Tarble
Arts Center / Eastern Illinois University – January 19 to February 24,
2008.
[in
time time]
Statement
by Pat Badani ©
Artist
and Director:
Pat
Badani
(Exhibition
co-produced with the Tarble Art Center)
Production
Assistance for “ping-pong-flow”:
Nogginaut
(Interactive Experience Design in Physical Space)
As
with previous works, the new piece creates a “communicational space” in which I
explore materials as social practice in addition to notions of representation,
codes, conventions and mediations.
It is an installation that presents the viewer with two time-based
pieces: an intimate, split-screen looped video with sound; and a silent,
screen-based interactive animation. The pieces are bound together by their
related concerns: consciousness and reality, time and memory, and the
relationship of sender and receiver in a communication channel; yet
differentiated in their embodiment and in their speculative vantage points,
specifically in the way that images and human experience
converge.
[8-bits]:
Regarding
the intimate, split-screen looped video with sound titled
[8-bits]:
The
work began during a trip to Buenos Aires where I traveled to spend a couple of
weeks with my ailing 86 year-old father.
As a means of spending quality time with him I suggested that we play a
“game’ whereby we would take turns sharing personal experiences: an exercise in
“memory”, but also in “imagination” given the fact that details pertaining to
past experiences are partial and that imperfect
memory invites imagination and creative embellishment
through storytelling. I was in Buenos Aries for only a couple of weeks and I was
aware that the suggested exercise involved recollecting a massive amount of
material that would keep us talking possibly for hundreds and hundreds of hours.
This has already been suggested by Albert Camus in “The
Stranger” where the main
character, Meursault,
could entertain himself by filling in the holes of his imperfect memory with
imagination and declares: “I realized then that a man who had lived only one day
could easily live for a hundred years in prison. He would have enough memories
to keep him from being bored.”
With this in mind, I made the project manageable within the allotted time by
creating a self-contained framework for the conversation game. We would take
turns telling each other one “happy” memory pertaining to one particular decade
(bad memories were not allowed). My father called this a game of “ping-pong”. In
his case, because he has lived 8 decades, he would need to tell 8 stories.
Because what
is stored in memory are bits and
fragments of experience, this gave the work its length (8 minutes) and its
title:
[8 -bits].
This
process unlocked my father’s past as the subject of our present conversation and
provided the conceptual coordinates for this artwork (time and memory,
consciousness, the
relationship of sender and receiver in a communication channel
and point of view).
Memory
flashbacks bridge time and allow us to live simultaneously in the past and in
the present. It appears to some that memory, and then personal creativity,
precedes and directly leads to consciousness, self-awareness and individual
identity; yet others claim that memory
creates internal reality but does not make consciousness. Whichever the
relationship of memory to consciousness, it cannot be denied that
autobiographical memories are intensely personal; they establish where we have
been and whom we were – and their recollection contributes to our understanding
of ourselves, and our place in the world.
Interestingly, as we age, we fear loosing our memory(ies). During this
project, it became evident that many of my father’s memories were blurry, or
difficult for him to locate in time.
This “lack” of precision -chronological or otherwise- soon became
irrelevant because what seemed more interesting to me was the quality and
vividness of our dialogue.
Our
conversations were a play between the use of Voluntary memory - a deliberate
effort to recall the past – and Involuntary memory- a concept made famous by the
French writer Marcel Proust, in which certain cues evoke recollections of the
past without conscious effort. In this piece, I exploit a feature of voluntary
memories. Generally partial in most people, they tend to be foggy, blurry or
irretrievable – which was precisely the case with my father, a characteristic
accentuated perhaps by his age, or due to his illness, or both. In this work, what is important to me is
to make visible the “essence” or the “flavour” of the act of remembering and, by
extension, to point at the sinful status of “forgetfulness” in an information
age like today where, the ability to retrieve information speedily from a large
memory pool, is considered a sign of alert vitality; a triumph over loss and
death (in a wired world, a
single note of forgetfulness can sound like you’re shamefully unplugged and not
worth listening to).
As
a recording device, I chose to use the video function of two 7 megapixel cameras
that we each held with a monopod –I felt that this “low-tech”, non-obtrusive,
documentation device was appropriate given the intimate autobiographical quality
of the “home movie.”It was important that my father be given control over the
film, and I did so by giving him one of the cameras to operate, while I used the
other one. By doing this, I already established more than one point of view for
the project. In terms of the
viewing camera, the set-up resulted in a “static” and a “mobile” point of view-
with my father holding the camera in a fixed position, while I moved it around
his face as he talked. It was also important that my father choose the language
of communication that flowed from English to Spanish and back to English. I also
incorporated a second aspect to the “conversation”. I asked my father to make a
drawing of a particular object, space or situation central to each story. I thus created a “communicational space”
with its own aesthetic and conceptual framework, one in which autobiographical
communication was both language based and visual.
