HeHe
HeHe Works
In his statement “Don't Call it Art” (1) Lev
Manovich
refutes the idea that digital art belongs to the field of contemporary
art, the former being essentially medium based while the later, since
the 1960’s, “has become fundamentally a conceptual
activity”. “Does it then belong to
‘design’?”, Manovich asks. Obviously not:
“Al-though some designers today indeed focus their energy on
systematically investi-gating new representational and communication
possibilities of digital media, these designers represent a very small
percentage of the overall design field. A typical designer simply takes
the client's brief and does something using already established
conventions, techniques, and iconography. Thus to identify
‘digital art’ with design is to wrongly assume that
the
contemporary design field as a whole is devoted to ‘basic
research’ rather than
‘application’.” Is this
true? Or could it be that there is somewhere a territory that serves as
a common ground for both de-signers and artists? Helen Evans et Heiko
Hansen, the HeHe duo, could very well be among the representatives of
this missing link, left aside by Manovich’s far too formalist
approach.
They have developed a concept of Cultural Reverse Engineering, that
raises politi-cal, economical and sociological questions: to study a
device or a software in or-der to modify its initial function is a way
of re-appropriating the technology, in a world where most of us have no
idea of the way everyday objects actually work nor how their cultural
position has changed over time. The workshops they orga-nize to
“teach basic of DIY technologies, to students,
artists and
designers”, can be seen as a concrete application of that
concept. HeHe is clearly related to the Lo Fi philosophy (and it
happens to be the title of one of their works), with its playful, yet
serious, issues.
In one of their early works, Optiball (1999), they transform an
everyday object – in this case, a translucent orthopedic
sitting
ball – into an reactive light installa-tion. “The
work aims
to use digital compass readings to relate our natural orien-tation
senses to a dynamic spacial situation”. Or, as phrased in the
European Art Media Festival catalogue: “Optiballs can be seen
as
a consequent development of office health balls in the last ten
years…”, as part of an alternative definition of
user-friendly, working environments. Another example of this will for
reshaping common spaces is Brix (2001-2006), “a wall of
bricks
that sees what is happening in front of it”: the image of the
passer-by is captured and reflected onto the sur-face, thus changing
constantly the look of the wall. “Brix, prefigures a new form
of
palimpsestual architecture” – but it also raises
questions
on works of art seen as decoration. Light Brix (2001-2006) for
instance, a “modular light system for architecture, which
reacts
to the change in electromagnetic fields generated by touch”,
can
be seen at the same time as a design and an installation: a design, as
the individual units can be assembled into a light architecture and an
installation, because of its digital ephemeral content (one can leave a
“mark” on the light wall) and material form (the
shells are
made of thin plastic “take away” salad boxes and
metal
textile).
Their interest for public space and the ecology of urban planning led
Helen and Heiko to conceive works for public spaces – among
which
Grandes Lignes is the latest example. An earlier intervention was
Waitingsignals (2000), sixteen light tubes reacting to the movements of
the passerby at a bus stop. But more spec-tacular is Lo Fi (2003), that
references 80’s hi-fi systems with its simplified graphic
equalizer. Transforming music into light pulses, the
installation
is plugged into the sound system of a concert room and appears
gradually on the in the same building’s facade. Another
example
is Bruit Rose / Pink Noise (2004), an advertising light box which
reacts to the ambient sound on the street as well as the movement of
the people passing by. Both Lo Fi and Pink Noise raise questions about
nuisance that is specific to city living : noise. But Pink Noise is
also specific in the sense that it turns a piece of urban furniture
inside out – in this case, a commercial billboard. This form
of
re-appropriation finds another expression in the project Train, an
alternative means of public transportation first conceived for the
Paris railway track “La Petite Ceinture”, which
stopped its
service in 1934. Train has been iterated in several versions and
various places, each time adapting itself to an existing tramway or
railroad track.
Another form of nuisance is, of course, air pollution. At the Vanessa
Quang Gal-lery in Paris, HeHe showed their Smoking Lamp (2005), that
uses smoke detec-tors to translate the progressive saturation of the
room by cigarette smoke into colour and sound – and smokers
are
common at art gallery openings. The work underlines, in a humoristic
way, the hypocrisy that leads to the banishment of smokers from all
public places, whilst the atmospheric pollution is getting worse every
day: the ambitious project Nuage vert (in progress for 2008) uses a
laser beam to light up the smoke produced by a public waste
incinerator; utimately, it analyzes the amount of waste being burnt: as
more or less waste is recycled, the colour of the laser changes from
green to red, making the impact on the air qual-ity viewable by
everybody. Champs d’ozone, HeHe’s latest project
for the
Air de Paris exhibition (Paris, Centre Pompidou, April-August 2007)
also refers to air bourne pollution, by focusing on one of its
easy-to-measure but invisible constitu-ents, ozone. In this
installation, the picture of the Paris landscape provided by HeHe
changes constantly, according to the information sent by an air quality
monitoring station (from Airparif). Like in Bruit rose, Helen and Heiko
use techno-logical infrastructures that are existing and available
(even if, unlike the advertis-ing panel, ozone sensors are kept
hidden), and divert them from their original purpose. Both works refer
to the love/hate relationship that often exists between a city and its
inhabitants. As Augustin Berque puts it: “Le paysage
n’est
pas l’environnement lui-même, mais une certaine
relation,
esthétique en l’occurrence, que nous avons avec
lui. La
naissance du paysage n’est autre que la naissance de ce type
de
relation à l’environnement” (2): Champ
d’ozone
could be seen as a reminder that, in the 21st century, the impact of
man on nature has completely changed the colour and essence of this
relationship.
Pierre-Yves Desaive
Juin 2007
1) http://www.manovich.net/
2) “ The landscape is not the environment
itself, but
a particular relation, an aesthetic event which we have with it. The
birth of the landscape is none other than the birth of this type of
relation to the environment. ”
Augustin Berque, Le principe de Zong Bing – paysage et
dépassement de la modernité, unpublished version
(august
2001) from the essay Landscape and the overcoming of modernity,
presented at the International Geographic Union, Seoul, 14-1_
august 2000
|