[hypergraphia]

The limitations of installation art, in the sense that is described by Rosalind Krauss in Sculpture in an Expanded Field (1979), has become increasingly apparent with the evolution of how art is received and understood. However, contemporary installation art has become so intimately interwoven into the institutional fabric of the art gallery/museum that it has lost its former transgressional streak. It is this challenge of reinjecting institutional confrontation into installations that is the primary motivation for this project. To do so would require a rethinking of what exactly contemporary installations should be?

Place vs. Non-place

The French anthropologist Marc Augé presents the concept of non-lieux as the antithesis of the anthropological notion of lieux, or “place”. Briefly put, anthropological place signifies a space that is invested with meaning by its inhabitants who derive an identity and community from it; it has a history, it is ridden with rituals, there are relationships and interactions amongst individuals. A non-place would be what a place is not. Non-places are devoid of meaning, identity, or community; the space creates neither singular identity nor relations; only solitude, and similitude1. They are spaces formed in relation to certain ends, to pass from one place to another. Neither place nor non-place exists independent of each other. Rather than an observable fact, it is a matter of perception, how you perceive the space – an airport, for example, has not the same status in the eyes of the passenger who passes through as in the eyes of those who work there everyday.

The Institution as a Non-Place: XLIEUX

The gallery is a place. We propose to turn it into a non-place through new media and social engagement. Therefore, the gallery itself is symbolically eliminated; shut off from viewers and turned into something that no one would go to, no point to arrive at.

However, how to turn it into a space in which there are still individuals passing through, and yet not identifying or relating with it? This is where the website comes into play as a platform for interaction. Through xlieux.net, people can interact with others, engage in conversation with them and see them by the use of webcams; it will be like everyday video conferencing. What is different, and what the viewers may or may not know, is that the image of their faces are fed to a projector in the gallery. Participants permeate the gallery walls, pass through them, turning the gallery into something like a computer router and hence a non-place, non-lieux, xlieux. In this manner we are questioning the gallery as a “place”, an institution and an entity of authority.

(Wendy Tai)

—

Afterthoughts:

While XLIEUX was meant to challenge the authority of galleries/museums, whether the outcome fulfills the intention is certainly debatable. After the piece opened, we were suddenly confronted with two possibilities.

One was to further emphasize the ’subversive’ aspect of the piece, to push it so that it becomes heavily conceptual. To do so would be to seal off the gallery completely, and to stubbornly give nothing to the viewers. Meaning that instead of showing two people engaging in conversation, the projectors would only show banal images of ‘nothing’ - perhaps images of a wall, where nothing happens but the occasional insect flying by. In this manner, there truly would be ‘nothing’ to see, further reducing the space into a non-place and hence staying consistent with the initial idea of institutional critique.

The other possibility was to make the piece more engaging, more social. We would encourage viewers to call in, and push it as a platform for conversation. The gesture of allowing people to call and interact changed the space into more of a place than usual (this is also because viewers were confronted with the ambiguous situation of whether or not they should step beyond the large ‘X’ by the door). We noticed that if viewers dared to step past the boundary line, they could physically engage in the piece by standing in front of the camera, or talking to the two people on the wall, thus enlarging the conversation between the two into a group discussion. This definitely happened when Joe and I were documenting, and all four of us were able to chat together. The virtual and physical interaction encouraged social interaction rather than diminishing it,and emphasized the space as a ‘place’ - contrary to the project’s initial intent.

Along with this interactive development, the piece took on a much more performative character. We had expected those on camera to be ‘performing’, but we didn’t consider the viewers to perform as well. It was particularly amusing to watch people struggle on camera

Confronted with these two directions that this piece could go, in the end we opted for the latter. While the idea was heavily conceptual, I much prefer work that is a bit playful and that people can take part in, rather than work that is closed off to the general non-artworld public. One can argue that the concept was compromised - but I personally like to think of it as the project taking on a life of its own, starting off with a one thing and developing into something unexpected. We were asked if we would choose to seal off the entire space with a big glass pane, given the resources. Sealing off the space would definitely make a strong conceptual statement, an obvious “don’t expect to be aesthetically rewarded”. However, the ambiguity of the permeable ‘X’ gave the piece another layer of interpretation, making it more open and hence more interesting (in my humble opinion).

