Your Engagement has ConsequencesLars MOiler Publishers

Olafur Eliasson

Vibrations"Physics has found no straight lines - has found only waves -physics has found no solids - only high-frequency event fields.UNIVERSE IS NOT CONFORMING TO A THREE-DIMENSIONALPERPENDICULAR-PARALLEL FRAME OF REFERENCE. Theuniverse of physical energy is always divergently expanding(radiantly) or convergently contracting (gravitationally)."

Buckminster Fuller

Everything is, I believe, situated within a process - everythingis in motion, with a faster or slower speed, and everything iscolored by intentionality. This is the case when we talk aboutcomprehensive systems like an entire society or the develop-ment of an international search engine on the Internet, but itis also applicable when we are dealing with something personalsuch as how we perceive a given space, right here and now, orhow we will be interacting with another person tomorrow. Allthese relationships are evolving; all are in motion - they are notmerely situated in the midst of their own time, but are ratheraftheir time.

I think modern society has a tendency to objectify anincredibly vast quantity of systems, relations, situations, andideas by depriving them of their affinity with time as such.The upshot of this is that the rules we have constructed for thecreation of a common space come to lose their content. Theybecome normative and start to reproduce themselves inces-santly in versions that only become more and more formalistic.The entertainment industry, especially, has developed a strategy

60

of communication which consciously omits the notion oftemporality. When not taking time into consideration, the taskof setting up universal utopias for the consumers becomeseasier for this industry; the separation of time and objects isthus to a large degree driven by commercial aims. The enter-tainment industry's set of values has unfortunately eliminatedother systems of thought that could accord time a central rolein the understanding of individual objects and their mutualrelationships. As a result our senses are not used to experiencingtime or temporal sequences, and we have thus become accus-tomed to regarding objects as being timeless. When temporalityis omitted from our perceptions of objects, our perceptual toolstherefore become predetermined for non-temporal experi-ences, so to speak. What I hope to produce is an awareness ofthis problematic method of experiencing the world in order toreintroduce time as a constituent element of objects and oursurroundings. This I want to do by arguing that objects and therelations that arise between these may be considered as fieldsof vibrations. Through the isolation of vibrations as a specificenergy principle one may create a different viewpoint -Tikewise,of course, a construction - from which alternative spatial con-ceptions may appear.

The reintroduction of time into matter and the world assuch may be considered through a little model I have made. Thismodel takes the development of an idea - artistic or other - aspoint of departure since we still, I think, accept that time is aconstituent aspect of this process.

FIRST The Idea.We may agree on the fact that the development of an

idea or concept is processual, that is, occurs over time. The ideathat a thought could be conceived without taking time intoconsideration does not make any sense, just as reading, walking,eating, and plenty of other activities are inseparable from thetime in and through which they take place.

61 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

SECOND The Application of Form to the Idea.In order to successfully communicate the idea I have

to somehow objectify it by applying or integrating a formallanguage to it, thus making it accessible to other people thanmyself. In this way we give the content a form and, in orderto keep this little experiment simple, we may, for the time being,say that the form becomes the "carrier" of the content. Clearlythe relationship between content and form is more complex,but let us for now only suggest that one crucial purpose of anyformal language is to allow for the communication of content.(I should say that there are, of course, many formal practicesand artists with no content-based interest; they simply findpleasure in the formal gymnastics themselves, expressing noth-ing but the decor value of the actual formal language).

THIRD The Communication of the Idea.The formal layers that, as mentioned above, are applied

to an idea in order to emphasize or illustrate its intentionaltrajectory are not only the formal aspects that I myself chooseto use. When communicated every idea picks up, so to speak,formal dimensions and layers regardless of whether I like themor not, of whether they are productive or counterproductiveto the idea that I originally developed. Forms are thereforetemporal, constantly changing due to the ongoing negotiationsand renegotiations with their surroundings. In this way timeadds a great amount of relativity to any form or formal state-ment, and the suggestion that form exists at all as a static, finallanguage becomes obsolete. The impact of temporality on therelativity of form has been suppressed, however, as rationalisticbeliefs in the efficiency of global commodification of bothforms and our senses consider the idea of a relative or mutableobject to be counterproductive to the core of capitalistic valuesystems. This will change, I am sure.

