|
INTERVIEW with Tina LaPorta
Enculturation, Vol.
3, No. 1, Fall 2000
About
the Artist Table of
Contents
Q1.
davidRieder -> How or where do you situate your work as a media artist?
. . . who are your audiences . . .
i situate my work in overlapping, sometimes contradictory spaces--both
ideological and physical. my work has crossed over from old
media to new, private space to public--interweaving techno-theory
with feminist perspectives concerning subjectivity.
in 1996 i produced an experimental television show that aired on
manhattan cablevision. in this on-going series i took on the role of
the flaneur, moving through the emerging high-tech spaces in new york
city underscoring my anonymous presence and heightened sense of
alienation, here.
in terms of the site, or the medium and it's distribution capacity: i
was intrigued by the idea that a tv channel surfer could accidentally
happen upon my program unknowingly. they may not even be aware of the
fact that what they were viewing was intentionally created as an art
piece. but, by becoming mesmerised by the visuals and sounds, the
viewer would become aware that what they were watching was radically
different from the overproduced, anti-individual, commercial programs
casting only one channel away on either side of the spectrum.
i saw creating work intended for cable television as a form of
site-specific public art. but what really intrigued me even more than
just that, was the fact that this public art was viewed within the
private space of one's home. this placement of a public medium within
the 'private' zone of the home creates a curious dynamic of
displacement. creating the ability to have a kind of distant access
to the public realm. always being just outside of it, unable or
unwilling to immerse oneself completely in the space of the public
which the container of the home can provide.
(in some ways i see this public/private interplay an extension of the
feminist reference: 'the personal is political' . . . something i
witnessed first-hand while photographing during the height of the
anti-abortion protests at women's health clinics in the late 80s,
early 90s.)
i continue to use a public form situated within the private realm as
my primary medium in my current internet-based work. this is
especially visible in my work Distance where i become a voyeur in
CU-seeme video conferencing forums then morphing into full
participation in my latest work-in-progress. it is within this zone
of synchronous, multi-linear remote communication where i find myself
exploring expressions of identity and sexuality on the internet.
Q2.
davidRieder -> Of the five senses, sight is still the predominate "interface" through
which users interact with themselves and with each other in computer
environments. Visuality seems to be an important concept or metaphor in
several of your works. In the explanation of your project, translate{}
expression, linked off of net.works + avatars, I read you to imply that it
was the way in which the computer interface makes visible "that which is
generally hidden" that led you to an understanding of how the "organic and
the mechanic come in to contact--blurring the boundaries between the
two." And, on the first page of your project, Shifting, a haunting,
looping voiceover makes an implicit argument about the (im)materiality of
sight when it states, "In . . . Visible . . . In . . . Visible." Read in
conjunction with several other pages in which the fragments of images of a
woman are animated in disconnected sequences, you seem to be using
visuality as a thematic vehicle in your explorations.
Can you expand on the role of the visual--of the in/visible--in your
work? How else does the visuality of code open up new understandings and
experiences of the body and subjectivity? Do you see this focus
changing in your work?
one of the more significant bodies of work i developed after my
photo-documentary project Choice, (1989-1992) was Translate { }
Expression, 1994.
informed by the politicization of women's reproductive capacity, the
impulse toward individual, special interest and state control of
women via their bodies, a strong sense of alienation emerged within
me.
while developing my work in a somewhat high-tech computer environment
i began to feel that sense of alienation re-emerge. working with
computer software intended for industrial design embeded within a
unix based operating system proved to be a very different experience
from immersing myself within a real-world political conflict. both
were very different contexts, to be sure, but still finding myself
working with a machine of sorts be it actual or symbolic.
there is no doubt that my interest in representing the struggle for
reproductive autonomy present in women that i explored in the single
image works in 'Translate { } Expression' would not have been created
with out my previous experience making 'Choice.' one difference in
'Translate { } Expression' was my development of a machine aesthetic.
