On “Vibrations” by Olafur Eliasson
On Vibrations by Olafur Eliasson
December 12,
2007
written for: History of Architectural
Theory//Mark Wigley//
Columbia University, Graduate School of
Architecture, Planning & Preservation
Introduction
The Model
The Model, Vibrations, YES and “Your
Colour Memory”
And After the Model…
Olafur
Eliasson’s large-scale installations encompass an awareness of and a
sensitivity to the public’s interaction with the artistic work. Using elements
occurring naturally in nature—water, air, light —and scientific
methods to evidence their behavior, the works aim to engage the viewer in an
entire experience of space that toys with adapted modes of perception. “Vibrations”
is one of the limited number of Eliasson’s published pieces that actually
employs text to describe the philosophy and the theory that kindle the
intention of his artistic endeavors. The composition strives to investigate
Eliasson’s outlook on the current tendencies of perceiving experiences,
phenomena, and objects. Eliasson introduces a model that sets forth time as an
ignored—but central—factor in current perception. According to
Eliasson, the current mode of perception can be altered with his model to
negotiate a more engaging experience with and in spaces.
“Vibrations”
introduces Eliasson’s theory that perceive the world as a constant flux of movement;
a field of vibrations. There is a continual “relationship of co-production”
between an individual and respective surroundings, and this relationship exists
through mutable bonds and recurrent negotiations.[1] The world as a field of
vibrations signifies the lack of stagnancy, singularity, solid objectification,
or fixity. People, objects, and experiences do not exist as temporally linear
trajectories. Rather, just as vibrations reverberate and pulsate, all
experiences, actions, and phenomena exist in relation to context, to time, and
to one another. Subsequently, they emerge, take course, die and ultimately,
undulate amongst one another, thus engendering effects and consequences.
Furthermore, through awareness of time in the daily navigation of life, both
memory and expectation play a prodigious role in shaping a highly individual engagement
with life. The consequence of this magnification of these vibrations is that
“one may create a different viewpoint—likewise, of course, a construction—from
which alternative spatial conceptions may appear.”[2] Eliasson’s art
installation, “Your Colour Memory”, which can almost be seen as a sort
of projection of his theory, permits the viewer to be immersed in a luminous
bath of colored light that constantly shifts gradients and shades. In fact,
“paramount for Eliasson is that whatever resources he chooses to deploy will
produce events and effects that affirm their… irrecuperability, that resist
commodification and objectification.” [3] The space, flooded with an
all-encompassing colored illumination, demands that time alters each individual
experience with the perception of the light’s color.
YES
(Your Engagement Sequence) is developed by Eliasson as a potential tool to enhance
an individualized experience of life through this perception and awareness of vibrations.
The term attempts to describe the implications of engagement with time. YES can
be interpreted as a device, to be employed in every personal experience that
would inevitably deal with time, that negotiates a more involved relationship
with the encountered experience or element. Eliasson advocates the benefits of
incorporating YES into perception.
Eliasson
makes comparative statements that relate YES to human existence, but he fails to
provide, as he has done with the quotidian examples sprinkled throughout the
essay, a simple and clear definition of YES. In such a way, the lack of a
definition is a safety net and a defense mechanism. This allows for the details
of YES to be interpreted on individual terms by each reader, permitting
Eliasson to set forth his idea without specifying precise boundaries that could
possibly be challenged by another person. Similarly, throughout the essay,
Eliasson’s textual presentation of his theory is often punctured with lack of
clarity and definition. These ruptures manifest themselves in segments that are
difficult to understand, and involve essential terminology that is employed
without being defined. Despite these shortcomings, Eliasson’s theory of vibrations
and Your Engagement Sequence propose a new and individual mode of perception,
intense and charged in their potential to amplify the experience of experience.
