Virtual Art From Illusion to Immersion phần 4 pptx

von Werner settled on a formulation that covered the eye witness accounts with a veneer of trustworthy facticity: ‘‘However, by comparing the oc- currences they recounted to me—albeit after making numerous changes to my composition—in the end I succeeded in creating a picture that gave military clarity to the tumult mentioned in the General Staff report.’’95 Begun in December and completed in January in his studio, von Werner’s composition of the charge of the French cavalry was drawn to a scale of 1 : 10. This picture that the artist created went far beyond the content of the written source material and the fragmentary and subjective reports of eyewitnesses; moreover, it bore no resemblance to the original sketches.96 On January 10, Crown Prince Friedrich came to the studio to see for himself how work was progressing. According to Bracht, in the early stages of the project the Crown Prince—who later stayed away from the panorama completely—had tried to change its program. He suggested the ‘‘Capture of Bazaille’’ for the panorama’s subject, because then he would certainly have been included in the picture. This, however, was not an option for Prussian Berlin because of the overproportional participation of Bavarian contingents in this battle. Additionally, civilians had been massacred at Bazaille in a veritable ‘‘blood bath’’ so that this was not a ‘‘suitable object for portrayal.’’97 Von Werner’s composition presents the turmoil of battle to the ob- server in a way that is easily comprehensible and thus prepares the ground for a suggestive appeal to patriotism and warlike instincts. At the pan- orama’s opening, the Berliner Tageblatt commented: ‘‘Pictures of war and battle panoramas . . . also stir up the sparks of national honor in every man who is fit for military service.’’98 The panorama’s claim to represent the truth stood in contradiction to von Werner’s composition, which served the principle aim of demonstrating the alleged superiority and discipline of the Prussian soldier. L’Art Industriel In the tradition of the workshop, panorama production involved a series of different painters and specializations. There were painters who covered large areas of canvas, draughtsmen for the minute details, and specialists for landscapes, genres, and figures. Bracht and Schirm were responsible for the landscape, and Friese, Ro ¨ chling, and Koch painted the figures as composed by Anton von Werner. A further nine artists, brought in mainly Chapter 3 118 from the academies in Berlin and Karlsruhe, supported these two groups during the eight months that the panorama took to complete.99 On Feb- ruary 10, 1883, painting began in the half-finished rotunda. Von Werner spoke afterward of an ‘‘extraordinary effort.’’100 A movable tower made it possible to work on different levels of the canvas at the same time. As a rule, there was a daily quota of work that had to be accomplished. Each of the many people contributing to the canvas had strictly delineated areas of work. Thus, the work process had an industrial character, not in the sense of producing a large number of objects but in the monotonous, stand- ardized nature of the work, which resulted in eradicating all personal style of the ‘‘workers.’’ The primacy of illusionism and immersion, to which all else was subject, did not allow a personal artistic style, for otherwise the panorama would not have achieved its purpose. The economic principle that governed the production was likewise at the cost of the individual. The dimensions were truly gigantic.101 At the end of the nineteenth century, the norm for panoramas was around 2000 m 2 and the paint used amounted to several tons.102 After the canvas had been divided into squares, a rough outline of von Werner’s 1 : 10 sketch was transferred onto it, the work being divided among the artists (fig. 3.6). For the Sedan panorama, they succeeded in hanging the canvas straight at the first at- tempt, without the customary bulges. This made the process of transfer- ring the sketch much easier,103 for usually the rounded and convex surfaces created many problems for the artists with regard to perspective: in order to draw a line that would be perceived as straight from the observers’ platform, the artist was continually obliged to work and then stand back from the canvas. The panoramist Bohrdt described some of the problems confronting the artist: ‘‘Close up to the canvas, the artist is helpless. He cannot even assess a straight line and when he has drawn one, it looks wrong.’’104 The lack of distance, including physical, to the work was an obstruction to a smooth and conscious work process for the artist and, additionally, precluded forming an overview of the whole work. According to Haus- mann, the artist found himself in a difficult situation: ‘‘the horizontal ar- chitectural features have to be painted as curves, the vertical elements in the foreground have to be drawn with a considerable gradient.’’105 After each section, the artist had to move back several meters to check the effect. As this procedure would have complicated the work, slowed it down con- The Panorama of the Battle of Sedan 119 siderably, and did not make sense from an economic point of view, the artists transferring the rough outline to the canvas were guided by direc- tions from the observation platform: ‘‘That the drawing