XLIEUX
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).
October 6th, 2009 at 6:04 am
[...] also due to our different sets of diction. Wendy has written her account of the piece in detail on her blog. In my own words, “XLIEUX is a section of the infinitely small distance between people that [...]