“Vibrations”
emerged in several comprehensive exhibition catalogues of Eliasson’s work in
2006. The essay is offered in a compilation of texts of other writers, mostly
sequences of texts that analyze Eliasson as an artist and his creations. The
essay precedes the series of images of the artwork in the catalogues; it is not
published alone, but instead as a preliminary complement to the frenzy of
images that follows. With an exception of one passage of the essay, there is no
organizational structure to it—no subtitles, no list of contents,
creating the illusion of a simple, cohesive text. Instead the text seems to
address three deviant agendas and can almost be broken down into several
portions. The distinctions occurring in the text include the preface; a
systematic six-item list of Eliasson’s model and the focal point around which
the other so-called chapters are oriented; an investigation, including
scientific input, of the world as a field of vibrations and waves; and an
analysis of art practice and the socio-cultural influence of the role of the
institution in art.
The Preface
Eliasson opens the preface, not with his own words, but with
a quotation from Buckminster Fuller. Within this quote, the direction of
Eliasson’s composition is announced, for he cites a part of the quote in
capital letters:
- UNIVERSE IS NOT CONFORMING TO A THREE-DIMENSIONAL PERPENDICULAR-PARALLEL
FRAME OF REFERENCE.[4]
Eliasson’s usage of Fuller’s quote as an introduction to his
own writing serves to establish a clear and reverent regard for Fuller. While
this is a humble gesture, it is also a strategic move that utilizes Fuller’s
high visibility and affiliation with a cross-disciplinary exploration of
science, architecture and space, as a way to gain the reader’s trust. Eliasson aligns
himself with Fuller by employing Fuller’s quote, which uses the entire field of
physics research to back up his statement, to substantiate his own theory of
the world as a field of vibrations. Placing this quotation under the spotlight
also emphasizes Eliasson’s desire to be identified as a figure reinterpreting
spheres of the scientific.
Following
Fuller’s quote, Eliasson proceeds: “Everything is, I believe,
situated within a process—everything is in motion, with a faster
or slower speed, and everything is colored by intentionality.”[5] The
introduction describes the idea of “everything’s” involvement in constant motion,
evolution and an intrinsic relationship to time. In this statement, Eliasson describes
the world as a field of vibrations. At the onset of his text, Eliasson has
already inserted a reference in the first-person. The fragment “I believe”
returns ownership of the text to Eliasson; Fuller’s influence has been
presented and at this point, Eliasson demands the reader’s attention back to
his own ideas. At the same time, while Eliasson makes a strong opening
statement that encompasses “everything”, he also forewarns the reader that his
writing is not a truth, but an opinion, thus alleviating himself from the heavy
responsibility of asserting a generalized truth. He then goes on to explain
what he intends by making the claim of “everything.” He does so by employing
inclusive pronouns—“…it is also applicable when we are dealing
with something personal…”[6] This involves the reader, allowing the reader a shared
sentiment, an alignment with Eliasson. He continues to utilize the pronouns
“we”, “us” and “our” throughout the essay, thus establishing a direct
connection and fostering a sense of community with the reader. The problematic
issue that Eliasson poses is the disconnection from time and objectification
that modern society imposes in the network of spaces, phenomena,
institutions and relationships. He clearly recognizes current societal networks
as the core dilemma and the root of the ubiquitous disconnection and
unawareness experienced, for they truncate time as a crucial factor of
perception. It is these social constructions and customs, erected by cultural institutions,
which are the weighty impediments to an unadulterated perceptive experience of life.
The result is that “…our senses are not used to experiencing time or temporal
sequences, and we have thus become accustomed to regarding objects as being
timeless… the rules we have constructed for the creation of a common space come
to lose their content…They become normative and start to reproduce themselves
incessantly in versions that only become more and more formalistic.”[7]
Eliasson
refers to current times, but as he identifies the dilemmas and the mute ways of
experiencing the world, caused and prolonged by the procedures of modern society,
he is already making a statement that modern society is a passing era. He sets
himself apart from these authoritative machines by diagnosing their mechanisms
and criticizing them as inhibitory. He infers that the future—and an
acceptance of his ideas on changing modes of perception—can initiate
positive redefinition of humans and relationships to objects and space. In
order to grant accessibility to this language, Eliasson provides examples that
portray his ideas in more quotidian and conventional scenarios. In this case,
he refers to the entertainment industry, and the constraints of its commercial
aims, as an example of a sphere of society that inflicts this divide between
objects and time. By expressing lament towards the deficiencies of modern-day
society, Eliasson embeds within the reader the desire for a tool to navigate a
more engaged experience of life; an opportune gap in which his model offers a
powerful proposition.