The experimental nature of XLIEUX provided us with the opportunity to consider the various directions to take. And though we have decided to go with the more social aspect, it would be great if there could be a second or third installment, where each of the different aspects could be highlighted - the installments could either be more unsatisfying for the viewer, or more ambiguous.

And to push it further, why not take the interactive feature to a more social level? SG suggested a website where random people could dial in and chat, any time of the day, to just talk and meet others. There is so much potential for further creative work…

Anyway, thanks to those who attended and participated. The show is still on for a couple more days - I understand that one of the bigger problems with the piece is that it doesn’t run 24/7. Sorry, but we’re afraid the projectors would burn out if we kept them running for too long! So if you’re thinking of calling in at XLIEUX, try to make it 11-19:00 HKT.

Many thanks to Gina and Linda of EXPERIMENTA. Keep your eyes open for ‘A-Usual Objects‘, an art sale that will open this month (where you will also find yours truly).

“Jetting in and out of likely locations, they have no time to assimilate, still less to understand, the artistic production in any one place. From the viewpoint of those living and working in distant outposts, mega-curators and global artists may seem well connected; but they remain, by the very nature of the enterprise, more or less culturally rootless. At the same time, this deracination gives them a position of advantage, if not of privilege; for them, biennials do indeed have no frontiers. But for the majority outside the magic circle, real barriers still remain. The biennial, the most popular institutional mechanism of the last two decades for the organization of large-scale international art exhibitions, has, despite its decolonizing and democratic claims, proved still to embody the traditional power structures of the contemporary Western art world; the only difference being that ‘Western’ has quietly been replaced by a new buzzword, ‘global’.”

-Biennials Without Borders, by Chin-Tao Wu

– — –
article only confirms what most people already know regarding the nature of biennials, with the help of statistical data drawn from Documenta.

what to take away is that contemporary ‘nomadic’ curators indeed may not live up to their superstar reputation - after all, how do you assimilate yourself with the social context in which the biennial is held, within just a time span of merely 1-2 years of preparation? to put together a biennial that is socially relevant and that truly engages the community requires more time than a few years.

being a research assistant at the school of creative media is a little like a very long independent research semester (yes, i still think in semesters - can’t seem to kick that habit). i’ve never really been exposed to new media art; i mean, i know that a lot of programming is involved, and i know that new technologies have a lot to do with it. but i never really thought about it.

i’m thinking about it now.

writing applications for grad school led me to a lot of self-reflection (yes, most art practitioners tend to do that excessively). having ’situated’ my practice and my work in the overwhelming realm of art history, i think i have come to the conclusion that:
1. i have way too many interests that mostly end up being a half-baked
2. installation art, or the definition of it within ‘fine arts’, is not good enough for me

so far, most of my pieces are installations. as much as i’d hate to admit it, yes, there are site-specific, but also gallery/museum-bound, and distanced from ‘the people’. if i am truly to make an interactive piece that really engages the audience in an active manner, i’d better come up with something that is more than just having the viewer walking in and out of my installations. in other words, i think i am rather idealistic in the sense that i want my works of be socially engaging (don’t think it is within my power to change the world (yet)).

this is where new media kicks in. having read a few articles on the topic, i am at the moment quite convinced that new media and the various new technologies available, has so much more potential to be social; through new media, people won’t only be just the props in an installation contrived by the almighty artist, but a fundamental element for the creative process; the viewers are the ones who make the piece, and not the artist.

so far, being at scm has helped me see a bit more; like today, there was a lecture given by jeffrey shaw, who is a candidate for the open dean position at scm. i really hope that they (whoever ‘they’ are) will be wise enough to pick him; he’s got the pedigree and the experience needed for the job, he works internationally and obviously has the vision that’s needed to give this school a bit more direction. i look forward to seeing what he makes out of it; whether his goals will be achieved, and whether they will be achieved in an appropriate manner.

so i suppose the next step for me would be to familiarize myself with new media and its capacities/potential, and whether i can come up with something; a tentative first step into a new arena. institutional critique is one thing, but i do believe that it’s about time to jump out of the gallery setting, and do stuff OUT THERE.

