I found the article on projection to be rather dense and passionately verbose, but the author did make some interesting points. I do agree with his notion that ancient people probably could not have helped but notice what he called the concept of projection. I believe that ancient people were much smarter than we give them credit for in this era. Yet I am curious as to how the author would respond to the current technology we have. The author romanticizes projection, citing examples like holograms as the wave of the future, but I don’t think that was ever where technology was headed. We have fallen victim to a different kind of projection: the light of the cell phone. The internet has changed the way the world works. I would be interested to see what the author thinks about the kinds of projections like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and even Tumblr, all accessible by nearly everyone (at least in the US) twenty-four hours a day, eight days a week.
When the author presents us with the origin stories of art, it again seems to me like a romanticized concept that somewhat begs the question. He relates the stories of disparate entities that happen to have a similar mythology, yet I doubt it was really something as dramatic as a lover facing a dangerous sea voyage, or the infamous Buddha glowing so hard that a portrait artist couldn’t stand to look at him while painting him. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but I would not rely on mythology as one of the three pillars of origin of the concept of projection, even if I do agree that projection is probably a very old notion.
Likewise, I have trouble understanding what the author means when he states, “Projection allows the child to transfer these emotions to an other or others.” If he is referencing the idea of using a doll or similar simulacrum and having the child project the feelings they are unable to express onto the thing, then I agree that this is a kind of projection is a relevant concept, just not to his definition of projection. He again relies on romanticized notions like “astral projection” and admittedly metaphysical concepts like “the body as light source” to somehow make the case for human projection of a sort. His point missed me here I think.
What I did find interesting was his description of film and video, because I think these are the only concrete notions of projection that the author presents us. I actually found it highly ironic and rather amusing when he wrote, “Wireless technology seems unlikely to assimilate all our toys into a single device, but what if it could assimilate the data projector in place of its tiny screen, like the charming holographic projector in the Star Wars film? What price then a world of ubiquitous communication, a world whose presence to itself would not be evaporated but redoubled?” Despite the prescience of his prior statement regarding ubiquitous surveillance, the author becomes an unwitting victim of his own romanticizing. Wireless technology is absolutely trying to assimilate our toys into a single device. I had a professor once who said that every time he saw someone pull out their phone to check it, all he saw was an alcoholic pulling out a flask. Wireless technology doesn’t need to have a three-dimensional projector built into it, because it has already proven its power to demand humans’ attention. And, unfortunately, I think we know what a world of ubiquitous communication looks like. In some cases, it looks like the Arab Spring. In other cases, it looks like Eric Garner. In still other cases, it looks like Charlottesville. Sometimes it’s just “fake news.” Other times it really is fake news. The internet has connected us in good ways and bad ways, but I don’t think anyone could predict the way it would turn out.
The book did a fine job explaining the concepts of time and motion. As a musician I appreciate the strong correlation between visual art and auditory art, and a lot of the ideas and terminology presented are relatable for me on multiple fronts.
