SIMONE BROTT The University of Melbourne

Close Encounter, Withdrawn Effects

Extending Deleuze’s later writing on the cinema and engaging both film and built work, the article explores what I call the ‘‘close-up,’’ an immanent subjectivity of architectural encounter, whereby the architectural surface aggressively colonizes the subject at close range through a touch or by another mechanism I describe as the ‘‘withdrawn effect,’’ the surface assimilates the subject.

Terminologies of the Subject
In a lucid discussion of objecthood in German aesthetic theory of the late 1920s, Gilles Deleuze admired the thinking of Alois Riegl and Wilhem Worringer, for each of whom, in his account, abstract forms wield ‘‘an intense life and expressionistic value, all the while remaining inorganic.’’1 This longer trajectory in German art history and its implicit theorization of an autonomous subjectivity of form, observed by Deleuze, can be contrasted with two enduring models of subjectivity in architectural criticism since World War II. I am thinking of both the received modernist tradition in architecture, where the subject is thought to colonize, capture, or dominate space, and its attendant postmodern critique, where space is viewed as a symbolic surface of inscription for the subject’s fantasies, memories, and anxieties. My project departs from both architectural models of subjectivity as mastery and metaphor to posit a real architectural subjectivity in and of itself. For Gilles Deleuze, subjectivity does not mean a person with fixed traits but ‘‘an effect.’’ The personal identity for Deleuze is precisely a repetition of concrete effects, namely, the habit of saying ‘‘I’’ whereby the ‘‘self’’ becomes as if an a priori fact.2 Effet, in turn, does not mean a causality or refer to something ephemeral but to a component power that ‘‘works’’—the sense in which one says ‘‘electromagnetic effect,’’ in Deleuze’s usage.3 I will use the term ‘‘effect’’ to designate multiple components of architectural encounter (such as a touch, a ray of light, a falling beam).

The ‘‘close-up,’’ not to be confused with a camera movement or a formal entity magnified, refers to the close-range field of architectural encounter, what I think of as an affective surface or image to which the individuated subject begins to lose ascendancy, a surface that itself becomes an entity.4 Surface here includes a continuous physical region such as a wall or a hand, but it extends to the entire set of disconnected surfaces whose effects collectively act upon the subject as a unity. The close-up is distinguished only by the degree of indiscernibility of the subject in the image and by the degree of autonomy in greater or lesser quantities of the architectural encounter—in other words, its power to act and its proliferation of effects. ‘‘Encounter,’’ finally, should not be thought of as a meeting between two constituted wholes, a building and a formed consciousness, but rather as a field of effects for what cannot yet be determined, for the creation of something new and unforeseen.

Close-Up Effects
Late in Ingmar Bergman’s film Through a Glass Darkly, we see Karin (Harriet Andersson) examine a moving reflection of water on a square region of patterned wallpaper.5 At the moment of contact, the paisley starts to react to her touch, as if the fabric has separated from the wall the moment Karin herself begins to separate, to fragment. Film then functions not to reproduce a single-point perspective or view, rather what is close up is the effects themselves, in relation to

each other. The image enlarges, in a small region of wallpaper, Karin’s touch, the pattern of light, the swirls of paisley, the low-relief fabric, the look of wonderment, the voices in the wall, the moment of submission, and so on (Figures 1 and 2).6 Later, we are invited into another close-up, this time of a wallpapered door that Karin opens only to find, to her alarm, an identically wallpapered closet behind. It is as if space has been abolished, leaving only a series of flattened surfaces in its place; one close-up gives way to reveal a second and thus the character’s discovery of the site of her deindividuation. What is presented to the audience is itself a merging of an anticipated spatial order with the circulation of disconnected effects around Karin’s touch. The spectators, in other words, are also taken into the image, just as they are active participants in closing this space. To be clear, the close-up is not a psychological projection onto the objects of the film, a construction in the mind of the viewer, or a metaphor or symbol of subjectivity communicated through the use of architectural imagery. In the realist account of the cinema adopted by Deleuze, ´ via the film theorist Andre Bazin with whom Deleuze held an allegiance, the events in a film are seen to be real.7 Likewise, an architectural subjectivity is real insofar as it gives rise to a real affective event. The architectural close-up produces determinate effects both within the film and in the affective space of the audience that witnesses it. I will return to this.