Mr. Levi-Strauss took difference as the basis for his study, not the search for commonality, which defined 19th-century anthropology. In other words, he took cultures on their own terms rather than try to relate everything to the West.

In 1996, when asked his opinion of the project [Musée du Quai Branly], Mr. Lévi-Strauss said in a handwritten letter to Mr. Chirac: “It takes into account the evolution of the world since the Musée de l’Homme was created. An ethnographic museum can no longer, as at that time, offer an authentic vision of life in these societies so different from ours. With perhaps a few exceptions that will not last, these societies are progressively integrated into world politics and economy. When I see the objects that I collected in the field between 1935 and 1938 again — and it’s also true of others — I know that their relevance has become either documentary or, mostly, aesthetic.”

read full article here

Uncritical Exuberance?

haven’t been to a party in such a long time. first time since i left philly, actually. it felt soooo good, and i am so happy to have met some classmates and friends who i haven’t seen in such a long time. i really needed this. i miss the happy haus so much, and this really felt like that sort of vibe - people from around the world, relaxed, chill, everyone just sitting around, enjoying each other’s company and the nighttime breeze. i love rooftop parties (and that was such a great roof!).

i suppose my goal is to purchase an old apartment with a rooftop on hong kong island, large enough to fit a bed and the rest can be my studio.

before going to the party, i went to my supervisor’s husband’s “deep conversation” session on generative art. that was real fun too, also a party (in a more educational sense), also really relaxed and friendly. these discussion sessions focus on artists who have work in progress - they’re meant to expose the artist and the audience to new ideas, criticism, and opinions. they should be really constructive, and healthy for the small arts circle here, and i’m already looking forward to the next session. slowly starting to fall back into the scene here. little steps.

it was definitely a great night.

saw three movies in the past two weeks, and a lecture. wanted to see more lectures, but then got lazy.

lecture first. went to hear lawrence lessig speak about creative commons at hku.

my overall thoughts: his lectures, as i’ve been told, are blockbusters. yes, indeed they are. lots of youtube viddys, lots of music and flashing lights and animations. he’s an extremely witty guy, and i was entertained while learning stuff. lots of american pop culture references. unfortunately, the pop-text he used on his slick powerpoint presentation was a little too much - practically every word he said had an accompanying pop-up, when i felt like they should only be used for emphasis.

his points are well taken. after having discussing them with my friends, the conclusion is that he’s libertarian, and somewhat conservative (afterall, he’s still a lawyer), and the points he makes are points that are rational and that make sense. perhaps he is so clever simply because everyone else in the business/law world have absolutely no sense. not quite a revolutionary, more like a moderate activist trying to find the best solution in the context of this day and age.

it would be nice to find a revolutionary to look up to.

the lecture was good, but what i found most interesting was the Q&A session (which i unfortunately had to leave early from as i had to catch a movie - see below). it’s good to hear professionals speak about their work, it’s even better to hear non-professionals or about-to-be-professionals voice their opinions, to ask questions and be curious. it was good to hear what hong kong academics had to say. i wanted to ask something, but couldn’t think of anything clever as usual.

anyway.

first movie watched was Parking 停车 (2008). thought it was a really good movie. can’t say it’s my favourite, but i enjoyed it immensely, especially the cinematography and the soundtrack. the one part i found slightly annoying was the fact that the main character really didn’t seem very determined to stop the craziness that he had gotten himself into - i nearly lost my patience. but, everything else made up for it. also found the tough-guy traids dudes really amusing.

