 |
|
Out
from the dark: the OpenEnded Group—(l-r) Marc Downie,
Paul Kaiser, Shelley Eshkar.
Photo:
Leif Zurmuhlen
|
Work
in Process
A
high-resolution glimpse into EMPAC curation through the making
of an experimental 3D film
By
Josh Potter
On
my first visit to meet the OpenEnded Group, I leave nearly
as confused about what the team of digital artists actually
does as when I first arrived. Outside, it’s a sunny fall day,
but entering the EMPAC Theater, where the group is logging
16-hour workdays on a 10-day stint of their commissioned residency,
is entering a chamber hermetically sealed from virtually every
variable of the outside world. Save for the red glow of the
exit signs and the blue light of the trio’s computer screens,
the theater is pitch black. Our voices boom in the silence.
“You’ve
come at the worst possible time,” says Marc Downie, the group’s
code-writing expert, joking about how vast a chore it would
have been to follow the group’s entire two-year project, a
piece that is as long in the making as Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute’s Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media & Performing
Arts Center is old. With the premiere slated for late March,
Upending is beginning to enter its final phase of production,
but the steps I’ve already missed are events I’m hard-pressed
to even picture—stereoscopic photo shoots, a quadraphonic
recording session. “We’re at the transition point between
capturing all the material and finalizing scenes,” Downie
explains. “This residency has been about turning this into
an artwork.”
OpenEnded’s Paul Kaiser hands me a pair of heavy-duty 3D glasses
and, after some fiddling with his computer, Downie launches
a “scenelet” from early in the piece. It’s still a month or
so before the release of James Cameron’s blockbuster Avatar,
so the precedent for 3D projection hasn’t yet skewed entirely
to the ends of action and adventure, but already it’s clear
that the OpenEnded Group have something very different in
mind. On screen—or rather, in the immense depth of space between
the viewer and the theater’s enormous screen—appears a luminous
chair. There are no edges to the frame, just a chair hovering
like a holograph in space. Downie manually rotates the image
so it can be viewed from all directions and, as the scene
proceeds, a figure manifests next to the chair, rendered from
beams of light that swoop in from around the viewer’s head.
Kaiser explains, “There’s line quality here that I don’t think
anyone’s ever seen in a digital way before. The texture both
reflects the feeling of hand drawing, yet it’s utterly synthetic,
which goes to the heart of what the piece is about.”
The figure begins to take a few steps, approaching the chair
amid a cloud of yellow rays. There is something hand-drawn
about the image, like it’s a sketch or a figure study, animated
from every angle. And, of course, there’s a reason for this.
While it can be difficult to parse the group’s individual
roles, Shelley Eshkar, the group’s soft-spoken third member,
is an expert in drawing and graphic technologies such as motion
capture (the technique famously used to animate Avatar’s
Na’vi and Gollum in The Lord of the Rings). He explains
that the effect is generated by projecting a two- dimensional
drawing onto a three-dimensional model—through groundbreaking
multimedia software called Field that Downie developed—so
that the lines are almost sticking to it. The flashing rays
are where the computer-generated pen strokes miss the model
and disappear into space. “It’s a fun game,” Eshkar says,
“because the intent is not to make something that looks like
a perfect drawing but something that’s in between the drawing
you intended and this inverse you couldn’t have made.”
Playing the conceptualist to Downie and Eshkar’s technicians,
Kaiser elaborates that the effect works well with the piece’s
theme of looking at earthly objects from unfamiliar aspects,
to engage your sensory system but also violate it to some
degree. “You get this sense of weightlessness and disorientation,
as if your sense of gravity doesn’t quite exist.”
Needless to say, little of this yet makes any sense, and the
fragments I’m allowed to view hardly constitute anything that
might be construed as “theme.” At this point in Upending’s
evolution, it hasn’t yet even received the cryptic billing
as a “stereoscopic theater performance, an actor-less drama
of disorientation and reorientation that compels us to rethink
our relationship to the material world.” As with the institution
that has commissioned the work, core questions of Upending’s
function and taxonomy remain cloaked in a semblance of hybridity,
high-tech specialization and weirdness. Is it a movie? A video
installation?