62

FOURTH Time is Individual.The development of an idea is, as mentioned, a tempo-

rally defined situation, which is causally rooted in a specificcontext. Obviously time does not suddenly come to a halt whenthe idea has taken shape. Time never stops, or, we may withmore modesty at least say that within our lifetime, accordingto convention and our collective feeling of a constant ticking,is understood as being continuous. Unless scientists workingwith quantum and foundational physics come up with some-thing radically new concerning the construction of time-space,time will continue to progress until I die. Death arrests thetemporality of my body, besides its decomposition, of course,and I would therefore argue that it seems responsible to talkabout your time and my time, that is, the experience of timethat we have while alive, instead of being concerned with theuniversal construction of temporality that so many people takefor granted.

Since we may have very different perceptions of time,what seems fast for me may appear rather slow to someone else.Or: a form or formal language may remind me of a particularsituation last year, and as I will be visiting the same place againmy expectations have an impact on how I perceive the form,and thus also how I experience the temporality of the form.Thus it becomes clear that the relativity which our temporalengagement inflicts upon an idea or object is highly individual.Not only our immediate experiences are a subjective matter;our memories and expectations also have a highly individualimpact on how we perceive what we see.

FIFTH Your Engagement Sequence (YES).The described relativity that temporal engagement inevi-

tably introduces should be given a physical name for radicalscientific laboratory purposes. I will suggest the name YES(Your Engagement Sequence). YES can be seen as exemplaryof the level of relativity in what is traditionally conceived as

63 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

a truth. When a so-called truthful statement is made you shouldtherefore add your personal YES in order to relate to, see through,and possibly make use of the statement. By including YES asa central element of perception, the governing dogma of time-lessness and static objecthood may be renegotiated, thus makingyour responsibility for an active engagement in the concretesituation apparent.

SIXTH Consequences of the Reintroduction of Temporality.In a culture where the understanding of subjectivity is

based on the dialogue and opposition between subject andobject, the thought that objects are relative to time may berather disturbing, especially since Modernism suggested thata timeless conception of subjectivity - the eternal life - wasthe highest goal one could achieve. So, the thought that an ideaonly exists when seen in relation to time allows for such com-plexities to arise that the whole Western definition of truth andnon-truth is shattered. The fundamental idea that things arecontinually changing and relative to various factors such ascontext and engagement (both temporal as well) allows for suchindividuality that even basic communication seems to becomea challenge, especially because the language in which we usuallyspeak and write is promoted by communication trends withinmodern, rationalistic society that do not favor such relativities.

The idea is here that when we accept and implement therelativity of so-called truth by using YES, as already explained,I believe that a general sense of responsibility in our relationshipto our surroundings may be achieved. In other words, engage-ment has consequences and these entail some feeling of respon-sibility.

For the time being the above-mentioned seems to methe most attractive model for understanding and communicatingthe idea of temporality in relation to individual objects andthe world at large. Rather than making thorough inquiries intothe structuring of time as such, I here merely wish to suggest

64

a few schematic principles that may function as illustrationsof the overall idea that experiencing is a cultural construction.This construction may, of course, be manipulated; it is there-fore paramount that you become aware of the responsibilitiesinherent in a productive engagement in your surroundings.

Not only time has been rationalized. Also space, which is fun-damentally inseparable from time, and its functions in societyhave in general become very dogmatized. We have, more orless consciously, made various formulas for the configurationof space, and a causal relationship - determined by an essen-tially modernistic point of view - has been established betweenthe right kind of space and the good life as such. Even afterthe end of post-Modernism, even though we embrace the factthat these criteria of success are not valid after all, we still findmodern dogmas dominating our conception of space. Thisconception is, however, neither natural nor essential, eventhough it often seems to give this impression itself, and despitethe fact that many people also seem to think so. The under-standing that space, on the other hand, is culturally definedis central to my artistic practice, and I continuously work tonegotiate with what some people consider to be natural, truth-ful, and non-negotiable spaces. The fundamental question iswhether things are as they appear to be, without implying thatanother truth is hidden behind the suggested construction.

