The film presents the viewer with a distorted vision where a dream upon the natural movements and one’s troubling vision superpose to continuously coagulate and dissolve matter and the image itself. The sound is generated by means of a mathematical algorithm that synthesizes membrane like surfaces like wood, metal, glass or caoutchouc and allows them to be used as percussive surface elements. Like with the image, it is a synthetic hand that makes the hit to create the sound.
An invisible, ‘synthetic’ hand traces a recurrent activity that has less to do with the power and domination of the hand upon the elemental, and more to do with a ‘failed gesture’ to grasp the substance of the real. As the invisible hand breaches through the real, a free development of the inner experience takes place within an environment that avoids space-time conditionings, for it is a ‘hand effect’ rather than a real hand that leads the viewer through the image. The hand that sees in dreams is yet a symbol of differentiating actions that expresses a synthesis: as the log is touched, broken and then reconstructed, it helps the viewer differentiate within a new situation. The natural remnants in the film help us to perceive the suspension of the organic, but also a breaking of the view, a breaking of the image, a breaking of/into the real.
It is not accidental that Grandmaison has placed the scene in a forest, a metaphoric expression of a natural sanctuary. The breaking of the log is the breaking of the intermediary between two dimensions; it unveils an unconscious power and a willing to go beyond the frame of the image. The dream reveals the complex, representative, emotive, and vectorial nature of symbols and images, yet it does so without asserting a narrative interpretation. What the viewer sees is the spontaneous and symbolic self-representation of an unconscious state that develops in a series of moments and frames the unrolling of which figurates an uninterrupted drama. The eye – or, the hand of the dream – avoids will and responsibility, its nocturnal visual regime is spontaneous and uncontrolled. For what the eye does in its act of seeing is an eclipse of the consciousness of realities that helps the viewer dissolve her/his very own identity. There is no fore feeling in Grandmaison’s film, but pure vision, as the dream offers an image of one’s current existential situation and establishes a compensating equilibrium.
While the artist has focused on nature and organic matter, the vision created by the hand forms a code of eidolons and motive schemes, expressive of how dreams aspire to practical realisation. Here, however, the viewer does not witness the announcement of an event, but the redeeming gesture and energy that creates the visual event, an expression of the very artistic medium of the film. Grandmaison has placed the viewer in the centre of the dream; this way, the viewer sees the enactment of a visual regime where ‘the dreamer’ is actor, director, author, audience and setting at the same time – the dream of nature manifests within the viewer and cautions upon an imaginative ensemble the articulation of which need to be discerned. The amplifications in the video trigger a sense-breaking. In the film, we see a synthesis of the real through the eyes and ears of a synthetic hand that ultimately challenges an aisthetic perception upon the world – that is, a regime of aisthetic perception and interpretation that goes beyond the just visual perception to engage all our senses and erase the borders that separate our ordinary and extra-ordinary experiences. It is the synthesis of synthetic tools that unveils a perception of both the intellect and the senses and leads to discernment.
Text by Sabin Bors, January 9, 2015