anti-zoom bruno latour
The optical devices and unexpected courses of cartography, similarly founded on the concept of
events in Olafur Eliasson’s exhibition disturb our a range of data whose projection depends entirely
perceptions and force us to address the question on the metric selected).
of scale in space and time in an entirely new manner.
In the era known as the Anthropocene, such issues What is true for space is no less so for time—
have become increasingly urgent, since we poor though, significantly enough, the point is even more
humans—or rather earthlings— remain perplexed evident in the latter case. When one turns from an
as to how to find our place among phenomena, account of a single day (June 6, 1944, for example)
which are at once immensely vaster than we are, to one covering five years (the 1940–1945 War),
and yet subject to our affect. It is no easy task to the details of June 6 are not included in the second
cut a way through all this. It is indeed this problem narration, just “less exactly” (as if such a change
of scale that I would like to tackle in this brief essay equated to the one from a grid of sensors in a high-
written to accompany Eliasson’s exhibition. resolution telescope to a grid at a lower resolution
but at a wider angle). Though the author might
The idea of common sense—that “right path” aver that (s)he has “changed focus,” the “long”
which Eliasson’s machines obviously render null narrative does not contain the “shorter” one at all:
and void—has it that one can circulate freely it instead reiterates all the elements differently, to
through and in every scale, from the most local to the point of constituting an entirely new story (and
the global (in space), as well as shuttle about back not the same account with just fewer details).
and forth from the briefest instant (as, for example,
in the course of a chemical reaction) to the longest In this sense, Olafur Eliasson is right to insist on
period (as in so-called “geological time”—before, the fact that the mechanisms of disorientation
precisely, people started dubbing the blink-of- he employs are as much temporal as spatial. As
an-eye period known as the Anthropocene, a a temporal narrative relates less readily to the
“geological era”). optical metaphor of the lens, the discrepancy
appears more obvious for time than for space. The
Unfortunately “common sense,” here as elsewhere, argument, however, remains identical: an account
is a poor guide. For neither the schema of space, of June 6 is no more included in an account of WWII
nor that of time, appear continuous: levels of reality than a 1-to-10 scale is included in a 1-to-100 scale.
do not nestle one within the other like Russian In both cases, there is no insertion (no transitivity)
dolls. It cannot be said that the small or the short of one scale into the other.
lie within the large or the long, in the sense that the
largest or the longest contain them but with just An appreciation of the argument concerning what
“fewer details.” This metaphor emerges from the occurs with time can aid an understanding of why
optics of photography, from the zoom created by the situation as regards space affords scarcely
the use of a lens aptly called “telescopic.” In fact, less realism. In the teeth of common sense, moving
one might almost posit a rule: good artists do not freely from one scale to the next—be it in time or in
believe in zoom effects. space—remains problematic.
It is incorrect, moreover, to think that maps, for Moreover, this illusion of unhindered movement
instance, prove the reality of the zoom effect: limits reactions to the ecological crisis, since people
when one shifts from a map on a scale of 1 cm. think they can talk blandly about, for instance,
to 1 km. to one on 1 cm. to 10 km., the latter does “everything,” or about the “fate of the planet,”
not contain the same information as the former: without realizing that what they call “everything”
it contains other information that might (or might generally tallies with some tiny model in a research
not) coincide with what appears in the former. In bureau or lab. In this regard, research by artists
spite of appearances, the optical and cartographic converges with analyses by sociologists and
metaphors do not overlap. It might even be said historians of sciences: there is no zoom, though
that the former has become so parasitical on the there is a rich history of zoom effects.
latter that it has rendered the very concept of
cartography almost incomprehensible. Optics has Yet, it would be absurd to deny that differences in
distorted cartography entirely. time and space are crucial. One cannot pretend
that talking about the Amazonian Basin is the
One can of course arrange maps to offer the same thing as working on a ten-acre experimental
impression of a zoom effect, but it is exactly that: station in the Jura. Biochemists observing the brief
an effect, an assemblage as artificial as a fake moment that a photon takes to be captured by an
perspective in a stage set. oak leaf are not dealing on the “same scale” as
those tracking the shifting tectonic plates of the
Such montage effects can be verified by a Antilles beneath the La Soufrière volcano. Though
glance at Google Earth. The engine provides the variability in the data may subsist, one must
impression of optical transition (the pixels become remember that these should not be confused with
increasingly small), whereas, in practice, each stage the arrangement of a range of data sets that have
in the “resolution” extracts from the new data sets simply been assembled differently. Among these
on the server (following the same principle as in forms of arrangement, which the optical-cum-
121
photographic metaphor improperly characterizes
as a zoom, there are two that are easy to grasp and
thus relatively easy to circumvent: administrative
hierarchy and disciplinary hierarchy.
