Critically evaluate Olafur Eliasson’s approach to his work and consider how he has influenced my practice.
The relationship between authors and audiences changes continually after post-structuralism. Authors were considered sovereign for their literature since they had mastered a clearer explanation of the work since the middle ages (Barthes, 1977, p 143). However, Warren (2013, p 84) states that the position of the author is questioned by Post-structuralists. They argue that the audience plays an important role in evaluating the meaning of art, Such as, Roland Barthes’s the death of the author (1977). It is acceptable that audiences participate in the realm of art (Bagley, 2008, p.53–72 cited in Warren 2013, p. 84). For example, ‘My work is completely depended on the spectators turning ideas into arts’ (Eliasson, 2017). Eliasson deems to audiences as a 'co-productor' in his installation arts. This essay will argue that the relationship between artists and spectators is more collaborative in the creation of installation art than only artists and use Eliasson’s The Weather Project (2006) as a key example of how to deal with this relationship successfully in his work. This essay will first look at that Eliasson invited audiences to The Weather Project (2006), then the essay will discuss that the audience becomes a potential ‘rebirth of the author’. Finally, those ideas of audiences as 'co-productor ' would influence my installation art.
The audience’s voice is one of the factors to construct installation art by analysing Eliasson’s artworks. Installation art is described that an art form is combined with integrated material and media to be displayed in a special space in a period (Parker,1991). One of the reasons demonstrates that installation art accesses the public is because most installation artworks are displayed in public spaces such as parks, museums and shopping malls. As a result, the condition benefits people to assess it closely, and people discuss each other in the space naturally. What is more, more and more artists invite and embrace voice from the audiences in their installation artworks, which means that the artists can listen and adopt to voice from their spectators. Therefore, the artists create the work no longer by themselves and accept the discourse from their visitors. However, Barthes (1977, p 143) argues that the authors attempt to relinquish power in their works, although they are still in power. For example, Eliasson is a famous artist described by his peers, specializing in installation art. He deems that the audiences are the identity of the “co-producer” in his artworks and that the art world is fairly democratic. This is because his process of creating art encounters multiple voices from people such as specialists, his teammates, and the visitors. They would influence and decide the result of the work. ( Eliasson et.al. 2008, p 114). An example of this is, One of his installation artwork, The Weather Project (2003) starting self-consciousness about climate change (Eliasson, 2017) showed in figure 1. The artwork was constructed by an artificial sun making by 200 mono frequency lights (I would explain the function of light in the next paragraph), mirrors, artificial mist, and visitors displaying in Tate Modern, London, attracting 2 million people during six-month (Hornby. 2017, p 72). Eliasson collaborated with employees at Tate Modern, which he designed a questionnaire for them and then the result was published in this exhibition and formal conferences being the part of the work ( Eliasson et.al. 2008, p 122). The questions included: ‘Has a weather phenomenon ever changed the course of your life dramatically? Do you think tolerance to other individuals is proportional to the weather?’ Those could be explained that Eliasson focuses on ‘the user and context’ (Eliasson et.al. 2008, p 113). Therefore, The external condition comes from a public characteristic in installation art, and the internal comes from the awareness of artists. Those conditions nurture their audiences’ voices in the work and those also are the start that the relationship of authors and audiences is dependent on each other. Next, l will discuss that the audiences develop more meanings in installation art.
Audiences make installation art reborn again since diverse audiences infuse the work with new meanings with their experiences. Barthes (1977) claims when readers read a text, it can develop diverse explanations in the text because there are different meanings in a different context with personal experience for a word. Because of this, an installation artwork is no more than the version that was created by the first artist, after participating by the visitors. There are two views to make the work reborn again. Firstly, ‘ the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author’ for giving future for writing (Barthes. 1977, p 143), which means that readers need to remove the author from the text when they read their works. For instance, readers do not need to associate with the characteristics, background and story of the author. Hence, the readers can understand the context in their way. Secondly, Eliasson considers that his artworks have been reborn by guiding audiences to perceive their experience with his artworks. He focuses on the experiences in audiences, and he (2017) states ‘changing the way of experience means changing the world’. Eliasson is interested in that people connect different experiences in his works and he is willing to involve different voices as a part of his works. For instance, The Weather Project (2003) is greatly focusing on experience in audiences from the material and concept. Figure 2 illustrates that the only light source is from around 200 mono frequency lights in the space as if the sunset (Eliasson et.al. 2008, p 113) and Eliasson (2007) explains the mono frequency lights can let the audiences pay attention to his experience since the light can filter multiple colors and remain one color here. Then, the mirror on the top of the space is a good way to communicate the audiences with themselves because they always can find a sense of belonging here. Eliasson deems that the work can contain different voices and experiences to develop itself. From his interview, certain visitors said ‘Oh, my God. This is doom and gloom. It is about apocalypse(the end of the world)’, And other visitors said ‘Oh, it is about contemplative spirituality and I need to do some yoga’. Those voices coexist in the work, as ‘he hands over the responsibility for experiencing the artwork to the participant’ (Eliasson, 2017). Consequently, the experiences and voices from the spectators reproduce the artwork and they endow the work with diverse possibilities with different audiences. In order words, they become the ‘co-author’ after the original artist. I will introduce that I collaborate with my visitors to finish my artwork in the next part.
