Media Art of the '90

Essay on Consolidation Service, (1999, Eija-Liisa Ahtila)

People had gradually gotten used to film, and after the second half of the 20^th century, the invention of video and later the handheld camera put the magic in peoples own hands. It made artists want to use this magic for artistic means. In the nineties there came even more tools to create magic. In this essay I will review the two-screen version of the media art piece Consolidation Service (1999) by Eija-Liisa Ahtila.

As Weibel describes in his article have experiments with single and double screen presentations been explored in the sixties.[1] Therefore is the work Consolidation Service not entirely new; there is a basis to be found in these experimental works from the sixties. At that time artists already were trying to exceed regular projections and thus linearity, namely in the Avant-garde films, albeit, as Weibel states, in a more subjective way. Multiple narrative perspectives were expressed, much like some painters sliced up the canvas, with multiple screens, projections and/ or different films alongside one another.[2] As Weibel puts it:

“From the outset, the extension of the single screen to many screens, from the single projection to multiple projections represented not only an expansion of visual experience. It always engaged in the service a new approach to narration”.[3]

This is a big similarity between the experiments of the sixties and those of the nineties. But it differs as well, mainly in the part that the viewer plays, which I will later elaborate on.

Since narration is the way of telling stories, it is communication. Consolidation Service is a work about communication, molded in the form of a story about an estranged couple that’s seeking help from a therapist. It is funny and probably no coincidence that it is a story about communication, since the experiment that Ahtila is conducting is also one of communication. Communication between the couple, between the two versions she presents, between the story and the spectator and indirectly between the spectator and herself. Ahtila is exploring the way narrative is coming across to a spectator by offering her piece in different ways; she is researching narrative and at the same time technical possibilities (which fits this day and age).[4]

By using images and sound effects that are real – not real, staged – not staged, she deconstructs the narrative and by offering a two-screen version she plays with the two narratives, and the effect of these on the viewer. The at one time converging and another diverging images supplement or comment on each other.

For instance when one is talking to the therapist you see the other in the second screen looking at the first talking, and thus the facial expressions provoke by the text of the first. Because of the setting of the room of the therapist, this is not possible in a single-screen version.

Later on when the drowning scene is about to happen, you see the group walking on the ice; on one screen you see the bodies, the second the legs. On the faces you see the moods provoked by the progress of the evening and the joke told by one of them, the other just legs. Why this is an interesting shot the spectator understands when they fall through the ice. Often, one of the images can be seen as reflecting upon the just passed or the just following.

The sequence of the images is also provoking; for instance when the image of the fighting dogs is shown after the couple has barked at each other. The cuts are so that they fall exactly irregularly, creating a daring unity. For example, the sound comes sooner then the image or visa versa. Sound creates an extra dimension and or challenge for a non Finnish speaker, as it is difficult to get a grip on the screen that one is not watching when one cannot follow the voice-over. Maybe this is meant as part of the elusiveness of a double-screen version, as often life itself is.

At a certain point the estranged couple sits separated on either side of the two screens and as they look at the edges of the screen, they look not at other people in the off-screen space, but at the spectator. In contrast with viewing cinema where one is supposed to forget the self, the spectator suddenly becomes aware of herself, and therefore becomes part of the story; the setting for the installation makes up a great part of this whole. One could say that this whole, the space, its contents, the installation, and the spectator, is the piece of art.[5]

Innovatively, Ahtila puts a lot of responsibility in the eye of the beholder by setting up the installation in a large room with sometimes wall filling projections of the double-screen version with maybe two large fauteuils in front. This creates the sensation for the spectator of being physically part of the narrative; she gets a sense of playing the part of the therapist, listening to both the man and the woman and not choosing sides. But as suggested earlier, the couple sometimes looks at the spectator, as if they do appeal for her to choose sides. Ahtila opens up the dialogue with cinema by forming the physical space of her installation like she has.[6] It enhances the realistic effect of the piece enormously and provokes an interactive feeling. “Consequently, observation of the world gives way tot the observation of communication” (Weibel, 2000).[7] The spectator is (un)willingly communicating with the given by continuously making choices. Even though the sound makes sure that you are involved with both screens*, because of the enormity of the projections one has to choose at which to look, which can also be seen as a metaphor for an interactive situation. Are we a spectator or a visitor?[8]

Consolidation Service is an interesting development of the experiments of the sixties; in using modern technology Ahtila exceeds precedents. The difference between (the technology of) cinema and video is no longer important. Artists of the nineties use whichever means necessary to get their message across; which in this case can be described as: where does narrative go when technology of the nineties gets involved?

---

[1] Weibel, 1999, p. 28.

[2] Weibel, 1999, p. 25, 26; Gregory Markopoulos is a good example: “I propose a new form of narration as a combination of classical montage technique with a more abstract system. This system incorporates the use of short film phases that evoke thoughtimages. Each film phase comprises a selection of specific images similar to the harmonious unity of a musical composition. The film phases determine other interrelationships among themselves; in classical montage technique, there is a constant relationship to the continuous shot; in my abstract system there is a complex of different images that are repeated.”

[3] Weibel, 1999, p. 26.

[4] Shaw, 2000, p. 150.

[5] Morse, 1990, p. 154, 166.

[6] Bellour, 2000, p. 37.

[7] Weibel, 1999, p. 34.

* Besides the previously mentioned language barrier; this by the way is a very interesting aspect to be elaborated on by one not limited to an amount of words since this piece is about communication!

[8] Smoking – non Smoking (1993) by Alain Resnais: Bellour, 2000, p. 40, 39; Morse, 1990, p. 158.