pencil took on incredible proportions, the reader can well imagine. We had a bamboo pole, which was about five meters long.’’106 Thus, in this panorama, not only was the traditional unity of artistic conception and realization split up, but a further production stage was inserted into the industrial process. The artists were relieved of the control over what they had created, and this was institutionalized in the person giving directions. For Wolfgang Kemp, it was the ‘‘enormous quantitative expansion, that transformed the workers in front of the canvas into mere hands and the instructor in the middle of the round space into a mere eye. Here, it was not a process that was dissected, it was people that were split up into partial functions.’’107 Reduction to the status of a mere performing agent alienated the artist from his work; he could follow only partially his own creative process. In addition to the technical apparatus for taking pictures described above, further technical aids were employed to apply the sketches to the Figure 3.6 Projection of a photographic plate is used to create the 1 : 10 outline of the panorama of Madagascar, 1900. By kind permission of Silvia Bordini. Chapter 3 120 canvas. The panoramas had been created according to this system: Using projection, the photographs of the landscape were transformed into a pre- paratory sketch of 1 : 10, which was then distorted according to the rules of descriptive geometry.108 A picture was then taken of this, and the sketch thus obtained became the final model, which was then projected onto the panorama canvas. The artists only had to trace the lines with charcoal. The methods of projection were, from about 1860 onward, very much improved through stronger sources of light. In 1863, Claudet developed a process whereby artists were able to work on the projected drawing directly on the canvas.109 Thus, the stages in the production of the panorama were: photography—drawing—photography—projection —drawing—painting. Although this standard procedure was almost cer- tainly followed in the Sedan panorama, the precise method of transferring the images to the canvas is not explicitly mentioned by the historical sources. The degree of alienation that obtained in the panorama, particularly with respect to the graphic artist, was relativized by work on details. Yet although the artist was able to develop a feeling for the fragment he was working on, its execution still had to conform rigorously to the dictates of illusionism. Von Werner insisted on absolutely sharp detail throughout the gigantic painting: ‘‘. . . the practices of subordination, sketching, or outlining, which are admissible for easel painting, cannot be used here. I realized very quickly that, for example, sketchy outlines of the troops located around two kilometers away from the observer’s position would not suffice because, as mere patches of color, they appeared closer to the ob- server and only receded when painted in such careful detail that they stood up to scrutiny through an opera glass.’’110 The mechanically aided transfer of the outline to the canvas together with sharpness of detail and realistic color ruled out all possibility of per- sonal artistic expression and characteristic style. Von Werner continued: ‘‘In addition, masses of foliage in the mid- or foreground painted with broad strokes of the brush proved to be impossible because the effect was not natural but just ‘painted.’ So Eugen Bracht was compelled to paint a great walnut-tree in the foreground leaf by leaf . . . ’’.111 Here, von Werner uses the language of an artist to express the normative mechanism of the panorama medium in similar terms to those used by the scientist Hermann von Helmholtz in 1871.112 To produce the illusion of nature demanded The Panorama of the Battle of Sedan 121 the relinquishment of characteristic artistic style and the depersonalization of the artist. For the faux terrain, which the panorama artists also created after the picture was finished, the same method was applied. Here, too, all traces of the individual artist were obliterated in order to maximize the effect of the illusion and immersion.113 For this work, which was possible only through the concerted efforts of many people working together and the utilization of technical instruments, von Werner assumed not only the role of deviser of the conception but also those of director and supervisor. Frequently, von Werner was obliged to seek the advice of experienced panoramists, such as Piglheim, Detaille, and de Neuville,114 but he still does not appear to have been very competent at his job. Eugen Bracht’s judgment is scathing: ‘‘I suffered a great deal because of A. von Werner’s obsession with changing things—the best sections were destroyed and redone many times over because they did not conform to the proportions he had set for himself.’’115 Von Werner had an attack of fatigue while in the panorama on June 4. What caused this is not known, so one can only speculate: It is possible that the official responsibility for a project of these dimensions weighed heavily on him; it is also possible that it was a further element in the construction of a myth—the artist gives his all to realize a work of mon- umental importance, which takes a heavy toll on him. During the project, von Werner’s manner and conduct prefigured to a certain extent the type of director