Stephanie Rothenberg’s participatory artwork is incredibly engaging. I was particularly struck by “Invisible Threads,” the mixed reality performance-installation. While it seems contradictory, Stephanie Rothenberg is a reality-based artist functioning in a virtual world. It’s an interesting juxtaposition.
The game-style interaction of the viewer the Second Life workers is definitely novel and engaging. In this form of participatory media, you can’t call those experiencing the artwork as “viewers.” While it’s true that all forms of artwork are participatory, viewers must be referred to as participants in the case of Rothenberg. This isn’t necessarily true of all digital media. When on YouTube, users can still be described as viewers with a fair amount of accuracy. Not so with the kind of virtual reality Rothenberg employs in Invisible Threads.
Invisible Threads personalizes the way we interact with a commodities by allowing us to “personally” interact with the sweatshop workers who produce the garments we buy. The participants’ ability to create the product from the business model to the final product requires ethical business decisions regarding environmental impact, working conditions, wages and more. Both the media and the message raise questions about participant/consumer relationships with technologies and social consciousness.
What I found disturbing in the video was the teenage girl who was so excited about her new jeans. “Everybody is going to be so jealous!” She was apparently viewing the project superficially, as nothing more than an interactive game that generated a real-world product. She wasn’t engaged in the fundamental purpose of the installation, calling into question our interpersonal relationship with both technology and consumerism. How many others become so involved with the “wow” factor of the experience that they overlook the fundamental purpose? Is that an area of concern in all virtual experiences?
I too found some issues with Invisible Threads. I just wrote about it on Lauren’s post actually. There is definitely some tension between the power of the project to reveal the injustices in the production process and what you have accurately labelled as the “wow factor.” The issue with the Virtual world seems to be that we can create a world that allows us to explore what we don’t often see in the Real world, but that the world we create remains Virtual and possibly less tangible. Its effects might not be felt in the Real world. We also get so excited about the world we created that it distracts us from the original mission and we end up reproducing the same power dynamics we sought to dismantle. Now, I realize Rothenberg is being playful in her project, so maybe she wants it to look like fun and games as a joke because in actuality the labor conditions and the environmental issues that arise from production aren’t jokes at all.
Great observation with Invisible Threads. I’ve wondered myself about the ways in which activism art is a catalyst for social change. I think the participatory practice can be more effective that static art because it’s requirement for human interaction to complete the piece and prompts interaction with an idea or inquiry. However I still wager to guess, as you pointed out with the teenage girl who was more excited about her jeans than she seemed gain insight into the process, that the effectiveness is a mixed bag.
I wish I knew better where Stephanie Rothenberg showed her work. From what I gathered by her list of showings, it seemed predominantly in museums and art-based events but the audience for this particular project did seem to be younger, not your typical art patron.
For argument sake, let’s say Rothenberg brought her art outside of those the boundaries of a traditional art space, in which case I think it’s powerful to have father-reaching effects by bringing her work to the masses. I think this is so important to have art that provides thought provoking experiences and creates dialogue to larger communities that may lead to civic engagement. I think the challenge however, and not to say that Invisible Threads was all that obscure, but I often feel the nature of art it’s abstraction of issues can be perhaps to esoteric for the common citizen. It’s almost a catch 22, the amazing digital art process and experience seemed truly effective in capturing attention but was it effective if the response was enthusiasm to a pair of jeans rather than to incite critical thinking?
I think the question of the girl brings to a head one of the essential (and unanswered questions) with all art work, namely, how the work is received. You describe how the girl “wasn’t engaged in the fundamental purpose of the installation, calling into question our interpersonal relationship with both technology and consumerism,” and I think that is actually a success for the piece. The girl is part of the problem –she’s not seeing the connection–and we as viewers of her are triggered to feel uncomfortable. In a sense, she was a great addition to the point, whether or not she understood it. The nature of good performance art is to have multiple folds of understanding and interaction, and this achieved that. The central issue with the piece, however, is part of the dynamic and issue with art in general: what is the point? To change people? To understand the issue? I think it can be judged as a failure or a success depending on the focus of the lens we use to judge it.
The observation of the teenage girl’s excitement over her new jeans introduces a crucial aspect of the discussion – the potential for individuals to be captivated by the “wow” factor, sometimes overlooking the fundamental purpose of the installation. Your insights raise pertinent concerns about our collective interpersonal relationship with technology and consumerism in virtual environments. Great!