INTERVIEW Deutsche
Version
"The Mass Media World is a Meta-Universe"
Birgit Sonna in conversation with Günther Selichar about the media
machinery, its mechanisms, thresholds and surfaces
Birgit Sonna: Anyone looking at Günther Selichar's
artistic development for the first time would probably be astonished
by your multiple changes of perspective: you studied art history for
a long time, were exhibited primarily as a photo artist, and you occasionally
appear as a media theorist as well. How do you deal with artistic status
within these interwoven interests?
Günther Selichar: The art historian is presumably
evident in the long phases of background research and generally a great
interest in theory. However, at the time when art history was more important
in my life, I was already working and exhibiting as an artist parallel
to that. Shortly before the end of my studies, the time came when I
had to make a decision. On the side I was frequently writing texts and
giving lectures expressly addressing the relationship between my work
and media theory and politics. The point of departure was principally
always that photography represents a fundamental stage of what we experience
today in the media universe. Photography has meanwhile been integrated
into a broader media spectrum, yet it undoubtedly continues to distinguish
an important moment in this spectrum.
So: Nevertheless, your exhibitions, especially in
institutions specializing in photography, are still one-sidedly treated
under the label of photography. Don't you find it problematic that media
are still pitted against one another in this old-fashioned way, especially
when the purported hype of photography is involved?
Se: I don't see myself as a photographer, but rather
as someone who uses mainly the medium of photography, but at the same
level alongside other media. I have always been interested in penetrating
into supposedly foreign areas, because this results in a certain freshness,
a distance that refracts the medium. It wasn't so important to me to
meticulously develop a quickly recognizable signature. I think that
in our generation the signature belongs more to an intellectual background
leading to certain works. The modernist, superficial legibility of a
signature just doesn't work any longer for conceptually thinking artists.
So: Although an adequate reception of this phenomenon
has still not yet happened. The major part of the art audience is still
oriented to a recognizable signature.
Se: Being able to be easily identified is unquestionably
a helpful factor in the art market. If it is barely or not at all possible
to distinguish a signature, the communication effort is significantly
greater. With projects in public space, for example, which reach a larger
audience, I think it is important to study the framework conditions.
With interactive concepts, where the participation of the audience is
crucial, it is easy to choose the wrong strategy, so that the aspired
moment of setting something in motion does not even occur. So, depending
on the context, it is necessary to think very carefully about the bait
one throws out, and this is not independent from whether you are fishing
for carp or trout.
So: How should we imagine your type of research? Is
it more of a journalistic task or more a kind of field research?
Se: Both. Behind the works there is an interest in
general media-related issues, how systems of transfer function, in other
words the manner of using them or their technologies. I am intrigued
by the possibility of also putting these analyses into practice at the
same time. In the case of the "Suchbilder", when it is a matter
of quickly implanting the project in locations outside the cities for
an audience that is not distinctly delineated, then it is necessary
to consider which ramps the people addressed could use to get involved,
so that they come forward and take part in the sense of a joint looking,
checking and documenting. With this guessing game with a prize contest,
it was a matter of taking part in a process that could not be predetermined
for all participants. So: Did this process work with the "Suchbilder"
the way you originally imagined that it would?
Se: I was quite ambivalently surprised by the efficiency
of these possibilities. In the end there were many thousand visitors
to the location and a large portion of them took part by concretely
filling out the participation cards. Contests normally run for longer
than two and a half weeks, which was why we had to prepare the audience
to approach the remote locations with directions and instructions for
playing through television, radio and newspaper announcements as quickly
as possible. For example, if the announcements are made in a language
that seems very hermetic, then there is a great risk that the audience
will be cheated. Naturally this means moving precariously along a boundary
between populism and elitist things.
So: This is what ultimately distinguishes the crucial
moment of tension in your works in public space.
Se: It is a similar case with the interactive Internet
project "Who's Afraid of Blue, Red and Green?", which has
been online in various versions since 1995. Operating it is ultimately
very easy. The interface is structured so simply that it works with
any web browser and the users only have to click on certain lines. Technical
access should be as broad as possible, so that the decisive process
is shifted into the realm of thought. So: Although you have to count on reaching a somewhat
different audience on the Internet.
Se: Partly. At least in industrialized countries access
is very broadly distributed. The question that one raises with the Internet
today is more of a generational question, since younger people naturally
tend to have greater technological skills. However, this doesn't mean
that they automatically have a greater technological awareness as well.