The history of cartography emerges very largely
from that of nation states, so that the arrangement
of its data sets has respected, since at least
the seventeenth century, the perimeters and
hierarchies of governments. Today, however, all
discussion of the Anthropocene must ignore limits
such as counties, regions, states, and nations.
Now, physical geography is not the factor of
order behind “human” geography; rather it is the
occupation of the territory by the modern state that
has very largely dictated the type of arrangement,
the organization, the staging, even, of all the
information supplied to geographers, sociologists,
statisticians, politicians, and which is subsequently
analyzed and exploited by these same professions.
Such interrelations have been exhaustively studied
by historians of geography and cartography, as
well as by historians of the official history of these
same nations.
The second readily identifiable configuration
affects the scientific disciplines themselves, which,
a little like states, “occupy the territory” and claim
to “include” or “absorb” all the others (which
remain more local, more qualitative). Patently,
though, this “pecking order” between disciplines
cannot be employed to arrange data in a stable
or continuous manner, since it is obvious that,
on each occasion, the material gathered is not
congruent at all. This point is a given for all those
artists, who, like Eliasson, use advanced techniques
extensively. Scientists from various disciplines
cannot be marshaled as if they all belonged to
one and the same continuum. To employ a rather
arcane term, the connections between them are
not hierarchical, but heterarchical. The relationship
between a surveyor in the field walking along
a trench on a segment of road, and his or her
colleague back in the lab pouring over a false-
color satellite sweep that covers the same area,
is not one of inclusion. The second does not see
the data of the first, with just “less detail”: they
are dealing with different findings. If they do
manage, as the saying goes, to “reconcile” each
other’s data, this will only be due to a fortunate
combination of circumstances and after countless
meetings during which the two sets of data will
be completely reconfigured. It will absolutely not
arise from a hierarchical relationship, in which the
“smaller” is subordinated to the “larger” (still less
so from a hierarchical relationship predicated on
competence, scientific probity, qualifications,
or, indeed, salary!). Fortunately, then, since each
discipline or sub-discipline “orders” the others
differently, the resulting fruitful cacophony can
hardly sustain the impression of a “zoom” for long.
That the contrary view has occasionally been
advanced seems to me to be due in part to the
success of a celebrated film shot in 1977 by
122
anti-zoom
Charles and Ray Eames, The Powers of Ten, which provide the impression of describing a particular
has inspired, and, it might be said, led astray, many space and time (in fact, it is always a matter
artists and scientists. By the optical expedient of of space-time; a route or trajectory). The point
threading a series of scenes one through the other, (a philosophical one, but we cannot help that)
this film claims to materialize a near-continuous is that one should not confuse projection with
shift, from the infinitely large (the galaxy), down connectivity: the data are richer in connectivity
to the infinitely small (atoms), starting with and than are the (inevitably limited) projections used to
returning to the everyday situation of a couple organize them. This is just another way of saying
enjoying a picnic in a park in the center of Chicago that maps (projections) should not be confused
on a fine, sunny day. It is a movie in which with what is obtained in the field; that narrative
everything is at once true and false. True, since, (invariably another format of projection) should
on every occasion, the images present exactly not be mixed up with trajectory. Simply put, a
what is revealed by some device (telescope, projection cannot equate to the path followed to
satellite, microscope, particle accelerator), not to acquire the connections.
mention the movie camera filming the couple. Yet
at the same time, everything is also false, because Yet what does learning how to traverse the “data
the position allotted to each image is completely accumulating the connections”—an expression
implausible. Where could we stand to view the that might usefully replace “learning how to obtain
Earth from another galaxy? What laboratory would changes in scale”—actually mean?
