Category: DM2007-INTERACTIVE II (TUT)

I chose to read the chapter “Video as time, space, motion” from the book “Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age” by Margot Lovejoy. This chapter talks about the when video first became a medium for artists and how artists’ attitude towards video changed since then. Ever since the first portable camcorder, Portapak, was released by Sony in 1965, there was a huge change in the art scene. A portable camcorder gave artists the opportunity to use videos as a medium for their art. Back then camcorders did not have the ability to record and playback videos, however it had the ability to view videos in real time or with a slight delay through the use of ‘close circuits’. However as the technology advances, artists’ attitude towards using video as a medium changed due to the wide use of it in the media industry on television, where things could be aired and were mainly used for commercial purposes.

One of the works that made use of the close circuit technology was Wipe Cycle. Wipe Cycle by Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider is an installation work that features 9 monitors, each playing a different clip of delayed or real time videos of the viewers. 

Upon entering the exhibition space, viewers will find themselves looking at 9 monitors with live footages of themselves and also footages with 6 or 12 seconds delays. This was aimed to manipulate the viewer’s perception of time and space whilst looking/experiencing this artwork. As Schneider stated in the book Expanded Cinema by Gene Youngblood in 1970, “The most important function … was to integrate the audience into the information”. This was one of the works that was directed towards the “unidirectionality of commercial media” (Youngblood, 1970) that was broadcasted on television.

The fact that the television could reach a broader group of audience was indeed tempting for some artists but going to the television meant the possibility of losing one’s production control over their works. Therefore it was a known fact that the “relationship of artists to television has always been complex”.

Another work that I found interesting was Media Burn by Ant Farm, which was founded by Chip Lord and Doug Michels. Media Burn was a video that documented the entire process of the event whereby a car was filmed driving full speed into 45 flaming television sets. As mentioned by Chip Lord in the video, they didn’t have control over the captions that came with the media coverage, which was one the problem that artists had with the television back then.  

 

To read about how videography started out to be considered as a form of art was eye opening. I did not expect that there would have been a conflict between the media and the art scene. The whole issue of mass culture versus high culture was interesting and yet still relatable in our current context. 

---

Youngblood, Gene. Expanded Cinema. Dutton, 1970.
Lovejoy, Margot. Digital Currents: Art in the Electronic Age. Routledge, 2009.
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/wipe-cycle/

 

On display at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, Pulse by Rafael Lozano-Hemmer is 3 big-sized exhibitions with “Pulse” in the titles. Pulse Index, Pulse Tank, and Pulse Room.

Influence behind Pulse

In 2003 during Lozano-Hemmer’s wife pregnancy, he realised he could listen to the sound of the foetus’ heartbeat through a ultrasound machine which translates electrical impulses along with other data into an artificially produced heartbeat. He explains in his foreword that despite the heartbeat being artificial, the symbolism of life and love was not lost.  Be it real or artificial, heartbeats are instantly recognisable and laden with universal meaning.  He brought together three of these installations – Pulse Index (2010), Pulse Tank (2008) and Pulse Room (2006).

Pulse Index (2010)

Pulse Index is the first out of three installation. Visitors are asked to place their fingers into a sensor where photos of their fingerprints are being taken, along with their heartbeat. The images are then displayed on a screen with images of fingertips belonging to previous visitors. The high definition photos shows the unique fingerprints along with details such as  of sweat beads etc.

Pulse Tank (2008)

Pulse Tank asks for visitors to insert their finger into a sensor whereby their pulse is being taken and transmitted into ripples on the surface of shallow water in a tank. Each tank consists of 4 of these contraptions which allows multiple people to create ripples at the same time while letting them to overlap. Lights are being shone onto the tank which projects the ripples on the wall and floor.

Pulse Room (2006)

This installation is probably my favourite amongst the three. Hundreds of lightbulbs hang from the ceiling, each flashing irregularly. At the end of the room is a sensor shaped like a handle. Visitors are to hold the handle to have their pulse taken, which is then transmitted to the very first lightbulb in front of them. Additional heartbeats from upcoming visitors will then move those before them forward down the room.

I find it compelling how hundreds of heartbeats from different people are being recorded and represented in the same space as flickering lightbulbs. As mentioned on one of the blogs, I do feel like this reminds me of our previous IM 1 project portrait. Seeing the unique heartbeat of hundreds before you and having your own being added to part of the installation truly feels like the visitor is contributing to the artwork. The interesting part of all these three installations is that without the visitors, these installations will cease to exist which is what makes it truly interactive with its viewers.

---

https://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/rafael-lozano-hemmer-pulse-review-hirshhorn-museum-washington
https://canadianart.ca/features/pulse-room/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/this-art-show-is-taking-the-literal-pulse-america-180970738/