For centuries, the artist has been viewed as a creator. The artist generates the idea or theme, the artist creates the piece, and the artist presents the piece. In all steps, the artist is completely in control. However, there are instances where the artist lets go of their control and invites others, non-artists, to participate in a work. Interactive art is an example of this, but this about something deeper than having viewers interact with a finished piece. It is something completely different from interactive art when others besides the artist are directly involved with the creation of a piece. This different art can probably best be described as collaborative interactive art.
The distinct difference between interactive art and this collaborative interactive art are best described by Jon Davies in his essay, “Two Versions of Engagement.” He describes interactive art in that it is a “…kind of laboratory space [that] is set up to be activated by viewers…”1 whereas the collaborative interactive art has “…the key social interaction occur[ing] beforehand, between the artist and the specific collaborators.”2 The notion of non-artists collaborating in the production of a piece changes the artist’s role from sole creator. In these collaborative interactive pieces, the artist becomes more of a composer.
Changing the artist from creator to composer assigns the artist different roles. The artist will still come up with the idea, but the production of the piece is completed by the non-artist participants. Given what the participants produce, the artist will then arrange their productions to the produce the final piece for presentation. The artist is still essentially the mastermind, but various personalities and creative flairs are introduced through the participation of the non-artists.
The pieces of video art in this collection showcase the artist as the composer. The direct participation of the non-artists involved is evident and is what defines the work from other forms of interactive art. However the touch of the artist is still evident which defines the work as both collaborative interaction and artist as composer.
Learning to Love You More
Learning to Love You More is a collaboration piece between Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July which required responses from participants on various assignments that Fletcher and July would come up with. The assignments ranged in subject matter and required written, audio, or video responses. The responses were then posted on the website for consumption by other participants and viewers.
This particular clip is from Assignment 47 where participants were required to re-enact a scene from a movie that made someone cry. This clip is intriguing as it re-enacts an animated children’s movie, specifically one starring animals. The participant’s decision to choose this poignant scene from Dumbo and reenact it the way she did is very unique. It is this sort of sensitive and personal response that Fletcher and July were hoping to receive when they began this product.
The project itself fits into the theme of artist as composer and collaborative interaction on every level. The idea was conceived by both Fletcher and July which keeps them as the initial creators. The actual production was completed by the participants which counts for the collaborative interaction. Fletcher and July have organized how the responses were to be displayed. What is interesting about their choice of exhibition is the gallery-like setting each assignment has. The themes for each assignment are laid out on their respective pages with the participant’s names available for selection beside the description. Clicking a name brings up the participant’s entry along with their description of it.
Fletcher and Miranda could have chosen to display the submissions in a much less individualistic sort of way. Choosing to organize the submissions this way shows specifically the collaboration that went on between artist and participant and also the unique work that each participant did. It is clear Fletcher and Miranda wanted to keep the distinctiveness of each submission.
If I Wasn't Me I Would Be You
If I Wasn’t Me I Would be You is a video project by Harrell Fletcher. It fits into the definition of a collaborative interactive piece as other individuals outside of Fletcher are involved. Specifically, these individuals, and their scars in this case, make the piece -- the scars of the individuals and their stories are the main subject. While it is not known how these individuals were picked, it is clear they volunteered of their own accord and found the filming arrangements acceptable. They also seemed to have no problem sharing their stories. Given the type of story, however, one might question how genuine their stories might be, similar to old fisherman tales.
What is interesting about this video piece is the manner that Fletcher decided to film. The decision to show only scars and not the rest of individual shows Fletcher’s emphasis on the physical scar itself, but also the emphasis entirely on the story of how the participant got the scar. Nothing else about the individual is known except for their voice. Because of that, it is apparent that all the participants are male. This may be that Fletcher is trying to make a statement about sexuality.
As described, all the elements of a collaborative interactive art are present in this piece. Fletcher came up with the idea and theme for this project. The participants involved provided the material for the work with their bodies as that was required by the theme. Fletcher then arranged the film clips produced from the participants and composed them in a way he saw fit as the artist.
The Sound We Make Together
The Sound We Make Together is another video performance piece composed by Harrell Fletcher. This particular piece features various groups of people from Houston which Fletcher recorded in a gallery space then projected the recording to create the effect of them being there all at once. Fletcher also created posters which were hung up around Houston and in the gallery.
This piece is different from the other Fletcher works that have been seen thus far as it took place in a typical gallery setting. Like the other works reviewed, The Sound We Make Together is fully a collaborative interactive piece. Fletcher came up with the idea and recruited the various individuals and groups. The groups then performed in the gallery space that Fletcher arranged. As with the other pieces, it was the performance of the participants that made the work. Fletcher’s composing of the participants’ video clips and displaying them in a gallery space enforces his role as artist as composer.
