By Christian Viveros-Fauné
By Miriam Felton-Dansky
By Tom Sellar
By Tom Sellar
By Jessica Dawson
By Tom Sellar
By R. C. Baker
By Tom Sellar
Sports bars may show all the days games on a multitude of big screens, but how about the same sporting event viewed from a dozen different perspectives utilizing various technologies? Deep Play presents the entire championship matchlasting more than two hourswith an impressive array of imaging methods projected in a row stretching across three long gallery walls. For example, channels 2 and 9 use television cameras to track a single Italian and French player, while no. 11 translates the play-by-play into the kind of constantly updated text one sees when following a game online. The third projection consists of crowd-surveillance footage from inside and outside Berlins Olympic Stadium, where the final took place, and the seventh renders the match into a video-game version.
All of the imagery in Deep Play relies on other sources (mostly from television), except for Farockis own distant stationary shotchannel 6of the stadium. As the hours elapse, cloud patterns pass and afternoon shifts into evening. The installations primary audio comes from channel 8, a projection of the globally televised version accompanied by the broadcast directors voice commands to the sound and camera people. A number of screens also feature line and bar graphs charting player movement and speed, and channel 10 focuses solely on the French and Italian coaches, with specific plays from the game diagrammed over their images.
Perhaps more than the eventual winner (Italy), the match will be remembered for French soccer star Zinedine Zidanes head butt of Italian defender Marco Materazzi, which resulted in Zidane being tossed from the match. In the months afterward, people debated what Materazzi could have possibly said to warrant a response from Zidane that got him ejected with the score tied and the championship in the balance. Since Zidane is of Algerian descent, many presumed Materazzi made an ethnic slur or called him a terroristlip readers hired by The Times of London claimed that this was the case. Turns out that Materazzi said hed prefer Zidanes sister when the French player tauntingly offered him his jersey.
Yet a viewer arriving at the start of the 12 channels synchronized loop would have to sit with Deep Play for nearly two hours to reach this dramatic moment. And thats exactly the point. Despite his foray into the psychological-thriller genre, Farocki isnt interested in standard narrative trajectories of tension and release (much less redemption). To the contrary, the aim in many of his films is to demystify the ways in which different types of media function. He repeatedly engages with the mechanics of image-makingfrom drawing and engraving to satellite feedsand their effects on the way human beings see. Nevertheless, the beautyif one can call it suchof Zidanes action lies in its inexplicability, which all the technology at Farockis disposal cant explain. Neither can it fully account for the desires, disappointments, sympathies, and animosities that viewers project onto what they watch, whether film, television, or ads, for that matter. A friend I bumped into at the gallery had to force himself not to stay for the whole match, even though he already knew how it unfolded: Along with Zidanes retaliatory act, the tie game concluded in a nail-biting shoot-out.
In his earlier film Images of the World and the Inscription of War (1988), Farockis attentions ranged from Renaissance perspective to architectural mapping to aerial photographs of World War II concentration camps. Each advancement in the science of sight paradoxically both expands and constrains knowledge by redirecting afresh how and what people perceive. Farockis video installation from 2000, I Thought I Was Seeing Convicts, collaged prison-surveillance-camera footage with other images of incarceration (including shopping!). Media theorists talk about the absorptive powers of the spectacle, but Farocki reveals thatlike art itselfthe polished version of what gets shown is frequently a fractured patchwork in which editing, modes of transmission, and the contexts of reception count as much as content. Technology may be heading toward omnipresence, but that doesnt make it omniscientyet. Nevertheless, technological change does help to shapesome might say controlnew human subjects. In this sense, Farocki demonstrates that in a society of the spectacle, seeing is its own form of labor.