Claudia Hart is one of the first artists to have used computer-generated images through 3D animation for the design of media installations and projections. She is a pioneer artist in virtual reality, augmented reality, and computer-aided object design. Inspired by the cybernetic artists of the 1960s, Claudia Hart applies her feminist vision in a male-dominated computer world. In 2007, the artist introduced the first educational program on the use of simulation technologies in art at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). She has emerged among the generation of inter-media artists of the 1990s belonging to the so-called “identity” movement. Continuously renewing her work through the prism of technology, she keeps the question of identity at the heart of her approach. Her work focuses on how technologies modify our interpretations of body and nature. Fascinated by the interface between the real and the unreal, Claudia Hart creates liminal situations that she sees as spaces for contemplation and transformation. That is why we asked her some questions on art, virtuality and perception through evolving new media.
How would you define a virtual space? How is a virtual exhibition space different from a physical space?
A virtual space is one in which the mind tricks the body. A physical space in one in which the body tricks the mind.
What is the purpose of the virtual exhibition spaces? Is it creating a new space to display art or is it about rethinking the very nature of the experience of works of art? Does the very notion of exposure remain?
The purpose of a virtual exhibition space is the same as the purpose of an artwork: to create a place for contemplation halfway between the real world and the world of symbols and metaphors and mythologies. If thought of in this way, all art is actually a portal into virtuality. Simulated environments, whether an exhibition space or an art installation, somehow heighten the intensity of the art experience one has in them. I think this is because virtual exhibition spaces turn “exposure” (to an object) into an immersive perceptual experience. In these kinds of environments, art is not an object to be viewed but an experience to be transformed by, super stimulating to the imagination and the senses.
What should be the distribution of roles between the architect, the scenographer, the curator and the artist in a virtual space?
I think that a real-life curator is always a scenographer and a designer creating visual relationships between art works as well as conceptual and historical ones. A virtual exhibition, however, is in all ways a fake and so is even more of a stage set than those you find in the physical world. In virtuality, even the user’s body feels fake. It feels like a gateway between the real physical world and the fake virtual one. So in virtuality, the body becomes a kind of haptic interface. To produce a powerful experience in a virtual space, therefore, a curator must also be a technician who is also a haptic interface designer and in relation to art, also a philosopher of the interface! Most VR platforms offer pre-set buildings and rooms, usually very neutral, with generic corporate esthetics, and are meant as conference sites. So to transcend that, a VR curator actually needs to be a scenographer and an architect AND an expert in 3D animation, and a haptic interface designer — and so does the artist! A very tall order indeed.
Do you think that only certain works of art are legitimate to be exhibited in a virtual space, and in this case, which ones, or on the contrary that all have their place there whatever their medium (digital works or not, immersive, generative, sculptures, classical paintings, etc.)
Virtual worlds are 100% surface. They are pure maya: an illusion, without physical form, ephemeral. What works best in an immersive world are works that are ABOUT the surface, such as any form of media, and of course computer graphics and generative works. I am an immersive 3D artist IRL, using projections or other things that are somehow trompe l’oeil, so translating my work from installation-based, multi-channel 3D animation to a VR version was a natural (😉 ). Physical, craft-based objects don’t translate well into virtual space. This is unfortunate, and is why virtual spaces often feel cold and sterile. They are too perfect! They need more mistakes in them, to humanize them and make them feel more natural. Mistakes are great! They reflect the process of an artist as they navigate an artwork, and are sadly not so much in the nature of simulations technologies. Too many mistakes just crash a virtual world. They can’t exist in there. It is possible, however, to simulate the beautiful imperfection of the natural, and to fake a mistake. My next body of virtual works reflect on this.
What could be the modes of visit and what role does the visitor play in a virtual space? Should he be alone, in a group, accompanied by a guide or with strangers as in a classic museum?
Since the quarantine began, last March, I became enamored with Mozilla Hubs, Mozilla being the not-for-profit .org that also produces the Firefox browser. The Hubs are a very simple version of VR, going back to the visualization capabilities of very early simulations technologies. Creators can build a virtual world using Spoke, the Mozilla freeware, placing it on the open Internet by means of a provided link that can be distributed or not. After clicking, users can enter Hubs environments in the guise of an avatar body: a cute baby robot, a talking plant, a ghost, an owl, etc etc. The avatars, though child-like, are actually elegant haptic interfaces, their eyes bulging and bodies throbbing in response to voice volume, which diminishes with distance. One sees the VR world through the eyes of the avatar, easily navigating with keyboard controls. Hubs worlds can be accessed by means of a VR headset or a computer monitor. I find that experiencing them is magical. I become a mythological creature in a fairy tale world due to the system’s diminished ability to represent — its move away from realism — because all of its data is streamed over the cloud. So not much data possible. What is great about a Hub is that inside, one experiences the illusion that one is physically sharing the space with other creatures. One can hang out, meet friends, fly around, share screens, stream video. One can walk through another avatar’s body without being rude! A revelation. For the technologically uninitiated, a guide for the first visit is required. After that, it’s easy and fun. I prefer it head-over-heels to the isolation I feel alone inside of a world inside of a headset. I believe it will change our relationship to virtuality in general, and also to the Internet. Let’s see how it goes — hopefully sharing a virtual space with other bodies is less anonymous, and therefore less toxic and more difficult to weaponize than the social-media Internet we inhabit today.