the constant feeling of alienation from the outside world through my
immersion in a technologically based environment was expressed by
creating an "alien" other. was this wire-frame model to be a stand-in for myself?
in the sound piece which accompanies the visual work, i mimicked the
scenario of the "pygmalion." creating an invisible situation where
the stereotypical male programmer sitting at a computer creates for
his own pleasure a she-bot. she is the creation of his code, whose
existence is dependant on his mastery of the technology--she says, "you
can reboot me, don't unplug me."
this work marks a struggle for me in the representation of female
subjectivity as fully expressed or even acknowledged by the other. my
ambivalence as to whether technology, either as an artistic tool or a
social construction, will drown out our voices or be used to amplify
them is evident here.
Q3.
matthewLevy -> One way of envisioning one's practice . . . is in terms of conversation.
Are there particular writers and artists with whom you see yourself
engaging in a conversation via your work?
conversation.
my work Distance emerges out of the dislocation of conversation.
while lurking on CU-seeme reflector sites, i observed real-time
conversations unfolding amongst intimate strangers logged on from
dispersed geographical locations. mesmerized by not only the stream
of video displaying pixelated images of each participant, but also
being taken in by the flow of text appearing on my screen--i wanted
to understand the ways in which identity was being expressed, played
out and revealed through this emerging medium.
at the same time, i was reading luce irigaray's book 'i love to you.'
in this text she looks at gender differences in expressions of
subjectivity through spoken communication. it was through my
simultaneous reading of irigaray and a growing obsession logging
onto CU that i began to develop not only the visual structure of
Distance by also the conceptual layering of the text.
in irigaray's text she points to the avoidance of "elle" as an active
subject in language. in thinking along these lines, i was intrigued
by the ways in which women communicated and how they were received as
active participants by the other(s) in this space. while
constructing the text for Distance, i articulated the position of the
narrator as female, although leaving the mystery of her visual
identity intact.
extending the conversation.
in my work, Distance in Real-Time: an
eye to the ear remix, i composed a series of
questions concerned with how we use communication technologies: do we
use these media to facilitate and extend communication or as a tool
for the avoidance of contact, or intimacy between each other? One question i posed was: is technology a veil?
"Just another mask to put on. A shell, a veil, call it what you will. A wall."
- Jun-Ann Lam
in the spirit of CU interactions and by opening a dialog amongst
geographically dispersed individuals in the field of new media art, i
sent this series of questions to several e-mail lists. this initiated
a process of opening my work up to a public, integrating their
responses to my inquiries into my working methodology. thus bringing
an exterior view upon my own internal reflections.
speaking subjects.
without the mediation of the internet, in Distance in Real-Time: an
eye to the ear remix, i open the conversation up in RL with an
emphasis on the voice. here again, i pose similar questions
concerning our relationship with technology to other media artists
and theorists who live and work in new york city.
while working with individual audio files i proceed to cut and paste
their responses into a new document, creating an aural dialogue that
simulates a conversation that could easily occur in a CU chat room.
the result becomes a self-reflexive dialog which articulates the
nuances of living in a society obsessed with technology. will these
contemporary technological advancements in communications brings us
closer together or in contrast, pull us further apart?
Q4.
edrieSobstyl -> tina, i'm especially intrigued by this part of your response:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Tina LaPorta wrote:
> the 'private' zone of the home creates a curious dynamic of
> displacement. creating the ability to have a kind of distant access
> to the public realm. always being just outside of it, unable or
> unwilling to immerse oneself completely in the space of the public
> which the container of the home can provide.