I believe that every space and every situation containsin itself the potential for a reevaluation or renegotiation. Ifpeople are given tools and made to understand the importanceof this flexibility of space, we may be able to create a moredemocratic way of orienting ourselves in our everyday lives.Instead of being subsumed under one, or a few, governingprinciples when creating and moving within various spaces,people will then be able to choose between a multiplicity ofspatial configurations that they themselves initiate. A dialoguewith space is therefore brought about if you actively engage

65 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

in the spatial situation. Some institutional systems, architecturebeing one, may be difficult to negotiate, however, because theirmateriality or formal attitude - that is, their definition of goodand bad qualities - is counterproductive to negotiation andengagement in general. This attitude is constituted not just bythe architectural layout, but also by the ideologies that inhabitthe space, the codes, signs, and forces that have been built intothe space. I see it as very problematic if a building indirectlyinsists on being true; that is, if it does not leave room for criticalengagement - no matter whether the architecture as such isof one formal style or another, or of high or low quality withinits own field. (Itwould, however, be too simple to state thatgood architecture consists of structures that are negotiablewhereas bad architecture is non-negotiable.) This means thatthe potential or the quality of a system - a museum or a society,for example - is seated in its capacity to present itself as aconstruction or a model rather than as a truth. On the otherhand, no kind of architecture can be called successful withoutthe critical engagement of the people that use or manage thespace; if people are not interested in engaging or working withthe potential inherent in space, then the qualities of the archi-tecture on its own become irrelevant.

In order to work with different notions of space one hasto recognize the fact, as already mentioned, that the relation-ship between the individual and her surroundings is in constantmovement. It could perhaps be called a relationship of co-production. As an example I might say: when someone walksdown a street she produces the street and is, simultaneously,produced by the street. But the understanding of history thatwe are enrolled in is very much based on the idea that only oursurroundings create us. Throughout modernity we have organ-ized our ideas of spatiality according to a utopian master planthat in return have "helped" us organize our lives. If the indi-vidual is simply - and passively - produced by the space, shefails to mobilize the critical potential embodied in the situation,

66

which is ultimately unfolded by her as engaged subject. Theresult is that we become more and more alike, relating to thepower structures embedded in our surroundings as if they werenatural and external to us.

If we return to the relationship between time and relativ-ity, the notion of spatial negotiability will, perhaps, appearmore concrete and tangible. In a talk at Hara Museum, Tokyo, Irecently discussed the question of dimensionality. In a classical,Euclidean system there are three dimensions: height, length,and depth which define the objects' relation to each other ina space considered as a stable entity. From this classical concep-tion another conception of space has developed, namely thetheory of topology in which the temporal aspect of objects andspaces becomes absolutely central, and time is here tradition-ally referred to as the fourth dimension. Where the classicalsystem was one of coordinates in a clearly defined field, topol-ogy has its objects moving over time, thus adding durationto height, length, and depth. Topological objects or figures arethus never static. And in order to continue our small experimentfrom before I would like to suggest that we introduce yetanother component - another dimension which is, so to speak,dimensionality itself. The four initial components can by wayof this fifth dimension be ascribed a certain, shall we say, soft-ness through negotiation. The objective categories are con-nected to the life of the individual subject through her engage-ment in the situation - which I earlier in this text have calledYES (Your Engagement Sequence). The fifth dimension is onlypossible when the fourth dimension is present; without a notionof temporality the idea of engagement does not make sense.However, one may, for instance, work with conceptions of spacethat do not include the third dimension, depth, but do involveboth the fourth and fifth dimensions; what we would have wasa two-dimensional space steeped in time and grasped throughthe engagement of the individual. As already mentioned, YESor the fifth dimension creates a perspective on the world that is

