013. Markus Hanakam & Roswitha Schuller
“Hanakam & Schuller are tricksters. As artists and researchers, they remodel the rules of fine art, creating idiosyncratic orders and new world designs incorporated in videos and objects. The artefacts of the two artists from Vienna are “Gestalt-changers”; they change their outer shape and re-appear in a number of different contexts.”
( Introduction excerpt from the book Trickster. Ed. Angela Stief, De Gruyter publishers)
You always work together as a duo, or concept, or how is your artistic setup?
MH: We both started at the univeristy, to work in a group of five or six people, after that, we were kind of the “leftovers” of this group…
RS: We both studied at the university for applied arts, we were working with other classes as well that are more within the applied sector, not only the fine arts. We really enjoyed to work with others in a group, the discussions about concepts, where we are headed and so on. As Markus said, we were kind of a leftover from this group, which were not like a fixed group, more floating and mixing and trying things out. Since the university we have only been working together, we don’t have separate works. For over ten years now.
Were you already aware back then in what type of medium, what kind of style, etc., that you eventually came to be known for… or did that develop gradually over time? When I see your work, I think it’s very distinct in style.
MH: That’s true. In the beginning, we were really interested in finding some different strategies in contemporary art, how people are working, how do they find their way, and concepts.
RS: Also like an understanding of what it means, being an artist.
MH: We are trained sculptors, so to speak (laughs). But we were not really interested in making sculptures (laughs). We were interested in the objects themselves. So we were thinking, “how can we create an atmosphere around it, or a story around it”. A sort of aura. And how to find this expression in other languages, and in art.
RS: I think it’s not like we weren’t interested in sculpture, but we were not interested in the traditional way of displaying sculptures. Putting it on a piedestal, having the white cube with objects inside. Because sculptures are something that not only exists in three dimensions, it also exists in a kind of time dimension. So sculptures are something you can wander around, for example, and we always liked the idea that sculpture that could be like an artefact, it can enable you to do something.
We were both a bit affiliated with RPG (Role-playing game) in our childhoods, so we liked the idea of having something that is a kind of magic thing. Or… “you can do what you want when you have that thing”. That thing will open up another world or dimension, or whatever… this is really playful thinking. That we are really related to objects, somehow.
I associated to computer games. You are demonstrating something, it looks like an instructional for something…
(Both): Yeah!
RS: That’s so nice that you say that.
MH: We are often working with texts that are 200 years old, for example…
RS: We like to make something look like a manual. To bring historical texts that are somehow showing conventions of their time, so we can work with an aesthetical text, or a critical text about art or landscape theory, and so on… they are showing media conventions of their time, like the 19th century, which is really like the century of convention. All our apparatuses have developed so much, like the photographic apparatus, later on the video and so on.
All these kind of settings, how we still frame the outer world, in a way. We are really interested in that, and we like to have these manuals, that forces people to create something, maybe, or link their own track or passway.
Actually the first work that we did, was small computer games, applications. We did something for the Playstation 2… so we had also a real, functioning, interactive world. This was before we did video.
You did something for the Playstation platform?!
(Both laughs)
RS: But it was something really easy, you know.
MH: It was only on a DVD, so you could only move as a cursor inside the menu.
RS: You could have the thing in your hand, the controller, and you get the feeling “oh, it’s a game”, it’s the tools and gadgets you are using that triggers the feeling that you are gaming. You don’t need complex programming to do it. It was really easy, actually.
MH: Yeah that was funny, really funny. The idea was the same as with computer programs that were made for the web, where you had to choose different kinds of ways. So you are clicking and.. it was actually one of the first games on the internet, a kind of role-playing game.
RS: Role-play before it was used in programmatic structures, for PC games or whatever. There was also Dungeons and Dragons, for example. Which is just a play game which is text-based, so you have to have combinations of texts and so on. You make up the story. Part of the game is that you are also creating the game. This approach we like a lot.
MH: The interactive way, you know. We are really interested in that our work is also interactive in some way, not like with video, for example. It really forces the viewer.
It sounds to me like you should maybe venture into Virtual Reality? There you are really interacting and touching objects and so on.
