Image from the Image Objects series; Monday, April 25, 2011, 5:01PM, 2011, UV print on sintra, image alteration
Artie Vierkant (b. 1986) is an artist whose work addresses the role of image reproduction and dissemination in contemporary networked society. His massive body of work includes sculpture, digital works, photography, print, drawing, collage and painting. In his own words, his work “concerns the degree to which digital media constitute fully tangible objects, actors which are both pliable and physical, structures to be broken into pieces and reconceived.” Pouring over his extensive catalog, one cannot help but see that he is a true pioneer in mapping the terra incognita of the Internet. He has a BA in Photography from the University of Pennsylvania and an MFA from UC San Diego. His work has exhibited at Johan Berggren Gallery, Malmö Sweden; Reference Gallery, Richmond VA; PRETEEN Gallery, Hermosillo Mexico; Showroom MAMA, Rotterdam Netherlands; Exile, Berlin Germany; Bitforms, New York NY; and more. His work appeared in Rethinking Photography (Routledge), Post Internet by Gene McHugh, ARTINFO, PWR Paper, and countless blogs. He also contributes to Hyperallergic, including a column he entitled Hypermedia: Critical Issues in Contemporary Media Art where each article ‘discusses an existing or emerging theme in practices at the intersection of electronic media and the arts, drawing from the contemporary and the historic, the pervasive and the obscure’. He currently lives and works in New York City.
Courtney Asztalos: I enjoyed reading your statement for STATE, and I would like to start with something you said “The content of the image is now meaningless. Instead the meaning and our own understanding of it is distilled from how we organize, quantify, relate it to other images, and ultimately display it.” Is this essentially what drives your work?
Artie Vierkant: This definitely drives a lot of my thinking. The platforms on which we create images, the framework [within which] we conceive them, and the avenues of dissemination say much more, I think, than any individual image. One of my favorite (intentionally brazen) quotes to reference is from a 2003 essay by Lev Manovich, in which he says “The greatest avant-garde film is software such as Final Cut Pro or After Effects, which contain the possibilities to combine thousands of separate tracks into a single movie, as well as setting various relationships between all these different tracks – and thus develops the avant-garde idea of film as an abstract visual score to its logical end – and beyond.” This idea always causes much debate. But considering that the recent history of contemporary art practice has been dominated by discussion of artist-created participatory and relational systems, it can’t be far off to suggest that the platforms most commonly used today to create cultural materials are in fact great artworks in themselves.
CA: Is Image Objects a structural alteration of an image, a proposal for the image’s environment, or a concept rendering?
AV: Image Objects, at least the series as it stands now, is a series of semi-sculptural prints that exist somewhere between how they are manifested as physical objects and how the images are treated in documentation and dissemination. At this point the majority of art viewing (and in general, cultural experience) happens through images or other reproductions, and I wanted to work within that to make the documentation of my work into pieces in their own right. So while Image Objects, are physically produced pieces that inhabit gallery space, I also go back into the documentation and change things, add layers of collage, distort the image, add watermarks, and in general use any photo retouching techniques I can pick up. Just usually not for their intended purposes.
A lot of the thinking behind them comes from what I find interesting (and contradictory) about working digitally. When a work starts its life as a digital object, the process of deciding both when the file is “ready” to be made physically and which of many versions to print seems arbitrary. So in a way these pieces can also be altered into any of the other myriad versions that could have been made, or serve as concept renderings for future works.
Similar Objects (similarobjects.com), 2011, Website
CA: Could you talk about Fingerprints?
AV: Fingerprints started as a series of videos, but it’s since evolved also into prints, one-off jpegs, and the “fingerprints” themselves have started seeping into a lot of my other pieces—including my website.
The series is inspired by techniques of digital fingerprinting and watermarking, different ways culture industries try to mark content with authorship, authenticity, or more commonly to make the source of specific files traceable. For instance, when a film distributor sends out advance copies of their films, each copy will have a watermark or fingerprint with a unique placement. That way if the film leaks to file sharing networks ahead of release, they can pinpoint the exact reviewer or organization the copy was sent to, and bar them from receiving future releases. A wonderful threat, really, and an interesting way of making something, which is otherwise infinitely reproducible, at least moderately unique.
