Alice Pelot
" I think viewers should be pulled into work, that the body and mind should work to animate an experience that is inst igated, in this instance, by still forms, I don't believe that it should be passively c onsumed (as it isn't Passively made)."
- Robert Anthony O'Halloran
To chew on a coffee cup lid, or kick a rock are actions as ordinary as the objects they affect. Less ordinary is our awareness of how these actions negotiate space. The objects we choose to engage with, our influences on them, and their lives beyond our presence are all part of our lived experience, affecting our spaces as well as those communities that frequent them. Defined then by this process, our simple actions are curatorial in nature. In his works Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply), 2012, and his series of Motion Capture Forms, 2014, (defined by the artist as ‘time-base performative installation’) Robert Anthony O’Halloran inspires viewers to conceptualize and animate ordinary past events through site-specific sculptures. In the process of imagined animation, the viewer engages with the idea that there is life everywhere even if a specific event isn’t happening here and now. His practice loosely defined, is one that extends the life of human activity by subtly reengaging it through others at a later time.
Hidden in plain sight, Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply) is a series of plaster casts of found, discarded objects, that masquerade as littered coffee cups, and crumpled water bottles, kicked to the curb, cast away in hedges, and packed into pavement cracks. Every second day for the two week Art Walk Exposed in Hamilton Ontario (Canada), O’Halloran scoured King William Street to document, collect and cast the dredges of daily activities, and then replaced the refuse with plaster sculptures exactly as he found them. With only the material to suggest the artist’s intervention, the objects were abandoned, subject to the fate of their uncanny counter parts. At the end of Art Walk Exposed, the sites were revisited for the purpose of documentation. O’Halloran found that of approximately one hundred casts, only thirty fragments remained. His sculptures had all been removed, manipulated, destroyed, or thrown away. The performative installation can be construed as an environmental, political gesture – asking for environmental awareness by drawing attention to litter – but O’Halloran’s interest in dejected objects and his laborious process of representing their presence concerns the relationship between the object and the user in space, as well as the moment we re-engage with those represented items, aware of the sculpture’s uncanny resemblance to used everyday objects.
The result of the two-week process of retrieval, replacement, and then documentation confirms for O’Halloran that through the uncanny, the viewer engages with and participates in the artist’s practice. He describes the viewer’s role as, “the split-second process of recognizing a form, and then in the next second realizing that something isn’t quite right about it… and then after that, the enactment of this sort of hilarious but also terrifying human tendency to either steal or destroy the unfamiliar.” As O’Halloran noted, the objects were eventually noticed and, although the evidence is marked only by their absence, we can hope that any viewer who stumbled upon one would recognize the plaster material as an his intervention, or bring to question: why does this garbage deserve to be cast in plaster? This is to say that viewers participate in O’Halloran’s practice in two instances. First, he uses objects that have been acted upon, the subject unknowing that their actions would later be captured in plaster. Second, the people who find these objects, hopefully recognizing signs of use, would imagine the actions enacted on the objects. Perhaps acknowledging their personal habits of chewing on water bottle lids or taring at labels. His work would not exist without the everyday actions of unsuspecting viewers. But, how does engagement of this kind with O’Halloran’s sculptures differ from what is expected of engagement with any similar everyday object?
Without inside information, how is one to know what is a work of art and what isn’t, or are we meant to accept the challenge that life is art? The sculptures from Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply) are cast from everyday objects and are replaced where they were found (the sites determined by everyday actions). But upon close inspection, it is clear that they are not everyday objects. A crumpled water bottle is not a solid white form. Any artist that involves the use of found objects, reproduces them to a level of exactitude, or creates the illusion that an artwork is an everyday object is subject to contextualization within the Duchampian history of the readymade. With his work Fountain (1917), Duchamp used the gallery as an ideological platform for raising the everyday to the status of a (not necessarily accepted, but) recognizable art object. But the everdayness of O’Halloran’s work is neither about appropriating objects directly from life, nor is it about an aesthetic object that with strategic placement might capture attention; rather, his work is about disguise and placement as if truly thoughtlessly discarded. As the plaster casts represent everyday events in everyday environments, being acknowledged at all is the issue at hand.