The Model
Artist or scientist? The theory highlights the hovering
uncertainty of Eliasson’s position as an artist or a scientist. While he is
commonly regarded as an artist, within the theory he has positioned himself
more as a scientist, hungry to breed changes and yet mindfully cautious and calculating
in his scientific postulations. Eliasson’s scheme for innovating the human relationship
with time takes form in an ordered, and hierarchical list. His model follows,
as his opening statement claims, a process; a series of steps that occurs over
time, serving to investigate the development of an idea. It is expressed in a
format that divides these six steps into a numerical sequence. Each step is
defined by a subtitle. This systematic template attempts to follow an
organizational method, of bite-sized steps, that induce a more accessible
digestion on the reader. Additionally, drawing upon the scientific references
Eliasson has made, the list follows an organizational strategy that has become
a standard in scientific discourses. The chronological hierarchy of the list
itself emphasizes his insistence on time as an inseparable element from all. The
first component addresses the idea. The investigation begins by
pronouncing several “facts” that Eliasson assumes the reader and him agree
upon: “We may agree on the fact that the development of an idea…is
processual, that is, occurs over time… the idea that a thought could be
conceived without taking time into consideration does not make any sense.”[8]
While Eliasson makes these assumptions, he also exposes his apprehension to outwardly
claiming his ideas as an authoritative absolute. This also adds to the air of
modesty and humbleness that Eliasson has already introduced to the reader and
that he continues to insert in sips of shy assertions.
The
repetition of “we may” and “I think” is prevalent throughout the essay. Also occurring
frequently throughout the essay, in contrast to these polite and humble
accessories, are bold, definitive statements. Thus, a juxtaposition in tone of
modesty and assertiveness, a combination of imperatives/avowals and
suppositions, is created. The result can almost be seen as a sort of
passive-aggressive voice, a rhythmic dynamic that utilizes these two different
tones to try to convince the reader. Similarly, Eliasson also shifts between
more convoluted, complex thoughts and simple examples that grant accessibility
to the reader. This is evident in the first step of his model. Providing simple
examples of basic, daily activities that occur over time enable his scheme to
be read through familiar routines. Indeed, all the components of our life rituals
are processes; continually kinetic actions, not distinct or disparate singular
moments. The second step discusses the application of form to the idea. Here,
Eliasson describes the process in which the communication of an idea takes
place through an objectification, the application of a “formal language.”[9] As
a side note to this portion of the model, Eliasson also comments that many
ornamental iterations, void of content and meaning, can also emerge from this
step of the process. His matter-of-fact tone—“they simply find
pleasure in the formal gymnastics themselves, expressing nothing but the
décor value…”expose his disdain for work that can be categorized as such.[10] Here,
Eliasson creates a distinction between such craftsmen of superficial work and
himself. He implies that he possesses knowledge to distinguish between work
with content and work of decorative intent, and that his own work bears strong
intention to express meaning. Subsequently, Eliasson also implies that his
model consists of substantial depth and significance.
The
third step, titled “the communication of the idea” sets forth the idea
that the expression of an idea accumulates, both inadvertently and
intentionally, “formal dimensions and layers regardless of whether I like them
or not.”[11] Eliasson’s confession that the unexpected and unintended become an
inevitable part of the communication of the idea reveals his own subjection to
the consequences of communication. By using himself and his work as an example,
he supports his claim that forms are temporal and in constant flux with their surroundings.
