"A Monument for the Invisible" is an investigation of the architecture of an information society from a blind person's perspective.
Traditionally we consider staging, whether in film or theatre, as a spatial and temporal marker whose primary function is to act as the background for the progression of a narration and the development of characters. But more often the locations, the set design, the overall fictional space or architecture of a film actually make up a persona or character in itself. It can even take the leading role. Think of the park in Antonioni's Blowup, Xanadu in Citizen Kane or even better: the suburbs in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, the space ship in A Space Odyssey, Hotel Overview in The Shining. In these movies space and location is staging people, not the other way around. In A Space Odyssey it is for instance not the astronauts who are travelling to Jupiter with the space ship; it is a space craft that is travelling with the astronauts. The oversimplified point could be that our so-called constructed environments, whether it's a space shuttle or a perfect urban plan that once should guarantee us the ultimate control over nature has ended up determining us instead.
Location In her urban film project “A Monument for the Invisible” Anu
Pennanen is investigating to what degree our collectively created surroundings
are staging and narrating us and reversely. The central part of her project
is a semi-fictional film depicting two new commercial zones in Helsinki , built
in the typical corporate style of steel and glass. Johanna, the main character,
is acting both as herself and as a fictional person. Through her Helsinki is
thus represented and investigated both as an actual geography and as a fictional
location. Johanna, both the fictional and real, is blind. But her blindness
is not represented as a handicap but as a natural form of resistance towards
the modern cityscape. Johanna is an explorer and analyst of the urban surroundings,
not a victim. Normally we think that we’re grounded in space (and time)
through vision and that vision allows us freely to master our movements in
space. But Johanna shows us that the sighted is actually more controlled by
the environment than the blind. Sighted persons are simply moving in the directions
that they’re visually told to while the blind has to find his or her
own way around step by step and thus has a very grounded and concrete experience
of the cityscape. The practice of the blind city dweller’s everyday life
is by definition diversionary (referring to de Certeau’s notion of “Le
Perruque”) since he or she doesn't perceive the architecture in the way
it was intended. Modern architecture has as we know been developed and reflected
on primarily as an abstracted visual phenomenon. Light is apparently the most
important building material we have and architectural space is often understood
relative to how it conducts our sight than our bodies, being described from
its visual qualities such as the relation among transparency, opacity and reflection
(glass, stone, steel). Besides our public space is loaded with visual information:
lights, signs, billboards, screens directing or protecting us within existing
space or seducing us to investigate new imaginary space. Particularly for the
sighted person the body is not a private zone, but can be seen as public spaces
accessible for different political, social, commercial or aesthetic interests
through the eyes.
Collective monument This is what the blind Johanna could make us see. Without romanticizing Pennanen
points out that vision might integrate, control and harmonize the various components
necessary to move in a direction toward a specific goal , physical or imaginary,
but at the same time vision makes us blind towards the concrete spatial and
visual structures we’re moving within and are directed by. But even though
our surroundings might stage us in a certain fashion Pennanen wouldn't claim
that we’re being suppressed by them. Our built environments do not represent
any identifiable central power like the historical monument. We’re not
being watched by God, the King or Stalin as the traditional statue on the square
indicated in order to control our behaviour. Collective power structures are
instead being distributed and internalized in each of us through the (differentiated)
mental-sensory experience of spatial structures, through urban planning and
architecture.
Thus the city is fundamentally an invisible phenomenon for the sighted as
well as for the blind. The city is not architecture so to say. Buildings are
visual markers, even modern collective monuments of all the invisible structures
that create and define our city spaces being legal formation of property lines,
economic arrangements, social relations and political conditions and visions.
The premise of modern architecture has traditionally been to create collective
projection spaces for social, political or economic visions and thus work like
a monumental social and societal cinema. The new architectural zones, Johanna
is exploring with her fencing stick, isn't just representing a physical expansion
of the urban geography. It is in itself a fiction, a location, yes, a monument,
not for history to be remembered but for futures to be.
Cecilie Høgsbro Østergaard
Cecilie Høgsbro Østergaard is a freelance writer, critic and
lecturer at the University of Copenhagen. She is based in Copenhagen.
Video installation. S16 mm colour film transferred to DVD. Duration 12 min 23 sec (loop). Sound surround 5.1. Dimensions variable.
Music by Mika Vainio.
More information on the work:
A Monument for the Invisible and Windows by Xander Karskens ›
A Monument for the Invisible by Anu Pennanen ›
‹ Back to works