That her interest in this context complicates and ultimately displaces the desire for total vision ultimately explains why the installation literally deconstructs the modernist creed of architectural transparency," as Dimendberg suggests. It undermines the ideology of unmediated vision, of the picture window, "by laying bare its most fundamental premise: the body of the observer as it contemplates and is framed by architecture" (75). The Desiring Eye, then, moves from the questioning of the purity—the nobility—of vision staged in Slow House to a reckoning with the consequences of its contamination: namely, the exposure of embodiment as the “origin" of all architectural framing.
This exposure is just what is at stake in Diller + Scofidio's Blur Building, where the monumental framing of nature typical of the world exposition as an institution is undermined and displaced in favor of a framing via the slow time of bodily experience. As critic Ashley Schafer points out, in the Blur project as in the Slow House, technologies "produce nothing, or at least nothing that does not already exist; rather, they simply reframe the existing view by visually and temporally displacing it."27 Not only does the project involve a shift from architectural interiority to exteriority, with the embodied spectator becoming the generator of“wearable space," but also, even more centrally to our concerns here, it foregrounds the imbrication of architecture with the digital, as Diller + Scofidio explain:
WEARABLE SPACE
217