67 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

personal; it functions to individualize the other dimensionsof space. I am interested in the potential inherent in giving theindividual subject this dimensionality as a sort of tool thatrelativizes the other existent, presumed static dimensions uponwhich our conception of space is based. The fifth dimensionhas, of course, always been inherent in every given perspectiveon the world, but it was never considered a real dimensionor a trajectory as such, because an engagement as a universalnorm was favored instead, from which the surroundings couldorganize themselves. This has consequences for another classi-cal idea, namely that of utopia. Even though, in recent years,the death knell for a long line of ideological world pictureshas sounded, it is hard to deny that we continue to believe inall kinds of things. We may call some of these beliefs utopian.However, it is very important to emphasize that I harbor nowish to set up utopias for anybody else. My projects anddreams are not necessarily the same as the projects and dreamsof others. What may be a utopia to me need not be a utopia forsomebody else. Previously, utopia was considered to be uni-versal and non-temporal; something that you projected out-ward onto your surroundings. What I, on the other hand, thinkis that utopia is something inside oneself; it is a form of wisdomthat emerges when you can say, "This is a situation that I wantto get involved in!" This introvert engagement is the new uto-pia, as I see it. It has evolved from the notion that we generateour own environments, relying on the relevance of our workand actions that naturally always contain integrated evaluationand self-reflection. The utopia of YES, if you like.

YES is only one of the tools that I want to introduce in order tocreate alternatives to the modernistic conception of space. Itis my belief that we must consider the value systems that areintegrated in our history in order to evaluate them more closely.One such system or tradition which has encouraged the intro-duction of a self-reflexive potential is phenomenology, whose

68

focus on the field of exchange between what we have earliertermed subject and object is very important. This may beunderstood metaphorically as waves of information or as causalreactions to information, but it may also be understood as thecommunication of information through actual, physical waves,both microwaves, long waves, frequency, and so on. Electricityis also a kind of wave, as are my words, when they leave mymouth as condensed air, spreading radiantly, entering our ears.Also light which is absorbed by our eyes - if we leave out ofaccount the particle physics - is usually perceived as waves.

Let me turn to the idea of waves or vibrations throughthe introduction of a recent invention. Together with a groupof architects I have in my studio developed a system of differentswinging pendulums that cause a measurable small point - thesum of the combined movements of the three pendulums - tomove. This particular vibration-machine is a further spatialdevelopment of what is traditionally called a harrnonograph,which exists in various versions, these being almost alwaystwo-dimensional, that is constructed with two pendulums only.By linking each pendulum to a digital interface I can ascribeto them the coordinates of x, y, and z in the traditional concep-tion of three-dimensionality, and then I can digitally draw thespatial result of the three frequencies of the pendulums. Byperforming a system identification we are able to describe thisparticular mechanical system virtually, as a parametric func-tion. This means that we can interpolate the setup and recreatethe geometries as they would have been drawn in three dimen-sions analogous on the motion equipment. This makes tuningeach swinging pendulum with a certain frequency simple; theyare, for instance, easily tuned as a C major chord, one pendulumsounding the note C, one E, and one G. If the pendulums aregiven a correct frequency, the chord is harmonious, and thevibrations form an orderly whole and over time they solidify,so to speak, thus drawing the contours of a three-dimensionalobject on the screen. In other words, what happens is that

69 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

sound vibrations turn into a tangible object. It is almost likebuilding a model. One could develop this experiment into vastspatial arrangements by turning harmonious chords intospatial shapes. If we used a whole concert, like Beethoven'sFifth Symphony, we might build a whole city. My general inter-est in creating a spatio-temporal form based solely on vibra-tions measured by my 3D harmonograph is, of course, notso much the mathematical, computational specificities of themachine as the possibility of inscribing the understandingsderived from the experiment into a wider, spatial context. Asis clear, architecture consists of much different material thanstones, concrete, steel, and so on. Music and sound in generalalso have consequences for our experience of space; in fact,they are co-constitutive, shaping our environments in a quiteliteral way.

My interest is therefore not so much a mapping or descriptionof waves as such nor ascribing to them a certain new, architec-tonic hegemony through the introduction of a special languageof waves. Rather, I am trying to work with the idea of waves asa tool to make non-negotiable spatial situations more negotiable.