RS: Yeah, but we are also kind of skeptical about the tools that are so pre-fabricated. That is the more media-critical part of our work, that we also question; what is our equipment, how are we using it, what does it mean that we use the Apple computer or this or that program? Will it influence the work? Because it gives you so much of a raster. From time to time in the videos we try to break free and make really old, stupid film tricks, very easy and physical, not fixing it on the computer later on, in post-production. We try to keep it really old-fashioned, probably. We try to be aware of over-using programs, or follow other people’s structure too much.
Because it’s also like a marketing thing. I mean Apple is one of the biggest, global brands, and… it provides you with creativity, on the other hand you are just following their rules. We try to break it, but it’s always hard, you know. Because we cannot build up our own film equipment, right?
We actually built our own virtual reality gear from Styrofoam and sequins (laughs).
MH: (Showing image from the “VR” headset) So we are more interested in how it looks, than how it works (laughs).
RS: This is just a prop, but it’s triggering people! Like “this is happening right now”. It just an association. This is a recent work that we are now showing in Prague, we also produced it there.
Even if you didn’t intended for it, I think what you are showing and exhibiting, really works good in the video format. Do you care much about the video format, or is it just a way of demonstrating the work?
RS: (pauses) It’s not so easy to tell. It’s an effect of what I mentioned earlier, that we were struggling with the way things are exhibited, traditionally. About people not really willing to use certain controls, or gadgets, or whatever, to handle something in an interactive way. There was a need to find a medium that gives you a sense of interactivity, but not really forcing you to do something with your own hands. Or interact with a computer or a machine. I think that’s how we came to video.
MH: Very often, it’s like the technique has a “wow”-effect, but the conscience is somehow missing. It’s dangerous to work with such a thing, you have to think about it. Video is more common and easy to use.
And accessible.
(Both): Yeah.
RS: It’s already learned, in a way.
When I watch the videos, I become interested, because there is a story to them. Or it looks like there is a story to them, that keeps me watching. If you would just be showing, say, some images of art, I would probably lose interest. Are you aware of this effect?
(Both): Yeah.
RS: I think, to some extent, it is about to “pick up” the view. You can see these objects, or these actions, moving. You would also have some text information, possibly a voice over. In several cases, you would have somebody read something, which is very instructional, which is very instructive in the image, or in the frame.
It’s like you said before, it looks like an instructional, so people try to follow up on that. It makes you think “oh, how can I use that object?”, that I now see the actor or actress is doing. What would my own approach be to that? In that sense, it’s not too far away from how commercials work. The commercial is also trying to intrigue you with an object, right? It shows how you can use it like this or like that and bla bla..
You also want it to lure you. You want this “luring”…
MH: But in a commercial you will never find a dead end. We are using this very often.
RS: We are using it to the absurd. You won’t get a conclusion of what it is. But it has some kind of sensuality to it, that we like.
Yes. Even if I’m consciously getting that, when watching your videos, that this is nonsensical and will not make me understand anything even if I keep watching, I still want to keep watching because it looks good (laughs). Nice and shiny.
RS: The objects, or artefacts, as we prefer to call them, are all leftovers from the industry sector. We are using a lot of things that were used for cosmetics, for example. These things were originally constructed to have that effect on somebody who is a buyer, right? You have these caps that are for perfumes, or for detergent, and they trigger you to think that this is nice and shiny, and so on.
They also come in sizes made to be touched by human hands, so that helps of course. At the time we are using them, they are already trash. But even if the products already have been used and basically are trash, they still carry that glimpse of what the product used to be.
MH: Some of the materials are also leftovers from this place. Sometimes from the shops, stuff that they are not using, like plexiglass, and we collect that.
RS: We collect things that did not work out (laughs).
MH: If they order something from their own company, but something is wrong with it when it arrives, we can take it and use it.
RS: We like that a lot (laughs).
So you order that stuff, the artefacts, that are not working?
(Both:) No, no, no…!
RS: We collect them. We have quite a large collection of plastic pieces now, hundreds, I guess. We are collecting, family and friends are collecting also. For these displays, we are asking the companies if they have any trash, any leftovers, etc. And we collect them. The aim is also to not buy these things. We really have it like a recycling process.
So we are keeping a lot of plastic away from the seas (laughs).