Yet, despite—or, perhaps, because of—the intellectual rigor
required to grapple with this sort of work, there is something
incredibly exciting about it. It’s singular, immersive and,
like EMPAC itself, close to unprecedented in what it aims
to accomplish. Over the course of the next few months, I’ll
be told repeatedly that Upending is “a perfect EMPAC
piece” in that it plays perfectly to the institution’s potentialities.
Reciprocally, Kaiser acknowledged on this first visit that
“there’s nowhere else in the country we can do this.” As it
turns out, the process of Upending’s creation is
also the perfect window into the curatorial process of an
institution that may appear enigmatic to most, due to its
very focus on the notion of artistic process.
EMPAC
founding director Johannes Goebel says that curation for the
space differs slightly from other arts institutions. In addition
to the common practice of producing and coproducing outside
work, and commissioning new works based on proposals submitted
by artists, EMPAC’s unique strength lies in its residency
program. But, whereas at other performing arts centers an
orchestra in residence might offer workshops and a handful
of performances over the course of a set period of time, artists
in residence at EMPAC are encouraged to use the building’s
specific resources to craft a piece from inception to completion.
As a result, each project will vary widely in regard to methodology,
materials used and ultimate offering.
For example, in February, dance curator Hélène Lesterlin brought
the London-based company Wayne McGregor | Random Dance for
a two-week residency, during which dancers worked with cognitive
scientists to develop choreographic software for a future
work. The performance they gave, however, was of a previously
completed dance.
Upending,
on the other hand, is a commission, a residency and a production.
“It’s a collaboration and exchange,” Goebel says, where all
the intellectual and artistic material comes from the artist
and EMPAC functions as “a sounding board,” providing curatorial
and technical expertise—not to mention space, time, money
and resources—to the artist. “They started with the idea that
they wanted to do a production on moving screens because we
had the [robotic] capability like no one else. Then they learned
about this 3D technology and said, we’ve always wanted to
do this, so let’s forget about the moving screens.”
“When
we came here,” Eshkar says, “the goal was simply to do something
we’d never be allowed to do on our own. EMPAC was presented
to us as a whole palette.” Access to the stereo projection
technology planted the seed for the project, a video engineer
helped them build a 3D rig for the thousands of photos captured
in stereo shoots, and an RPI alum granted them access to prototype
scientific imaging cameras that allowed them to tune the convergence
of the 3D images for optic effects that, they claim, can’t
be achieved with a feature film.
“One
of the astonishing things about working here at EMPAC,” Kaiser
says, “is that we’re making a piece that proposes an alternative
to the kind of 3D films that are emerging from Hollywood,
and we have an enormous advantage over all of them because
we’re actually editing the piece here in the same space that
it’s being shown, at that scale.”
In exchange, EMPAC, like a research science facility, benefits
from the advances made under its roof.
When
I next visit the group, Avatar has become a box-office
sensation, but Upending is growing ever more into its
own kind of animal. A dancer is present at this viewing, previewing
the capabilities of motion- capture 3D for a future collaboration.
This wouldn’t be the first time the OpenEnded Group have worked
in modern dance, as their 1999 collaboration with Merce Cunningham,
BIPED, was one of their breakthrough pieces.
For now, this work period, three months before Upending’s
premiere, is deeply concerned with scene building.
In one clip, a hand interacts with a wooden block. The resolution
of the image is incredibly precise, defying motion capture’s
tendency to capture only the skeleton of a form, and providing
it with a sense of flesh. The perspective rotates and the
viewer is ushered into the cavity of the phantom hand. In
another clip, the viewer is taken on a ghostly tour of “Living
Quarters,” where a blue window in the middle of the frame
mediates light in a hazy dreamlike fashion. Then, in a tremendous
jump of scale, space opens up into an abstract gridded landscape
where particles interact with each other and stretch the grid
into fractal and fractured configurations.