Physics and the mathematical sciences have historicallybeen focused on dissolving the world into the smallest possible,solid parts. They have been driven by the hope of at some pointfinding the ultimate formula, so to speak, which would makeeverything in the universe explainable. Then mathematicaltheories would cover everything from the big bang to the finalformula. These traditions of physics and mathematical scienceshave accepted the idea that additional dimensionalities may beconstituent or necessary in order to explain the universe, start-ing from the Werner Heisenberg experiments with Niels Bohr.In their research on quantum mechanics it was acknowledgedthat the tools of measurement influenced the result of theexperiment. Together Bohr and Heisenberg discovered that itis impossible to accurately measure the energy (momentum)

70

and time (position) of the electron at the same time. This isknown as the "uncertainty principle" and was published in1927.The discovery led to a thorough reconsideration of thegenerally accepted definitions of objectivity and universality.Today scientists from The Centre of Dark Cosmology atthe Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark are also as much concernedwith the reevaluation of the tools with which they search fornew formulas as with the formulas themselves. In order to findsomething new they also have to invent new ways of seeing andconceiving of the world. The existent modes of understandingand experiencing the world do not always make us see what weare hoping or looking for. Therefore they are working with whatwe might call an introspective, or reevaluating, methodologyand a sort of phenomenological approach to map our concep-tion of the universe.

At this point we should then look more into my concep-tion of waves and the use to which I put these within my artisticpractice. I conceive of waves or vibrations as a mixture ofinformation and forces. If you consider various kinds of wavesyou are therefore able to ascribe different dimensions to spaceby and through the field of forces that constitutes this space inconstant transformation.

The fields of waves are connected to my fundamentalinterest in exploring the relationship that arises between visitorand artwork. The experience of space - walking down the street,for instance - is, as already mentioned, a negotiation in whicha co-creation takes place. What I am aiming at in the presentcontext is to try to isolate the negotiation or engagement, thatis, neither looking at the person nor the street, but instead atthe in between, so that one may examine this negotiation as asort of high frequency field itself. The three-dimensional imagescreated by my harmonograph are one basic model.

To engage with space is ultimately to create vibrations.By calling the present research area for a field of vibrations,I focus on the idea of negotiation or engagement as a spatial

71 Olafur Eliasson Vibrations

component, that is, as the fifth dimension or YES. What I amtrying to do is introduce a little, formalistic language, throughwhich this idea can be communicated. In my various experi-ments, some of which appear in the present volume, I haveisolated and registered the waves and have thereby been ableto focus on fields of forces and movement that are often onlyexperienced as representations.

Looking at our engagement as a field of waves bringsabout interesting concepts such as interference. In the soundexperiment, the three-dimensional images on the computer areinfluenced by the interferential frequencies which the soundsof the individual notes in a chord make. This interferentialrelationship is also seen in, for instance, an art museum. WhenI move through a room my body emits certain waves, and thisis, of course, the case for everyone else as well. If the room iscrowded with people, a multitude of waves are thus constantlybeing emitted. These are not allowed to run their course, due tothe large number of moving bodies, but interfere with the wavescreated by the other people. To put it differently, somethinghappens in the spaces between the visitors which is generatedby their body movements, but these waves are transformed intodifferent movements when confronted with the other waves.The engagement in the artistic situation is therefore not only aquestion of focusing one's attention or awareness on the rela-tion between artwork and situation, but is also a very physicalengagement which depends on the other visitors and theirmovement as well.

What role can art play in this extended discussion of timeand space? I am very interested in unfolding the potential thatart has as a participant in general, social discourse, as I believethat it may contribute with important reflections in society,either of a self-reflexive, spatial nature as mentioned above, orwith more political, social, and aesthetical impact in non-artistic practices. The relationship between art and society isalways mediated by the institutions in which much art is

72

exhibited. An important part of my artistic practice thereforesprings from reflections on the potential and questions regard-ing responsibility inherent in institutional spaces as such.

What interests me particularly in relation to the layoutof institutions such as museums, and, of course, all the ideol-ogies and power structures that are embedded in these institu-tions, are the ways in which the institution communicates withthe visitor and the institution's potential for communicationas such. I look at museums as well as all other kinds of spacefrom an experiential point of view, which means that the actualexperiencing of art is central. This experience is first and fore-most generated by the interaction that occurs between visitorand artwork, that is, in the field of vibrations. The institutionalcontext in which the visitor and artwork are brought togetheris also essential, and together these form a complex networkof elements that constitute the dynamic relationship betweenvisitor, artwork, and institution. What I examine is thus notonly the experiencing of the artwork itself, or the artwork andinstitution at once, but also - and even more importantly - theways in which the visitors may experience themselves experienc-ing the artwork. The audience should, in other words, beencouraged to see themselves both from a third-person perspec-tive, that is, from the outside, and from a first-person perspective.