So: You have said that you like to choose new strategies
when the medium is still fresh for you. Which are the significant nodes
in your work where you can distinguish that looking back?
Se: Over the years photography has proved to be a
red line. Because of the documentary aspects, for me it is still an
appropriate medium, even though specifically this point is constantly
analyzed in the digital context and must be used with the greatest caution.
The concept of the "documentary" is itself subject to constant
change and is used in a much more satisfactory way in the field of film
theory, because there the documentary builds on the premises of "construction"
to begin with. During the work on the video "Granturismo",
the production of which resulted in new framework conditions and problems
of implementation, there was a high measure of frictional energy that
was able to emerge from the unorthodox solutions. This unpredictability
is something that I have principally always enjoyed, although it was
always important to me to raise questions about the medium itself at
the same time, so that the depictive always resonates along with it,
too. Just as the pigment works refer to the basic module of painting,
because pure, unmixed color powder is filled there, the Internet project
also pertains to the visual surface of the medium used.
So: At the same time, the technological resonates
in your concept, no matter how much your media works may assume the
character of an abstract image.
Se: Mass media are technologically conditioned per
se, and there is a veritable jungle of possibilities for implementation
today. As Villém Flusser rightly stated, with all the alleged
neutrality of technology, there is always something of the views of
the programmers, the developers and their conditions in the apparatuses.
In this sense, there is no technology free of values.
So: Not free of ideologies either?
Se: Certainly not. I am interested in bringing out
these more invisible moments that are not manifestly apparent in conventional
ways of dealing with mass media. Who would bother to look at a screen
turned off in everyday life?
So: Yet there is something ambiguous about your "Screens,
cold" in particular. We can view them approvingly as monochrome
images, because you make use of the coordinates of modernism in them.
On the other hand, you confuse the viewers, who are not aware of what
is technological or art historical behind the images, and who at first
see nothing but an obscure green or gray surface. Se: In the end, I attempt to address the audience
through aesthetic solutions, which contain a strong physical presence
of the work. I am still convinced that the physical counterpart has
greater significance, especially since physical experience is already
in a fragile state.
So: What do you mean by that exactly, the "physical
experience is already in a fragile state"?
Se: Because our life is increasingly virtualized and
because we act more and more from a distance, what we do has been shifted
to networks that are ultimately very detached. It is a physically less
tangible, completely different space, in which we operate. Naturally
we are still "here", but nevertheless much has dissolved into
abstract processes.
So: The idea that our life is becoming thoroughly
virtualized and losing the link to the corporeal, wasn't that completely
exaggerated in the early nineties? In any case, the horror scenario
has not been realized to the extent that was originally feared.
Se: Perhaps not entirely to the anticipated extreme,
but one can already sense moments of virtualization everywhere. We have
meanwhile become accustomed to a reception by means of the interface
of the screen, to many automated and invisible technological processes.
I think we can read from everyday actions that the body is increasingly
docking into these developments.
So: I am still rather skeptical about this. Hasn't
a counter-reaction to the superabundance of virtual offerings occurred
instead, and haven't sensuous factors become important again? That is
currently evident in the – in my view – strange hunger for
painted canvasses. People are doing sports as though obsessed, and who
knows, maybe eroticism has become stronger again, too.
Se: The latter is not the case, I think. We live more
in a sexual than an erotic age. The circumstances have become very accurate
and pragmatic; advertising and the surrounding subject matter it allows
reach into the psychological magic box of sexuality with every imaginable
strategy, thus trivializing it into an inflationary product component.
Not even yogurt can be sold today without sexual allusions. In addition,
feminist achievements in the advertising industry, in which the involvement
of women is not insubstantial, are hardly depicted. The elaborate processes
of people coming closer together, which are part of eroticism, are decreasing.
Bodies today are simply much more quickly available and that contradicts
a gradual process of coming closer, in which tension is increased by
the fact that possible fulfillment is in the future.
So: I have the feeling that the optional predominates
in general in the category of desire.
Se: In the special training and trimming of bodies
in the last decade, there is also an indication of how virtualization
progresses. Basically there is the abstraction of modeling the ideal
body, globalizing certain notions, in fact. In the free market of free-floating
bodies reliant only on themselves, there is pressure for all involved
to participate, otherwise what is optional remains a fiction. I take
the level of presentation seriously, because the unmediated encounter
with art works is still the decisive level. There is a kind of carelessness
towards the work that can be noted in certain curatorial methods, in
presentation forms that extend the visual and acoustic overkill of the
media world into exhibition houses and suffocate the individual work.