What’s most striking this time, though, is the tempo and sense
of motion achieved as each scene is synched to the musical
score. Now, when the yellow beams of light, connoting Eshkar’s
pen strokes, render the figure and the chair, they correspond
to the bow strokes of two violins, a viola and cello, quadraphonically
delivered from respective corners of the theater. The score
couldn’t be more perfect, but its selection and recording
were a complicated instance in which the creation and curation
of Upending struck a serendipitous note.
The idea to use the first String Quartet by 20th-century
composer Morton Feldman was proposed by music curator Micah
Silver, who commissioned Upending, “almost as an extreme
joke.”
Upending
originally began as a collaboration between the OpenEnded
Group and Hudson Valley electronic composer Maryanne Amacher,
who was known for her incredibly loud, visceral, and patterned
work. Unfortunately, Amacher died last October, a few months
after artistic differences ended the collaboration. It then
fell to Silver, who uses the synonyms “producer,” “intermediary”
and “psychologist” to describe his many curatorial roles,
to help the group find their new score.
“I
was trying to find things that had principles of Maryanne’s
music on a formal level, that would do something similar psychologically,
but were different because of their surface.” In contrast
to Amacher, Feldman’s music is very spare, often quiet, and
of remarkable duration. In fact, a hallmark of Feldman’s work
was a conception of music in terms of “scale” rather than
“form.” His String Quartet II, for example, exceeds
six hours and trades any sense of repeated theme for a psychic
effect in the listener whereby it becomes impossible to tell
if what you’re hearing has already occurred. Like Amacher’s
music, which can be (is intentionally?) unremarkable on the
macro level, it induces a deep sense of attention to the passing
details.
“You’ll
find with the OpenEnded Group that it’s the same thing,” Silver
explains. “From a thousand yards, [Upending] is this
slow-moving, abstract thing. You could very easily miss it
out-of-hand because of a misunderstanding of what you should
be looking at. The Feldman score matches these formal qualities
on the micro scale and something happens to your attention
because you’re zoomed into this higher resolution.”
Ensuring that the score would suit the piece and the spatial
acoustics of the theater, the OpenEnded Group requested that
a new recording of String Quartet be made at EMPAC
with the acclaimed new-music ensemble FLUX Quartet, utilizing
an extremely close-range configuration of microphones that
would suggest the physical presence of the musicians in the
final work.
Now, even though the OpenEnded Group never would have anticipated
this change, Feldman’s score has become critical to the very
idea of the piece. As Downie says, “One of our goals is to
be like Feldman, to have things reappear where they’re entirely
framed in your half- memory of them. These ways of seeing
are explored, picked up, examined, then discarded, only to
reappear far later in the piece.”
Maybe its another chance convergence, or rather the reason
why Upending is the perfect EMPAC piece, but this notion
of “high resolution” and focus on “ways of seeing” seem core
to EMPAC’s very mission.
Stuck between a concert hall’s imperative to entertain and
a research facility’s drive toward technical innovation, EMPAC
occupies an ill-defined middle ground where both objectives
might not be mutually exclusive. “We build these spaces,”
Silver says, “that are quiet and capable of amazing sensory
things in order to have high-resolution inner world experiences”
via art. The idea of the venue functioning as a sort of test
lab for human consciousness might actually not be overly facile.
After all, the current group exhibition Dancing on the
Ceiling actually features 45-minute sessions in a customized
floatation tank. “Upending is about expanding the resolution
of the way you see and hear,” says Silver, “which is made
possible by technology, but it’s not about it at all.”
In pieces like Upending, it’s easy to let the fact
of fancy technology distract from the work’s effect, but as
for the idea that EMPAC balances dual objectives, one toward
art, the other toward technology, Goebel dismisses the distinction.
“There is research always involved in anything that has an
artistic experience as an outcome.” Giving the example of
a hypothetical painter experimenting with a new brush made
from squirrel hair, he says, “there’s always been a direct
interchange between the tools and what you do on a content
level.” It’s a sentiment that’s echoed by Eshkar when he says,
“there’s no technical decision that isn’t also an artistic
one.” As for the notion of “experimentation” embedded in the
venue’s title, Goebel claims that, as Silver said, “it’s more
about creating experiences and challenging people and opening
your mind in new directions,” than technological advances
for the sake of technology.