What is also interesting is the variety of people that Fletcher recruits to participate in this project. Getting complete strangers to collaborate on an artwork would seem like a difficult task. Fletcher comments on this in his essay, “Towards a tender society of thoughtful questions and answers.” Fletcher describes why he thinks people are willing to work with him:
As it turns out, people really like to be paid attention to. Perhaps they are even starved for thoughtful attention. From these interactions of mine, I have formed collaborations with people to produce exhibitions and public art projects about aspects of their lives that might otherwise have gone unnoticed, sometimes even by themselves.3
Post Secret
Post Secret is an ongoing project created by Frank Warren. People anonymously send decorated post cards revealing a secret they’re never disclosed before. The secrets range from being humorous to serious, disheartening to inspiring. Warren hosts a blog on which new cards are showcased weekly. There have also been books and several videos created which show more secrets and further push and inspire participants as well as viewers.
This video varies slightly from the other collaborative interactive videos seen thus far. The participants do not seem to be previously arranged; they are caught spot on when they are asked if they have any secrets. The manner in which the participants were asked about their secrets prompted the piece to become much more open-ended than any pieces in this gallery thus far. As with the other pieces, this is a collaborative interactive piece that depends on the participants for the produced content.
It should also be noted that the composition of this video separates it from a standard interview video. The various focus effects of the camera as well as the various shots of the participants are not typical. It is clear this is a carefully orchestrated artistic video piece.
Wireframe Series
Sentimental Construction #1 and Performance 2 (Passage) are part of the Wireframe Series created by UW-Milwaukee’s own Nathaniel Stern. Each of the structures in the series were conceptualized with a CAD system and then physically created using large sticks and rope. The structures created by the ropes are clearly meant to be architectural but their meaning is much more vague and open-ended. However Stern provides some insight in a 2007 iCommons interview:
…there are aspects and interrogations about construction, architecture, space, and performance - but what changes the meaning of each performance is the site specificity. In Dubrovnik, it could be about facades or emptiness in relation to the tourism industry that’s been burgeoning there. While, when I try to do it in [Johannesburg] this September, it could be about disparity, and decay, and the homeless.4Even after saying that, Stern still leaves the meaning to be interpreted by the viewer. But the location differences do not only affect meaning, it is also apparent that it affects how each piece was received.
Volunteers and viewers responded to the piece completely differently because of different attitudes and climates (political, social, etc.) people had at each location. In Croatia, the children played aggressively with the structure and also with the volunteers of the project. There were scenes of children fighting with volunteers for the parts and some even left with some of the pieces of the project at the end of the video! Johannesburg was a completely different experience. The children didn’t even touch the structure; they simply had fun running through it and creating a game out of it. The volunteers were not even looked at much less bothered. Based on the reception of each piece, the meaning for each location is completely different as Stern implied.
The role of the volunteers was also important for both pieces as Stern was not present in Croatia nor in Johannesburg where either video footage was taken. The volunteers clearly had more instruction on what they needed to do as compared to other pieces in this gallery however there still appeared to be some freedom in their performance. (Recall the reactions of volunteers to the children in each situation.) Their distinct role is what defines this as a collaborative interactive piece.
What is especially unique about this particular video is the stacking of collaborative interaction with interaction, which is what was discussed before, the activation of a piece by viewers. In Croatia, the children in the video actively and even aggressively play in and take down the structure assign the piece a completely different meaning than just the volunteers holding up the structure. The same is true for the children playing in the structure in Johannesburg. In fact, in both pieces, the volunteers and viewers are needed to really bring this piece to life and make it into something more than what either group alone could do. In the end though, Stern was ultimately the composer as he generated the idea and ultimately orchestrated how each of the videos would be edited. As with all these represented pieces, it took both artist and volunteer to produce a collaborative and interactive piece.
1,2: Jon Davies. “Two Versions of Engagement: Jon Davies on Harrell Fletcher and Rirkrit Tiravanija.” CMagazine. Fall 2007.
3: "Towards a tender society of thoughtful questions and answers." Harrell Fletcher. 2002. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.harrellfletcher.com/index3b.html>.
4: "Art Intercom: featuring Nathaniel Stern (part 2)." ICommons.org. 5 Jan. 2007. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://archive.icommons.org/articles/art-intercom-featuring-nathaniel-stern-part-2>.
3: "Towards a tender society of thoughtful questions and answers." Harrell Fletcher. 2002. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://www.harrellfletcher.com/index3b.html>.
4: "Art Intercom: featuring Nathaniel Stern (part 2)." ICommons.org. 5 Jan. 2007. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. <http://archive.icommons.org/articles/art-intercom-featuring-nathaniel-stern-part-2>.