who developed later with the advent of cinema, who operated surrounded by assistants and technical apparatus of all kinds. As we have seen, in the panorama a complex system intervened between the artist and the artwork. The final result depended solely on the smooth operation of all components, and the end-goal of total illusion, of seeming to conserve a historic, aureoled moment in time, could be achieved only through rigor- ous and precise coordination. The Rotunda For the time, the total cost of the panorama—one million goldmarks— was astronomical. The architects Ende and Bo ¨ ckmann, who had supervised the building of the national panorama two years previously, were awarded the contract for the rotunda after their design won third prize in a public competition (fig. 3.7).116 Designed as a national memorial of the monu- Chapter 3 122 mental variety, the external decoration117 was representative and costly: sgraffito-like paintings by E. Ewald, a plaque inscribed with passages from the proclamation of Wilhelm I of July 25, 1870, and a Prussian eagle against French flags on a background of gold-leaf. Further, the brick building was an eye-catcher by virtue of its position alone: in splendid isolation in the Panoramastrasse on the west side of the new road junction at the Alexanderplatz urban railway station. Modeled on contemporary industrial exhibitions, the ground floor housed a spacious and decorative restaurant where the surrounding ‘‘humoristic murals . . . which depicted military life in peacetime’’118 appealed on a bur- lesque level to the guests after their visit to dioramas and the panorama. Via a mezzanine story, where there were two bas relief maps of the battle- field and a short ramp with a few steps, one reached the top floor and the panorama itself. Technically, the construction of the panorama was com- plex and, for its time, very modern. There were two notable innovations: First, the outer circle of the viewing platform, which was 1.5 meters wide, Figure 3.7 Rotunda of the Sedan panorama. Cross-section, design: Ende and Bo ¨ckmann. In Deutsche Bauzeitung , December 26, 1883, p. 613. The Panorama of the Battle of Sedan 123 revolved, powered by a 45 horsepower engine. The speed could be varied according to the size of the crowd, allowing the visitors between 15 and 40 minutes to be transported past the 115 meters of painting and faux terrain with its cardboard soldiers. Second, the Siemens and Halske Com- pany supplied the artificial lighting. Arc lamps, used in the evenings and in winter, together with heating, made it possible to visit the panorama until 11 p.m. The lighting produced such subdued effects that the colors retained their full effect, even at night.119 The rotunda also housed dioramas. In contrast to the panorama, which was dedicated to the rank and file, the dioramas focused on military leaders. As von Werner put it, they complemented the representation of this ‘‘his- torical event of world importance,’’120 and completed the program of the political space represented by the panorama. Three events of the day, spaced at five-hour intervals, are captured in the dioramas. The first, enti- tled ‘‘General Reille delivers Emperor Napoleon’s letter,’’ takes place at 7 p.m.; the second, ‘‘The capitulation at Donchery’’ at midnight; the third, ‘‘Bismarck meets with Napoleon,’’ at 5 a.m. Here, the immersive medium of the panorama meshes with successive images of a passage through time, a device that Gaudenzio Ferrari had already utilized in his Stations of the Cross at Sacro Monte. Each diorama foregrounds a different figure of the Prussian military leadership: The first is dominated by Wilhelm I; the second—the night of France’s capitulation—by von Moltke. Nearly all the French generals are portrayed as bowed figures who are unable to withstand the penetrating gaze of the towering von Moltke, whose stern features are accentuated by painted light effects. Von Werner’s mise-en- sce ` ne of the vanquished French was more extreme in the final diorama than in his preparatory sketches. The tendentious nature of the piece was confirmed by his contemporary Rosenberg: ‘‘Then the artist decided that at least in his composition, there would be a balance between the two opposing sides, although he left no doubt as to which side possessed the greater spiritual and material substance.’’121 In the third diorama, Bismarck is similarly idealized: In an attitude of unapproachable hegemony, he has come up to the captured Emperor Napoleon on horseback. He looks down from his mount on the sick em- peror, who is portrayed in foreshortened perspective and appears small by comparison. Napoleon has descended from his carriage, he appears Chapter 3 124 lost and is encumbered by a walking stick, positioned between the horse-drawn vehicle and three young soldiers on the road (fig. 3.8). The compositional strategy, to portray the military leaders in a position of ‘‘Blicku¨ berlegenheit’’122—superior command of view—vis a ` vis the battle landscape, which was by definition not possible in the panorama, is revealed in full in these dioramas. All three, Wilhelm I, von Moltke, and Bismarck, who had seen the work in progress on visits to von Werner’s studio, were featured in superior isolation:123 Wilhelm I confronts the battlefield, von Moltke the French generals, and Bismarck the defeated emperor. Although the Prussian faces did