the idea of suddenly having a sense of displacement, when you see something unexpected at any level, and especially in the urban perception, reveals something and basically finally gives a meaning to a determinist walk.
But the same could be said of the act of viewing, too. How the off-screen becomes relevant in this relational aesthetics?
Is it just a matter of surprising the viewer? It's a too easy answer.
The trick quickly dissipates and leaves nothing behind itself, no real experience, no scars.
The consistency of what turns a piece inside out relates more, I think, to the idea of how sincerely and "naturally" a known element inside a world, decides to deal with our knowledge of it, and present itself back in a different (slower, faster, negative, positive, brighter, darker, but ultimately "known") fashion.
Instead of an off-screen, we're in the middle of a flickering screen, where the flicker reveals many other screens we might already know.
How, or when, the maker "puts" the screen onto an order, and "plays" (musically) this order, is what counts. But this screen is a hook that, as Micheal Tom wisely noticed, speaks of the relationship between personal making and the mainstream (either as language or icons).
Speed and repetition are side or later values, that reveal the syntax of our experience, not the kind of space we go through.
Space and materials are declared. We're apparently in a familiar, recognizable field. We are at home. But asleep and making our way through memory and dreams.