such places is to just ‘act’ as themselves, though sometimes they can play a different ‘character’, such as in the example of Berlin which was mentioned in a previous post.

In some rare cases, even a single house or a building can be a film star. This is the case of the Ennis House in Los Angeles, which was designed and completed in 1924 by Frank Lloyd Wright, America’s prominent 20th-century architect. Its most famous film appearance is as Deckard’s apartment in Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982). In the film, this hilltop house assumes the role of a futuristic 97th-floor apartment:

This example demonstrates one of the design approaches taken by filmmakers for creating virtual places: redefining a physical place. In other words, a film is shot in an already existing physical place, possibly with some local modifications to suit the needs of the film. More importantly, it is then presented in a context which makes it appear like another place altogether. Technically, such as in the case of the Ennis House, the production process may also involve a stage-set version of the house, which eases design modifications as well as the placement of lighting and cameras. And yet the principle remains the same: a new virtual place in a film has been created based on an existing physical place.

The Ennis House has also starred in a long list of other films, TV commercials, and music videos, and has assumed various roles. Over the years, however, it became such an iconic film star house, that – similar to some human film stars – its real value is no longer just in its ability to act, but simply in ‘gracing the screen with its presence’. In the examples that follow, then, the house is presented unchanged, starring mostly in the role of its own self – Hollywood’s uninhabited film star house.

A series of TV commercials for Obsession by Calvin Klein, directed by David Lynch:

Music videos for Ricky Martin’s song Vuelve, and S Club 7’s song Have You Ever (and no, these videos do not represent my musical taste ):

One of the key principles of The Virtual Space Theory is that it separates the discussion of pictorial phenomena from that of the technical procedures used to create them.

Let’s take the following TV commercial as an example:

A common reaction many people have when watching it, especially for the first time, is to immediately ask “How did they do that?” or “Is it real?” In other words, the improbability of seeing thousands of colorful balls bouncing down the sloped streets of San Francisco makes us wonder what it is exactly that we are seeing. Is it a filmed report of an actual event, or some computer-generated wizardry? Before I give the answer, let’s take a look at one more video:

As you might have guessed by now, the first video was filmed on location in San Francisco, and the technique which was used for it was to dump rubber balls from trucks located further uphill. The second video is computer-generated, demonstrating a real-time rendering application called Cryengine (‘real-time’ means that rather than preparing the images in advance, such software is capable of producing each frame of this video as it is viewed – or roughly in 0.04 seconds).

And yet, from the point of view of The Virtual Space Theory, the virtual places created by these videos are essentially identical. In both cases, what we see is a virtual space version of San Francisco with colorful balls bouncing down its streets [update 02/2010: The CG video originally discussed here is no longer available, so I replaced it with another version of it which shows bouncing teapots instead of balls, but the principle remains the same]. Just like in the case of the Eiffel Tower discussed in an earlier post, the fact that the first video was filmed in San Francisco, does not make the physical city of San Francisco somehow float behind your computer screen. In both of them, all you are actually seeing is a virtual place which looks like San Francisco. The only difference between them is in their techniques of production.

Now let’s extend the point further to also cover the phenomenon of motion, by using another example from the same series of TV commercials:

The question, this time, is whether or not there actually are colored plasticine bunnies hopping about sidewalks in New York City. The visual style of this video hints to us that it was made using the stop-motion technique, since the movement of the bunnies is continuous, whereas that of the passers-by and shadows is rather erratic. In the physical city of New York, then, what was actually there were pre-made models of bunnies in different poses, which were interchanged and moved around by the film crew in between the shootings of each frame. The hopping bunnies you just saw as a result, however, are not and never were in physical New York. These are virtual bunnies, and they exist only in virtual space – as part of the virtual New York City of this TV commercial.

Therefore, as you watch the following final video, see if you can look at it beyond the automatic tendency to ask “…but how did they do it?!” Instead, how about considering it to be nothing more than a visual Concerto for Paint and Apartment Blocks played out inside of a virtual place in virtual space. From the point of view of this discussion, then, you might find that the answer to your question about the technique is another question:

“Does it really matter…?”