LOOKING AS A FORM OF MOVEMENT
-MY EXPERIENCE AT THE OOIGAWA OPEN AIR EXHIBITION

Go Hayashi


Eyewalking

There is an Japanese expression "to see while walking". Conversely, one could also say, "to walk while seeing". Although the meaning of both expressions seems to be the same, after careful consideration, we find that the point of emphasis is different. Here I want to start by presenting the experience of walking and seeing as one and the same movement or action without distinction in time or place. But to describe this experience raises linguistic problems. If, for instance I use the epistemological way to describe it as "walking = seeing", I do not feel that the dynamic part of the experience is sufficiently represented. A little bit closer would be a construction in the progressive form "walking and seeing", or even a construction with an auxiliary verb "taking a see-walk". What I actually would like to have is a single word, which I could use in a sentence like this: "○○ is the dual action of seeing and walking". However, this special term, this "○○" does not exist. In this kind of situation, one often resorts to descriptions like "walking/seeing", or "walking, seeing". But since this is a symbolic construction, it cannot be used as a statement. Unable to find a satisfactory solution, I have come up with a newly coined word here.
　　　Eyewalk, is this word. You will surely be able to grasp the meaning of this coinage from the things I am going to say, although a certain degree of readiness on the part of the reader is necessary. I will start with the element of motion.
　　　Eyewalk implies a rather passive state of mind; our sight unselectively accepts the things around us, while we are walking without a positive direction. We solely devote ourselves to what we see.
　　　And this Eyewalk is precisely what I have been doing in the Ooigawa Open Air Exhibition. During my Eyewalk, all kinds of devices hidden in the exhibition grounds jump into my gaze. And these devices assume an attitude that cannot be expressed in ordinary terms. The nearest I can get is describing them as shapes of an image that is stored in our memories. They are small appearances, hiding in the woods and bushes, waiting for the human gaze. It is as if they call out to us: "Your experience is unfinished, because the here and now will only be realized the moment you remember it!" Some ask questions by hiding: "You will be able to find me, won't you?" Some are marionettes at rest: "You are a puppeteer, try to pull my strings and make my arms and legs move, if you can." And some seem to dwell in a scene of absence. Others, again, are like the handkerchief of a magician, they ridicule those who stop walking because they wish to have a proper look. And there are many more.
　　　During Eyewalk, the body could be regarded as defenseless, and is therefore made to draw near and go far from these devices. Yet, we do not end up wandering around like a sleepwalker. During the Eyewalk, a certain awareness continues. And since I feel that my experiences at this Open Air Exhibition came close to what this state of continued mental awareness means, I have taken up my pen and written down these words.

Eyes Approaching and Withdrawing

However, those works that play the role of the magician's handkerchief, pose a problem. For instance, the small soccer goal by Masayuki Sugiyama exercises an attracting power over passers by because of the unexpectedness and casualness of its placement in the middle of a field. It is placed there in such a way that it makes people think: "Ah, what a cute little soccer goal that is." However, while they may expect that drawing closer to the miniature will increase their appreciation of its fine details, this is not the case. This is also the kind of expectation that should be avoided, or even refused. Instead, when we stoop and bring our faces near, straining our eyes, we see only the object, while the experience of the moment we saw it from a distance, has already vanished. What we have here is a somewhat whitish art object in the shape of a soccer goal. When we step back again in order to regain that earlier experience which has already vanished, we feel differently, because the memory of seeing the object nearby still exists in our mind. Now we are facing the predicament of having to view the object while incorporating the physical "time" of approaching and retreating. At this point, our interest has already turned to our own action of going back and forth, and despite our frustration, we cannot free ourselves of this awareness anymore...
　　　Thus, by the movement of our walking point of view, "time" and "distance" have come to play a part, and "here" and "now" are no longer guaranteed as possible experiences. Unless Superman himself would teach us some new skills, we have no way of freeing ourselves from the irritating limitations of our human bodies which prevent us from seeing micro- and macro-sight simultaneously. But we must not give up. We, humans, have language as our weapon, and we can interpret. We can conceptualize an instantaneous "spot" experience by including it in a time "width" experience. Let us try to undergo the full range of the chain of actions caused by the object arranged by Masayuki Sugiyama. Though I say "undergo", let's briefly try to challenge it, so to speak. Many, in their haste to show how the trick is done, say: "That is a conceptualized soccer goal", and they focus on the object which has only partly caused this chain of actions. And if it is not a work like a miniature that responds to an instant micro-sight, then ｡V or so they will say ｡V it is a solid body that is conceptualized as a sign. They do not consider the movement itself of going near and far, they just make it into a shallow intellectual game and contently interpret it as an object that is no more than an opportunity.
　　　 If they could contemplate the matter more seriously, they would probably not play this cunning game. We need to make an effort to more closely examine this soccer goal which is at the base of a series of "movement of vision".


