PDF (Español)
FLIP
Authors
José Alejandro López Pérez
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Abstract
This research report examines the nature of an electronic interface through an analysis of Peter Campus’ video installation Interface (1972). The study adopts a spatial approach, considering the artwork’s nature as an installation that exists as a spatial configuration. The analysis intertwines direct observation of the piece with theoretical reflections. The primary findings indicate that, in shaping human spatial awareness, every interrelated component functions as an interface. Consequently, space itself, as a synthesis of these elements, also constitutes an interface. This suggests that an electronic interface is not merely an object but also the interaction between two or more components. When an electronic element engages with another—electronic or otherwise—the entire spatial construct, understood as an interface, becomes conditioned by the electronic. This spatial configuration, shaped by consciousness, is termed the electronicspatial interface, which generates overlapping spatial components. This interface tends to be imperceptible, extending and reflecting human presence. The study concludes that this interface operates within a dual mechanism: just as it extends and reflects the human, the human extends and reflects it in return. To prevent humans from becoming mere automatons of this process, art has the potential to create works that make this interface visible and reveal its mechanisms of operation.
References
Bergamo, F. (2022). Interfaces: Between Drawing and Design. Diségno, (11), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.26375/disegno.11.2022.13
Campus, P. (1972). Interface [Videoarte]. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/interface/
Campus, P. (1973). Three Transitions [Videoarte]. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/three-transitions/
Campus, P. (1974-1975). mem [Videoarte]. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/mem/
Campus, P. (1975). dor [Videoarte]. http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/mem/
Campus, P. (2013). AO Interview – New York: Peter Campus “Now and Then” at Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery. http://artobserved.com/2013/01/ao-interview-new-york-peter-campus-now-and-then-at-bryce-wolkowitz-gallery/
Campus, P. (2017). Video as Function of Reality. En Peter Campus: Closed Circuit Video, Seven Drawings (pp. 20-21). Éditions Anarchive.
Campus, P. y Roman, M. (2017). Conversations with Peter Campus. En A.-M. Duguet, Peter Campus: Anarchive 7 (pp. 167-210). Éditions Anarchive.
Da Vinci, M. (1978). Video, the Art of Observable Dreams. En G. Battcock (Ed.), New Artists Video: A Critical Anthology (pp. 11-23).
Dubois, P. (2001). Video, cine, Godard. Libros de Rojas.
Flusser, V. (1990). Hacia una filosofía de la fotografía. Trillas.
Flusser, V. (1994). Los gestos: Fenomenología y comunicación. Herder.
Foucault, M. (1994). Espacios diferentes. En A. Cabrera, Toponimias: ocho ideas del espacio (pp.31-38). Fundación La Caixa.
Galuppo, G. (2012). Video, el cine por otros medios. En J. La Ferla y S. Reynal (Comps.), Territorios audiovisuales (pp. 152-168). Libraria.
Galloway, A. (2012). The Interface Effect. Polity Press.
Hookway, B. (2014). Interface. The MIT Press.
Krauss, R. (2006). Videoarte: la estética del narcicismo. En Primera generación: Arte e imagen en movimiento [1963-1986] (pp. 43-60). Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía.
Lissitzky, E. (1995). A. and Pangeometry. En S. Yates (Ed.), Poetics of Space: A Critical Photographic Anthology (pp. 67-75). University of New Mexico.
López, J. A. (2012). Obras con interfaces tecnológicas con edición en tiempo real y señales eléctricas. En A. Piedrahita, J. Arias, C. Cogua y J. A. López (Comps.), Codificar/Decodificar: Prácticas, espacios y temporalidades del audiovisual en Internet (pp. 147-160). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
López, J. A. (2023a). Penumbra luminosa: exploración de la materia y su Tiempo desde el entre. Editorial Universidad Nacional de Colombia y Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/84998
López, J. A. (2023b). Reflejos desde la penumbra: la desaparición forzada en Colombia y la obra Relatos nebulosos. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología, (52), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.7440/antipoda52.2023.05
Lorber, R. (1974-1975). Epistemological TV. Art Journal, 34(2), 132-134.
Machado, A. (2000). El paisaje mediático: Sobre el desafío de las poéticas tecnológicas. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Marzo, J. (2015). La genealogía “líquida” de la interfaz. Artnodes, (16), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i16.2784
McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Gingko Press Inc.
Meigh-Andrews, C. (2014). A History of Video Art (second ed.). Bloomsbury.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1993). Fenomenología de la percepción. Editorial Planeta-De Agostini, S. A.
Mondloch, K. (2010). Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art. University of Minnesota Press.
Rokeby, D. (1995). Transforming Mirrors: Subjectivity and Control in Interactive Media. En S. Penny (Ed.), Critical Issues in Electronic Media (pp. 133-158). Sunny Press.
Spielberg, S. (Dir.). (2002). Minority Report [Película]. Fox, 20th Century; Pictures, DreamWorks; Entertainment, Amblin; Productions, Blue Tulip.
Thomson, J. (1912). Collected Papers in Physics and Engineering. Cambridge University Press.
Viola, B. (5 de febrero de 2010). Artist to Artist: Peter Campus—Image and Self. Art in America, 59-64.
https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/peter-campusimage-and-self-62832/
Weibel, P. (2000). The Art of Interface Technology. En H. Diebner, T. Druckrey y P. Weibel (Eds.), Sciences of the Interface (pp. 272-281). Genista.
Downloads