Journal of Architectural Education, pp. 6–16 ª 2008 ACSA

Close Encounter, Withdrawn Effects


The architectural close-up departs from Deleuze’s thinking on the film close-up. (Reproduced from I. is struck by an almost absolute muteness. . it is the unspeakable itself— ‘‘where am I behind the wall?’’—and the lure of the unknown—‘‘what happens next?’’—that the image captures and that grips her. recalling Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper. is an architectural ‘‘faceification’’ where the architectural visage. unlike the wallpaper in Gilman. rather. and thereby. Through a Glass Darkly was originally entitled Wallpaper. in another reality. Rather. This loss of an individuated subjectivity emerges precisely from the materiality of the closeup itself. Bergman. ‘‘close-up’’ means the architectural subjectivity itself isolated and laid bare as the features of a face. he even loses his individuation. rather. rather. her loss of identity mobilizes an unannounced subjectivity in the wallpaper itself.’’11 But it suspends her individuation not in the obvious sense that Karin cannot speak or navigate space. Karin’s actual touch of the surface becomes the affective singularity for the discovery of schizophrenia. which endow it with the character of bringing near. as Deleuze says. it is not from any phenomenal interior that Karin feels. the surface of encounter. or rather experiences itself or feels itself ‘‘from the inside. what might be called a surround sight. Indeed. a projective surface for Karin’s schizophrenic decompensation. For Karin. at the same time. as a choir of muffled voices emanates seemingly from behind her touch.’’ Deleuze particularly admired Ingmar Bergman’s thesis on the relation between cinema and the facial close-up. or no longer wants to communicate. ‘‘suspends individuation. Through a Glass Darkly. the human face is itself already a close-up. for Deleuze. The wall close-up draws the character. The scene in Bergman The wallpaper really does shimmer in the moving pattern of water. for whom haptic ‘‘does not establish an opposition between two sense organs but rather invites the assumption that the eye itself may fulfill this nonoptical function. it could be said what takes place. which turns on the human face.’’10 But in Through a Glass Darkly. It is a coincidence of subject and object.’’15 The serial close-ups of encounter can be thought of precisely in terms of the ‘‘close-vision-haptic space’’ that Deleuze discovered in Riegl—they concatenate like a visual blanket that envelops one’s body. its effects. its visuality is haptic in the sense that Deleuze intends in his discussion of Alois Riegl. 8 However.’’ Deleuze said: Affection is what occupies the interval .’’ A character has abandoned his profession. something else that cannot be fathomed. The architectural close-up then deviates from the filmic close-up as technique and.’’9 What it renders ‘‘up close’’ is the affective merging of subject and object. It is no accident that Deleuze considered the film close-up to be the par exemplar of the ‘‘affection-image. In a discussion of cinema and what he called the ‘‘movement-image. beckoning her to join them on the other side. reflected from the sea outside.’’12 when the human face is zeroed in on by the camera. or the way in which the subject perceives itself. the camera itself ‘‘acts out’’ in the architectural close-up. to envelop the entire psychokinesthetic situation between the subject and the material encounter of architecture. in this schema. as the close-up isolates the event of contact between a character and an architectural series. renounced his social role. The ‘‘close-up’’ still of Harriet Andersson touching the wall in Through a Glass Darkly. . rather. The possibility of drawing near to the human face is the primary originality and the distinctive quality of the cinema.14 But this does not mean the closeup is nonvisual per se. it signifies a strange future. Here.13 In the architectural close-up. This moment of decompensation is not a climax in the sense of an end. Nevertheless. prior to any movements of the camera because of the anonymous power of its features. he is no longer able to. is subjectivized and incorporates the individual subject. It surges in the centre of determination. it is strangely from inside the wallpaper that she suspects herself. 7 BROTT . via a window on the opposite wall. between a perception which is troubling in certain respects and a hesitant action.1. it becomes anonymous or ‘‘dehumanized. According to his concept ´ite of visage ´ or ‘‘faceification. . the architectural close-up does not lie passively. that is to say in the subject. thereby the historical discussion of the gaze and visuality. .) quoting Bergman in his short essay ‘‘Affect as Entity ’’: ‘‘Our work begins with the human face .