This idea, that art and science can pursue common ends, is
not an especially prevalent one, but Silver says that this
could be changing. “The paradigm [of science] we’re in now
is about the extreme quantification of everything,” he says,
“and verification through the repetition of quantifiable things.
But, obviously, the world isn’t all about things you can quantify.
Even though we’ve attempted to quantify it with clocks, the
very fabric of time is something that no one has any idea
about in a real, concrete, shared way.” The artist’s job,
then, is to conduct research in qualitative analysis of these
unquantifiable time-based phenomena. Citing Pauline Oliveros’
concept of “deep listening” as an example, he says, “I think
the most interesting [artists] I’ve ever met are extremely
sensitive people—not in the sense that they have wonderful
emotional lives—but in terms of being sensitive to the environment
and getting high-resolution information.”
Ten
days before the premiere of Upending, the OpenEnded
Group are working most of the hours they are not sleeping.
Attention has arrived on the arc of the piece, something they
were not able to adequately address while adjusting the piece’s
smaller details. Eshkar confesses that they’ve never actually
viewed more than eight minutes of constant material or three
sequences in a row. Kaiser says this is another factor that
separates the group from others who deal in this kind of work.
Most would simply execute a storyboard but, as Downie explains,
theirs is a “living document.” The approach is far from slapdash,
though, as Silver marvels at how the group’s work remains
balanced with specific philosophical goals. The effect of
allowing this degree of flexibility this near the end of the
piece was, as Kaiser says, that “associations and meanings
arise; they’re not imposed.”
In a way, then, confusion—or, at least, unknowing—is built
into the very fabric of the piece. Having been granted this
liberty of unqualified naïveté (which is not so unlike authentic
wonder), I finally feel comfortable asking the group the big
clumsy questions of narrative and theme.
As for narrative, Kaiser replies, “It’s an unbelievably open
framework. There’s definitely a journey you take, but I don’t
know if I’d call it a narrative. You start in one place and
end in another, and when you get there you know you’re there,
but it’s not any more explicit than that.”
Rather than “theme,” the group seem to prefer the term “look,”
of which there are six or seven, each populated with recurrent
elements: man, woman, child, tree, car. More important than
even “looks,” though, are “ways of seeing,” some of which
recur and behave in the piece as a character might. By withholding
the default context of a seemingly mundane scenario, Kaiser
says, “your perception of things is delayed because you have
to make sense of them. It makes you aware of all these elements
of your consciousness and perceptual systems that you normally
aren’t aware of at all.”
This is, however, an objective that can only be verified qualitatively,
by the experience of every viewer who interacts with Upending’s
“psychic landscape.” And, as Goebel says, this sort of project
must openly embrace the prospect of failure for it to approach
its target depth. Still, the whole endeavor is a pretty daunting
proposition. “For most people,” Silver says, “Upending
is going to be really challenging on both the musical
and visual sides. If you just walk in and say ‘3D movie,’
within 10 minutes you’ll be confused and angry. You really
have to open yourself up to it.” The same could be said for
almost anything EMPAC has hosted.
Eshkar, however, doesn’t see the project’s goals as in any
way running counter to cultural tendencies. “People are activated
by this idea of looking,” he says. Whether it’s with 3D Hollywood
movies, GPS, Google Earth, Photosynth, or non-narrative, experimental
works like Upending, “people are getting used to being
able to get visual purchase on things, rotate them, and move
[from macro to micro].” As Silver says, the risk is the catalyst,
and his approach to curation might serve a casual viewer just
as well: “It’s really your responsibility to maintain this
ongoing unknowing where you can never really pin down what
it’s going to be.”
Upending
premieres tonight (March 25) at 7 PM and will run through
Saturday at RPI’s Experimental Media & Performing Arts
Center, 110 Eighth St., Troy, 276-4135.
|