O’Halloran intentionally makes little effort to make his works known as artwork, it seems he would rather their formal symbolism dictate our interactions with them. In his most recent project, O’Halloran produced traffic cones from latex, which, aside from the coupling of a phallic shape with the sexual material of latex, is a sign to which people concede when seen outside of the gallery context. They were installed inside, but he hopes to also install them outside, strategically placed to provoke particular behavior (as traffic cones do) for as long as the sexually suggestive material goes unnoticed. The symbolism contained in any given art object, whether inspired by the everyday or not, does not contain a predictable system of reactions when viewed in unexpected circumstances, while inside a gallery these same symbols often provoke a carefully choreographed engagement based on the history of the given symbol.
The series of Motion Capture Forms including Pipe Event, Bottle Event, Rock Event and Combined Event .03, 2014 was a labourious process to produce solid representations of motion and the passing of time. First, O’Halloran performed actions on each object and documented them through video. Following this, he isolated moments in each event that demonstrated interesting movements and assembled them into singular, still images. Finally, the new shapes of the objects in movement from the still images were put into Rhino (software for 3D digitization) in preparation for CNC milling (a process of subtraction). In order to prepare an image for CNC milling, the artist has to slice the digital form into pieces that can be organized on a rectangular plane, which is the shape of the material (foam sheets). Once the pieces are milled, O’Halloran reassembles and adheres them like a puzzle. Some of the forms are made form molds and cast in resin. One pipe has an epoxy resin and iron powder coating, and the other, a zinc powder coating over layers of spray paint. The Motion Capture Forms in O’Halloran’s practice closely relate to Futurist sculpture whereby artists glorify speed granted by technology and the resulting simultaneity of sensory experience.
Motion Capture Forms were shown on the floor of the gallery space, where the original actions took place. While the site-specificity of the action and the installation may seem like a significant component of the series, the work itself does not indicate that its position in the space is mapping the outcome of the original action, and the still images isolated from the video documentation are not shown. Like the casts of discarded objects, O’Halloran expects the viewer to imagine the actions taken upon the original objects purely with the evidence given by the sculptures themselves.
The same animation of events that takes place in viewing O’Halloran’s sculptures also takes place in the study of photography. Photographs are also still objects that represent past events (including the events involved in setting up for a photo) and as such, a viewer of photography would consciously or unconsciously imagine the events leading up to and following the moment captured. This is not to say that O’Halloran’s work developed from photographic theory, but it is certainly relevant in his animated gif’s made with the same process of distilling moments as in Motion Capture Forms. O’Halloran’s gif’s as a series of animated photographs inhabit the space between photograph and video, and are finished works distilled as a medium from his sculptural process. All objects (including art works) involve a chain of events in their creation and in their use thereafter. However, the events that directly affect the aesthetic result of O’Halloran’s sculptures are evident in the final product and awareness of these events becomes a part of his practice.
The activity of conceptually animating O’Halloran’s sculptures means that his works are subject to the discussions around active versus passive viewing put forth by Jacques Rancière, as well as similar discussions about the increasingly conceptual nature of participatory artworks. Based on Rancière, it is arguable that the very notion of active viewing is participatory. In his text The Emancipated Spectator, 2007, Rancière would suggest that active viewing could be as basic as imagining the artist’s process, relating an artwork to life, or finding inspiration in it.[1] If this is true, then active viewing cannot be aligned with the contemporary action of participation because every work is imbricated within Rancière’s argument if the viewer is viewing actively, but not every artist considers his or her work participatory.
In participatory artwork, an essential expectation (conceived by the artist) is that a viewer’s engagement is required to activate the work. This is not to say that an artwork’s reality is predicated on viewership in the phenomenological sense. Participation, more specifically could be considered the inclusion of the viewer in the artist’s practice. Artists such as Rirkrit Tiravanija and Martin Creed even include participants in their listed materials.[2] In O’Halloran’s works, there is an expectation that his sculptures be activated through an engaged viewer (even if they are unaware of his expectation). Because the activity involved is the animation of O’Halloran’s process, the activity of viewing is a part of his practice and his sculptures can therefore be considered participatory.