The sight of the "present" disclosed in motion

Let us first consider the results of our effort.
　　　Whenever we practice Eyewalk and approach something, the vague sight which appears, cannot be called the sight of the "present" that is self-confirmed by the "now". That is because it is the "sight" that lies at the base of the "has been stored"-tense, to which the near-future leads, which in its turn covers the near-past during the time one is approaching. Until the time that we are able to get hold of the "sight" which might come, we leave it "stored". Those things which you see in front of you, are there to predict something. The "sight" of that moment is suspended, it is the sight of "now" and also it is not the sight of "now". Could we say that it is placed in the vicinity of the "near future" and the "near past"? In other words, this sight is not fixed as a "now here". What is fixing this, is that the experience reaches the moment of the near-future which is positioned at the base of the near-past. The fact that this near-future as the sight of "that moment" decides the approaching time, creates the sight of "now and here". It is "being shown" by the unfinished-ness, absorbed by the so-called near future. What stagnates in the passivity of the "now" is the situation of the sight at the time that the Eyewalker comes near the object, and, on approaching the object, there is no word for the immediate "present".
　　　However, it should be noticed that the "present" sight of the near future is the concept of the "present" which has connected itself to the word "see". The linguistic "present" and the physical experience of "now" are the opposite directions of the vector for the desire of movement. Although the linguistic "present" comes later than the process of the physical experience, "the shape of behind time", it is an attack of time management which goes into the opposite direction of a strategic knowledge which intends to control and absorb the "now" of the physical experience that goes forward but at the other hand, outpaces it and confirms itself. By comparison, we could say that the experimental "now", which tries to be released from the control of "knowledge", will return to the "unfinished knowledge" at the beginning.

　　　Let me try to explain.
　　　For example, if we think we see a big mountain covered with trees, the scene is different when we approach and climb it. Although it still looks like a mountain, what appears in front of our eyes now, is a collection of rocks and trees which does not look like the mountain we just saw. But we still hold the vague feeling that this is a mountain, and in this mood we come down the mountain again. When we then turn our head, the mountain is there again. To pose the question to which degree a mountain is a mountain, requires the calm frame of mind of a scholar studying the structure of language. However, our concern here is the "when, where" of our experience of walking on the mountain, and if we "see" the mountain as a "mountain". We were seeing a mountain. We didn't see it anymore. And we saw it again.
　　　Well, this mountain at the moment of "seeing a mountain" is the mountain we expect to see, an unfixed mountain. The following mountain which we "didn't see anymore", was the mountain which was no longer before our eyes, but in our memories, the shape still lingering on our retina. And the mountain which we "saw again", should be called the renewed and fixed sight of the mountain after we went through the whole process. This fixed sight absorbs the preceding moment in which we "didn't see it" by the power of knowledge.
　　　And the sight of this moment of knowledge is a sight which is supported by the "linguistic concept" of "mountain". And this "sight" in its turn, simultaneously prescribes the "past" and the "present" tense. In other words, this sight of "knowledge", is "supported by a linguistic system" and therefore is able to fix the tense. Furthermore, it tries to rule the whole process of movement, constituting even a future.
　　　And here we can call this fixed sight, the linguistic sight, or "linguistic eyes".
　　　In this case the "linguistic eyes" overflows the limits of the Eyewalk. Eyewalk is, as it were, the reception of a moving state in which the body is being thrown out. It is the basic form of the sight which is being moved by walking/seeing, the experience of the sight itself, with naked eyes. "Linguistic eyes" is a strategy of knowledge which attempts to control the whole "sight" by the system of language and to apply a static order. It is a "still eyes" which tries to fix the movement of the "sight" under the concept of time.
　　　But, Eyewalk soon regains its own motion, because we are still walking through the park. And of course, every now and then the ｡ｧstill eyes｡ｨ rule us. I think it is right to assume that our daily lives are mainly based on the "linguistic eyes". The reality of the social life is constructed on this commonly shared order. But the environment of the natural park sides with our natural physical walk. What I boldly called "a certain awareness" at the beginning, is the emotional awareness of the appearance of the returning and continuing power of Eyewalk. And we should think that, just because of this movement, the makers of this exhibition have set up the exhibition in this natural park.