which takes effect corporeally. so much as horrified that she has catalyzed its self-movement (Figures 3 and 4). in his reading of Spinoza. its glue apparently melted. Withdrawn Effects 8 . sags and nods above the bed.) begins with a series of long-distance shots of a crack in the wall. Carol is not disturbed that she has authored the clay-like imprint in the wall. which Deleuze. Polanski. and then looks at his hand ‘‘sticky with tacky yellow wall sweat’’18 (Figures 5 and 6). the architectural subjectivization is a real event. The close-up wallpaper scene constitutes what I call the primary effects-image of Barton Fink. it is only at the architectural close-up. the ‘‘pathetic fallacy. these three scenes in Bergman. The architectural close-up ushers in the wallpaper as a new character. while the paper gains a palpable power. we see a long shot preceding the camera close-up here in a hotel room. But more importantly. and the paper itself gains ascendancy. which is palpable.’’ or prosopopoeia (converting an abstract quality or idea into a person or creature) is not what is at stake here.’’22 In Barton Fink. where long shots of cracks in an apartment wall herald the crucial scene for Carol (Catherine Deneuve). the cinematic images here contribute to architecture’s own dialogue on the surface. the new entity is the production of a section of hanging paper into a distended flower that leaks onto Fink. 20 Fink loses autonomy (he is unable to write). ´ Deleuze restates the Hungarian film theorist Bela ´ Balazs’s position: ‘‘the [film] close-up does not tear away its object from a set of which it would form part. the close-up is irreducible to psychological fantasy or projection. of which it would be a part. It also bears little relation to the favorable articulations of wallpaper. To reiterate. Such a literary effect whereby inanimate objects are attributed subjective or human qualities. as in Bergman and Polanski. like a fleshy tropical flower. alerting the audience that something is awry. is introduced to the audience as if another character alongside Fink. To be clear. The failure to separate from the wall is a real event implying an attenuation in power or an affective transition: the audience connects with Fink’s disgust. to borrow Deleuze’s term. with its associations of anodyne superficiality and postmodern kitsch. The architectural close-up is focused on a section of wallpaper sagging away from the wall. that she is colonized by the image.2. that is to say it raises it to the state of Entity. As described in the screenplay: ‘‘the strip of wallpaper. it does not act in the film like the other characters—it hovers above Fink and has primacy precisely in its status of detachment. which begins with a touch.16 Like Karin. we see the close-up of the eponymous Fink (John Turturro) pressed up against the wallpaper as he desperately tries to fix the sickening material back onto the wall.’’17 In the next shot. Through a Glass Darkly. this result of the affective transaction Deleuze-Spinoza called the affectio. the affective merging of matter and subject. the wallpaper close-up is the moment wherein the film reveals what is at stake. More than this. but in the film. In the screenplay. called the affectus. This technique is also used in Polanski’s Repulsion. but on the contrary it abstracts it from all spatio-temporal coordinates. in Joel and Ethan Coen’s film Barton Fink. It glistens yellow. but what might be called a material becoming-subject born in the indifferent or ‘‘impersonal’’ effect. for Karin herself. The wallpaper still of moving pattern of reflected light on wallpaper in Through a Glass Darkly. where the wallpaper is not only defamiliarized but also radically reconstituted. there is an attenuation in power. the wall objet. but in a third realm that attracts effects both ‘‘inside’’ and ‘‘outside’’ the film and transcends any subjects with fixed traits. However. from the Arts and Crafts movement of the nineteenth century to populist movements during the sixties and beyond. It could be said that the wallpaper close-up exists neither in the reality of the characters in the film nor in that of the film spectator to whom it bears an important relation. as what Deleuze in his early work in The Logic of Sense called a pure ‘‘will of indifference. and the Coens could be viewed as revealing an idiosyncratic microgenre in the cinema. Similarly. (Reproduced from I. The architectural close-up produces a new entity—neither the entire room nor a fragment of it in the region of wall. Close Encounter. The wallpaper as architectural entity lies outside the dominant history of wallpaper in architectural discourse as interior design. Bergman. While Fink has already suffered a series of failures and rejections.’’21 To pause for a moment. whose madness is made manifest at the receiving surface of her own handprint.19 When Fink merges with the wall. the wallpaper scene. an affective transition in the situation of bodily disgust. colonizing the character in a way that cannot be mistaken for metaphor. but of another spatiotemporal order. the wallpaper feels like a metaphor.

a visceral merging of subject and object. Repulsion.’’23 or what Sartre called the ‘‘look’’ in Being and Nothingness. interpretation. The close-up is not primarily scopic but a bodily bringing close. the close-up blurs this distinction in the affective alteration of bodily states. while it concerns architectural experience. (Reproduced from R.3. 24 If the wallpaper ‘‘looks.) 4. in that it does not cast meaning as the sine qua non of subjectivity. Polanski. further. hallucination. rather than visual. The claim is not that meanings lie outside the close-up. the psychosis begins almost imperceptibly with real sounds the audience hears but only later suspects belong to an inchoate psychosis. In Through a Glass Darkly. is irreducible to the ‘‘gaze. This schema. in and of itself.) Furthermore. It is also interesting to note that schizophrenia manifests typically with auditory. departs from any phenomenological reading. or the codification of subjectivity within a space that stares back at Fink like Lacan’s ‘‘sardine can.’’ we could say it looks without getting caught (to relate to Sartre’s example of the peeping Tom who is caught). deprived of any subject. (Reproduced from R. It is a look of pure indifference. The close-up of Fink is not primarily about a look but about getting one’s hands wet. which includes a spectrum of ‘‘asignifying’’ effects. While the effects emitted include fantasy. My working of the close-up extends Deleuze’s film close-up—for him the exemplar of the 9 BROTT . cannot be caught in the act. and other signifying parts that circulate around the closeup—glue-yellow-dripping ¼ sweat-othernessdisgust—the close-up is irreducible to any overarching structuralist system. Karin does not feel the wallpaper is watching her so much as she can no longer extricate herself from it.’’ the Lacanian dialectic of looking and being looked at. rather that they cannot account for the sheer creativity of the encounter. Polanski. a look that. Clay wall still of Catherine Deneuve’s handprints on the wall in Repulsion. Repulsion. The phenomenon described here. The ‘‘close up’’ still of Catherine Deneuve printing her hand onto the soft wall surface in Repulsion. Whereas the ‘‘regard fixe’’ is frozen in its paranoiac oscillation between subject and object. the image is not a mirroring of subjectivity.