You gather all the material, then what do you do? You apply it to some idea you have going on, that fits with the material, or do you…
MH: The starting point is a text. Then we are looking for things, and create something.
RS: For these objects, we already have some pieces that are assembled together. Then we re-use them; they might appear in a photo or video work… they kind of travel through the works. Some pieces we de-install and put together in different combinations and shapes, so it’s different.
For video productions, it’s true what Markus is saying, we have this archive anyway, then we ask; which concepts are working with the idea we are currently busy with?
I also strongly associate your work with the 80’s look.
RS: Hey, it’s not our fault, it’s the industry (laughs).
You obviously like this era’s style, otherwise you would not choose to display it?
RS: Yes, yes, sure.
Is this also a conscious choice? The visual cues in your art.
MH: It’s also a thing….when we started to make art, most of the people around us weren’t working with colours, like only black and white, it looked really “intellectual” and so… and somewhere we decided, we have to do something against it (laughs). I mean, it’s a small universe…
RS: … only a small community, it was just the style of the time then.
MH: … we didn’t have a clue what was going on at the the time, in New York, for example. But for us it was important to separate ourselves. And somehow we decided to go on with that.
RS: I think it’s also that we work with this range of colors, it goes along with the idea with an archive, to really have a variety in things; in texts, languages, colors, images, and so on. Of course, now it’s coming together with this plastic thing. So plastic is one of the main materials we are using, for the objects but there is still also other things we are using. It’s the idea of the archive, having a wider range.
MH: And it’s not only the plastics, which is all about surface. It’s empty inside, you know?
Except for the style, I was wondering about genre. I found a kind of science-fiction story in one of your early videos…
RS: I think we work through different genres. We see genre also like a framework that you are filling with something, something that has its own stereotypes as well. So we just like to use these frameworks, for doing something like this “manual”. Something that gives people a chance to interact, or to find their own story within a given set of ideas. We’ve also worked with road movies, for example.
But science fiction gives you this idea of a holistic universe that is kind of coherent in itself. It might be absurd, or something from the future that you don’t understand, but it’s all the time coherent. So there is nothing to question about it. Besides 2001 — a Space Odyssey, which gets very weird in the end, but… it’s a kind of a “closed model”. We also like this “model kit” from which you can create your universe. It’s playful, but you have to be critical and aware of that.
And what is the time/space/genre in the video where a person is wearing a kind of clothing that looks a bit “medieval”?
RS: Medieval, you mean the ruffles? It’s actually Baroque, already. Those things are showing a position, of sorts. It shows you what kind of importance, where you are in the hierarchy.
Was it intended as a “historical” piece, then?
RS: Yeah.. we are having a series of works that we call Toppings. About things that are added to a surface, that makes something more important, or shiny, or luring… like with the cakes that we are doing. It has to do with relations, what you have in architecture theory, for example; if there is too much stuff on the thing, or building, it’s called “icing on a cake”. It’s been used a lot. For example in Moscow, in architecture from the 20’s and 30’s, there you will find this “pastry” kind of style, over-decorated things.
And for us, these kind of “ruffs” that the lady is wearing, it’s that (icing on a cake) applied on a human figure, to make them more intriguing, to add importance to them, to show a certain standing in society. It’s a quite similar idea to that. We like that.
MH: I mean the “icing on the cake”, if you look at contemporary art, right now, and you ask; “what’s the icing now?”, We like to play a little bit with that.
It’s too much, over-the top?
MH: Yeah, the “icing” could also be the “black-and-white”-aesthetic. It’s like there is a lot of toppings, and it looks important, but it isn’t, it’s just the icing (laughs).
And have you been thinking about other genres that you want to go into, or is the genre/framework something you pick depending on what particular idea you are working with at the moment?
RS: I would say that some ideas of genre still accompany us in our work. We were talking about a film genre… with science-fiction it’s obvious that it has a certain style. But genre is an issue for art itself. You have the genres in painting; the genre landscape, portrait, these are so huge and strong conventions that they still influence art production today, I guess.
The genre of landscape, for example, which is the rectangular frame, giving you the horizon and so on… this was first used in painting, then some artists tried to use it in other apparatuses, or gadgets, to help them create this frame, or image. And this is really coming up to what tools we are using today, like the computer screen, or video cameras. These are still the same dimensions, or ratios.