second movie: takeshi miike’s Crows - Episode 0. Miike’s crazy, that’s why i’m a fan, and this movie just about has everything he’s best at. mindless violence, but in a humourous manner, tough guy characters (this time, it’s the yakuza), and a rockin’ OST. nothing i didn’t like in the movie, but i must admit, i got a little braindead from all the face punching and fake blood smeared all over near the end.

last but not least: kirstblueten-hanami (cherry blossoms). the entire movie is more or less about a man who loses his wife. it was… to put it lightly, it was profoundly intense for me to watch this movie, to be engrossed in this man’s hurt, when my emotional state was already so deep in it. i cried during the whole film. halfway through, i was asked if i knew what this film was about before getting a ticket, and i said yes. i knew exactly what it was about, and i knew exactly what to expect. i wanted to see the movie… perhaps in a perverse sort of way, i wanted to hurt, to feel the hurt, to feel the rawness of such intensity and sadness, to get overwhelmed, to drown. i wanted to see it from someone else’s point of view, perhaps the director’s, or the actor’s. i wanted to see how others in the audience would react, how i would react not so much to life, but art imitating life.

my conclusion - the movie may seem quirky, and sometimes ridiculous even, but in the end, it’s real. it knows what it’s like, to lose a wife, someone you truly love. each and every scene touched a chord, spoke of truth. i couldn’t stop crying.

On 24 September, John McCain suspended his campaign and went to Washington, proclaiming that it was time to put aside party differences. Was this gesture really a sign of his readiness to end partisan politics in order to deal with the real problems that concern us all? Definitely not: it was a ‘Mr McCain goes to Washington’ moment. Politics is precisely the struggle to define the ‘neutral’ terrain, which is why McCain’s proposal to reach across party lines was pure political posturing, a partisan politics in the guise of non-partisanship, a desperate attempt to impose his position as universal-apolitical. What is even worse than ‘partisan politics’ is a partisan politics that tries to mask itself as non-partisan: by imposing itself as the voice of the Whole, such a politics reduces its opponents by making them agents of particular interests.

- LRB - Slavoj Zizek: Don’t Just Do Something, Talk

haven’t signed the contract yet, but i will be working as a research assistant for Dr. Lai Chiu Han for the next six months. i am really looking forward to it… the research topic is really interesting, and it will be good to be in an academic setting again. commercial galleries and selling paintings isn’t really my cup of tea i suppose…

plus, i’m sure i’ll be learning loads on the job. thank goodness this came along (many thanks to sam), i imagine it would be hard for me to find a job that i would enjoy given the Big Financial Crunch at the moment.

i have a week to hang out before really jumping into archives and libraries and getting sucked into squinting at microforms of old newspaper articles.

-

it will be a good distraction from the grief.

“Traditional art invites a look. Art that is silent engenders a stare. Silent art allows - at least in principle - no release from attention, because there has never, in principle, been any soliciting of it. A stare is perhaps as far from history , as close to eternity, as contemporary art can get.”

- Susan Sontag, The Aesthetics of Silence

recently i finished reading the aesthetics of silence. i remember during my senior thesis critique, one of the professors said, “it is okay to be minimalist, but you must understand what that means and what it implies.” ever since, i’ve been reading up about minimalism as an art movement. yes, indeed minimalism has it’s place within art history, it is a ‘category’, a tag that is applied to art that is reduced in form, whether it be music, theater, or sculpture.

but why? reading about the art movement itself wasn’t quite as inspiring as reading sontag’s essay about ’silence’. there is no such thing as only ’silence’, as john cage mentions regarding his 4′33″ performance, but silence is constructed based on ‘non-silence’; without one there cannot be the other, two co-existing polarities.

with art that is reduced to just a few elements, we are then required to focus on just those few things; we concentrate; we stare; we try to conjure meaning based on the little clues provided. with those elements, each is elevated to a higher level of importance, as they were selected out of a mulitude of elements to be included. the tendency towards silence is the tendency towards thought - “so art must tend toward anti-art, the elimination of the ’subject’, the substitution of chance for intention, and the pursuit of silence.”