subjects reacting to situations. and successful. The vast 5. as will be seen. The image. It is not always clear what the image wants. closer to Deleuze’s ‘‘timeimages. Its subjectivity may be less articulate. (Reproduced from Joel Coen and written by Ethan and Joel Coen. imagination. The uncertainty of this image.’’ but also initiates the dissolution of the subject in the image. 1991. The articulation of the close-up further departs from Deleuze’s conception in that it not only engages narratives of action-reaction. but this does not disqualify it. with furniture and flying pieces from inside the villa. Barton Fink. as opposed to the personological face. assertive. psychosis.27 The same shot is then repeated in a series of mysterious slowmotion explosions. in which the character does not know how to respond. a girl stares at a Wrightian villa in Death Valley until it blows itself up. Deleuze’s ‘‘movement-images.’’26 Withdrawn Effects In the last scene of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point. must repeat itself. but they begin to leak beyond this. (Reproduced from Joel Coen and written by Ethan and Joel Coen. is none other than a necessary confusion between the individual subjectivity that it engulfs and the rise of a creative impersonal subjectivity. a spatial and temporal blow-up shot in slow motion to the psychedelic music of Pink Floyd. Withdrawn Effects 10 .) Close Encounter. there is concealed in it another type of image that it strains to avert.) 6. The audience is taken inside the explosion in what is a blurring of the image itself28 (Figures 7 and 8). and the intrusion of ‘‘pure optical and sound situations. Still of John Turturro’s hand sticky with ‘‘wall sweat’’ in Barton Fink.’’25 All architectural close-ups therefore involve a bodily kinesthetic situation as per the movement-image. Still of John Turturro and sagging wallpaper in Barton Fink.affection-image in The Movement Image—but also reformulates it via what I call the surface of encounter. If the close-up elaborated in the previous discussion is distinct. Barton Fink. a less sure image—no less vivid —but one that falters or blurs in its ascent. to pursue its effects.The initial explosion sequence of the building whole causes the screen to fill with detritus. permitting effects of memory. machine-gun like. unable to satisfy itself or reach its goal. that is.

the character herself undergoes a manifest disappearance in what is a confusion of agency and. Rather. as in the examples of Bergman. and to lose one’s self.29 yet we might say that in the effects-image. there is little difference between a table leg and a human one 575 Broadway Here. I do not mean to privilege the live close-up. Furthermore. to lose one’s individuality. To mobilize a radical production. erasure of her personal identity. . Polanski. Zabriskie Point. ultimately. concealed in the very process by which it absorbs the subject. The question arises. New York City. ´ Deleuze favored Pascal Auge’s term espace quelconque to describe the ‘‘emptied spaces’’ of an extinct personal subjectivity. The explosion still of slow-motion exploding house interior in Zabriskie Point. Daria is a student radical. through slow motion and seriality. by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture– Rem Koolhaas.’’ The affect. in this case. The ethic of Zabriskie Point. Inside the space of the explosion. I move from the cinema to my own architectural encounter of a built work. she is no one. . just as it highlights the withdrawn close-up of lived architecture. in this architectural space of pure annulment. but here. given the realist account of architecture in film that underlies the project as a whole. rather than grafting itself on to the subject—like the wallpaper close-up in Barton Fink—is here withdrawn.’’31 Deleuze imagines espace quelconque thus: The amorphous set in fact is a collection of locations or positions which coexist . is many things: sometimes a shoe 11 BROTT . But it could be argued that in any-space-whatever. . however. if there can be one. her subjectivity becomes productive. Here. Deleuze proposes a movement from the camera close-up (or the affection-image) in Bergman to the ‘‘faceless’’ emptied spaces of Antonioni. something has to be made—or. I suggest it is not Antonioni’s desert. blown up. (Reproduced from M. Daria’s subjectivity is surely an effacement by the desert to which she submits for most of the film. in the explosion for which she is clearly a catalyst. the personal subjectivity is only extinct insofar as she is absorbed into the field of the close-up as a part subject. If the close-ups of the earlier discussion are accomplished via surfaces that colonize the character from the outside by emitting effects.7. does the explosion mobilize itself or take place in the mind of the protagonist—a repetitive dream sequence? While the explosion prolongs itself. it could be said that in Antonioni’s film. but while the explosion unravels. Antonioni. the effects-image withdraws all but only to produce something new. it is a pure potential. the following exploration of a shop interior extends the image established in Zabriskie Point. and the Coen brothers.30 In Zabriskie Point. For Deleuze. effects-image of Antonioni takes in not only the audience but also Daria (Daria Halprin)—who is supposed to have catalyzed it—and everything else. such as the desert. . In the desert. The any-spacewhatever retains one and the same nature: it no longer has coordinates. however. a pure emptiness that is any-space-whatever. but the positive effects-image of the explosion itself.’’ Anyspace-whatever produces affect precisely by its mechanism of withdrawal. The Prada Store at 575 Broadway. It continues the work of the close-up. absorption rather is production. we could say the effects-image takes in all the effects in order to produce a situation of ‘‘withdrawn affect. It is an extinction or a disappearing.) and between burning plastic and a television. it shows only pure Powers and Qualities. By placing this example after the cinema studies. desubjectivization is a creative act rather than a form of pathology. absorption in espace quelconque means literally an effacement. Even if she did dream for the explosion or organize it for real. she is what Deleuze might have called a vanished character in ‘‘anyspace-whatever.32 The close-up event of the explosion in the calm gaze of a university student only retains the loose effects stripped of their former organization (which it converts into its own impersonal subjectivity). To return to the earlier discussion of the movement-image. pushing the subject into further obscurity. independently of the states of things or milieux which actualize them. an ‘‘amorphous set which has eliminated that which happened and acted in it. is that submission to the Californian desert is insufficient. independently of the connections and orientations which the vanished characters and situations gave to them .

