Radiator
Søren Assenholts installation Radiator
is
the third piece in his series of works where the concept
analogy is the focuspoint. Just as with his previous works,
the analogy is first and foremost present at the concrete,
physical and visual levels between an everyday object - in
this case a thermostat - and its replication in wood. But
the analogy is also present at a higher, immaterial level,
which lies outside the immediately comparable. Thus at
closer inspection the piece seems to open up to or uncover
significant structures of the reality surrounding us and
the society we live in. At the same time the piece reflects
our way of obtaining experience through perception, i.e.
the cognitive process, which via a sensuous experience
leads from unconsciousness and ignorance to consciousness
and acknowledgement. Assenholt has expressed that he as a
person is curious of nature and therefore has an
instinctive natural interest in exploring how humans obtain
experience through actions and senses.
The essence of Radiator,
which was exhibited at the gallery Koh-i-noor, Copenhagen,
in March 2007 was the relation between the piece and the
spectators who chose to see and experience the piece. It
was the spectator, who with his/her previously obtained
experience, engagement and will to immerse decided how much
the piece should open itself and narrate - thus also to the
undersigned.
My personal perception of the piece combined with my
following conversation with the artist make me believe that
it makes sense to talk about the spectator accessing the
piece as a sequence of processes from which the spectator’s
perception and experience develop and undergo various
stages.
The sensuous, physical experience was the absolutely first
stage of perceiving the piece - the first sense the
spectator got when arriving at the gallery was an
overwhelming heat pouring out from the radiator in the
gallery. During my talk with Assenholt we discussed this
first experience - the heat as a point of focus for the
spectator or the initial framing of the piece. Assenholt
pointed out how the physical experience often reacts faster
than consciousness, wherefore the spectator will initially
probably only register
the
heat as opposed to reflecting
on
its source. This first framing of the piece will inevitably
expand the instance the spectator’s reflection of or wonder
at the extreme heat replaces the simple registering. I
myself experienced a shift of focus as I became aware of
the unnatural heat in the room and the fact that something
was not as it should be. Instead of just accepting the heat
I began to seek its cause, which lead me to the radiator
and thereafter the thermostat. It was not till I reached
this stage that I noticed the thermostat had been replaced
by a replica in wood. The interesting part was that at
first I did not consider that this could have any influence
on the functionality of the radiator. My experience told me
that the thermostat functioned as a regulator of the heat
supplied by the radiator, and therefore my initial impulse
was that the thermostat had been set too high. During our
conversation Assenholt reflected on this immediate belief
in the thermostat’s functionality. Our experience with and
expectation to the workability of a thermostat are embedded
in our consciousness to such a degree that at first glance
we will automatically give the replica in wood - the
analogy - the same characteristics and qualities of a real
thermostat - both concerning form and content. Thus
Assenholt characterises the thermostat as a
performative
object, which
to the spectator acts as something it is actually not. As
he expresses it, the spectator unconsciously accepts the
mask of the thermostat and in this way becomes part of his,
the artist’s staged room. But in a way the piece exceeds
its own illusion. It is not interested in maintaining the
spectator in the belief in the qualities of the analogy.
The construction or the fictive element is illustrated in
the drawing, which Assenholt has placed above the radiator
showing a cross section of a real thermostat. At this stage
it is clearly pointed out that the replica in wood could
never contain the same complexity and functionality as a
real thermostat.
In order to describe the complexity or the structure of the
thermostat, Assenholt has adopted an analogy from reality;
namely Montesquieu’s well-known division of power which our
society is based on: the
legislative, judicial and executive
powers. In relation
to the core structure of the thermostat, the legislative
power is represented by the spectator or the user, who has
the power to decide, when the radiator is to be activated;
the judicial power is represented by the thermostats
authority or power to decide when the heat is adequate, and
the executive power is represented by the radiator, which
function or power is, however, determined by the regulation
of the thermostat. To me personally the drawing became the
centre of the entire experience of the piece as the
disfunctionality
of
the replica thermostat was emphasised here. Compared to a
real thermostat the replica was insufficient - a primitive,
crafted object in wood, which only in its form was analogue
to a real thermostat - not concerning functionality nor
content. At this level I as a spectator seriously became
aware of the causal relation, which is incorporated in the
experience of the piece. The reason for the heat in the
room had suddenly been found; it was related to the
disfunctionality
of
the replica thermostat, which it was a reaction of. Where
the heat initially constituted the frame of the piece, it
was now the replica thermostat - the reason for the heat,
which became the point of focus or the core of the
experience of the piece.
