Sculpture Studio Spring 2010

Project 2: Kinetics and Interactivity

I will be the first to admit that I had a very hard time with this project. Coming from a photography background, I do not have much experience dealing with interactivity as a concept. Obviously I consider the viewer’s perspective when making work, but to create something that was specifically interactive was definitely a challenge for me.

Again, like my last project I came into the project with entirely unrealistic ambitions. I intended to film myself meditating for 10,000 seconds. I ended up only filming myself for an hour and fifteen minutes and even that was intensely intensely difficult. I do not exaggerate when I say that is one of the hardest things I have ever done. I was uncontrollably shaking by the end of it. After I got the footage of myself meditating, I continued with my original intention for the project, which was to compress footage of myself meditating into a short video. My original intention for the piece was to explore the transaction of time as it relates to art and the artist’s role as the one who holds that power over the viewer. The viewer gives their time to the artist just as the artist invests time in creating the work. Video is also interesting as it relates to time because it is inherently a time-intensive medium.

I had my one minute freakishly sped up video and all the projection equipment necessary, but because my project was a projection (and that was the only way I was willing to consider it), I needed to contend with the logistics of the projection. That meant figuring out how to deal with the space. And if I was working with a space I needed that space to be as fluid as possible, as easy to deal with and to shape as possible. I knew I couldn’t project in the sculpture studio and that I needed a clean open space to deal with. I eventually ended up choosing Monty 105, because I had total control over that environment.

I really ran into difficulty when I had to contend with how the space and the projection would interact. The projection just didn’t work by itself in the space. It wasn’t interactive and it wasn’t even interesting. It didn’t work as an artwork, there needed to be another aspect to the piece. Eventually, after a lot of thought, I decided that I needed to incorporate more of myself in the artwork. A really important part of the piece for me was the fact that I was naked in the video. I felt that by exposing myself I was able to gain the viewer’s trust and that they would understand that I was committed to the piece. I needed to further that dialog and continue it in the space. I felt that another way I could bare myself would be to bring more of myself into the piece. I decided to bring everything I owned at St. Mary’s into room 105 as a way to expose myself even more.

I definitely had more fun with the piece when it transitioned from a strictly video piece to an installation piece with a video element. I ended up projecting the piece over all my things strewn around the room. I included a yoga mat for the viewer to sit and be for a moment.

I don’t know how effectively my piece addressed the question of interactivity. I almost feel like it was an afterthought in the piece, the yoga mat placed surreptitiously on the floor, and not the focus. I know that I have a very hard time making concessions in my art and it’s hard for me to change the way I work. I have a particular way of thinking and while the process project very much fit that way of thinking I don’t know if the interactivity project did, and I think it showed.