37 This blurry or indeterminate space is apparently not caused by the formal arrangement but is. Zabriskie Point. dissolution. which all resemble Swiss cheese—‘‘polyester screen.’’ 34 Here. and what first appears to be hard turns out to be foam. I realize that what appeared to be a duct or column is in fact a chainmesh drapery hanging cylindrically from the ceiling and falling away behind the hill (Figure 12). and surfaces in the store include ‘‘alufoam. The effects retract or hover around the customer—one is not merely inside this space but dissolved by and into its surfaces. accelerate. Antonioni.) store. zero coordinates. to hand it back to the consumer. In this space. Museums are popular. such as diamond. This withdrawn and withdrawing character owes itself to the spongy materials and blurry detailing of the store. and a liquefaction of edges and boundaries. . Even the boundary to the outside is incongruous. ‘‘Luxury is Attention’’: As the noise level increases (see Times Square). not for their content.(Reproduced from M. in the shop. recalling the May 1968 Situationists: ´s. but for their lack of . the close-up as visage ´ is a ‘‘reflecting and reflective unity. and objects loudly compete Close Encounter. in what can be described as a dull affect. the entire set of effects (what Deleuze calls the ‘‘expressed’’). The ultimate luxury is focus and clarity. unlike the distraction space of the mall where surfaces. This proliferation of surface effects leads to a heightened sense of distraction and dissolution in space. No decisions. the surfaces of 575 Broadway are soft.’’ and ‘‘resin shelves’’ (Figures 10 and 11). . While the axonometric speaks a cogent formal arrangement—a double height space delineated by the cutaway valley. where the effect colonizes the character. Consider the architect’s statement. When I move around the curved rink. signs. and drapery. Even the metallic panels are matt or perforated.’’ ‘‘soft foam.38 But.’’ and ‘‘metal cloud’’— punctured aluminum and rubber surfaces. drawing one inside them.’’ ‘‘foam brick. no pressure.’’ ‘‘foam trays. Espace quelconque still of advanced explosion in Zabriskie Point. Withdrawn Effects 12 . the demands on our nervous systems . and cylindrical elevator mass—the experience of these objects is of a total loss of space. Our ambition is to capture attention and then. you go.’’ is withdrawn into a blur of soft.8. and marble. once we have it. conversely. sometimes a small picture theatre. and withdrawnness into the surfaces. rather.’’ ‘‘silicone mat. Entering the store from the backstair at Mercer Street.35 The materials. you look. here the close-up image produces a more subtle attenuation of power. the withdrawn close-up in extremis takes the form of withdrawal and dissolution. porous. I walk over to the stair to find the timber skate valley that fills the room and will later carry shoes. a less perceptible dissolution of subjectivity is enacted where one becomes other in the merging of person into matter. constituted as an ‘‘amorphous set’’ of effects: the translucent resin-y and corrugated white plastic surfaces that dissolve shelving units into walls and the vague presentation of boundaries. distraction. The street above is transparent to those inside. hazy surfaces. For ´ite Deleuze. Unlike the traditional hard and reflective surfaces of status. The absorptive surfaces of 575 Broadway exert a negative pull. What I first saw is not a reflection but the upturned wooden floor curving away from me. objects. Sous les pave la plage! (beneath the paving stones—the beach!) but recast here: under the paving stones—the store? The excitement of this space lies in just this liquefaction and giddiness of surfaces accessed visually. but felt intensely. gold. reflective surface quality of the Barcelona Pavilion: the glossy onyx and mirrorlike chrome columns that express reflection and surface traits over structure.’’ ‘‘silicone bubble.’’ ‘‘gel wave.33 I include myself in this example as witness to the close-up image of an interior. the narrow mezzanine walkway. as vertigo. perhaps a duct or a column. I look ahead and see the mirrored reflection of a three-foot-high timber partition in the distance and a gray metallic vertical member somewhere in front of the panel. which generates a powerful feeling of absorption—of being absorbed into its surfaces. or the Barcelona Pavilion if you turn your head sideways (Figure 9). Consider by contrast the hard.’’ ‘‘foam box. . Unlike the close-up in Bergman and Polanski. and disconnect. . fabric. and nonreflective. rather than being ‘‘reflected. you leave.36 The impersonal effects of 575 Broadway are no longer a reflecting and reflected unity but the inverse: antireflection.