Recording
device: Video function of two 7 Mega pixel cameras held with
monopods.
The
video editing process involved compiling the following material:
1)
my
father’s video clips documenting his oral stories (his camera view + my camera
view)
2)
my
father’s drawings and video clips documenting his “pictured”
stories
3)
slices
of literary or screenplay texts addressing the issues at stake in this piece:
the relationship between consciousness and reality, the mysteries of time and
memory, the relationship of sender and receiver in a communication channel.
These
texts appear as dynamic “flashes” and were appropriated
from:
1)
various
short stories by Argentinean essayist Jorge Luis Borges
2)
Die
Lady Die,
a 2005 novel by Argentinean writer Alejandro Lopez
3)
Conversations
with Other Women,
2005 film by Hans Canosa, Screenwriter Gabrielle
Zevin
Carter
4)
Blade
Runner,1982
film
directed by Ridley
Scott
from a screenplay
written by Hampton
Fancher
and David
Peoples.
My
father’s drawing mapping the Trip to Los Angeles.
Pat
Badani ©
Video
of my father mapping the Trip to Los Angeles
These
elements (video, still images and dynamic text) will be displayed using a
split-screen narrative structure in order to simultaneously show relationships
between elements and points of view in time. This effect is in synchronicity
with the characteristic of the screen’s frame as well as with a feature of human
memory itself, in that neither
one represent a seamless view of reality.
This technique, where two or more fragments of information are presented
simultaneously, relies on the “attention” of the viewers and enlists them as
perceptual editors. It is probably interesting to point out that the process of
recovering memories also has to do with “attention” -what my father focused on
during recall - a mysterious and subjective process in and of
itself.
Regarding
the second piece, the silent, screen-based interactive moving image titled:
«Ping/Pong»
(my father talked about our conversation being a game of “ping-pong”, and
this,
of course, made me think of Performance Video artist Valie Export and her work
“Ping-Pong” in which she analyses the relationship between viewer and
screen…more about this further on…)
My
interactive work creates a circuitry of communication between a
computer-controlled, animated image, and gallery visitors. Visitors will see a
projected portrait: a person seemingly asleep, or “unconscious”. As a result of
the visitor’s proximity to the portrait this one will open her eyes transforming
the spectator/visitor into the work’s activator. As the visitor continues to move in the
space, the portrait will continue to react accordingly. This interactive feature
of the project is the result of motion capture and behaviors written in the
computer program executing the animation. Visitors will think that the virtual
portrait is responding to them in a way that only a flesh-and-blood individual
does. This incident establishes a relationship between waking and consciousness,
between self-awareness and awareness of the Other, and between sender and
receiver in a communication channel that is non-verbal. Most importantly, this is experienced in
‘real time’. What is happening is essentially suspended, fixed, in the present
moment with no evidence of the past (memory), perhaps suggesting a future where
everything is virtually possible.
In
a lecture delivered
by Valie Export in 2003 titled “Expanded Cinema / Expanded Reality” she talks
about the relationship of the viewer to the screen and points at the dominant
character of the cinema screen as “a medium to be manipulated by the director”,
a subject she dealt with in her 1968 film “Ping-Pong”. She claims that, in
traditional projections, regardless of how much the viewer is pulled in, the
relationship is based on shifts
between the image of reality (portrayed on the screen) and the experience of
reality (sensed by the viewer in the present).
“Viewer and screen are partners in a game
with rules dictated by the director, a game requiring screen and viewer to come
to terms with each other”.
Further, Valie Export proposes: “To this extent, the viewer's response is
active. But the controlling character of the screen could not be demonstrated
more clearly: no matter how involved the viewer becomes with the game and plays
with the screen, his status as consumer is hardly affected – or not at all.”
She expressed the need to emancipate the screen in order to emancipate the
viewer: “the
viewer deals with the screen, and yet it does not react.” She
stated that without the action of the viewer, without a direct experience of
codification, the film remains incomplete.
In
gallery or museum exhibitions showing screen-based works today, viewers
habitually perform the role of observer described above. However, in my piece,
viewers enter the space to find that their gaze is returned by the artwork. The
proposed interactive feedback loop establishes a relationship between artwork
and viewer that is specific to new electronic media, modifying what W.T.J.
Mitchell refers to as the “picture beholder relationship.” The electronic
portraits’ responsive feature sets this type of situation apart from viewer
experience in more traditional artworks.
If in [8-bits] the
viewers are enlisted as perceptual editors, in «Ping/Pong»
they are enlisted as activators.
«Ping/Pong»
explores
the process of sending and receiving wordless messages between organic and
artificial agents by means of body language, specifically “proxemics” and “eye
gaze.” The visitor’s proximity to the animation provokes a series of reactions
in the portrait, namely, in the way that the portrait gazes back at the
participants. “Proxemics:” body positioning in space, and “eye gaze:” visual
connection made as a person gazes into the eyes of another, sets up a
dynamics
of watching and being watched,
a situation in which observer and observed interact with each other spatially.