we have to visit to observe cells from the skin of
our two amorous picnickers? Imagine describing, for example, a drainage basin,
and among the data collected (“obtained”) you
It is also unlikely that one is able to shift in a few discover chemicals whose signature is the same
seconds from microscope to particle accelerator. as those extracted from a certain mine in the
The supposedly “educational” space-time RDC (formerly Zaire). That is to say, in practice,
portrayed in Eames’s film is in fact a figment of the that the comparison has been made using two
imagination. In the process of exploring the so- data sets from entirely distinct sources. It is not
called “scientific image of the world” it betrays just first a connection between two places located
how unrealistic this image is. To actually mirror the thousands of kilometers apart that implies the
path taken by the eye through each of these scales transportation and concealment (probably illegal)
would require a prolonged, continuous movement, of hazardous chemicals. On the contrary, the
both extremely complicated and exorbitantly connection first requires pinpointing a place (in the
expensive—one that would wander through all of sense of connection) before visualizing it through
Chicago, from laboratories via science institutes to a projection onto a map (for example, by using an
academies, and even then one would not manage arrow to link the site to the RDC). Furthermore, it
to thread all of these various “space-times” like is this very connection that might be presented
pearls on a necklace. in the form of an account: “On a date D, highly
toxic products from mines in the RDC were hidden
Personally, I would be first in line to see an by X at some place in this catchment area.” The
exhibition in which artists would demonstrate argument would be exactly the same if one had
this type of motion, at once completely alien to started out with the following storyline: “Toxic
our thought processes and yet perfectly realistic. waste traffickers transported from the RDC to this
Obviously, it would not be easy. To access data point dangerous refuse, traces of which should be
of different natures originating from various detectable in the effluent from this critical zone.”
pieces of apparatus and belonging to totally If the account begins by establishing connections
distinct disciplines, and yet to avoid immediately between agents subsequently placed in a
organizing them in accordance with the disastrous chronology (before / after, brief time / long time,
metaphor of the zoom, requires the creation of an intense phase / uneventful phase, and so on), it can
arrangement tailored to some other principle. also be projected onto a map (the RDC, complete
with every relevant anamorphosis).
The least complicated alternative would be to
order the data in accordance with the principle With respect to the concept of connectivity,
of connectivity—a principle that has the distinct temporal and spatial dimensions are nonetheless
advantage of not distinguishing the question of entirely interchangeable (many search engines
time scale from that of space (the whole difference project data automatically in the form of timelines
between time and space being itself a figment and maps). In practice no map is ever shown that
of the zoom—or, as Henri Bergson puts it, of the is not afterwards narrated in the form of motion,
cinematographic view of experience). In practice in the form of events in time (for only thus can
the data (better called the information “sublata”) description occur); and, conversely, no narrative
is always composed of connections (a table with has ever existed without the aid of localization
figures in columns, a sequence of sentences, (again, so that description can occur).
pictures placed side by side, and graphs, to
name a few). In truth, it is these connections that
are subsequently projected in various formats to
123
It is now clear that the choice of the backdrop of
a map or the storyline of a narrative on which to
project the connections is a decision that follows
after the links derived from resemblances identified
in the data have been established. The order is then
always the following: first identify the data sets,
then locate the connections, then reconstruct the
pathway and figure out a projection, and, finally,
select the maps and/or narratives.
There is no reason to fall for the opposite trajectory,
which is solely designed to convince us that we can
describe changes in position in space or time by
using the notionally fixed points of a chronological
timeline or the pseudo-Euclidean metric of a map.
Data sets do not occur in space or in time: instead,
space (maps) and time (forms of narration) are
schemas used to display and to present—either
mimicking the ordered arrangement of the subsets
of the hierarchy (those of nation states, or, as in
Eames’s film, of scientific disciplines), or, on the
contrary, seeking to rearrange the data so as to
undermine or circumvent these hierarchies. Artists
who take inspiration from the sciences are right
to pour into this breach; luckily, they also often
appear reticent to swallow the putative “scientific
image of the world” whole. For when it comes to
images, artists have more than one trick up their
sleeve: they are unlikely to be taken in by zoom
effects.
A yawning gap thus exists between learning how
to interrelate the scales of space and time, all the
while managing to eschew the zoom effect. These
two modes of positioning in fact remain deeply
antagonistic. To intercut every scale effectively
(to “crosscheck,” to “reconcile” the data) it is
necessary to jettison for good all notion of a
continuous, transitive scale. This issue was of little
importance at one time because the distinction
between the natural and the social sciences (the
humanities) still held water; just as the distinction
between the sciences of time and those of history
seemed to mean something.
The Anthropocene has gradually eroded such
distinctions. Thus, to fully comprehend the
dimensions occupied by humans, or rather by
all earthly creatures, it has become necessary to
devise new methodological principles: connectivity,
yes; scale, no. This is the lesson in orientation I
draw from the course in disorientation, provided
by Eliasson.
124
