| As shown by both the research on focus artists and
my research on Christo and
Jeanne-Claude and the work by Christopher Moore and Claire Watkins that
is currently in the galley, there are a myriad of ways to engage the viewer
through artwork. Whether kinetic or interactive, or both, these types
of works can be classified as two main categories: those works that are
meant to be experienced in a gallery environment and those works that
transcend the gallery and infringe onto everyday life. Within these two
categories there is a significant amount of room for blurring between
kinetics and interactivity.
In terms of kinetic sculpture within a gallery environment, works can
either move dependently or independently of the viewer. I would argue
that kinetic sculpture that depends on the viewer for movement could easily
be justified as interactive work, which gives it a completely different
meaning than kinetic sculpture that moves on its own. An excellent example
of this is the work of Christopher Moore as juxtaposed with Claire Watkins’
work. Moore’s kinetic pieces require an intimate physical connection
with the viewer, who must turn cranks or spin wheels in order to produce
motion. This places a great degree of agency in the viewer and also allows
them more complete access to the artists’ process, as he or she
is able to see how a system is assembled and linked together as they operate
the system. Watkins’ sculptures, however, most often conceal their
secrets from the viewer (the exception being the branches piece), lending
their motion an air of magic and inscrutability. It is almost that Moore
and Watkins’ work glorifies the vast difference between the Da Vinci-esque
ingenuity of the mind against the enigmatic and invisible workings of
the body. However, Tim Hawkinson also blends kinetics and interactivity,
as with his “Uberorgan” (2000) and “Drip” (2002),
which move and make noise in response to the movements of the viewer.
Although these works have components that depend on the viewer’s
actions, their size (often as large as the space will allow) and the nature
of their interactivity (motion sensors that the viewer may not be aware
of) still create a barrier to accessing the work on the same level as
Moore’s work, or in some of Mowry Baden’s work. The fascinating
aspect that the work of Hawkinson, Moore, and Watkins all shares is the
imitation or representation of and relation to the workings of the human
body. With Moore it is muscular and skeletal, with some parts moving other
parts and also in the process of the viewer physically moving the pieces,
and with Watkins it is the movements of neurons and lungs. Hawkinson’s
“Uberorgan” is decidedly intestinal in its visual language,
while his “Emotor” (2001) imitates and almost satirizes the
muscle movements in the face that control expressions. That kinetic work
is often tied to the body makes sense in that the human body is the most
familiar and accessible system from which to draw inspiration. Also, making
a machine or system that synthetically reproduces or replicates body movements
and functions can be seen as a comment on or exploration of the individual’s
relationship to the machine in a post-industrial world.
When work leaves the very specific space of the gallery and enters the
environment of everyday life, it is possible for the work to be interactive
on a much more environmental level. Mel Chin, for example, endeavors to
interact with large groups of people for the purpose of altering society.
The works created by Chin for “Melrose Place” force the public
to interact with certain issues, even if unknowingly. Indeed, most environmental
interactive work is extremely confrontational- the viewer is almost forced
to interact with the work. Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s environmental
work is impossible to ignore, with its luscious colors, incongruous fabrics
and sheer audacity and size. These works engage interaction in their creation
and installation, since teams of builders, workers, designers, and guards
are often required to realize them in full. These works incorporate a
different level of participation and interaction on the part of those
involved, and in some ways are as much about the group effort as the individual
inspiration of the artist.
Works that are kinetic bring the movements of the world
and the body to a localized form that can direct the viewer's perception
about those movements. They in themselves are a verb. Works that are interactive,
by contrast, make the viewer the verb, and make he or she engage on a
level other than sight and mental process. We discussed in class that
a masterpiece remains a masterpiece whether it is on a gallery wall or
in a closet. The inverse seems to be true of interactive work- it requires
the viewer in order to be fully realized.
|