# Nanna Verhoeff (2020). *Surface Explorations: 3D Moving Images as Cartographies of Time*. : Amsterdam University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[chapter]] > Title:: Surface Explorations: 3D Moving Images as Cartographies of Time > Author(s): [[Nanna Verhoeff]] > Year:: 2020 > Tags:: > DOI:: 10.2307/j.ctv12pnt9c > Citekey:: verhoeff_surface_2020 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Surface Explorations: 3D Moving Images as Cartographies of Time](zotero://select/items/@saether_surface_2020) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-10-06]] ## Citation ```latex [@verhoeff_surface_2020] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@saether_surface_2020]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation - Werner Herzog’s *Cave of Forgotten Dreams*(2010) * the film also speaks to a self-reflexivity in visual media forms that explore and investigate the specificities of their (new) technologies and processes of visualization. * I will argue below, augmenting the cartographic in this experience of navigation as a cartography in-the-making. * I would propose that the film itself, its mode of filming and editing, offers a distinct form of knowledge production countering other, perhaps more traditional visual methods that are anchored in distanced objectification of the objects studied. * As Giuliana Bruno examines in her recent impressive study, the many surfaces that surround us function as connecting tissue, as meeting places that connect bodies, subjects, materials. * Bruno, *Surface*. * Indeed, Jihoon Kim has suggested that 3D moving images perhaps first and foremost invite investigation of ‘archaeological, aesthetic, cultural and industrial underpinnings suggested by 3D’s varying forms from the predigital through to the digital age’. ## Haptics * The term, introduced in 1901 by Alois Riegl, has been brought to bear by Gilles Deleuze on impressionist painting. Haptic, from the Greek *aptô*(‘touching’), is characterized by three related primary features relevant for both Herzog’s film and Kentridge’s animations. * The haptic solicits *Proximity* * inviting viewers to caress the image with the eyes; it is ultimately *formless*, and in consequence, lines *change* their function * animated by ==tracing== (Kentridge) * Tracing can be understood as a haptic form of spatial exploration and as such engages the more invasive yet paradoxically fundamentally distancing forms of exploration in an oblique polemic. * as well as ==layering== (Herzog) * ==Mieke Bal== who, departing from Deleuze and Guattari, has defined the ==haptic as== enhanced by a ==‘dialectic between form and formlessness’== that emerges in the act of approaching the work of art that she analyzes. * It is the disappearance of form into formlessness and the emergence and movement of lines that characterize the haptic encounter. * Commenting on seeing landscape in ‘experiential’ rather than ‘aesthetic’ terms, he considers this distinction as oppositional to be problematic. * Indeed, is the aesthetic not experiential? It is clearer with temporal specification: experiential temporality rather than aesthetic fixation * Truniger, Fred. (2013). *Filmic Mapping: Film and the Visual Culture of Landscape Architecture*. Berlin: Jovis Verlags- und Projektburo, p. 77. * This performativity can be understood as the construction of presence. This may resolve what Mary Ann Doane suggests is a spatiotemporal disorientation in confrontation with the moving image in projection when she writes that ‘the perception of the moving image takes place somewhere between the projector and screen, and the temporary, ephemeral nature of that image is reaffirmed by its continual movement and change’. [[@doane_location_2009]] * Pepita Hesselberth sees this as fundamental to a ‘tangibility-effect’ of cinematic deixis: * As a projectable property then, presence—understood as the perception of self-existence, of ‘me’—arises from the embodied interactions afforded within a given environment, in real-time and real-space. […] In fact, I would argue that a focus on presence intimates a conception of materiality that is much more in sync with the cinematic project as a whole, as it picks up where the fear of the dematerialization of the image associated with luminous projection has left us: at the loss of the image’s indexical grounding in a material object—be it celluloid or, as in the case of the optical toy, in the ‘afterimage’. * * Hesselberth, *Cinematic Chronotopes*, p. 96. ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@saether_surface_2020]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```