Multiple perspectives present time as a singular subject that runs laterally throughout a chronological sequence of photographs in Arbiter, 2007.  A length of string in each frame equals the length of each photograph. The photographs mimic the width of an alley between two row houses on Calvert Street in Baltimore, Maryland.  Perspectives shift with conjoined edges.

Perspectives shift while representing equal lengths of string in the photographs that also mimics the exact length of the string itself.  The difference from one image to the next becomes irreducible to form as each frame locates the same proportion of string at different locations.  The arbitrary nature of aligning each frame, one after the other, cannot reproduce the exact same imagery given a different place and time.  The photographs remain specific to a particular site and a particular time although the process of locating each subject remains the same.

Why would Arbiter repeat a process that makes reproduction of its subject matter impossible in any other form than the photographs themselves?  Upon establishing the artifice of the photographs (that the photograph has no anterior time than the present even while it denotes a separate context from its present location and appears as an irretrievable sequence of events), the present becomes irreducible to any representation.  Therefore, the present has no means or ends in an exchange for another time and appears irretrievable.

Why would Arbiter point to an irretrievable time?  Simply put, why should anyone fear losing time if there is nothing that can keep it?  What is to be gained from having more time or less time if time is nothing that can be had?

Arbiter does the following: (1) present time as nothing, (2) present production as dependant on time, (3) present production as happening at a given site, (4) present reproduction as synonymous with time.

projects