I feel this is a trap, because the object speaks a language of its own.
So: When you work in the most diverse areas of media,
you try to proceed as professionally as possible. What does your network
need to look like?
Se: I almost always work together with specialists
from the relevant fields. In the end, the projects are always the result
of different production teams, in which I attempt to check my ideas
at every stage of production, like a director. As an individual person,
we cannot qualitatively and economically cope with the high tech, multimedia
environment that surrounds us. There are many techniques – especially
also reception techniques – that have to be learned to be able
to pull out any meaningful information at all from the tangle of information
that is offered. The question has to be asked constantly, what do the
reported things refer to: are the references still comprehensible, or
are they already so aloof that the information value is close to zero?
Because there are so many different surface forms, one must keep an
eye on several media in parallel to be able adequately observe the whole.
The mass media world is a gigantic universe, a meta-universe so to speak,
which raises problems of cognition to a more complex level. For this
reason, the machinery behind the information should constantly be made
transparent. It is a huge harbor, in which large and small ships sail
around, and they all have their own criteria for transport. Investigating
the transport techniques together with the criteria is an important
moment in my work.
So: That means that you distill central elements from
the tangled weaving of information. How would you define the essence?
Se: We are surrounded by narrative, concrete, very
calculatedly optimized messages and prompts. I am more interested in
the "abstract" elements of this media machinery. It is a kind
of archaeological work that brings forth certain mechanisms of emergence
or even thresholds, over which images run and are refracted. I concentrate
essentially on things that are not in the foreground in the conventional
routines of application.
So: Can you give us a characteristic example of this?
Se: This is demonstrated in the photographic works
of the "Sources", where microscopic methods are used to access
the "language" forms of these technologies, which would otherwise
be hardly or not at all visible. It is similar with the screens that
are turned off, because one loses sight of the surfaces when the monitors
are illuminated from inside. There is nothing else to do but to fade
out the image, in order to be able to show this skin at all. With "Exposures",
too, the most recent works, something completely paradoxical happens
in terms of both the normal act of seeing and the photographic process:
basically one could never see the light sources in this way, because
the glare effect would be too strong. With an unusual perspective and
the use of a certain technology, I can examine the apparatus for what
it does not usually show us. So: As in a dialogue, that naturally also has repercussions
for the apparatuses that you use.
Se: It is a matter of permanently processing the means
that I use myself. If something is forced into a language, a transformation
process is associated with this and there is the problematic issue of
translation. If you feed a film image into a television system, for
example, an image that is actually photographically generated is translated
into a completely different principle. This has not only a formal impact
on the images and the context of viewing them, but naturally also affects
the content level. In the auteur film there is a qualitative distinction
between the space of the cinema as the final screening space and that
of the television. The financial and ideological power of Hollywood
has led to a blurring of these spaces, and after the initial cinema
utilization the further utilization of the films by means of video cassette
or DVD is extended into the living room. If you were to send someone
who has previously only consumed films through the TV set to the cinema
for the first time, this person would probably be deeply shocked by
the physical quality of the original medium of film.
So: At a level that is not immediately evident, you
simultaneously raise the question of the political factors, the ideologies
behind the media system.
Se: The fact of manipulation and propaganda is more
precarious than ever, whether in the area of politics or economics.
The democracies and their public space have reached a critical point,
the development of mass media standards started too late. Information
is a commodity and purchasable and that's it. This short-sighted view
has led to miserable quality developments and massive conflicts of interest,
as we have long been able to observe not only in the USA, but also in
Italy, especially in the last decade. For me, the "Berlusconitization"
of Italy was both a field of research and a warning signal right from
the start. Public space has been privatized there in every respect.
Works like "Screens, cold" or "Who's Afraid of Blue,
Red and Green?" can certainly be read at this level as well. On
the other hand, they have been received along the lines of abstract
art, media art and reductionist photography or even show up in the marginal
zones of painting. I have always enjoyed this diversity. Because of
their emptiness, "Screens, cold" are naturally also projection
surfaces.
So: Don't you also try to fool the viewer through
the motif process of emptying? For some "Screens, cold" may
function as a meditation surface, others see themselves exposed to a
large, black hole.