‘‘Silicone mat.) foreground itself against. 575 Broadway does not appear to dictate or navigate any paths or points of egress—while there is a simple. The original wallpaper designed by 2Â4. In Warhol. The close-up image and its withdrawn affective counterpart zigzag between surface and depth. One of the surprising formal objects is the cylindrical elevator. In Through a Glass Darkly. Just like the explosion in Zabriskie Point. The valley view of theatre in R. a black and white mural. no longer exists. With no substantive background to If the first close-up series shoots the effects-image ‘‘up close’’ in order to capture the dissolution of the subject in the image. the blot refers almost only to itself—it remains on the side of the effects and close-up and not signification. enacted in the desubjectivization of the subject. Whereas it may have once been a properly signifying flower. while seemingly indeterminate in actual experience. a cloud of effects that renders the subject indistinguishable. (Photograph courtesy of OMA. (Photograph courtesy of Armin Linke. In terms of circulation. we find the same endless circulation of images and deferral. but he also produced charged images of guns and death—‘‘proper’’ referents. it begs the question. unitary system of circulation. Prada Store. It consisted of a series of large repeating black smudges stretched across the two hundred foot length of the inner wall and was vaguely reminiscent of Warhol’s ‘‘Flowers’’ series (1970). that mesmerizes. through the dissolution of the self that ‘‘attends. There are few options in the store and little merchandise on display. Conclusions 10.) 11. the expressive effects of the flower image—a big blot.) for attention. irreducible to smudges or patterns. (Reproduced by permission of OMA from Rem Koolhaas. it is the indiscernibility and desubjectivization of the subject in the image rather than her total erasure that catalyzes the subjectivization of form and production of the close-up. The clothes themselves remain underdetermined and unremarkable.’’ ‘‘gel wave.’’ store fixture surfaces. it is only by virtue of the window on the opposite wall that a reflection can arrive at the wallpapered surface and produce the movement of light necessary for the affective moment. here it is a tacit seduction by surfaces that are almost there. The couture houses the interior here and not the other way round. so it is not the clothing but the architecture that demands attention.9. But these graphic smudges of 2Â4 present more the aftertaste of Warhol. The formal configuration of objects and volumes is clearly expressed in the published diagrams. The architecture as overdesiring production subsumes not only the customer but the clothes too. Koolhaas. the latter rendered surplus value of the architecture. what does it articulate itself from? Its intersection with the ground plane seems exaggerated. the second image hovers around the subject. Fixtures and surfaces. Prada. almost on the wrong side of signification (the elevator wall and floor disappear due to the overarticulation of the void) (Figure 13).’’ the self that can be ‘‘commanded. Barton Fink is called by an opening in the wall that can only be sealed by pasting the paper back onto its 13 BROTT .’’ Luxury here is overattention. whose individuality remains intact. which appears in this blurry space to be too articulate—and thus almost artificial or unreal. c2001]. [Milano: Fondazione Prada Edizioni.

a hideous hole that must be flattened. it could be said that the close-up connects a person watching the film in a series with effects ‘‘inside’’ the film that constitute a real subject production in relation to the viewer. whose identity the close-up both determines and incorporates in its overall performance. to borrow a concept from Bazin.39 In the schema proposed here. To cite Deleuze’s analysis of Alfred Hitchcock and the theory of the spectator. However. Ipso facto. who becomes a part subject in the event of the image. Clearly. it is important to understand that I am changing the methodology here: the close-up is neither phenomenological nor epistemological since there is no preexisting subject to whom an image is presented.12. float anonymously in a nondifferentiated space. View of mesh drapery ‘‘hanging column. alternatively. The close-up surface wields a certain thickness. The intention of this analysis is not to conflate buildings and films. and the exploded effects of Zabriskie Point. However. Film functions in my schema by making explicit a veritable encounter that comes before the separation of subjects and objects.’’(Photograph courtesy of OMA. For Edmund Husserl. rather. Withdrawn Effects 14 .) substrate. aesthetic reception involves an unwitting grasping or reaching out by the subject toward a real object that lies outside the artwork in which the object is represented. the cinema Close Encounter. while the surfaces of 575 Broadway. The realist account of film that underlies the close-up schema clearly departs from phenomenology. or to debate architectural media. the field of effects within the film reaches out for and acts upon the character herself. dispersing the subject across a field of disconnected effects. its power is to colonize the individual and undermine any sense of deep space as it grafts itself onto the character. the use of film examples to discuss architecture raises a methodological and epistemological problem about the status of the close-up image. this is not an amplification of a projected reality. and neither is it to undertake a phenomenology of architecture in film. the selfmovement of the effects-image reaches out for a real subject.

