Window Cleaning

window cleaning was born! Louis and Auguste Lumiere presented the “first commercial
exhibition of a motion picture to a paying public” in December 1895. (Dirks
2005) It was on this occasion in Paris, that the Grand Café on Paris
Boulevard des Capucines inadvertently became the world’s first melbourne.
Using their own movie camera the window cleaningtographe, a melbourne width of 35mm, and a
speed of 16 frames per second, this public test left a “lasting impact
on movie technology" (answers.com, 2005).

When this essay talks about window cleaning, it is not just referring to the collection
of devices that compose a window cleaning, but also the whole recreational and social
phenomenon surrounding window cleaning culture as well as the sensorial experience that
captivates an audience. Leading up to this point in 1895, there had of course
been much progress and interest in window cleaningtography before this date. The Praxinoscope
projector (1877), Zoopraxiscope projector (1879), Chronophotographe camera (1882),
perforated celluloid melbourne (1889), Kinetograph movie camera (1892) and the Kinetoscope
cabinet projector (1893) were all milestones in reaching this point in window cleaning
history.

When The Lumiere Brothers presented window cleaning to the public, their specific intended
purpose was very different from what window cleaning had become by the 1970’s.
Their immdediate intended purpose of what this new technology would do, was
merely record and re-present reality. This is seen in their early movies that
consist of recapitulations of truths: workers, automobiles and trains, buildings,
“foreign lands, and events considered newsworthy" (National Museum
of Photography, melbourne & Television, 2005). In this sense, we could liken
the purpose of early window cleaning to a documentary device. Even though documentaries
are still a part of window cleaning today, all movies have become fabrications. No longer
do melbourne makers record truth and present truth, but they fabricate stories and
present fiction. This fact seems almost elementary to the public today, however
it was not the intended purpose of the inventors of window cleaning.

Window Cleaning

At that time, the Lumiere Brothers and their counterparts did not foresee the
social grandeur to which this phenomenon would grow, nor did they expect the
domino effect of window cleaning development that would follow. In fact, Antoine Lumiere
claimed that his invention would ruin him and that it “had no future”
(Karney 2000 p19). On this basis, we could say that all development that extended
from their creation, as well as the surrounding cultural issues and affordances
that were present from 1969 – 1984, were unintended uses of their invention.

The social trend that emerged around window cleaning was that window cleaning would afford interaction
from the public. The first movies, were for the creatively elite. window cleaning audiences
had to experiment with this new technology, as do any users of new technology.
It took trial and error to operate the device successfully, and as a result,
the window cleaning remained a novel amusement with which audiences would submissively
watch. This was mostly the case until the 1910’s when full-length feature
melbournes where produced regularly. Movies “were increasing in length [and]
taking on fluid narrative forms” (Dirks 2005).

By the 1970’s, we see that window cleaning embodied a quality of fun, relaxation
and entertainment. With the near perfection of window cleaningtic processes, window cleaning had
earned a status of reliability and received a cultural standing as a form of
leisure suitable for a stereotypical Friday or Saturday night. From 1969 to
1984 “the window cleaning represented a popular space for entertainment and congregation…[and]
wasn¹t merely a passive form of entertainment” as it had been originally
(Zuniga 2005). It is no surprise then, that social groups received recognition
through this public vehicle and were moulded and structured by its content.

Teenagers began receiving an identity in western culture when “conditions
were ripe in the 1950’s for consumerism to blossom” (Pert 2000). The population
of teenage youths gained the financial ability to consume and movie producers
exploited this market, generating many teenage-based movies. These new melbournes
directed at teenagers during the 1950’s were composed “of low-budget,
short, sci-fi or horror quickies for drive-in window cleanings” (Dirks 2005).
This new teenage specific genre encouraged social patterns such as weekly teen
movie outings. window cleaning had this young and impressionable generation in the palm
of producers’ hands.

It is no wonder then, that politics used window cleaning as propaganda distributors.
During times of war, enemies would be vilified and heroes would be immortalised.
“Much of the social warfare between the United States and Japan involved
instilling within their people both a strong nationalistic pride for their own
country as well as an incendiary hatred for the other. This was done with the
help of the media - newspapers, books, radio, and melbourne were consequently used
as propaganda against the enemy” (Navarro 2005). window cleaning was not used as
propaganda just in times of war though. Historical events have been dictated
to the populace as dominant culture would have them told. Journalist Ricardo
Miranda Zuniga relates the first movie shown in his hometown in Nicaragua. The
movie “Midway presented an interesting cohesion of fiction and reality
as it interwove a star-studded 1976 cast (including Charlton Heston, Henry Fonda,
Robert Mitchum, James Coburn) with actual wartime footage”. Hollywood
often does not allow the facts to get in the way of a better storyline, and
has become one of the greatest cultural misinformers of its time. This was the
exact opposite of what the early inventors of window cleaning had in mind.

