LUKE PENDRELL

You can telephone from here: 
On the methodology and ontology of covert surveillance photography
The Happy Hypocrite - A Rather Large Weapon,
issue 4, 2009
Editor: Fusco, Maria, Bookoworks
ISBN: 978 1 906012 15 1 
2,000 copies, 167 x 230 mm
https://bookworks.org.uk/publishing/shop/the-happy-hypocrite-a-rather-large-weapon-issue-4/

“It was thought that if the positions and movements of the subjects and the relationship between them were known, then their subsequent movement and position could in principle be determined. However the inability to simultaneously record the postion andemovements of the sublects at any instant led to an indeterministic worldview, one in which the future could be neither determined nor predicted.”
The Happy Hypocrite is a biannual journal led by artists’ writings. Informed by a lineage of modern experimental and avant-garde magazines, such as: Bananas, Documents, The Fox, Merlin and Tracks, this journal aspires to unpack the methodology of such key journals, whilst providing a brand new approach to art writing. It will provide a greatly needed testing ground for new writing and research-based projects, somewhere for artists, writers and theorists to express experimental ideas that might not otherwise be realised or published.

In this issue new writing, text and images, a blackboard, an interview, surveillance photographs, heroes, and a blasted copy of the Canadian Indian Act of 1867.

Contributors include: Bernadette Buckley; Jeff Derkson; Candice Hopkins; Anthony Iles; Daniel Kane; Yve Lomax; Robert Longo; Sean Lynch; Laura Oldfield Ford; Luke Pendrell; Rachelle Sawatsky; Natasha Soobramanien; Nick Thurston and Mark Von Schlegall.

You can telephone from here: On the methodology and ontology of covert surveillance photography

[Fig. 01]
It was thought that if the positions and movements of the subjects and the relationship between them were known, then their subsequent movement and position could in principle be determined. However the inability to simultaneously record the postion andemovements of the sublects at any instant led to an indeterministic worldview, one in which the future could be neither determined nor predicted.

[Fig.02]
The subjects existed and had meaning not solely as an isolated entities but as an interconnection between the processes of action and observation. The properties of the subject could no longer be defined independently of these processes. Any alteration to the conditions of observation or recording of the images resulted in attendant alterations in the properties of the subject.

[Fig. 03]
This understanding contradicted the perceived the notion of the world as being composed of a series of separate and independently existing observers and subjects. Instead it was seen that the inseperable interconectedness of the subjects and the observer as the fundamental realitytogether with the apparently independently behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms acting within the whole.

[Fig. 04]
The fragile fragments we are, flickering phosphorescence. Myriad and momentary. Meaningless tiny beacons guttering in brief configurations.

[Fig. 05]
This detritus. The distant image of an unknown almost arbitrary anonymous anxious face. Fossilized in ossified light. Unlabled and unclaimed. Staring inscrutably out from the grey grain. Such slight traces are perhaps all that will remain.