You will still find things that has its conventions somewhere else and you don’t think so much about it, but you will still find it. So it’s much more abstract and rounded than the genre that we understand as the film genre, for example. In that sense, we are very aware of genres and we are using that a lot. This is also reflected in the texts that we are using.
When I quickly look at the narrated text overlays on your videos, randomly and without reflecting, my immediate reaction is that “the text is probably not that important”. It’s a part of the art, but maybe I don’t need to understand the text? Am I wrong?
RS: No, I think it’s both. It gives you some keywords. Or maybe we think that the text sounds strange, because it’s old and you are not so familiar with the vocabulary. It can still be part of the composition. For us it’s of course important what texts we are choosing. The viewer can still decide, if it’s important to me, or I can just leave it just as a visual information, not an intellectual or historical information.
MH: For example, the video work you just mentioned, the one with the costume. You need a software that randomizes the 137 different scenes.
RS: It’s composed in sequences and the sequences are repeating in different ways, so the video is a program itself. This is something that we are still playing around with. We still have videos that play from A to B, technically, but it’s not so much about the story that is told. Then we experimented to not have the “A to B”-video anymore, but that all the sequences are shuffled and randomized.
MH: The text-and-scene-combination is always there, but the dramaturgy has changed.
You just came back from White Russia and you have something being exhibited in the Czech Republic, what’s the current status with your work and travels?
RS: We have recent work that is now being displayed in Prague. This is the most recent work (shows current video example). In Prague we were also working with a kind of video object that is a cabinet. It’s a bit like the cake thing we did, it’s applied work. It’s furniture, but also a video work. It’s a kind of shelf, they used to build these “mirror cabinets” in former times, as entertainment for your home, for the wealthy people. They would have openings and there would appear “stage-like” things.
(Demonstrates) Here, you also have a stage, and at the very bottom you have the video screen, giving light to the walled interior. Then you have shelves of glass, with objects on them. And on this part, you have a mirror on a 45-degree angle. It will flip the wall pictures, so all the layers… it’s a three dimensional thing. It’s old technique, nothing like virtual reality or so, but it has this effect of seeing in 3D. It’s not so easy to follow that on the photo documents, because you have to go around the thing to get the effect.
MH: The screens are somehow the horizons, the different layers…
RS: … are coming closer to you then. The pictures that we see on the screen are all abstractions of art history in pictures. That’s the idea. So you have 15 scenes, and they are all related to art history, or paintings. The name of the exhibition is Pivot. The pivot point is between that of landscape and portrait mode. It’s also about image conventions. So we are showing the new video and this piece, an installation.
How did you do the conversion between the different pictures? Via a program or manually?
RS: It’s made in a way, like a traditional art historian reading the image; “this is the upper part of the image, and here is the center part”.
MH: Very pseudo (laughs). Something we also like to make fun of.
RS: We put these layers on the screen and took a photo of it. It’s not computer graphics, it’s really a photographic representation of the material. I think it’s getting really complicated now… I am already confused by this work (laughs).
The next step for you?
MH: We are working on some things, but we cannot really talk about it, because it’s not fixed. We are waiting for the “OK”.
RS: The general plan for now is that we will extend this idea of the cabinet. This kind of idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk of the Baroque, to make a wall space out of that. With furniture pieces, and video and so. But this is just a basic idea. It’s not fixed where we can show it yet.
MH: I can show you the last ornament.
RS: (Demonstrates artwork) We have been working on a series of ornaments that you also can use as wallpapers. They are made of vectors, so you can resize them in any size you want. That’s the plan for the next year (2017) to play around with these structures. On a wall structure, or on textile for example. We are a bit curious on that, to try another surface. It fits very much to our idea of the archive.
MH: We were totally fascinated by Josef Frank and his work. That was the start of this.
RS: We like the idea of working with what can be applied, not only the fine arts.
Does it have a name yet?
MH: Yes, only “Muster”, or “Ornament”. We really would like to make a space, where you can go inside the ornament. In combination with video and maybe some drawings as well.
RS: We are very excited about this, I think all the parts in this idea could work well together.
Interview by Anders Khan-Bolin
Related links:
