Jim Campbell’s Discorrelated Images


Last evening I had the pleasure of discussing Jim Campbell’s work with him at the Anderson Collection at Stanford, where he has a wonderful exhibition of LED-based works up right now. It was a far-ranging discussion, in a packed gallery, and great fun all around. Here are my opening remarks:

Before we start our conversation, I have the honor of offering some framing thoughts about Jim Campbell’s work. I want to use this opportunity to put that work into dialogue with some of my own interests and concerns as a theorist of the intersection between computational and moving-image media. I am concerned, in other words, with the historical and phenomenological encounter between the invisible processing of digital information and the visible forms that result from it—and it is precisely this encounter that Jim’s LED-based artworks enact or perform in a variety of thought-provokingly deformative ways. This is to say that his work, by means of occluding, blocking, and de-focusing our view, ironically makes perceptible the very mismatch between perception and computational processing that lies at the heart of digital video as it circulates online, on our smartphones, on DVDs and BluRays, on digital cable and satellite TV, and in the digital projection systems of contemporary movie theaters. In all of those contexts, digital processing remains resolutely invisible to perception (except, that is, through exceptional moments of glitching, buffering, and the like); but, those exceptional and denigrated moments aside, the perceptual “content” of digital video is privileged, thus blinding us to the ways that the medial form of video’s computational processing is changing the very parameters of our embodied perception, or the ways that, as Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan put it, our “sensory ratios” are being reformed by our encounter with a new media environment.

By re-valorizing the exceptional, or that which disrupts or impedes the easy transmission of visual “content,” Jim’s work offers an oblique view of the hidden parameters of this new environment; he makes what I call the “discorrelation” between our perception and its infrastructure perceptible—if only in a necessarily incomplete and volatile form. And the volatility of these operations is key: Jim’s works keep our eyes and our bodies moving, making us move now closer and then farther away, causing us to squint and then relax our focus, in order to catch a glimpse of something figural, recognizable, the so-called “content” of the moving images. Certainly, this content is not irrelevant, but it is hardly the ultimate telos or desideratum towards which the work directs our attention. The works are not simple puzzles that are “solved” once we identify their contents. Rather, the incessant oscillation between perception and non-perception, between seeing and not seeing, would seem to be closer to the point, as it is this oscillation that keeps everything at play, unsettling basic categories and forms. We shift our focus between individual LEDs, the screen or wall upon which they reflect, and an indirect, sometimes volumetric illumination of bodies or objects in motion. Our perception doesn’t come to rest upon a stable object or meaning, and this instability infects the broader conceptual context within which our perception is situated: Jim’s work upsets and makes us question so many basic distinctions—for example, between video art and sculpture, between art and engineering, between material substrates and perceptual forms, between perception and imagination. Through his destabilization of perception, he re-opens also the gap between art and technology, a gap created around the time of the industrial revolution, when thinkers like Immanuel Kant helped engineer a split between the aesthetic and the technical, or between the fine arts and the applied arts. Earlier, both the Greek term techne and the Latin ars referred indiscriminately to both arts and technologies. Now, the poets were to work with words while the engineers worked on steam engines; artists concerned themselves with the non-utilitarian forms of aesthetic experience while technologists made the machines that kept the factories running. However, in the space cleared between art and technology, a third thing emerged, a common ground for aesthetic and technological production alike: namely, media in its modern sense. A medium in this sense is not reducible to its “content” in a narrow way; rather, it is something that straddles perceptual form and infrastructure. Take, for example, the way the Sunday comics capitalized on innovations in four-color printing processes, or the way cinema responded to synchronized sound with new genres like the musical or the horror film, which involves its spectator through an offscreen space of screams and bumps in the night. It is in this sense that McLuhan proclaimed that “the medium is the message”—a claim that he explained with the example of the light bulb, a content-less medium, the message of which is the electrification of the world and the resulting transformation of agency, perception, and social relation. In order to explore the message or the meaning of more recent shifts in the media environment, Jim replaces McLuhan’s light bulb with LEDs—the same light emitting diodes that provide backlighting for flatscreen computer monitors and television sets, that power digital projectors, or that illuminate our increasingly “smart” homes. Routing perception through these characteristically digital-era lights, and powering them by way of unseen “custom electronics,” Jim defocuses intentional perception, foregrounds the obfuscation of infrastructure, and indirectly illuminates a media environment in which computation has finally (arguably) rendered the industrial-era split between art and technology untenable.