I will henceforth cite this later edition. Hedges. Also see my conclusion for further discussion of the realist model. the close-up effects of 575 Broadway function at a heightened reality. 2000 [first English 1972]). and what is real is the unwitting movement-toaffect by the architectural effects produced in the film. Michael Hardt. p. the term ‘‘effet’’ is never formalized into a concept of subjectivity in and of itself by Deleuze—this is my usage. Empirisme et Subjectivite Essai sur La Nature Humaine Selon Hume (Paris: Presses universitaires de France. provides architecture with a model that speaks to the concrete. 3.. 1991). 95–101. trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Writers such as Manuel De Landa and Sanford Kwinter. photographic reproductions are always ‘‘depreciated’’.) to account for the creativity of architectural production in all its effects. trans. 574. The aims of this article are substantially different from those of the dominant architectural scholarship on Deleuze’s cinema books. it has primacy. Gilles Deleuze. 12. pp. The Yellow Wallpaper (New York: Feminist Press. and Harry Zorn. Notes ´ 1. 6. freed of the transcendental ego and the separation of subject and object. Criterion Collection. For Benjamin. is deeply rooted in concepts of authenticity and representation. 89. and Brian Massumi.. the paper becomes a site of projection for her aggression. but his account. The focus is rather the subjectivity immanent to the aesthetic object. p. have contributed to a contemporary tendency in the American architectural academy which frames temporality as the new leitmotif for reformulating architecture. which transcends the delimited formal and temporal coordinates of an architectural interior. in eschewing the linguistic.’’ Walter Benjamin. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. importantly. Ingmar Bergman. 11. c1967–1971). and essays selected by Hugh Gray (Berkeley: University of California Press. say.43 The closeup. However.. ´ma. quoting Bergman in Cahiers du Cine 1959. 14. ´: 2. even if there are camera close-ups involved in the scene. 238. p. thereby restoring the separation of subject and object. trans.The close-up image produced in film could be said to contribute to the entire order of architectural encounter. Sandra Buckley. and personological conception of subjectivity. 5. p. (New York: Columbia University Press.40 The heightened tenor of the film creates a raised affect in the audience that witnesses it. aesthetic basis of all subject productions. Brian Massumi. 153. ‘‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’’ (1936). Proust and Signs.’’42 In my reformulation. note 32. (Photograph courtesy of OMA. Elevator floor detail. 215. Constantin V. 1973). While not erased literally. What Is Cinema?. Benjamin. See Ibid. trans. 2005). In English. Gilles Deleuze. or the Bergsonisme.. p. 1988). representational. the broad contemporary models of the image—as reproduction: the photograph and the media image. 1953). 101.. long regarded as insufficient 15 BROTT . A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. opening up a new. Likewise. what is real is the affective situation established in the compressed space of the cinema and the determinate effects that arise in the cinematic encounter itself. p. Walter Benjamin. eds. hitherto unthought. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. I am referring to Deleuze’s discussion of Balazs and Eisenstein in Gilles Deleuze. 2003). Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. However. AB Svensk Filmindustri. 1986). Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ´ 4. ed. DVD (c1961. See Andre Bazin. p. in relation to cinema and architecture. counter to Bazin.’’ he says. p. 1999). existential realm—and for this reason. Ibid. It is precisely this realist conception of the cinematic image that separates Bazin from. Ibid. Boundas. in Hannah Arendt. 113.41 Architecture’s reaction to Deleuze’s Cinema 1 and Cinema 2 could broadly be said to constitute an attempt to temporalize space or to reformulate architecture as ‘‘time. participates at a higher level of reality—it is a privileged reality. It is important to understand that these nonvisual and psychological effects are irreducible to any purely visual register. (London: Athlone Press. This is not to say that there exists in reality this person or this architectural scene. premised as they are on a constituted object (the image) centered on meaning (experience) and presented to a fixed subject. also discusses the power of the photographic close-up to reveal new modes of the subject. in Gilman. The defamiliarizing experience of 575 Broadway is in a sense identical to that of the cinema—but for the silver screen. Through a Glass Darkly. Gilles Deleuze. the subject of 575 Broadway is forced to suspend disbelief about her dissolution in the surrounding surfaces. Such a schema opens the possibility to think an unmediated subjectivity of the architectural encounter itself. I do not explicitly discuss time and movement. Illuminations (New York: Pimlico. The architectural close-up acts directly upon both the protagonist and the film spectator. 10. and representation: the image as meaning or text— both observe the phenomenological tradition of architecture. 8.13. p. trans. and what is ‘‘jeopardized. p. 20. To be clear. October 13. (London: Continnum. Charlotte Perkins Gilman and afterword by Elaine R. ´ 7. 9. inspired by Deleuze’s time-image. The close-up encounter and productive model of image presented here bring into focus the emerging models of ‘‘effect’’ in current architectural debate as they reject the epistemology of the postwar architectural image.. Gilles Deleuze. 67. 102.. is ‘‘the authority of the object. Ibid. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari.