In my opinion Radiator
is
a consciousness-expanding piece, which seeks to involve the
spectator actively in the interpretation. Based upon the
prerequisites of all people - the senses, the piece opens
up to a train of reflections and acknowledgements, relating
to the way upon which we acquire experience and gain
knowledge by placing things and experiences in a causal
relation.
However, at the same time the piece gives the spectator the
opportunity of becoming aware of the relations, we
ourselves as individuals partake in during our daily
dealings with each other and the everyday phenomena. What
does this then mean to our acknowledgements and
understandings of the world and our own positions herein,
when an everyday object such as a thermostat is replaced by
a replica or analogy in wood? As mentioned, first and
foremost we become aware of the complexity and complicated
structure, which is the core of an object as well-known and
common as a thermostat. But at the same time we also become
aware of our own role in relation to the thermostat - our
interaction with it from the moment we use and activate it.
Thus we enter into a relation with the thermostat where we
as users become part of a larger context. It is this
context or structure, which Asenholt attempts to emphasise
through the analogy of the division of power. By using this
analogy the piece seems to reflect on what the division of
power is and how it is manifested in our everyday lives.
During our conversation, Assenholt pointed out that
whenever there is a social relation, there will always be a
relation of power. Thus different types of power structures
are present everywhere in our daily lives and in our social
relations with each other, however, we are not always aware
of this fact. In this way the inner logic of the thermostat
also constitutes a form of power structure, which we as
users necessarily are part of and acknowledge as being
natural.
It is not a coincidence that Assenholt has chosen the
thermostat as an example of an everyday object, which in
relation to the user determines a power structure.
According to Danish Law all radiators must be regulated by
thermostats. Thus the highest legislative authority has
decided how something as ordinary as turning on the heat
must be determined by a structure where a controlling force
regulates the heat. In this way Assenholt’s thermostat,
with its construction, exemplifies, how various power
structures and relations are present at all levels in our
everyday lives, and that we often unaware, and by habit,
convention and legislation conform to and acknowledge the
structures almost as basic conditions for our existence.
One cannot help thinking about Michel Foucault who
theorized about power structures and exercising of power in
modern society. According to Foucault the states regulating
and disciplinary power is embedded in various authorities,
which establish a codex or a number of conventions which
each individual should conform to. Thus the exercising of
power is not apparent but is invisible as it is transformed
into a habit or a norm, which you must conform to if you
want to be part of the normalised society. For obvious
reasons Radiator
can
be considered as a piece which actually questions what is
normal and correct and what is wrong and deviating. The
structure of power, which is contained in a real
thermostat, is dissolved and disintegrated in Assenholt’s
installation due to the wooden functionless analogy. As
Assenholt describes it; the judicial power is stripped of
its intelligence whereby the executive power of the
radiator is given free reins. As mentioned the result is an
exaggerated and uncontrolled heat, which completely breaks
with our expectations of what is normal. Thus the
spectator’s immediate reaction is naturally that someone
has set the thermostat too high and therefore not
understood the logic of the thermostat nor been able to
conforming to its regulating abilities. By breaking with
conventions of what is considered normal,
Radiator
opens up to
interesting structures of the way in which we understand
and experience the world, and it is impossible not to
reflect on how we always determine the causal relation of
things based on a preset conventional, defined foundation.
Visually, Radiator
is
a small piece, which, however, opens up to large general
reflections. The installation incorporates and stages the
entire room wherefore the spectator cannot avoid becoming
part of the piece, and by his/her presence and decoding be
part of giving it meaning. Assenholt’s piece gives a number
of clues which give the spectator the opportunity of
decoding and interrelating through his/her physical,
sensual and active participation. In this way Assenholt’s
piece is a continuation of a widespread tendency within
contemporary art, which emphasises the importance of the
relational and dialogue-based relationship between the work
of art and the spectator. Thus Radiator
challenges the
traditional work of art by transgressing its frames and
inviting the spectator to participate in a dialogue
concerning our private and common lives. This way the piece
expresses the necessity which contemporary art has in
relation to society as it can function as a means of
communication establishing contact between the spectator,
piece and people in general.
Karen Elsebeth
Jensen
BA - Art History
Translation by Helle Marianne Holmgaard Møller