I conceive my artwork through connecting among people. The concept in Wavelet (2019) explores a way that is 'non-language', communication without speaking, to make the audiences together. This is because I find that certain people living in the big city feel alone and people communicate with others by speaking all the time. The interactive installation art, then, relates the concept because it could give feedback to the audiences when they participate in the work. In addition, there are many possibilities to happen when audiences counter each other. Especially, My inspiration comes from The Weather Project (2003), which makes me feel huge cohesion for the audiences while they came to this space but they also expressed an individual voice here. Eliasson (2007) describes that he uses nature as a topic in his work because people are familiar with nature. Thus the audiences can make sense of the work. However, I consider that waves can connect with people, since, with the wave rise or drop, the wave produces the same wavelength for humans by this nonverbal communication. It seems to be a constant wave but it stores up this infinite energy to associate people in the area. As in the following example, Wavelet (2019) is a mechanical lighting interaction installation. It will be lit immediately demonstrated by figure 3 when the light source becomes closer to each water-drop lamp. This would be transmitted to the surrounding water-drop lamps. A visible light wave then extends to the edge of the device. The installation bears qualities like water constructing by 1,300 interactive water-drop lamps, which are sensitive and inclusive, hoping to reconnect the viewers and to guide them to sense and feel their surrounding environment and people. Wavelet (2019) divides two parts. One is that the work was finished by the artist, another is that the audiences would explore continually its possibility. Thus, they are the authors too. The audiences reproduced Wavelet (2019) by interacting with the work because every audience could use light and choose different colors that represent themselves to lit the work. Moreover, figure 4 shows that the interaction by spectators is a process of hybridity when lights could encounter together from different audiences. There are different outcomes created by the audiences each time as if every leaf is different in the world. Therefore, although the audiences stayed in the same space (Wavelet, 2019), the audiences could explain this work with their experiences (Barthes. 1977, p 148) and they also could find their belonging here. To sum up, I use Wavelet (2019) to explore the relationship between the author and the audience. The audiences help me to extend further steps for the work. I consider that the audiences not only interact with installation art but also interact with the author.
In conclusion, although the people who create the art originally, were considered the sole author in the tradition because it is generally believed that the author could explain the original meaning clearly. However, the people ignore the relationship that exists between the author and the audience, which can transform bilaterally. This essay proves that there is a ‘rebirth of the author’ in installation art by using Barthes’s theory, Eliasson’s concept and practice and my practice. However, the artists embrace the voice from the audience as the first step, which would change the meaning of art. But the essay limits to analyse installation art.
Referencing
Barthes, R. (1977) Image, music, text, Fontana, ISBN-0006861350.
Cruz, C. (2015) Democracy : a (non) artistic intervention? : attempts to perform democracy through art. Goldsmiths College (University of London). doi: 10.25602/GOLD.00012485.
Eliasson, O. Engberg-Pedersen, A. and Ursprung, P.(2008) STUDIO OLAFUR ELIASSON An Encyclopedia, TASCHEN, ISBN-13 978 3 8228 4426 7978 3 8365.
Hornby, L. (2017) ‘Appropriating the Weather’, Environmental humanities, 9(1), pp. 60–83. doi: 10.1215/22011919-3829136.
Interview with Eliasson, O. (2017), Abstract - The Design of Art by Olafur Eliasson, The Design of Art, [online video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ymlsUynpmI&list=PLkolfYRdihDZ7571OkFD_IWbpmIRhQ3TZ&index=1 [Accessed 22/8/2021].
Parker, C. (1991), ART TERM INSTALLATION ART. Available at:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P3uCs7tDdj0J:https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/installation-art+&cd=11&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=ca (Accessed 22/8/2021).
Warren, S. (2013) ‘Audiencing James Turrell's "Skyspace": encounters between art and audience at Yorkshire Sculpture Park’, Cultural geographies, 20(1), pp. 83–102. doi: 10.1177/1474474012458397.