not actually display the in- famous ‘‘Sedan smirk,’’ nevertheless, in all these pictures they are literally looking down on the French. This is a further example of a politically slanted statement masquerading as authenticity. In spite of the claim that these representations of the battle were true, von Werner’s composition work resulted in a product that was distorted and laden with antipathy. The intention was that this specific historic moment, the defeat of the ‘‘traditional enemy’’ and the ‘‘birth of the Kai- serreich,’’ should be indelibly etched on the collective memory of the public by this monumental work, which left the impression that one had Figure 3.8 Bismarck’s meeting with Napoleon. Diorama in The Battle of Sedan , oil on canvas, whereabouts unknown, photograph of the original. In Adolf Rosenberg, Anton v. Werner , Bielefeld: Velhagen and Klasing 1895, p. 91. The Panorama of the Battle of Sedan 125 been there oneself. This was the essence of official state interest in the panorama. The effect produced by the vast immersive image space was linked with that of the dioramas, which functioned as portraits of military commanders, and were complemented by the genre paintings in the res- taurant. The message had differentiated facets: The panorama was sugges- tive and gripping; the dioramas in their darkened rooms exuded an aura of reverence; and the simple pictures of soldiers in peacetime operated on a lighter, burlesque level. The latter, which were artistically undemanding, fulfilled an important function in the overall effect, for in recollection, the panorama and dioramas stood out even more effectively against these sen- timental genre paintings. Although the Sedan panorama was unique,124 and therefore tied to one particular location, the methods used in its production make it difficult to distinguish it from an industrial product. At the same time, the panorama is both structurally and essentially no different than any other work of art that is material and not ephemeral. The outward appearance of this man- made work is that of an object. Leaving aside its destruction or deteriora- tion over time, the materiality of the idea that gave rise to the work is the concept of lending existential form to a temporal phase within a space. With the aid of painting, three-dimensional objects, and architecture— additionally, often sound effects, sometimes steam or odors—the panorama is not only an element of all three art genres; it also realizes, unknowingly, Wagner’s conception of a Gesamtkunstwerk, or synthesis of the arts, which results from the complex interplay of these components.125 To imagine a haptic dimension, to have the impression that it is possi- ble to touch the cardboard soldiers or intervene in the battle, is the core of the concept of immersion. However, as the visual character of this production was of seminal importance, the haptic effect of the material receded into the background. Obviously, the individual visitor’s reception of the Sedan panorama changed over time, yet the postulated illusionistic effect barred any interpretation of it as an ‘‘open work of art.’’126 For only in its material entirety and illusion-maintaining intactness did it consti- tute the panorama form. If a part were missing or changed in a way that detracted from the illusion, it would no longer be the work that had been commissioned, created by the artist, and executed by his assistants. Fur- ther, any idea of change by the observer was leveled at the very founda- Chapter 3 126 tions of the panorama concept. Similarly, changes wrought by the passage of time were also unwelcome, for these reduced the impression of illusion. It was only possible to perceive the panorama as a work, in the sense of a discrete object, outside the rotunda; once inside, once in the picture, the sense impression of a distant work, separated from the observer, dis- appeared. In the homogeneous image space, everything was the work. Consciously, or unconsciously, the observer perceived the space of the illusion; however, this image space was not recognizable as an object, as an artwork. Following Walter Benjamin’s concept of the ‘‘aura,’’ which is connected to the nonreproducible authenticity of a unique original,127 the specific effect of a work may be subject to strong fluctuations because of shifting sociopolitical coordinates. The Battle of Sedan is an illustrative example: through its connotations of being labeled as the historic truth by artist and Kaiser and of being a very expensive and powerful reference to a political event, the Sedan panorama gradually faded into obscurity as the battle receded into the past and the military protagonists of the dioramas passed away. Official interest in its continuation waned, and its decline in popu- larity with the public was undoubtedly due in part to the new medium of film, which heightened the transitory illusion effect and thus made a stronger appeal to the audience. No alternative use was found for the rotunda and it was demolished in 1904. The panorama was finished. Its symbiotic linkage with the presentation apparatus of the rotunda128 meant that it had to be destroyed the moment that further exhibition was no longer profitable. For the medium of the panorama functioned in the same way as film, slides, or computer programs, that is, only in conjunction with its presentation apparatus. Its enormous dimensions were prohibitive for disposal on the private art market, and this sealed its fate. Its scale also made integration into another medium or a museum impossible. Museums did not have the prerequisites for displaying panoramas, and the few that have survived have done so in their rotundas.129 The course of media his- tory and the limited political interest of later generations led to the break- up of the Sedan panorama. After the rotunda was pulled down, it is said that the complete canvas was handed over to Kaiser Wilhelm.130 In 1928, the National Gallery put the rolls into storage, but since World War II, all trace of the panorama has been lost.131 The Panorama of the Battle of Sedan 127 [...]