Spatial
relationships and territorial boundaries directly influence our daily
encounters. This spatial, non-verbal communication between human bodies
habitually handles distance in order to send messages during the course of
social interactions. Thus, individuals define their attitudes according to the
spatial positions they adopt before others. Changing the distance between two
people can convey a desire for intimacy, declare lack of interest or fear, and
increase or decrease domination. In addition, individuals also use eye gaze in
order to maintain a measure of control over such space. Meeting the other’s
glance implies an interlocutor. A spatial relationship between Self and Other is
thus co-created. This communicative space between two subjects is thought of as
intersubjective, it relies on the self-consciousness of the respective partners,
as well as awareness of each other’s presence.
However,
«Ping/Pong»
is
composed of human and non-human (electronic) agents, and visitors establish a
communicative relationship with this computer-controlled, seemingly “thinking
image,” an image that appears to also have self-awareness (consciousness). As a
prolongation of Valie Export’s thoughts on the matter, it would be interesting
to further speculate about the altered status of moving visual images when they
become responsive to the viewer, as well as the altered status of the viewer who
encounters these responsive images.
Some
of these speculations could be further nourished by new media theory and
philosophy on the relationship between perception, human bodies and machines
in
the writings of
Maurice
Merleau-Ponty,
McCarthy & Wright, and
Burnett,
among
others; texts by “dialogue philosophers” who have written on the relationship
between Self and Other and intersubjectivity, specifically Mead, Buber and
Jacques; and writings by Edward Hall on non-verbal communication (body
language.)
Some
of the questions I am interested in are:
-
“Humans
are physical beings with evolved brains and evolved minds. Humans are also moral
agents with consciousness and will. How should we try to reconcile these very
different visions of our humanness?”
-
“When
objects take characteristics of the human (they work perfomatively and take on
agency,) how are the dominant divides between subjects and objects, ideality and
materiality, called into question?”
-
“What
are traditional philosophical views about the relationships between subject and
object?”
-
“What
are some of the new views about this relationship and how did they
evolve?”
-
“How
do new scopic technologies determine the structure of lived
experience?”
-
“How
does interacting with an intelligent computer agent contribute to shaping our
experience of the social?”
-
“What
kinds of communicative relationships do we establish with responsive, electronic
non-humans?”
- “How do the visual arts
contribute to contemporary philosophical debate about the topic?”
Bibliography:
-Bateson,
G. “Form, Substance and Difference.” STEPS TO AN ECOLOGY OF MIND. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000: 454-471.
-Borges,
Jorge L. “Collected Fictions”, Translated by Andrew Hurley. Penguin Putnam,
1998.
-Burnett,
Ron. “How Images Think.” Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004.
-Cohen,
Richard. “Ethics, Exegesis and Philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas.”
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
-Elkins,
James. “The Object Stares Back: On the Nature of Seeing.” New York: Harcourt
Brace, 1997.
-Dennet,
Daniel C. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution
and the Meanings of Life.” New York: Touchstone, 1996.
-Gray,
John. “Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals.” London: Granta Books,
2002.
-Export,
Valie:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/28/expanded_cinema.html
-Igoe,
Tom, & O’Sullivan, D. “Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the
Physical World with Computers.” USA: Thompson Course Technology,
2004.
-Jacques,
Francis. “Difference and Subjectivity: Dialogue and Personal Identity.” (trans.
Andrew Rothwell). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
-Levin,
T., Ursula Frohne & Peter Weibel, eds. “CTRL
[SPACE]:
Rhetoric
of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
2002.
-Lopez,
Alejandro. “Die Lady Die.” English translation and Publication: Aliform
Publishing, Minniapolis,
2005.
-McCarthy,
J., & P. Wright. “Technology as Experience.” Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press,
2004.
-Mead,
Georges Herbert. “Mind, Self, and Society.” Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1934.
-Merleau-Ponty,
Maurice, “Phenomenology of Perception.” London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
1962.
-Mitchell,
W. J. T., “What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images.” Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2005.
-Peirce,
C.S. “Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce”. 8 vols. ed. by Charles
Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & A. W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
-Ryan,
Paul. “From
Video Replay to the Relational Circuit to Threeing.” Leonardo, Journal of the
International Society of Art, Science and Technology. 39.
3. (Jun
2006): 199-203.
-Trappl,
R., P. Petta, & S. Payr, eds. “Emotions in Humans and Artifacts.” Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press, 2003.
-Segerstrale,
Ullica & Peter Molnar. “Nonverbal Communication: Where Nature Meets
Culture.” Mahwah, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
1997.
-Wegenstein,
Bernadette. “Getting Under the Skin:
Body
and Media Theory.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
-Whitelaw,
Mitchell. “Theorizing
A-Life, Art, and Culture.” METACREATION: ART AND ARTIFICIAL LIFE. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2004. 180-206.