5 July

The idea of place is why I’m so critical of travel, which has a very problematic relationship with place. The Bathurst 1000 is another way to explain it. I like this picture because it captures the two aspects in one frame. It’s a highlight of my year, but something that’s been difficult in recent years is deciding whether to go, or whether to watch it on TV. Which would constitute ‘being there’? I think nearly everybody would say being at the track. I’ve done that lots of times, and also watched it on TV. And to me it’s not at all clear which gives me a better sense of being there. In fact in recent years I’d probably say watching the TV coverage is the more likely winner. Going to the track gives me sounds and smells and sights I won’t get on the TV broadcast. But are they more ‘authentic’? Am I closer to being there, at the Bathurst 1000, by physically being there? Watching the broadcast gives me MUCH more. To the extent that when I’m at the track now, I feel like I’m missing out, excluded from much of what’s happening. I don’t feel ‘there’ as much as I do when watching on TV. There are important, so little understood things to know about place which the simplistic body-in-that-location don’t come close to answering. For example, where does a telephone call take place? Try answering that one. (For the Bathurst 1000, I now often watch the start and first few hours at the track, and then go home and watch the rest.)