Under Influence/Transformation
On influence, power, and transformation
Peter Hagdahl is an artist and holds a chair as art professor focusing on the new media at the Royal Academy of Arts in Stockholm. His works are shown both in Sweden and internationally. He is the president, and one of the leading forces, of CRAC/SKODK.
Anna Orrghen, M.A., is an art critic and an editor at the journal Material.
|
|
|
It could be said that the prevailing condition of any society is to be constantly in a state of change. The extent of change, and the reasons for it, differ and are more evident during certain periods. A phenomenon often cited as an explanation of societal changes is technological development, with computer technology as the latest in the chain. One way to approach and try to understand these changes and their causes is through the cultural sphere and with the help of art, given that humankind has from the very beginning used art as a means of understanding their surroundings, themselves, and related changes.
Concepts develop and change in the wake of every new technology-the meaning of some change, while other absolutely new ones emerge. The concepts of "virtual," "interactivity," and "artificial" are some of the concepts that have accompanied the development of computer technology. These are concepts which have undergone transformation, exactly like society, in terms of their meaning. Such developments are followed by questions, hopes, and fears. Technology can produce utopian longings or dystopian visions of the future. Regardless of which of these perspectives -passionate affirmation or total denial-we as individuals adopt, according to Martin Heidegger both mean that "we are and remain unfree overall, and chained to technology." The questions remain.
|
|
In 1998 Peter Hagdahl was one of two artists who participated in the
exhibition "Återkomster" (Recurrences), curated by Margaretha Rossholm
Lagerlöf. The other participant in the exhibition, which was part of the
Arkipelag art exhibition series of Stockholm Cultural Capital of Europe
'98, was the architect Katja Grillner. With his work Under
Influence/Transformation, Hagdahl aligned himself with neither the utopian
nor the dystopian perspective. On the contrary, what he did was precisely
to pose questions. By addressing and exploring the relation between the
virtual and physical worlds, or more precisely, the relation between
people's interaction with technology, Hagdahl posed questions such as: What
does it mean to not only perceive a work but to in fact influence it
through one's physical existence, to have influence or be influenced, and
to cause a transformation or to be its effect? |
The viewer was not given the chance to choose freely whether to be a participant in the work or not. The only possibility was not to enter the exhibition room at all. The viewers had already adopted their roles before they understood them. Under Influence/Transformation was characterized by a flow where the moving or stationary subject maintained the system through her presence and positioning in relation to the artificial system of the work. Even if the viewers' participation turned out to have influenced the work's look and even its dimensions, the work, as Hagdahl had decided to construct it, nevertheless remained the base. By means of his original structure, Hagdahl retained control over the interactivity and constituted its kernel. The viewer could thereafter become the transmitter, but the original transmitter-the artist-had determined the conditions. Let's imagine that a viewer has become aware of her participation in the interactive dimension and has had the chance to investigate how her movements influence the projections. Maybe she would then only make certain movements with the aim of achieving a specific result. In such a scenario, the viewer does not maintain the flow-she controls it. The consequence is the diminishing of the artist's power.
Under Influence/Transformation provides a dialogic type of audience participation where the viewer is acting both like an ally and an opponent. An ally in the sense that it is the artist who has determined the parameters for interactivity; an opponent in the moment the viewer notices her own role. Realizing after spending some time in a situation that you are one of the actors is not just relevant in describing technological art. It is a phenomenon to be found in society at large, and from a larger perspective it can be read as a metaphor for the presence of technology in society and how we are influenced by it, which at the same time leads to a societal transformation. At first glance, the title Under Influence/Transformation can seem medium and time-specific, but on closer examination its relation to history, the technological, and the social appears much more complex. The question of power is easier to answer if we limit ourselves to technology where the limits of interactivity-here the fact that the viewer has the ability to move around the work but does not become a fully integrated part of it despite that-touch on the question of power in a clear way.
|
This is not as unequivocal or self-evident from a metaphorical dimension. The question of who stands under who's influence is therefore a difficult one to answer, which means that from this perspective the work becomes more a metaphor for society's complex systems and poses the question of how we influence our surroundings and how they influence us. As human beings, we both influence and are influenced by our surroundings without being conscious of it. |
|
We can therefore say that it is a transformation which in this sense has been going on long before the arrival of technology. Do I have power in the moment that I perceive my influence and choose not to enter the room where Hagdahl's work is housed? Or, in relation to society, do I want to be conscious of my potential to influence? Is my ability to influence my surroundings a chimera? No-it is more an illustration of society's complex structures with regard to power, individuals, and architecture.
To say that everything is fluid and variable is an illusion. Nor is this what Hagdahl is claiming. To say that everything is under influence and transformation is not an illusion. It is our reality, physical as well as digital, and also meaning itself that are confirmed in Hagdahl's work in a subtle way in its moving between concrete technology and the poetic dimension of metaphor.
|
|
To ask the question "Under the influence of whom or what?" is relevant and necessary, but at the same time that the answer seems to be taking form, society changes once again and so do the questions and the answers. Precisely like when the viewer becomes conscious of her participation in Hagdahl's work and she can decide to either continue her interaction with the work or leave the room, the choice of not entering the room makes her an equally powerful ally. I can therefore decide not to go into Hagdahl's exhibition room. But I can never choose not to be influenced by and also exercise an influence in society. |
translation by Sina Najafi and Nina Katchadourian