If participation is a necessary component for the completion of his works, then by the definition outlined by Nicolas Bourriaud, they fall under the periphery of the Relational Aesthetics umbrella.[3] But Robbie’s work escapes one of the criticisms received against the artworks considered by Bourriaud in his book, Relational Aesthetics. O’Halloran is not creating a space that is highly choreographed.[4] In Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply), he is removing himself from the decisions involved in producing the forms, as others are engaging the objects he chooses (the choice of object being his authorial decision) and from the location of the found objects. In addition, with their place outside the gallery, the status of the object does not interfere with the possibilities for interactivity. In the case of his Motion Capture Forms, the absence of the documentary process images allows the viewer to freely imagine (and therefore freely participate) in the animation of his practice. Even in a gallery space, the viewer has freedom. O’Halloran escapes what could be construed as authorial choreography.
O’Halloran states, “In the end, motion is only formally represented, and time, becomes signified after a recognition that forms work to represent motion, but neither are actually present except for within the viewing experience.” Bourriaud felt that art should be a time to be lived through. In O’Halloran’s work, the time to be lived through is not only integrated with the current moment and object, but also with his process as a moment to be animated and conceptually lived through.
For Information on O'Halloran's more recent projects, visit his artist website:
http://www.robertanthonyohalloran.com
[1] Jacques Ranciere, The Emancipated Spectator (London: Verso, 2011)
[2] Claire Bishop, "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics", October, vol. 110 (city: The MIT Press, 2004) p. 61
[3] Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (Dijon: Les Presses du Reel, 1998)
[4] Grant H. Kester, The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context (London: Duke University Press, 2011) p.31
Without inside information, how is one to know what is a work of art and what isn’t, or are we meant to accept the challenge that life is art? The sculptures from Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply) are cast from everyday objects and are replaced where they were found (the sites determined by everyday actions). But upon close inspection, it is clear that they are not everyday objects. A crumpled water bottle is not a solid white form. Any artist that involves the use of found objects, reproduces them to a level of exactitude, or creates the illusion that an artwork is an everyday object is subject to contextualization within the Duchampian history of the readymade. With his work Fountain (1917), Duchamp used the gallery as an ideological platform for raising the everyday to the status of a (not necessarily accepted, but) recognizable art object. But the everdayness of O’Halloran’s work is neither about appropriating objects directly from life, nor is it about an aesthetic object that with strategic placement might capture attention; rather, his work is about disguise and placement as if truly thoughtlessly discarded. As the plaster casts represent everyday events in everyday environments, being acknowledged at all is the issue at hand.
O’Halloran intentionally makes little effort to make his works known as artwork, it seems he would rather their formal symbolism dictate our interactions with them. In his most recent project, O’Halloran produced traffic cones from latex, which, aside from the coupling of a phallic shape with the sexual material of latex, is a sign to which people concede when seen outside of the gallery context. They were installed inside, but he hopes to also install them outside, strategically placed to provoke particular behavior (as traffic cones do) for as long as the sexually suggestive material goes unnoticed. The symbolism contained in any given art object, whether inspired by the everyday or not, does not contain a predictable system of reactions when viewed in unexpected circumstances, while inside a gallery these same symbols often provoke a carefully choreographed engagement based on the history of the given symbol.
The series of Motion Capture Forms including Pipe Event, Bottle Event, Rock Event and Combined Event .03, 2014 was a labourious process to produce solid representations of motion and the passing of time. First, O’Halloran performed actions on each object and documented them through video. Following this, he isolated moments in each event that demonstrated interesting movements and assembled them into singular, still images. Finally, the new shapes of the objects in movement from the still images were put into Rhino (software for 3D digitization) in preparation for CNC milling (a process of subtraction). In order to prepare an image for CNC milling, the artist has to slice the digital form into pieces that can be organized on a rectangular plane, which is the shape of the material (foam sheets). Once the pieces are milled, O’Halloran reassembles and adheres them like a puzzle. Some of the forms are made form molds and cast in resin. One pipe has an epoxy resin and iron powder coating, and the other, a zinc powder coating over layers of spray paint. The Motion Capture Forms in O’Halloran’s practice closely relate to Futurist sculpture whereby artists glorify speed granted by technology and the resulting simultaneity of sensory experience.
