User:Zigbe/ResearchMethodologies Assignment001

Umberlina Cave

What. A cave like environment built in one of the cellars of Utrecht's main canals, with projections of found animated GIFs; 3D printed objects, plaster and wood sculptures; RGB LEDs, laser beams and color lamps; Synths, sampler, drum machine and effects; computers, routers and beamers; carpets on the floor and plants. The environment held several performances such as music acts, lectures, talks, DJ sets. Despite the compositions created in the space, the objects were spread in a non-hierarchical order avoiding to give any more importance to an artifact or object. Sculptural compositions, lights and soundscapes created an ambient in constant transformation inspiring the viewer to have an active roll by interacting with the objects and the space, as well as with the acts. An open source system has been tailored in order to control the animated GIF compositions of each projector using the WiFi.

How. The installation was part of a 6 weeks residency at Impakt Foundation, Utrecht, and built in collaboration with the Brazilian artist Leandro Nerefuh. The environment was a clash of our very different approaches and ideas together with our similar desire to shape this contradiction in a visual form. Leandro's approach, despite very experimental, makes good use of fine arts frameworks and its history. Caetano's approach is strongly influenced by the radical use of technology and design.

Cables, computers, sculptures and plants shared the same importance as ephemeral artifacts such as animated gifs, wi-fi frequencies, lights and sounds. A web application was tailored using the code from another open source application, which was installed as local server in one laptop and used to make the compositions of the animated GIFs projected on the walls, this software also made possible to remotely control each one of the computers changing the compositions in each source - beamer or monitor - using the laptop. Around the space one could see computers connected to the beamers or screens and composed together with plants and 3D print waste.

A pair of active speakers was constantly playing the sounds coming from a sampler, a drum machine and a synth with several guitar pedals. Anyone was invited to play with those instruments or to connect new instruments or music payers to the mixer. Carpets and animal furs where placed along the length of the space to make the ambient comfortable enough for people to chill around, and 3D printed objects placed on top. A monolith with a wooden mask on top was placed by the entrance of the cave and some other sculptures – such as a 3D printed copy of the one of Utrecht's public monument, a monkey head made of clay watching an aGIF on a screen and a bunch of DVDs with 3D printed objects glued on top – were placed around. During the three days the space was open there were a series of lectures, music acts, sound and visual performances organized with several artists and educators. The ambient had its life as people would interact with it acting as an important part of the cave's composition.

Why? Still an incognito. The project started from the idea to make an allegory to Plato's cave and developed into several different possibilities as we worked on it. The space would be some kind internet archeology space, and also a transitional space between times. Ideas such as techno-primitivism, techno-shamanism, digital folklore were constantly throw on the table and gave some kind of ritualistic feeling to the installation which we accepted and played with it, but at the same time we used this religiousness as a parody. Discussions with anthropologists, archeologists, historians, gave us a stronger ground in the understanding of the project as it developed.
When art seems to have become the western religion of the 21st century. This work investigates this ritualism of technology, exploring the relationships between the sacred nature of artifacts, icons, code, and digital assets. This explorations have led us to act as an invisible factor within and behind the work, creating situations and platforms from which to instigate the viewer or collaborator to have an active role in the creative process. My intention is tied into the process of becoming a shadow of the work and subsequently killing the creator behind it.

---

Ojiji, Obeah, Duppy or I just want to see you again

What and how. During a three weeks residency a series of actions creating a ghostly - invisible but active - presence were taken place inside an art space. Those actions defined the viewer's position as an archeologist who may excavate its remains. Artifacts were created intended to give visual support to this presence but not being more important than the experience itself. Some of those visual elements were: three ipod radio transmitters from eBay were hacked in order to raise the transmission range from 5 to 200 meters and broadcasted the gallery inside sounds to the streets; simple shapes were drawn using a laser beam and mirrors which could only be seen at night when the space was closed for visitors; also during the gallery's closing times drawings were made on the walls and painted back into white leaving traces of actions; a Marshall PA was installed close to the ceiling playing 15 meters of cable's interferences which sounded like different variations of frequencies and resonances. By the end of the residency remains were pilled together with a stroke of white paint on top, and on the top of the wall close to the ceiling, a writing saying “Ojiji. I just want to see you again” was tagged using street typography.

Why? It ha been some years that I have been intrigued by the idea of the art work existing as a temporary experience in between the viewer and the (so called) “work of art” together with the idea that art is not only defined by the “intention of the artist” but also by the decision of the viewer to entitle something as art. By doing invisible actions I intended to make the idea of presence an experience in itself. And by giving “soul” (gossip, sound or radio frequencies) to the objects, I intended to animate their ordinary visual qualities in order to enforce their presence without compromising their invisibility - by invisible now I refer to ordinary or non interesting visual qualities to be perceived – besides it was clear that my intentions were to not focus on the visuality of the work, I thought some visuality would help the viewer to believe - as one believe on what one sees – on the presence of the artist. Invisible presence, absent presence, are terms which inspire this research.

---

Common concerns. Both works share a focus on the experience and inclusion of the viewer's actions as an important part for its existence. And both works treat the objects of art produced as a mere support for the ambient to exist. They intend to destroy the importance of an art object by devaluation of its commodity and retinal qualities but not avoiding it. Like with fairies, more than the eyes, its the imagination and belief of the viewer that makes it exist. The artist acts as an environmental designer imagining the right situation, but work happen without the artists presence (or final stroke) leaving her/him as a shadow of the work. Trying to destroy the modern ideas that the white cube or the artist intentions creates the work, but in this case, the viewer's intentions creates the work rather there is an artist or not involved on its creation.

Success and failure. Both works are based on empirical research, therefore both shares the same possibilities of failure or success.
The projects succeed in helping me understand better what are my intentions towards the subjects which interest me, making it practical made me understand what was just a naive idea and what had consistency. The Umberlina Cave succeeded as an absorptive environment where people lost their pre concepts of art or non art. They aloud themselves to just be part of the experience.

In both projects a failure could be measured by how much one manages to actually bend the situation around in order to take the project the furthest possible. With “Ojiji” was a bit harder, since the work happened in a formal environment - an art gallery and its historical weight – I had to transform the environment towards whats needed in the project, instead of fighting against it. Failure is measure by bending the systems around, or how much one manages to inconsequentially bend those systems and get out without being childish.

---

Caetano//Carvalho 09:30, 03 October 2012 (CEST)

---