I find it crucial that institutions that take it upon them-selves to communicate art focus on the visitor experience ratherthan only on the artworks themselves in order for them to unfoldtheir socializing potential, thus creating an important relationbetween themselves and the society in which they take part. Inthis way they will avoid positioning themselves as autonomousinstitutions outside society. I prefer to regard museums, forinstance, as spaces where one steps even deeper into society,from where one can scrutinize society. One can perhaps say thatthe museum here turns into a kind of hyper-society, with higherpressure and greater density, so to speak, a place where thediscussions have become intensified and concentrated. This is

73 Otafur Eliasson Vibrations

possible because the potential of art as a participant in societyis productive; a successful work of art breeds; it generates. Thepotential is not linear. Instead, I think that art may propagateitself into other connections in what we may call a rhizomicway. Art's potential is thus seated precisely in the fact that itsexperiential content can be actualized in contexts other than thespecifically artistic ones. The introduction of YES is thereforealso not limited to museums and other art institutions, but mayfunction equally well in other environments. How art works inthese various settings is ultimately dependent on the viewer, onher expectations, memories, feelings, and so on. In other words,the spreading effect, if we may call it this, will always stand inrelation to the singular viewer and depend on the specific dispo-sitions that make the spectator more or less receptive to pre-cisely this particular work.

The potential of institutions or museums as spaces wherethe viewer may renegotiate her relationship to the artwork andher surroundings also raises certain ethical questions, as theconfiguration of spaces and the way in which these are commu-nicated are defined or created by those participating in thesituation. In other words, the physical presence, movement, andinteraction of the visitors that bring about the dynamic field ofwaves are ultimately what define the spatial potential of muse-ums and other institutions. This mutability of space in partresults from the ethical considerations that are inherent in anykind of participation. I am, however, also thinking of what onemay call an ethics of communication. I believe that the systemsand institutions that communicate art have a responsibility tomake the ideology and power structures that shape their visionsobvious to the visitors. These institutions have to avoid thedanger of slipping into a superior position by patronizing thepeople using the spaces - that is, setting up a timeless utopia -thus eliminating the complex potential of art itself. Instead thetemporality and relativity introduced by YES must be encour-aged. The question about ethical values therefore lies in the idea

74

of freedom for people to experience and at the same time becritical in their attitude towards the experience itself.

The broad spectrum of potential responses to art and itsenvironment are made apparent by the self-reflexive activitiesof the people engaging actively with art and, ultimately, raisefundamental questions about the development of identity. Myprimary interest, of course, lies not in the emphasis of a specificidentity, but rather in the conditions that allow for the formu-lation of an open understanding of identity, and I think it isimportant to provide the stimulus for this type of development.The value system suggested by society at large unfortunatelytends to favor an understanding of identity based on a verylimited concept of what is good and bad, acceptable and non-acceptable. Facing the entertainment industry's commodifica-tion of the experience economy's interest in excluding relativitythrough the suspension of time, the questions about self-reflec-tion and identity need to be seriously considered. Here, I findthat cultural institutions have the potential to add more complexviews and values to society by allowing various configurationsof identity. Thus it is my belief that these institutions shouldstrive to avoid what we might call a Disneyfication of the experi-encing of art, that is, they should avoid supporting generalized,non-temporal ideas or experiences that do not leave roomfor individual evaluation, feelings, and thoughts. By allowingand generating spaces for reflection in cultural institutions aswell as society at large - parliaments and other less organizedfora - we may, I hope, be able to defy the prevailing trend ofcreating "universal" experiences. Instead of presenting "totalitar-ian" models of experiencing we may then create environmentsthat encourage experiential variety and individuality. In otherwords, when preserving the freedom of each person to experi-ence something that may differ from the experiences of others,art will be able to have a significant impact on both the individ-ual and society as a whole.