Se (laughs): ... the projection surface of boredom!
Certainly, I have had the most diverse reactions: some see "Screens,
cold" from the perspective of calmness and concentration, as concrete
art is viewed, for instance. Others see puritanical iconoclasm in it.
I prefer to think of Gerhard Richter's statement: "And what is
good about a picture is never what is ideological, but always the factual."
So: Nevertheless, with certain works like the video
"Granturismo" I can't help but feel that you have purposely
smuggled in a cynical aspect.
Se: Sarcasm may be there in the case of the video,
because we have leaned far out of the window with a type of realization
that corresponds to that which is often criticized. Using an everyday
car trip we try to show methods that are employed every day, but no
longer appear cynical because of the routine. It is only because of
the specific treatment that one grasps the cynicism of the method that
is found in the inflationary generation of what is "sensational".
But of course it also raises the question of whether it is more cynical
to experience a lethal accident in your living room chair from the perspective
of a Formula-1 helmet camera, or to show an ironic simulation in a short
film, to which this lust for sensation is only metaphorically inherent.
So: "Granturismo" is cynical in an ambiguous
way, though: by having insects burst against the windscreen like bags
of color, you sarcastically allude to Abstract Expressionism at the
same time.
Se: There are many things I appreciate about geometrical
or very reduced abstraction, but it never goes so far that one could
derive a religion or comparable attitude from it. It is also in these
terms that my reference to Barnett Newman in "Who's Afraid of Blue,
Red and Green?" is to be understood. One can still trace affinities
formally, but the actual reference basis has completely changed. Like
"Screens, cold", this block of works moves along the borderline
between media document and an allusion to the history of abstraction
in modernism. Abstract Painting has largely become redundant, an enrichment
couldn't hurt.
So: Does this kind of painting critique also play
a role in your new version of "Who's Afraid of Blue, Red and Green?"
?
Se: Yes, I could never stand the religious pathos
in Newman's work. I actually find him most radical in the cycle "Who's
Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?" (1966/70), in which it is a matter
of the three primary colors of his medium, painting.
So: To what extent do "Exposures" mark the
dividing wall between public and private?
Se: This dividing wall has become permeable. Part
of the active role of mediated being is also that we operate in a society,
in which mediated self-awareness becomes normal. Anywhere a television
camera or a microphone shows up, people gather around trying to stick
their nose in. Something like a media slogan of "the public grin"
has become a method of collective self-assurance and significance enhancement.
Now our existence is only affirmed via the detour of mediated communication.
In order to gain entrance to the media machinery, however, you have
to accept their game rules, which is evident in the increasingly professional,
actor-like appearance of the protagonists. The active part in this mutual
process is at least as dubious as the passive one. To get into the realm
of rampant talkshows and "publicize" themselves, many people
are willing to drop their inhibitions into an abyss. With celebrities
who end up in the wheels of boulevard journalism, it is a matter of
an awkward interplay between user and used. "Exposures" attempt
to address the ambiguity of being exposed, which increasingly determines
our relationship to the media. The passive form is found among the paparazzi,
when human beings are veritably hunted down for a photo. The flash machines
make the hunt easier, because they illuminate moments of life, of which
there would be no picture at all without technological aids. Seen from
the side of the person being hunted, one is, in fact, exposed. Artificial
light sources from both the amateur field of the videographical and
the field of professional studio lights are the theme of "Exposures".
In a sense, the spotlights are our artificial suns. Anyone who has ever
sat in a television studio knows how you can perspire under an artificial
sun.
So: In terms of our media society, Andy Warhol was
actually a visionary. Se: Absolutely! As much as he analytically recognized
the mechanisms, he also drew the consequences from that and elevated
himself to a superstar. Andy Warhol's work is media art in the proper
sense, his entire habitus was adapted to the setting of the media world.
He photographed celebrities and purposely moved at the parties that
were reported on every day in the media. Twenty-five years after the
publication of his book "Andy Warhol's Exposures" and remembering
his remark, "In the future, everybody will be world famous for
fifteen minutes" , one has to note that this is really the case,
but at what cost? In light of the status of the English yellow press,
it was perhaps only logical that the book was published by a British
publishing company.