however. 98. Constantin V. these act to absorb rather than to reflect people. pp. W. 492–93. neutral and impassive in relation to the victor and the vanquished. Withdrawn Effects 16 . c2001). it is the technology by which the architecture takes in the subject. not the movement-images of Cinema 1. it doesn’t see you!’’ Italics in original. . Deleuze ` tends to valorize the time-images of Cinema 2 vis-a-vis the movementimages of Cinema 1. 36. 25. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. 37. the architectural close-up in my formulation is an important starting point for the development of the effects-image precisely because it retains the subject. it reveals the merging of the subject in the image. 1991). 1962). 41. Jacques Lacan. It is an unbearable self-consciousness and condition of ‘‘standing outside. This is not to deny other models of image in architecture theory but to draw attention to the phenomenological view. because of this it is all the more terrible. namely. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. p. It is interesting to note that Koolhaas is an avowed Miesian.: Anchor Bay Entertainment.. 15. p. 95. c1967–1971). The subject of Mies’s interior arises in the space between objects. trans. Husserl observing Albrecht Durer’s etching of a knight on horseback says that in ¨ the aesthetic act. (San Francisco: City Lights Books. 2005). G. 123. Compare this wallpaper close-up with the image of the hotel in flames in a later scene. p. which have frequently been left out in the emphasis on Deleuze’s time-image. the John Goodman character is laughing in the fire. Ibid. You cannot see an explosion anymore. Ibid. Patrons have been observed walking into mirrors in the interior. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. It could be argued. 30. which it masters from a distance. MA: MIT Press. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (New York: Continuum. p. rather than being a property of the surface itself. pp. 116.K. (London: Continuum. 89. the image’s unreality is Fink’s persecutory fantasy of the infallible Karl ‘‘Madman’’ Mundt. mistaking these for a space beyond.’’ in Collected Screenplays: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen Vol. Ibid. In Lacan’s famous example of the fishermen. 17. 1958). ed. 1 (London: Faber & Faber. A Thousand Plateaus. no. 34. See G. p. Joel Coen. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Deleuze. 31. (New York: Collier. trans. 122–23. The separation of subject and object in the Pavilion is guaranteed by the primacy of a formal space in which there never arises a confusion between surface. once you are taken inside it. the coward and the brave.’’ 22. (London: Methuen. The Logic of Sense. 19. Gilles Deleuze. 48–49.. (London: W. trans. 2002). 1977). There is an axonometric and other drawings in OMA/AMO Rem Koolhaas. p. New York: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. the preliminary movement-image of Cinema 1 raises the very problems of subjectivity peculiar to architecture. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Norton. trans. While there are many mirrored surfaces in the store. See A. and Mark Lester with Charles Stivale. Ibid. trans. U. Jacques-Alain Miller.’’ to which the figures transport us. Manuel De Landa. What Is Cinema?. space. Zabriskie Point. it is the time-images of Cinema 2 by which the subject-image distinction is completely eliminated. Spinoza. Prada Store (Soho: Miuccia Prada. only to say that my reading of Deleuze. Jean-Paul Sartre. 40. See Sanford Kwinter. 287. where the subject still exists in a relation with the object to which she reacts in various ways. ed. I cannot elaborate on the reasons for this here. 18. Hazel E. 26.. the knight of flesh and blood . in its focus on the subject. Barnes. being neutral in relation to all of its temporal actualizations. 397–540. Repulsion. In doing so. Michelangelo Antonioni. 43. Deleuze and F. 2002). DVD (1965. I am thinking of Laura Mulvey. Practical Philosophy.. Architectures of Time: Toward a Theory of the Event in Modernist Culture (Cambridge. that for Deleuze. Gilles Deleuze. 39. 38. 23.’’ the fantasy of being out of place that causes one to be brutally watched by that which cannot watch (the sardine can/the unfamiliar social milieu). Deleuze. I am using Deleuze’s idea of the close-up of the face. the battle is graspable only by the will of anonymity which it itself inspires. W. 24. however. 28. the subject is seized by a fantasy of alienation from his context. 14. He says: ‘‘The battle hovers over its own field. 20. trans. Guattari. Bazin. G. 35. Ibid. p.14. 261. Never present but always yet to come and already passed. p. 575 Broadway. as an enduring tradition in architectural thought. 3 (1975): 6–18. But there is also a disciplinary reason for this choice. By contrast. 29. our attention is focused not on the images themselves but on the ‘‘‘depicted’ realities. and essays selected by Hugh Gray (Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 2004). G. and Alan Sheridan. VHS (1970. c2001). 32. ‘‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Roman Polanski. highlighting two critical parallel processes. Deleuze. However. (New York: Continuum. trans. 2002). Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Close Encounter. 2001). Boundas. a desubjectivization and a subjectivization. with its constituted subject. R. This is not to devalue the importance of these works or to exclude the question of temporality from the architectural encounter. moves in another direction. Gilles Deleuze. He narrates: ‘‘Petit-Jean said to me—You see that can? Do you see it! Well. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. 33. The close-up is given by the surface but. 27. 42. and subject. Robert Hurley. 16. By retaining the subject initially. p.’’ Screen 16. 261. 21. . Boyce Gibson. pp. Edmund Husserl. 1988). ‘‘Barton Fink. Rem Koolhaas. Projects for Prada (Milan: Fondazione Prada Edizioni.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful