Points
of View
by Suzi
Webster
Projection measuring 8’ by 6’, cpu, two webcams, microphone
Description:
This work questions whether the production of meaning resides
in the art object, the viewer, the artist or the architectural
space of the gallery. In this virtual visualization, the physical
space of an art show becomes the abstracted mapped space, and
the viewers/actors become abstracted avatars.
Input devices (web cameras and a microphone) record the movement
of viewers through the space of an existing art show. The computer
interprets the live video feed through interactive technologies
like Max/Jitter patches. Max/MSP is software that creates a graphical
environment for music, audio, and multimedia. A large-scale projection
in a different location shows the negative space of the gallery
as an ironic three-dimensional modernist white cube, which is
activated and changed by the actual movement of the viewers in
real time.
Artist’s
Statement
Points of
View is a collaborative work that arose from a desire
to create art that is responsive and dynamic, rather than fixed
and static. Initial research was done by spending time in various
local galleries and museums, and watching visitors moving around
an exhibition. Too often it seemed that the relationship of the
viewer to the work was as fixed and static as the work itself.
Too often art is treated as only a physical object rather than
as an experience that exists in the audience, triggered by the
relation between art’s materiality and its surrounding context.
. The presence of the viewer had no impact on the work –
did the work affect the viewer? This seems like a very passive
and voyeuristic relationship.
Points of View draws on reception theory, which questions where
exactly the production of meaning resides when it comes to textual
analysis. It explores the question of whether the production of
meaning resides in the text/art object, in the reader/viewer,
in the author/artist, or in the messy interaction of all three.
Points of View examines the production of meaning, and creatively
visualizes the invisible space, the messy interaction between
the viewer, the art object and the architectural space of the
institution. Within this paradigm, audiences are understood to
be active rather than passive, to be engaged in a process of making,
rather than simply absorbing, meanings.
"Rather than distribute a message to recipients who are outside
the process of creation and invited to give meaning to a work
of art belatedly, the artist now attempts to construct an environment,
a system of communication and production, a collective event that
implies its recipients, transforms interpreters into actors, enables
interpretation to enter the loop with collective action."
By locating this visualization in the virtual, the physical space
of an art show becomes the abstracted/mapped space, and the viewer/actors
become abstracted avatars. In cartography, physical reality is
distilled to abstraction; conversely, the abstracted represents
known fact. …. “Maps represent the interface between
real and unreal, linear and nonlinear, the tension between fact
and illusion” A map is not just a mirror (representation)
of “nature” (phenomena). A map can be viewed - apart
from its representational and factual function as a tool in the
hands of Kantian scientist – as a “work of art”,
for its ontological and pragmatic efficacy in setting up "existential"
territories. Points of View then becomes a kind of virtual cartography
– the installation becomes an interface between the ‘real’
and the unreal, again questioning and suggesting shifting possibilities
for the production of meaning.
The idea of a map is close to that of a mirror, as we look to
mirrors of all kinds, both physical and conceptual, to provide
a sense of ‘known fact’, or in a Lacanian sense, to
assist in the construction of identity, of the ‘self’.
In Points of View, the physical separation of the projected image
from the space being monitored by the web cams plays with the
viewer’s desire to see him/herself reflected in the abstracted
cube. The installation makes it impossible to achieve this kind
of reflection. The camera is often associated with what renowned
feminist theorist Donna Harroway calls the “Cyclopean self
satisfied eye of the master subject whose Eye produces, appropriates
and orders all difference.” This type of vision is characterized
by the myth “of seeing everything from nowhere; infinite
vision, disembodiment, transcendence of all limits and responsibility,
splitting of subject and object, the view from above, from nowhere,
from simplicity.”
Points of View subverts this way of using cameras as agents of
‘infinite vision’ by insisting on the notion of partial
perspectives. The viewers’ desire to see themselves reflected
in the projected image is frustrated. As French philosopher Maurice
Merleau Ponty suggests “As soon as I see, it is necessary
that the vision be doubled with a complementary vision or with
another vision: myself seen from without, such as another would
see me, installed in the midst of the visible, occupied in considering
it from a certain spot."
Contextual Research for Points of View
Syd Fels
Dan Graham
John Cage
© Suzi Webster and Jordan Benwick 2004 - 2005