In the meantime, there is such a need for publicity on the part of the audience that hundreds of thousands of people from the audience are cast for the most absurd shows. One hand washes the other – from this perspective television is the most hyperdemocratic medium, where there is room for everything and the programs are defined more and more by the audience. So: At which point did you start to deal concretely
with the dissolution between public and private space?
Se: In principle, I have always been dealing with
this phenomenon, but my approach changed after the first years. In the
beginning, I tried to get a grip on the material directly by photographing
images from television, newspapers or cinema and placing them in different
contexts. I wanted to refract the context and create a new one. After
some time, I had the feeling that I should pay more attention to the
preconditions of these inflationary images. To come back to talkshows
again: when someone does not grasp how his wretchedness is being instrumentalized
when he carries out the worst relationship conflict in front of millions
of viewers, then the private sphere is erased. In this sense, public
space has become a giant funnel for private fantasies, which can easily
be blown up in the media into scandalous public ones, although or specifically
because they depict commonplace misery.
So: At the same time, though, public space is also
vanishing.
Se: Through the Internet public space is being privatized
again, because you can sit at home in front of the monitor. The agora,
the classical public space of discussion, is increasingly replaced by
parking lots.
So: And advertising surfaces! To what extent does
your Internet project in the version for New York's Times Square refer
to this dilemma?
Se: Times Square basically represents the maximum
extent, to which a square surrounded by high buildings can be "furnished"
with advertising. This location is a symbol of neoliberal market ballyhoo,
of advertising, in which it is a matter of clear messages, of quickly
conveying contents and of representation. Every available surface is
used for sales messages, every square centimeter of a building facade
is worth money. Just opening up a space in this materialist jungle for
artistic works following a different principle is important, even though
the proportionality of the possibilities between artistic intervention
and commercial space is like a battle between unequal partners. I hope
that the work, which will be shown on one of the large screens, will
separate itself to some extent from the figurative images and concrete
text messages, because its impression is more reduced than its surroundings
and it is arranged self-referentially. It makes holes that can be filled
by the participating audience without anyone demanding from them that
they have to bare themselves, their souls, in an embarrassing way. And
it will also be important to furnish the potential collaborators with
an awareness that their contributions are worth thousands of dollars
that could otherwise be earned with advertising. Unfortunately, we have
to live more and more with these extreme framework conditions.
Vienna, Café Schopenhauer, August 2003 1) Benjamin H.D. Buchloh: Interview mit Gerhard Richter.
In: Gerhard Richter. Exhibition catalogue of the Art and Exhibition
Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany (Ostfildern Ruit, 1993), p.
95.
2) Andy Warhol and Bob Colacello: Andy Warhol's Exposures
(London: Hutchinson & Co, 1979).
3) M. J. Cohen: The Penguin Thesaurus of Quotations
(Penguin Books, 2000).
- Günther Selichar
Spot The Difference | 5 Public Interventions 1992/93 5 installations in Upper Austria, ink-jet print|acrylic foil, stretcher frame, iron construction, each 230 x 600 cm The audience was invited by five TV-spots to participate
in the “Spot The Difference“ game and to compare the real
landscape with its altered image next to it. Part of this interactive
art project was a public quiz involving a prize competition. The viewers
were asked to find at least two of five “Spot The Difference“-
images, which were installed in a circle of about 400 kms. The viewers were invited to indicate the errors they found on a participation card. About 8000 people visited the installations during the three weeks that the project was running, and about 1500 cards were dropped at the installation sites. The winners of various prizes were chosen from among the correct answers in a series of televised drawings. The Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) also made a documentation of the project. © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien Photo: C.Schepe, Linz; ORF - Günther Selichar
Who’s Afraid of Blue, Red and Green? 1995|96 Interactive internet-installation, basic module and samples from the album © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien - Günther Selichar
Screens, cold 1997|2003 Kunsthalle Wien|Project Space, 2001 © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien Foto: G.Koller, Wien - Günther Selichar
Sources 1993|1995 Each b|w-photograph|canvas and stretcherframe, 230 x 90 cm Installation Kunstverein Steyr 1995|Collection Fotomuseum Winterthur © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien Photo: W. Ebenhofer, Steyr - Aus | From
Günther und Loredana Selichar, GT Granturismo 2001, Digitalvideo, 16:9, 5’10 © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien - Günther Selichar
Exposure f 2002|2003, C-Print|Alucobond, 95 x 191 cm © G.Selichar/VBK, Wien |