　　　Well, this work of Masayuki Sugiyama, has the power to live on after we went out and left the park behind us. In our everyday environment, we will from now on carry the memory of this meeting, or, of the experience of visiting the Ooigawa Exhibition in which the enlarging impact of the time-experience of the Eyewalk lies hidden. Afterwards, when we are walking, our senses are shaken and time has been accorded with different layers. In other words, while our view is decided by the "linguistic eyes", we have to take action to resume Eyewalk position again. It becomes half-automatic. By leading the view to a kind of geometric and mathematical spiraling movement, it entirely becomes the movement of the non-linguistic, abstract and conceptualized view. Having reached this point, we notice that this exhibition does not provide the kind of look like a gaze at a "now and here" from a body that came to a rest (we will call that "sitting eyes"). We are only equipped with the look from a walking body. The still and calm look becomes a nuisance and should be disposed of. The viewer is in any case an Eyewalker. In this park, the effect of the Eyewalk is strengthened by the work of Masayuki Sugiyama, and becomes "moving eyes". We understand that Eyewalk is the form of movement which tries to gain victory over the "linguistic eyes".
　　　What we have got, is a view which moves as a super-sight, an abstract view which could be called topological. Although the view is rooted in the concrete physical experience of seeing, we will only be able to meet the reality of the work, if we reach this phase of abstract movement.
　　　Certainly the abstract view, although it puts the origin of its own life force on the terminal function of the sense of sight, to our surprise, also deceives this terminal function. It is the paradox within the abominable brain, it is treason. We would like to be carried away by similar literary and philosophical expressions, but here I want to ask the specialist: might this be a movement of the brain itself? If this is the case, this self-movement of the brain is a counter attack to the sense of sight of the eyeball. The main-construction of the abstract concept lies in fact in the sphere of the theory of physical movement. And therefore, we living beings, cannot avoid it.
　　　At this point I am thinking it in words, but at the same time I am reflecting the phenomenon from the "geometrical" thinking movement. I have come to understand that to make one reach this point, and to provide this kind of occasion, is among the aims of the artists participating in this open-air exhibition. Although we do not see other works which are as radical and complex in their way of twisting the language as the work of Masayuki Sugiyama, the works of the other artists almost all seem to be placed in such a way, that they respond to the principles of the Eyewalk. With this premise, every work speaks for itself. I regret that I do not have more space to discuss the other works on display here as well.

The abstract view returns to everyday life

So, when we return to our everyday life after this art experience, we find that it has given us the opportunity to look at the mysterious scenes that lie hidden behind the familiar landscape. The abstract concept descends to the level of reality, and opens up an unexpected window on the character of "seeing".
　　　As for my case, I will give an example of electricity poles which I saw from the window of the suburban train on my way home after visiting the park for a second time. As I was watching them from the window, those poles came near and went far vigorously when the train passed. Pressing my face to the window I saw the poles coming near one after another, and they seemed to blur into one long shadow passing under my eyes with the sound of "gooooh", and then they turn their back on me and became electricity poles disappearing in the distance. "They were electricity poles." But, at what moment then, did I see an electricity pole? That is, an electricity pole according to the word electricity pole. When it was at its nearest, I didn't see it, I saw it when it was approaching, and I saw it when it went far. When was it that I saw the electricity pole which can be defined as: "The electricity pole I saw"? The experience of a train window going fast shows this phenomenon in a radical way.
　　　The state of this view is symbolic. It has taught me the construction of the ground I am running (although I am seated, but the train is running). Is it so that the sight of a moving subject becomes blinded for the "present"? Is the "present" the constructed concept induced from the experience of near-future and near-past? Is it the abstract concept constructed on the time system of past, present and future?
　　　Probably, there is a difference between walking and being on a running train. Let's have a look at the experience of the train window in slow-motion. I am thinking of the bridge which I approached and crossed, on my way to the park at the riverside. After leaving Yagi station I passed through the shopping street, went up a gentle slope and the bridge came into view. It was a metal bridge, painted blue. A beautiful bridge. But when I started crossing the bridge, what I saw before my eyes was no longer the "bridge", but an element, or part, of the bridge. I wasn't seeing the "bridge", I was in touch with a part of what we pronounce [bridz], and write as b|r|i|d|g|e. The bridge of that moment's "now and here" was a bridge out of my sight. Concretely, "maybe I have met with something that on approaching seemed to be a bridge". The word bridge and the physical appearance have come to intervene, and although supported by these, the sight itself is placed in a vague in-between, or so we should maybe say. In this occasion of Eyewalk, the "bridge" was not the "the sight of now and here". In general we think it is always there as it is, and therefore we allow ourselves to use the progressive form like: "I am seeing the bridge" while we are on the bridge. But, the progressive form is a fixed tense based on a linguistic reflection of the point in time of the near future of a time experience of "sight". For Eyewalk it is useless to apply the progressive form at this moment.
　　　And then, the walking is over. Through the bank I went down to the park, and then turned back: "Ah, that was the bridge", in the near-past. When the sight is disconnected from the "present", it finally discloses the actual state of "looking with the scientific phase of language". Although for a walking person there is the physical experience of the "sight" of "now", he cannot sense all of the "present" by his sight. This progressive form confirms the state of a "present" in the past, the moment it enters the phase of language, like in a construction of the past tense of 'to see': saw + -ing, a past-progressive form. Therefore, the reality of "here and now", is entrapped in the conspiracy of "before" and "after", "entrapped in a cheat", we could say. Perhaps we can say that the actual state of seeing, which arises upon the time difference which we were first able to grasp through the Eyewalk, is in the same phase as our daily life time, in which our sight cannot see every "now". We can understand it by thinking in a pace lower than slow-motion. The "now" of the human life, is a battle-field where language infringes itself on the point where time is trying to put itself forwards as an extension of the memory of the near-past and is met with a counter-attack by the near-future. We do not have a clear view on it because of the dust stirred up by the battle. And so I came to the horizon of the human life, probably because our life is part of the world of movement. Finally, the "abstract eyes" see the "movement".