> (in some ways i see this public/private interplay an extension of the
> feminist reference: 'the personal is political' . . .
i used to be a radio broadcaster, so the idea of distant access to
the public realm appeals to me--and i believe that access is present in
many/most contemporary "household" technologies (radio, tv, telephone,
perhaps even anything electric). from a feminist perspective, i wonder
what the political potential or goal of this public/private interplay can
be--it seems to me that being *unwilling* to immerse oneself in the space
of the public from the safety of the home could be given a fairly
conventional, stereotyped feminine reading, while being *unable* to do so
could be given a directly patriarchal one. what i'm trying to press you on
is this: for feminist politics, is flaneuring enough? do we seek to break
down the artificial and often oppressive barrier between public and
private, or to continually reinscribe it?
for feminist politics, is flaneuring enough?
good question.
is being present enough? is speaking enough? is activism enough? is art enough?
ultimately, i think that feminist artists will always be criticized
especially by other feminists for not being or doing enough for
feminism. we will always be thought of as lacking in our
effectiveness in bringing the feminist project forward in the public
sphere, irregardless of our own economically impoverished state.
when i was photographing anti-abortionists blockading women's health
clinics i did not take on the role of an activist per se. although
it might be easy to say that i was merely a voyeur, but the truth is
that i was never a neutral observer. i knew exactly how i felt about
this phenomenon--the politicization of an extremely personal
circumstance, and so i set out to represent this through visual
means.
was my art enough? are my eyes enough? is my voice enough?
in one sense i say no, it was not enough. not because i wasn't out
there physically helping women access clinics but because there were
almost no public outlets for the distribution of my work either
within the art-world or outside of it in mainstream and feminist
press. consequently, a public dialog that my work could have
initiated never occurred.
is the medium enough?
my television program was mostly a meditation on being present.
sustaining a presence in the physical realm of the city then
distributing my subjective experiences via cable casting to an
anonymous public. this work carried no overt political viewpoint,
although using this mass medium for artistic means certainly carried
with it cultural-political implications. this period marked a more
internal contemplative period for me and the work reflects this back.
is the internet enough?
this remains to be seen. an unfinished work, an unanswered question.
Q5.
edrieSobstyl -> i appreciate the depth with which you've answered this
question, and the important questions you raise at the end of your
discussion. in particular, this one:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:42:52 -0400 Tina LaPorta wrote:
> will these
> contemporary technological advancements in communications brings us
> closer together or in contrast, pull us further apart?
as you know, there's a lively debate among tech studies folk
about this very issue--one that's taken on new form with the advent of
cybertech, but which has been with us for 2 centuries in various forms.
i'm asking you to speculate on your own rhetorical question--what do
*you* think these advancements will do?
i'm asking you to speculate on your own rhetorical question--what do
you think these advancements will do?
> will these contemporary technological advancements in communications
> brings us closer together or in contrast, pull us further apart?
i sense a disconnection. from others and from our selves.
we are trying, rather desperately i'd say, to make a connection using any
techno apparatus we can get our hands on.
make a call and leave a message on an answering machine. be sure to call
when you know she won't be in to pick up. avoid direct communication.
how many e-mail addresses do you have?
busy, busy, busy . . . can't get through 'til you log off the net.
voice mail . . . some one pick up the phone, please!
have you ever tried to "reach" someone with a cell phone? always available
never accessible. trying to make contact with absence seems to be the
name of the game these days. underscoring our failed attempts to communicate.
once a connection has been established, bits and pieces of words dropping
out are barely heard dispersed between gaps of silence and strange echo's . . .
the texture of the technology appears to make a stronger statement than it's
user.
technology has taken center stage and we are just the audience here.
caught up in some kind of illusion of connectivity.
is the apparatus to blame for our communication breakdowns, or are we?
how do we know who we are any more? who has time for contemplation,
reflection?
we're so busy working to pay off our cell phone bills, hardware upgrades,
software upgrades, more ram, faster net connection, etc. . . . there's no time
left to initiate contact with an other.
what is intimacy? where can i find it?
think of cybersex . . . that which enables the possibility of having an active
sex life without any physical contact whatsoever. safe sex for sure. so safe
there isn't any room for emotions here anyway. what does it mean to enjoy
the presence of an other when it's their absence we are most engaged with?
it's our choice to remain distant.
do you sense an emotional vacancy with the majority of people you encounter
in RL anyway? it's as if we're all tuning in to different channels, none of which
transmit a signal back to the other.