This corresponds to his idea of the vibrations; that in fact, the
continual cause- and-effect
and all-encompassing mutability sets up the security of unending inconstancy.
Once again, singularity and autonomy are obsolete ideas; there is always a
connection to other contexts, things, people and situations that create an
enduring network of ripples and waves. He continues: “In this way, time adds a
great amount of relativity to any form… and the suggestion that form
exists at all as a static, final language becomes obsolete.”[12] As a complex
and expansive idea, relativity is at the core of Eliasson’s discourse, yet he
fails to explicate clearly his own terms of its extents. It can be presumed
that Eliasson refers to another pillar of scientific postulation: Einstein’s
theory of relativity. His statement, building upon the theory of vibrations,
employs Einstein’s idea of relativity as corroboration that nothing exists independent
of anything else. Instead, everything proceeds relative to other elements, and
even space and time are not absolutes but are framed by reference to
“everything else.” In the third step, Eliasson postulates that muffling time
has been largely due to the aims of capitalism. To expound his view that overthrowing
such a system is a positive move, he insists that he is certain that this will
change. These assertiveness of this affirmation contrasts with the modesty of
his suppositions, add to the strategic rhythm of his composition.
The
fourth step addresses the idea that time is individual. Time is
experienced differently through each individual. Eliasson enunciates that
sensory stimulation and even life in itself are distinctive movements in the
field of vibrations, that affect the field and are perceived by each individual
diversely. This step is a key tenet of Eliasson’s model and a potent and
meaningful one. This segment upholds the importance of a personalized, intimate
and deeper relationship with a world constantly in motion. It is the preservation
of this unique and diverse experience that he emphasizes. In pushing forward
the idea that experience of time is different for each person, Eliasson creates
a simple example to illustrate this thought and to make it accessible to the
reader. Within the example, he offers himself as sacrifice by considering his
own mortality: “Death arrests the temporality of my body… and I would therefore
argue that it seems responsible to talk about your time and my time…”[13] The gesture
works to amplify the sense of intimacy that Eliasson aims to create between the
reader and himself by addressing both parties directly. His capacity to speak
about his own death is transmitted with such candor and lack of inhibition,
highlighting his own serious stance on the theory and opening up a door to the
reader to believe it as well.
Throughout
the passage, Eliasson, in direct dialogue with the reader continues: “Not only
our immediate experiences are a subjective matter; our memories and
expectations also have a highly individual impact on how we perceive what we
see.”[14] These segments of the theory touch upon powerful considerations that
suggest the profundity and potency of maintaining individualized and personal
experience. Experience, as do all other elements within Eliasson’s model of the
world as a field of vibrations, does not occur as a singular happening. The
perception and human processing occurring simultaneously are inevitably influenced
by personal memories, associations and imposed desires. Thus, experience becomes
linked to this network of an incredibly intimate reservoir of reflections. The
non-formulaic alchemy that binds these recollections also triggers unique
perception with time as an inseparable factor. The fifth step highlights a
climactic surge in Eliasson’s six-component model. The title presents the key
backbone of Eliasson’s model and the discussions that follow: “Your Engagement
Sequence (YES).” The given acronym, YES, imitates the format of scientific names,
granting the idea a technical and more convincing form. Eliasson himself
justifies this acronym by arguing that this relativity “should be given a
physical name for radical scientific laboratory purposes.”[15] The formality of
such a title reveals Eliasson’s desire for YES to be a scientifically researched
and corroborated idea. Additionally, the truncation of the title to a short
abbreviation allows the idea, now in compact form, to be managed, referred to,
and discussed with more ease. By employing the possessive pronoun “your”,
Eliasson grants the reader ownership and involvement in YES.