... remained 2-D Sergei M Eisenstein was one of the visionaries of new media of the art of illusion (fig 4. 8) In the late 1 940 s, he described a symbiosis of art and utopian technology An influential Soviet film director and theorist, he interpreted the history of art as an evolutionary process inseparable from Intermedia Stages of Virtual Reality in the Twentieth Century 153 ... panorama (Vienna, 18 84) , it was cut into pieces and sold from 1892 to 1896 See Saint-Omer (1978) (exhib catalog), p 5 130 Letter from Dr Dominik Bartmann to the author dated August 5, 1996 131 Admiral von Uslar’s enquiry as to its whereabouts received the following answer from the National Gallery, dated February 25, 1935: ‘‘Dear Admiral von Uslar, The Sedan Panorama was given to the National Gallery... Berlin for the academic year October 1883–August 18 84, Berlin: 18 84, p 3 In the Archive of the HdK, Berlin: Bestand 6, 129 7 Von Werner (1913), p 3 74 Chapter 3 128 8 Ibid., p 376 9 To enable spectators to gain a clearer impression, the position of the objects in the painting were aligned according to the points of the compass on an orientation plan which was available to all visitors 10 With considerable... Stages of Virtual Reality in the Twentieth Century 145 the spiritual abstraction of the new, future religion,’’17 and he translated Futurism’s well-known visions of merging humans with machines into a state of permanent dynamism on stage He wanted to amalgamate this image, now mechanized and ‘‘totalized,’’ with the spectator Without actors, it would be possible to revolutionize the spectators’ perception... observers are receptive to content and artistic media competence, until finally a new medium with even greater appeal to the senses and greater suggestive power comes along and casts a spell of illusion over the audience again This process, where media of illusion and the ability to distance oneself from them compete, has been played out time and again in the history of European art since the end of the... September 4, 1883, p 1 20 See Bartmann (1985); Berlin (1993) (exhib catalog) 21 Von Khaynach (1893), p 28 22 Langbehn (1909), pp 264ff See also Mai (1981a), pp 45 8ff and Paret’s (1980) study on von Werner’s art policy in Berlin 23 Von Werner (1896), p 42 24 Without directly mentioning names, Wilhelm II clearly disapproved of impressionism and other modern trends in art: ‘‘Whosoever breaks away from the... ‘‘Theater, Zirkus, Variete,’’ Moholy-Nagy wrote: ‘‘It is high time to develop activities, which will not allow the masses to remain mute spectators, which will not only move them inwardly but seize them, make them participate, and in the highest transports of ecstasy, allow them to enter the action on the stage.’’10 He called Chapter 4 144 for a new type of expanded stage including other media, which... Battle of Ulundi (1879), a military encounter from the recent colonial Boer War in South Africa 41 See Robichon (1979, 1985) 42 See Leroy (1993), p 75 43 Charles Castellani, ‘‘Confidences d’un panoramiste,’’ Paris, undated, p 229; cited in Leroy (1993), p 75 44 Leroy (1993), p 80, appendix table 1 45 Pieske has shown that a great demand existed in Germany for pictorial representations of all kinds of this... Cineorama (fig 4. 4) First presented at the 1900 World Exhibition in Paris, it was a hybrid medium: Ten 70mm films were projected simultaneously to form a connected 360 image. 24 In fact, the walls of older panorama rotundas were often whitewashed and used as presentation spaces for the new cinematic version.25 Intermedia Stages of Virtual Reality in the Twentieth Century 147 ´ Figure 4. 4 The Cineorama... fantasies of fusing different elements into one, typical of the Futurists, to the theater stage Contemporaneously, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was extending his theory to include cinema In his Futurist Cinema Manifesto of 1916, Marinetti declares cinema to be the most dynamic of all human media of expression because of its ability to compound traditional forms of art and media Futurist cinema will demolish . year October 1883–August 18 84, Berlin: 18 84, p. 3. In the Archive of the HdK, Berlin: Bestand 6, 129. 7. Von Werner (1913), p. 3 74. Chapter 3 128 8. Ibid., p. 376. 9. To enable spectators to gain. intervened between the artist and the artwork. The final result depended solely on the smooth operation of all components, and the end-goal of total illusion, of seeming to conserve a historic, aureoled. created according to this system: Using projection, the photographs of the landscape were transformed into a pre- paratory sketch of 1 : 10, which was then distorted according to the rules of descriptive