Q6.
davidRieder -> In the statement at the end of your piece, Distance, two sentences stand
out. The first is at the very top, the second at the bottom. The first is
a quote from Irigaray: "Women are the guardians of communication." The
second, a personal observation: "While observing a constant stream of
simultaneous video and chat, an intersubjectivity emerges--a syntax
unique to on-line culture."
Can you expand on any possible connections or disconnections between
these two statements? In the latter statement, I hear you saying that you
observed (experienced?) the emergence of an intersubjectivity out of the
"constant stream," the flow, of communication. What are some of the
impacts of this kind of emergence for women? For men?
I hear you saying that you observed (experienced?) the emergence of
an intersubjectivity out of the "constant stream," the flow, of
communication. What are some of the impacts of this kind of emergence
for women? For men?
for one, as an artist "this emergence" has opened up my work to an
audience that may never be exposed to my ideas in any other situation
precisely because the internet appears to be more democratic than
traditional art world structures. through this medium i have emerged
as an artist situating myself amongst my peers positioned on a global
scale. within this context i have been a part of an on-going,
unfolding dialog which is just as crucial to the development of my
work as it's distribution.
sure, there are still old world biases and anxieties present in
individuals on-line but that seldom affects the ability for the work
to show through. this is not the case however, when the traditional
art world intervenes and presents itself on the web. in this
situation, the same old scenarios of inclusion/exclusion apply.
another, entirely different situation that comes to mind, is that of
expressions of identity and sexuality on-line specifically on the
level of personal interaction. the net offers the ability to remove
physical risk from any social equation, within this context
experimentation and other non-physical forms of risk are able to
(re)surface. this is of particular interest and appeal for women
today.
logging onto a CU-seeme sex chat room, you will notice that there are
still very few women present. as usual, being a woman, the attention
from all the men in the room is directed at her. (this may not be the
case in RL where more barriers are up.) some men appear to confuse
the open chat rooms with sex clubs. the women who log on are not
professionals, they are not present exclusively for male pleasure,
but are seeking the possibility for an alternative form of pleasure
for themselves through interaction and engagement. once engagement is
initiated, there is the possibility of remaining in the public room
or "going private." either way, this presents an entirely different
form of sexual interaction for women who exist outside the sex/porn
industry. the ability to explore anonymous and spontaneous sex in the
safety of her own home without physical risk, may grow in appeal for
women.
Q7
davidRieder -> One final question: where do you see your work moving towards in the next few years?
while most of the work i'm currently developing is net-specific, i'm
increasingly becoming interested in bringing the virtual back into
the domain of the real.
for example, i recently presented a performance piece which was an
extension of a work that i'm currently developing through my
residency at the alternative museum. in this new work, i have been
recording many internet-based artist's and theorist's vocal responses
to a series of questions i pose to them concerning communication and
expressions of identity on the internet. these ideas first began with
my piece Distance which used CU-seeme reflector sites as a point of
departure.
the performance took this structure and format and conceived of it in
a real-time setting layering both live and remote audience
participation. a month or so prior to the performance event, i sent
out a call for remote participation to a couple of new media related
e-mail lists i'm active on. i asked the participants to log on to a
specific CU reflector site during the night of the performance.
in the performance space the remote participant's responses to my
inquiries were seen and read simultaneously with the responses of a
live member of the audience. through the microphone, her voice was
intentionally echoed to mirror the dual realities simultaneously
present in the performance space.
unlike my web-specific work, this piece opened up my working process,
rendering it visible to the audience present. it also offered me an
opportunity to experiment with a different format--performing my
process in real-time rather than uploading my files for archival viewing.
|
Copyright © Enculturation 2000
Home |
Contents 3:1 |
Editors |
Issues
About |
Submissions |
Subscribe |
Copyright |
Review |
Links
|