- “YES can be seen as exemplary of the level of relativity in
what is traditionally conceived as a truth. When a so-called truthful statement
is made you should therefore add your personal YES in order to relate to, see
through, and possibly make use of the statement. By including YES as a central
element of perception, the governing dogma of timelessness and static
objecthood may be renegotiated, thus making your responsibility for an active
engagement in the concrete situation apparent.”[16]
The sixth item considers the consequences of the
reintroduction of temporality. Discussing the new issues arising from the
YES proposal, Eliasson asserts that YES could be so radical as to “shatter…the
whole Western definition of truth and non-truth.”[17] This statement identifies
YES as a radical and powerful tool that could overturn conventional modes of negotiating
life experiences. Indeed, YES is to be utilized to engender this enhanced perception.
Eliasson proposes that the shift to a more engaged mode of navigating life is inevitable.
For, “when we accept and implement the relativity of so-called truth by using yes…a
general sense of responsibility in our relationship to our surroundings may be achieved.”[18]
By establishing that experience is individual, Eliasson also deduces that
greater awareness and understanding of the disturbance caused to the field of
vibrations means that one has more control, and thus assumes more
responsibility, in the navigation of the world. In such a way, YES, though not
explicitly defined, becomes the beginning of a useful mode for creating a more
conscious- and consequently more sensitive—engagement with the world.
Eliasson himself imbues his idea with a power to radicalize the experience of
awareness. Sensitive to the cultural context of his comment, he also makes sure
to specify that the hypothetical provocation that could occur is relegated to
Western ideas of truth.
The Model, Vibrations, YES and “Your Colour Memory”
“Your Colour
Memory” can be considered in relationship to Eliasson’s theoretical postulations.
By witnessing the transformations occurring over time on the space, conventionally
deemed as insular and static, the entire framework of perception is expanded. The
viewer must renegotiate his/her engagement with the space. Since experiencing
color is inherently linked to the conditions of light, the experience also
becomes a cultivated one, influenced by memories and associations. Time, in
this case, is perceived as a truly individual experience; emphasis is placed on
the “notion of the relativity of seeing.”[19] In this sense, the installation
can be regarded as an amplified setting in which YES is called into action. The
conditions that create Eliasson’s installation encompass a curved wall spanning
the interior of the space upon which light is reflected. The space is immersed
in a projection of colored light, in which the color blurs from one to the next
over a sequential frame of roughly 30 seconds. Thus, the room is illuminated by
yellow, then orange, and so forth. The lack of hard edges, of distinctly
delineated walls and angles means that Eliasson “makes it impossible for a
spectator to objectify the chromatic events as a property of a delimited
surface or screen to which we have a contemplative relation.”[20] The base
elements, that limit our scope of perception and relegate us to view the space
conventionally as a set of planes, have been eliminated. Eliasson has therefore
set up certain conditions and scale within the physical space itself that deny
the viewer a passive viewing experience. Rather, the magnitude of the casting of
light and the frequent change of color create a dynamic experience that
necessitates a sensorial engagement of the viewer, who is provoked to see beyond
just the colored light.
The installation is treated by the
artist as a science experiment. Eliasson describes the installation as an
investigation of “aspects of color perception, one of which is afterimages and their
temporal relationship with their sources.”[21] A spectator enters the space and
is soaked in a bath of colored light. The color gradually fades, disappears,
and melts into another one. Upon entering the space, the current color of the
room will cause the eyes to reactively produce the color on the opposite end of
the color spectrum, thus mitigating the intensity of the color. The perception
of light is driven by two color curves working contemporaneously: one reads the
light of the work itself, and the other involves the delayed response produced
by the eyes.
As
Eliasson describes, “…If I were to enter the color-saturated room some time
after you, my experience of color would differ substantially from yours, as you
would already be enrolled in a sequence of wall colors and afterimages that
determine your present experience.”[22] The result is a stimulation triggered
by the illuminations that provide a rhythmic perceptual experience; the brain
processes the throb and flux between the colors, rather than seeing simply a
solid, static color. “Your Colour Memory”, as Eliasson described in the
components of his model, is a processual experience in which time becomes a
dominant factor in the experiential language of the installation. Through
awareness of the consequences of time, one is able to comprehend the agents at
work that create a certain perception of color and change. As YES functions,
one must pay attention to the role of time in the experience, thus forging a
more enhanced awareness of the situation.