A thorough tragedy of "sitting eyes"

However, there was a painter and sculptor, called Gaicometti. Because his work is well-known, I will omit an introduction, but in his later years he was obsessed with seeing "distance".
　　　If we look at it from the point of view of the Eyewalk, couldn't it be that looking at his object from a sitting point of view for too long caused his unhappiness? Regardless if you are making a sculpture or a painting, all there is, is the desire to fix the moment of "now", the eternal gaze at this moment. Nevertheless, time is passing, the point of the view is changing. It is the faith of art to resist this, and to eternalize the "here and now". I think that sculpture and painting have reached this point after stories of God have ceased to be written, and it might be thought that man was bound by this premise. In general, this kind of gaze of the "existential man" is performed seated, without making physical distance an issue. Artists leap over the interval, and close in on their object (and many of them manage to produce sensible works).
　　　Nevertheless, the problem of distance did present itself to this person. The distance between his painting self and the model being painted, somehow stood in his way. I have been thinking that the "now" which he saw through "sitting eyes" should have been seen by Eyewalk. It is said that his efforts in later life were extraordinary, but the extreme effort was invoked by a conspiracy between the movement of the eyeball ｡V instead of the body ｡V and the brain. Just by removing the "linguistic eyes" from his gaze, and replacing it by "sitting eyes" and "calm eyes", he ignored the experience of walking back and forth in time between the near past and the near future, like catching a "now" as a temporary moving sight. The frozen moment, the direct gaze of "here and now" is what establishes the value of an artwork, (he did not go around the subject by using a method like perspective), and this obsession caused his hardship. He did not want to acknowledge the fact that distance is a time-related movement. He sat and gazed at his object, without walking. What he searched for was, as it were, "absolute eyes". By only moving his hands and eyes, he sent the gaze of approaching and detaching to his brain. Day after day he approached his object with his sight, and challenged himself to make a painting beyond words and rejecting the view, in other words, a painting which denies the phase of language - please remember, that in comparison with this, the Eyewalk is a movement which fights and tides over the language - hoping for an evolution of the brain. But the fact that the distance did not invite him to move his body, was blocking his way.
　　　There are some notes by a certain Isaku Yanaihara. He has posed for Giacometti, and became a conspirator to the painter who "sat down looking". I want to say that the "sitting eyes" is a desire for eternity, laid out by the implantation of a ｡V at this place mistaken ｡V here and now, and what we see is a man taking stern measures in order to complete his mission. Yanaihara was struck with admiration, but ironically there was also a certain absurdity in this thoroughness of Giacometti. While he was looking with "sitting eyes", the attitude of Eyewalk loomed in the background, and maybe that was what tempted him. Giacometti was not just a person of "sitting eyes", he was a person of "breaking through the sitting eyes". And therefore his art had to fight against this temptation.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(Translated by Rose Eijsten )
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(Assisted by Brian Elkan )