Week Six Readings

Paul Virilio’s "The Overexposed City"
Martha Rosler's "In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveller"

In "The Overexposed City," Virilio presents a bleak assessment of the state of affluent society. He proposes that like an overexposed photograph, our experience of the city has been amplified to the point that too much is seen and all details are lost. Technologies such as television, satellites the computer act as time (and place) machines that instantly connect us with places near and far, microscopic and macroscopic, hidden and all-too revealed. This instantaneous connection to anything and everything through the video screen has eroded our experience of the real and disconnected us from natural physical existence. Timelessness and placelessness are now normal. The boundaries between spaces and between day and night have been eroded.

In my opinion, one must acknowledge that not everyone is a part of the “instant” world of the “overexposed city.” Billions of people in the world are not connected to the information overload of the Internet. Even within North America, certain segments of the population cannot (or choose not) to participate within some or all of the realm of advanced telecommunications. Their city exists simultaneously to the “overexposed city,” but perhaps has become eroded by the overexposure that they do not directly experience.

One might suggest that people can slip in and out of the overexposed city - sometimes operating in compressed space-time, sometimes operating in “real” space-time. Do we need a different type of architecture for each space-time? Do these two types of architecture already exist in the architecture of the real/permanent and the architecture of the “temporary contract”?

Do we all have to part of the “overexposed city” all of the time? Could it be that we can slip in and out of it (or is the slipping in and out just a symptom of the “overexposed city”)? Does the “overexposed city” treat everyone the same?

Should we try to limit “overexposure” (to limit how much we can see)? We use many different tools to gain a better understanding of the workings of life and the universe. Should we ignore parts of what we see using tools in order to stay more connected with what we can see without tools?


"In the Place of the Public" describes the phenomenon of air travel. Martha Rosler discusses the impact air travel has on society, as well as the symptoms of some societal phenomena that are exhibited in air travel. She particularly highlights issues of representation, simulation and isolation. Rosler discusses many of the same issues of timelessness and placelessness considered by Paul Virilio.

The 'hissing teakettle' that was the steam-powered locomotive has been replaced by the screaming maelstrom of the jet engine in our never-ending quest for power over time and space. Commercial jet aircraft have become interchangeable parts of the airport that periodically fly off and reconnect to another airport elsewhere. Aircraft function as long rooms crowded with seats that connect and disconnect places over time. One who enters this room does not dare leave it until enough time has passed to ensure the room has moved far enough to connect to another airport.

The airport/airplane hybrid is very much like a space-time machine. One who enters the airport in Winnipeg in hopes of going to Vancouver is never actually outside until leaving the airport in Vancouver. The long narrow corridor known as the jetway ensures a completely uninterrupted comfortable interior experience for the traveller. The speed of travel is so great that our bodies become disoriented and we suffer jet lag.

Is it a good thing that we can experience different places in rapid succession? Does this contribute to a better understanding of our place in the world, or does it destroy our place in the world?

It could be argued that air travel has allowed people greater freedom to travel, and from that gain a better awareness and understanding of other cultures. Does this awareness lead to better protection for distinct cultures, or does it lead to homogenization of cultures?