I’ve taken this idea to work with as an aesthetic, so instead of overt text watermarks (though I use those, too) I use different color flares superimposed over my images. When I get a Google Alert or see someone’s shared an image of mine somewhere on the Internet, the placement and tone of the flares let me trace back to where I originally posted those images, or who I emailed them to, and tells me something about the reblogger.
The Fingerprints pieces themselves are pure white videos or prints which have these same fingerprints and watermarks over them, and usually (almost imperceptibly) some text that includes information like what show the pieces are being shown in, or who the piece was made for. Every time I display one of the videos somewhere it’s a different pattern and hue of color flares, so even if they look similar you’ll never see the same work exhibited twice. The embedded Fingerprints video on my website is maybe the sole exception, because it’s sort of the “example” web version. It’s embedded through Vimeo, so if I saw it posted around I wouldn’t be able to tell if it was found on my website or on my Vimeo account.
Untitled Photographs–Untitled 40 x 80 in. Blue Photograph (Trapezoid) and Untitled 38 x 20 in. Red Photograph (Rectangle), 2010, HD Video Loops
CA: When do you think that the barriers of digital media are necessary?
AV: I think there are profoundly less barriers to working with digital media than there are with traditional mediums. There are so few, in fact, that thinking of digital works in terms of falling under a specific medium—image, video, audio, separated—is an entirely self-imposed restriction. Of course, with traditional mediums and the massive variety of objects in the world there’s little restriction there as well, but since it costs a lot more to buy a vitrine filled with formaldehyde than it does to Photoshop one there’s a massive difference in accessibility there.
That said, I do think it’s possibly problematic that fervent computer use trains us to think in very flat terms. Even my Image Objects are pieces with size and depth that are built to be flattened into a photograph. This condition will probably change. There’s also always the danger of losing the big picture and becoming so heavily focused on what software is already built to do that you lose sight of the fact that anything is possible, or get mired in very specific platforms.
CA: Untitled Photographs are HD video loops transformed by space to become photographs?
AV: That piece plays directly to this same idea of mediums as self-imposed restrictions. It’s quite simple, but it’s essentially a proposition piece for talking about still video projections as photographs. The listed dimensions for display are important facets as well, because conceiving an image as specifically “20 in. x 24 in.” instead of a “6 min. loop” is really the main distinction separating photography and video.
I made a companion piece to this, Untitled Videos, which is essentially the inverse but works on the same principle. That piece is a series of c-prints made by projecting full YouTube clips onto photosensitive paper. The image gets completely blacked out and eradicated, but it’s still a way of displaying those videos.
An image object jpeg Artie made especially for this interview, it's an altered version of images from the * new jpegs * show at Johan Berggren
CA: Could you talk about your solo show Real Proper at the Preteen Gallery?
AV: I took the term “Real Proper” from common terms in the file sharing community (warez scene). Within this specific non-monetary-based black market, these words denote particular things.
If a group uploads the first rip of some film or TV show, but doesn’t compress or label their file properly, someone else will re-encode the file or make a different rip and tag it as “PROPER” to signal that their version ascribes to the warez scene’s formatting standards. “REAL,” as far as I can tell, isn’t used so much at this early stage (among the people first uploading), but instead gets added as a tag to convince the downloader that the file isn’t a fake. It’s really interesting because these are both terms that, in colloquial English, ascribe something to be genuine or authentic, but [in this particular context], they have very different meanings and uses.
The pieces in the show—a Solvent Study, a Styrofoam sculpture, and a video—all play off this notion of authentication or derivation in some way. The Solvent Studies series was something of a transitional moment, where I was printing huge Photoshop files and splashing them with chemical solvents to play with the digital photograph’s materiality—and in some ways make a dark joke about creating “unique” digital files. The sculpture falls neatly with the Untitled Photographs you mentioned before—there I was taking a short video clip and rendering the brightness levels of each frame of video into pieces of Styrofoam.
The video, also called Real Proper, is made up of four copies of the X-Men Origins: Wolverine workprint, each of which runs for the whole duration. This version of the film was leaked to the Internet a month before it was even released in theaters, was missing a lot of finalized digital effects, and didn’t even have a watermark. When I downloaded these four versions, a full year had passed and there were still 38 differently formatted versions of the workprint available on bittorrent, despite the film having been released on DVD. When you line them all up together like this, you really see the variation—some are stretched out, the timing gets out of sync, some people have added subtitles directly into the file.
artievierkant.com