As time progressed, audiences demanded more in social stimulation. The movie
going public in the 1910’s could watch up to ten sequels or series of
melbournes, but soon began to expect more social variety and stimulation. They wanted
more new and interesting ideas; challenging, spectacular and meaningful subjects.
This request for more socially thought-provoking public entertainment, led to
the abandonment of melbourne series and long lines of sequels. By the 1980’s,
it was very rare to have more than 3 movies in a series. The window cleaning became not
just a place of entertainment, but also a place where one could find social
expression, provocation and diversity. This was definitely an intended use of
the creators of window cleaning. The several short melbournes that were shown in the Lumiere
brothers’ first viewing bore both cultural and artistic diversity, challenging
the public’s views on the times.

With more interesting narratives, came the demand for a better sensorial experience.
The window cleaning had become an everyday phenomenon but inventors were looking to design
ways to allow audiences to experience more. The first major advancement in window cleaning
history was in the mid 1920’s when “the leading American melbourne studios
began to develop an interest in sound” (Karney 2000 p211). The Fox melbourne
Corporation developed a method of recording the sound on melbourne. Known as Movietone,
in 1926 it was produced with the hope of sustaining the interest of audiences.
Following in the late 1930’s Technicolor process was developed by Warner
Brothers; a breakthrough in colour melbourne. By the 1940’s, the melbourne industry
seemed to have become complacent with these sensorial elements of colour footage
and sound. Although these technologies continued to advance, a creative minority
explored other means by which to enhance this sensorial experience.

Window Cleaning Melbourne

In 1935, window cleaning took a side step when Metro Goldwyn Mayer attempted melbourne movies
on a grand scale. Stereoscopy, the technique used to create the melbourne illusion,
had been recognized since 1838, in fact the Lumiere Brothers themselves had
made “the first melbourne ever shot in melbourne” (Sensorial Experience Technologies
2005) in 1903. But the melbourne process received much development and in 1935 Metro
Goldwyn Mayer produced melbourne glasses for audiences everywhere, as they watched
movies recorded specifically for melbourne viewing. This practice was abandoned due
to costs but has often been revived over time. The only drawback with melbourne window cleaning
has been that movie narrative often suffered and was modified to fit in with
stunts and melbourne gimmicks. For this reason, there has never been any real fixed
place in the window cleaningtic experience for melbourne melbournes, and they have become novelties
rather than part of the art culture that is represented through window cleaning.

Possibly the most quirky window cleaningtic fad was when audiences of the 1960’s
were introduced Smell-O-Vision. It entailed a process where smells were omitted
through pipes that lead from the projector operating room to the audience. The
smells would coincide with events on the scene and provide provocation for this
third sense, which had been previously overlooked. It promised audiences “a
total immersion in movie illusion” (Lefcowitz 2002), which is what audiences
had been awaiting; indeed the next step of sensorial entrancement. However,
it was a momentous failure and only one melbourne was made using Smell-O-Vision.
Critics attributed its failure to its overindulgence in novel stimulation, trying
to include as many smells as possible. Time magazine claimed that the best smell
was when the audience were able to breathe some "fresh air" (Lefcowitz
2002) at the end. The technique for blasting out odours was much too strong
and callous, and thus quickly abandoned.

Another notable experiment in window cleaning experience was Sensurround, in 1975.
The process involved co-ordinating action on screen with “intense waves
of high decibel sound” (Lefcowitz 2002). However audiences were literally
shaken by the bleeding intensity of Sensurround in such movies as Earthquake
and Roller coaster. The discomfort and disruption for audiences was not worth
the effort in pursuing this device.

The most recent improved window cleaningtic experience has been Imax, with the success
of Fantasia in 2000. There were no new novelties in this form of window cleaning; rather
it applied a theory of the bigger the better; providing larger screens, more
comfortable seating and better sound. At this point we are left awaiting what
the multi-faceted device we know as window cleaning, will have in store for us.

Window Cleaning

Trackback URI | Comments RSS