Surface Value from jennifer jacobs on Vimeo.

Surface Value is work that addresses the relationship between femininity and surface value. Since the advent of photography, the nature of the object has undergone constant change. In many respects, images now take precedence over objects, experiences and events. These images are pervasive in nature and dictate a new value system in which worth is determined through constant accumulation and revision. This value structure is becoming inscribed on us as individuals wherein we take the perceived value of the images we surround ourselves with as an indicator of our own worth. As a result, our identities are becoming as disposable as these projections. Surface Value uses the archetype of the android as a metaphor to explore this condition. As the piece progresses a roving camera, meticulously explores the central character, a female android. As an object, the android is purely surface. Its interiors are as accessible as its exteriors and both have been crafted with the expectation that they will be closely examined and evaluated. While these surfaces are beautiful, they are also two-dimensional. The android is not more than the sum of its parts as indicated by the fact that we never see all of it at once. Because it is artificial, the android while appearing valuable will inevitably be dismantled and discarded through the scrutiny it is meant to withstand.

Munsterberg postulates about the parallels between a piece of technology- the film projector/ camera and the psychological processes that human beings operate under. He talks about how the way we process memory is very similar to how events are depicted on screen. This innate connection between our mental processes and our technology is what fascinated me about Munsterberg. I often use the archetypes of androids and robots in my own work and I felt that these symbols resonated well with some of the concepts he presents. Film is a byproduct of technology that shows how we think through a direct representation of our mental imagery. A humanoid robot is a counterpoint to this process in that it shows how we wish to perceive ourselves. Both these symbols show humanity’s predilection for self-emulation, although some of this may be subconscious on our part. Making a film about the examination and deconstruction of an android is a way of exploring the relationship between artificial consciousness and our own awareness, and deciding where the line that separates the two lays. But in saying this, I want to make this clear that this is not a piece about the nature of “artificial intelligence” but rather the reproducibility and superficiality of our own psyches. This is where Holmes’ piece comes into play. I should emphasize that the ideas expressed in his writing had a bigger influence on this project than Munsterberg. The idea Holmes presents is that the value of objects will eventually lie in their surface images and the reproduction of these images, rather than the objects themselves. For me, this idea is embodied by the android. They are manufactured objects, facsimiles that are representations of the organic in a detached way.  As a result they are all surface, they are perceived as valuable, but innately also disposable. This quality of destruction, detachment and disposal is at the center of my piece. At its core I am attempting to address this question: As the surfaces of our culture become more ubiquitous and intimately tied to our definitions of ourselves, what will be the end result when they are discarded?