Motion Capture Forms were shown on the floor of the gallery space, where the original actions took place. While the site-specificity of the action and the installation may seem like a significant component of the series, the work itself does not indicate that its position in the space is mapping the outcome of the original action, and the still images isolated from the video documentation are not shown. Like the casts of discarded objects, O’Halloran expects the viewer to imagine the actions taken upon the original objects purely with the evidence given by the sculptures themselves.
The same animation of events that takes place in viewing O’Halloran’s sculptures also takes place in the study of photography. Photographs are also still objects that represent past events (including the events involved in setting up for a photo) and as such, a viewer of photography would consciously or unconsciously imagine the events leading up to and following the moment captured. This is not to say that O’Halloran’s work developed from photographic theory, but it is certainly relevant in his animated gif’s made with the same process of distilling moments as in Motion Capture Forms. O’Halloran’s gif’s as a series of animated photographs inhabit the space between photograph and video, and are finished works distilled as a medium from his sculptural process. All objects (including art works) involve a chain of events in their creation and in their use thereafter. However, the events that directly affect the aesthetic result of O’Halloran’s sculptures are evident in the final product and awareness of these events becomes a part of his practice.
The activity of conceptually animating O’Halloran’s sculptures means that his works are subject to the discussions around active versus passive viewing put forth by Jacques Rancière, as well as similar discussions about the increasingly conceptual nature of participatory artworks. Based on Rancière, it is arguable that the very notion of active viewing is participatory. In his text The Emancipated Spectator, 2007, Rancière would suggest that active viewing could be as basic as imagining the artist’s process, relating an artwork to life, or finding inspiration in it.[1] If this is true, then active viewing cannot be aligned with the contemporary action of participation because every work is imbricated within Rancière’s argument if the viewer is viewing actively, but not every artist considers his or her work participatory.
In participatory artwork, an essential expectation (conceived by the artist) is that a viewer’s engagement is required to activate the work. This is not to say that an artwork’s reality is predicated on viewership in the phenomenological sense. Participation, more specifically could be considered the inclusion of the viewer in the artist’s practice. Artists such as Rirkrit Tiravanija and Martin Creed even include participants in their listed materials.[2] In O’Halloran’s works, there is an expectation that his sculptures be activated through an engaged viewer (even if they are unaware of his expectation). Because the activity involved is the animation of O’Halloran’s process, the activity of viewing is a part of his practice and his sculptures can therefore be considered participatory.
If participation is a necessary component for the completion of his works, then by the definition outlined by Nicolas Bourriaud, they fall under the periphery of the Relational Aesthetics umbrella.[3] But Robbie’s work escapes one of the criticisms received against the artworks considered by Bourriaud in his book, Relational Aesthetics. O’Halloran is not creating a space that is highly choreographed.[4] In Engage, Discard, Repeat (Multiply), he is removing himself from the decisions involved in producing the forms, as others are engaging the objects he chooses (the choice of object being his authorial decision) and from the location of the found objects. In addition, with their place outside the gallery, the status of the object does not interfere with the possibilities for interactivity. In the case of his Motion Capture Forms, the absence of the documentary process images allows the viewer to freely imagine (and therefore freely participate) in the animation of his practice. Even in a gallery space, the viewer has freedom. O’Halloran escapes what could be construed as authorial choreography.
O’Halloran states, “In the end, motion is only formally represented, and time, becomes signified after a recognition that forms work to represent motion, but neither are actually present except for within the viewing experience.” Bourriaud felt that art should be a time to be lived through. In O’Halloran’s work, the time to be lived through is not only integrated with the current moment and object, but also with his process as a moment to be animated and conceptually lived through.
For Information on O'Halloran's more recent projects, visit his artist website:
http://www.robertanthonyohalloran.com
[1] Jacques Ranciere, The Emancipated Spectator (London: Verso, 2011)
[2] Claire Bishop, "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics", October, vol. 110 (city: The MIT Press, 2004) p. 61
[3] Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics (Dijon: Les Presses du Reel, 1998)
[4] Grant H. Kester, The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context (London: Duke University Press, 2011) p.31