The
role of memory and personal associations with particular colors must also be considered.
These elements spur a larger network of forces at play in the process of
perception. Cultural connotations modify and refine each spectator’s
spatial-temporal conception. After all, each culture has varied views of what
makes colors different from one another—Eliasson commonly provides the
example that in Eskimo culture, there are dozens of names for shades of white,
given the abundance of snow—and the symbolism of diverse colors.
Recognizing the multiplicity of cultural, cognitive and actual physical (the
shifts in color) forces at work, the spectator becomes involved in the field of
vibrating forces, further contributing to the vibration with personal
perception, awareness and consequent reaction.
The
configuration of the installation room invites many spectators to engage in the
space simultaneously. The collective public experience of “Your Colour
Memory” becomes a portal of engagement on the level of the community. This
seems to be a significant and purposeful decision on Eliasson’s part. Imagining
the application of YES on a collective scale, as a joint dispersal of amplified
awareness, provides a vision for the possibilities of a more integrated and
conscious community.
And After the Model…
The passages following the model are developed by
appropriating several elements of the model’s discourses, but in actuality,
deviate from the systematic analysis produced in the model itself. The
succeeding sequence of paragraphs changes focal point without clearly marking
an end to neither one discourse nor the beginning of another. Such a
non-cohesive format, while outwardly may be confusing, allow Eliasson to
seemingly corroborate and contextualize the ideas presented in the preface and
the model in fragments that touch upon direct spatial considerations, his own
art practice, further scientific data, and the relationship between social
institutions and art.
Eliasson
explains that these deviations further his concepts of YES and vibrations,
“to create alternatives to the modernistic conception of space”.[23] He
contemplates the cultural and historical implications embedded into notions of
space, then discusses once again the relationship to the ideas of vibrations,
of constant movement, that was first touched upon in the preface. The
scientific discourse that follows recounts both science history facts and
describes Eliasson’s latest artistic experiments that endeavor to harness his
ideas of everything as fields of vibrations. Within these discussions, the same
looming question—Artist or Scientist?—appears. Similar to the prior
passages of the model itself, here Eliasson presents himself more as a
scientist. He describes the endeavors of his studio as maneuvers driven by
scientific curiosity. The adjacency of discussions of Heisenberg and Bohr to
Eliasson’s chronicles of the endeavors enacted in his art studio works to
highlight Eliasson’s awareness of physics and mathematical data. In such a way,
this adjacency is also employed to legitimize Eliasson’s artistic experiments
as rooted in scientific research and potential sources of scientific breakthrough.
Additionally, he pushes forth his agenda of unraveling art’s potential to
influence society; he speaks openly about his own interests in exploring the
relationship between art, society and the mediating institutions. The link
between “Your Colour Memory” as an art installation, the hosting space,
and the potential to challenge tired and static perception with the time-conscious
engagement demanded by the piece, is illuminated.
Bearing
a heavy presence within Eliasson’s textual and artistic works is the scientific
method. It appears in the choices he employs to articulate his ideas: the
itemized list format of the model, the numerous citations of figures in the
realm of scientific discovery, the scientific phenomena amplified in his
installation works. This discourse is expressed with a manipulation of language
that wavers back and forth between simplicity and accessibility, and elusive, unclear
definitions. However, by creating a direct dialogue with the reader, Eliasson
seeks to grant general accessibility to his textual musings. “Vibrations”
introduces a new model of viewing the world and makes an initial proposal of
how to amplify one’s navigation of this world through YES. Indeed, he sheds
light upon how “Your Engagement Has Consequences on the Relativity of Your
Reality.” His theory generates an exciting possibility for an amplified engagement
of time and experience, and the possibility for this awareness to be spread to
a wider scale in order to foster an entirely different sense of a community.
The products elicited by this engagement would allow the world to be negotiated
in a more conscious and open way.