When I recently spoke to him on the phone, Jim identified himself not as an artist but as an engineer—and certainly he holds the degrees, the patents, and the experience to justify that statement. But he is an engineer of a special sort: an engineer of perception in an age when perception teeters precariously atop invisible circuits and computational infrastructures not cut to our measure, an engineer of experience when experience is routed through ubiquitous circuits of computational processing. Occluding both the image and its digital infrastructure, Jim’s work puts our perceptual experience in motion, incessantly circulating between what we can and cannot see. The work arouses a curiosity about the conditions of this circulation, including the means by which the LEDs, and hence also our perception, have been programmed. In the context of nineteenth-century magic shows and scientific expositions, this curiosity about how the spectacle works has been called an “operational aesthetic”—an aesthetic that, fittingly for the era of industrial media, includes an enjoyment in the sight of technical operation. In the twenty-first-century context of ubiquitous computational processing and experiential engineering, Jim offers us something slightly different, I suggest: an operational aesthetic of perception itself, a questioning of our ability and the means of seeing in an age of discorrelation, when visibility is rendered ambiguously at the margins of human signs and invisible informatic signals.

Discorrelation and the Post-Perceptual Image (Bogotá, video en español)

Video (in Spanish) of my talk, “Discorrelation and Post-Perceptual Image,” from September 12, 2019 at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in Bogotá is now online.

Minutes before the talk, I was whisked away to give two separate interviews — one for an article that is now online, and one for a local television station (!), which I have not yet seen…

Cinemática II: O pós-cinema e a experimentação para além da tela / Post-Cinema and Experimentation Beyond the Screen — October 8-10, 2019, São Paulo, Brazil

cartaz cinematica II(5).jpg

On October 8, I will be giving a keynote lecture at “Cinemática II: O pós-cinema e a experimentação para além da tela” (Post-Cinema and Experimentation Beyond the Screen) at the Universidade de São Paulo in Brazil. My talk, titled “Discorrelated Images, Algorithmic Affects, and the Hyperinformatic Environment,” draws on my forthcoming book Discorrelated Images.

I am very excited to visit Brazil for the first time, and very grateful for the invitation from Prof. Giselle Gubernikoff of the Escola de Comunicações e Artes!

cartaz cinematica II(5)-b

Discorrelation and Serialized Frankensteins — Bogotá, September 2019


As I mentioned recently, I am getting ready for a trip to Bogotá, where I will be giving a series of workshops and two public lectures. Official announcements are now online for the talks, the first of which, on September 10 at the Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano, will be on “Animating Frankenstein: Film, Comics, and Serialized Visual Culture.” More info is online, here.

The second talk, on September 12 at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, deals with the topic of my forthcoming book: “Discorrelation and the Post-Perceptual Image.” More info is available here.

Both of the talks will apparently have live translation into Spanish!


Images of Discorrelation, MECS Lecture July 3, 2019 (Video)

Screen Shot 2019-07-22 at 4.41.54 PM

On July 3, 2019, I delivered a talk related to my forthcoming book, Discorrelated Images, at Leuphana Universität’s Institute of Advanced Study on Media Cultures of Computer Simulation (MECS), during my fellowship in Lüneburg. The video is now online, and can be viewed here (or the direct link to YouTube).

Thanks to Florian Hoof for the kind invitation, and for everyone at MECS and the Center for Digital Cultures for hosting me this summer!

Talks and Events in Bogotá, September 2019


I am excited to visit Bogotá, Colombia for the first time this coming September, where I will be giving a series of workshops and public lectures. And I am equally excited to see these very cool images that the people there made for my visit!

The public lectures are as follows:

September 10, 2019 (time TBD): “Animating Frankenstein: Film, Comics, and Serialized Visual Culture.” Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lozano.

September 12, 2019 (6pm): “Discorrelation and the Post-Perceptual Image.” Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

I will also be holding some workshops at the Visual Research Laboratory in the Program in History and Theory of Art, Architecture, and the City at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Thanks very much to the people there for making this happen, and thanks especially to Visual Research Lab director Zenaida Osorio Porras for the invitation!

Screen Shot 2019-07-15 at 2.47.06 PM


“Edge Detection” in New Issue of Media Fields Journal

Screen Shot 2019-07-10 at 10.54.01 AM

A new issue of Media Fields Journal is out, titled “At the Edge” and edited by Jeremy Moore and Nicole Strobel. There is a lot of great work in here, which I look forward to digging into.

I am happy to have contributed a short piece called “Edge Detection,” which departs from the sex scene in Blade Runner 2049 to think about computer vision, DeepFakes, and human/technological interfaces and their impact on perception more generally.

“Discorrelation and Seamfulness” at ZHdK, June 29

Discorrelation and Seamfulness

On June 29, 2019, I will be presenting work from my forthcoming book, Discorrelated Images, at the media-philosophical workshop on “Reflexivity in Digital Media” at the Zürcher Hochschule der Künste. Thanks to Katerina Krtilova for organizing, and thanks to Dieter Mersch for the invitation to be a part of this!

Discorrelated Images at University of Toronto, May 16, 2019


This Thursday, May 16, I will be at the Cinema Studies Institute at the University of Toronto to talk about “Discorrelated Images” — the subject of my forthcoming book by the same title.

The next day, I’ll be speaking at the Spiral Film and Philosophy Conference about the idea of “animation” in a post-cinematic media regime.

Looking forward to being in Toronto and seeing lots of familiar faces!