Bryan Waddell on Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media

“…the core element in Richards's constructions: the electromagnetic spectrum, the ontology of the signals therein, and the devices-both technological and cultural-used to contain and reveal them. In materializing these immaterial substrates of technology, Richards is also interrogating some of the contradictory desires that permeate technoculture, for example, being wholly immersed in technology while remaining an individual, or believing that the virtual originates in some magical elsewhere, devoid of any physical manifestation.” (p. 170)**
- Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media

After reading and rereading Dyson’s chapter on Atmosphere and researching Richard’s work(s) the above quote stuck with me the most (primarily due to the fact that it is quite a loaded statement).  To me, this statement provides not only a key thesis/concept to Richards’ work but also brings to light what Dyson infers as a very specific intention of Richards’ work as well.  In my investigation of the text, the terms “spectrum” and “electromagnetic spectrum” kept popping up with some frequency throughout with little to no mention of actual atmospheres in regards to Richard’s work.  It was in Dyson’s loose definition of atmosphere that enabled me to wrap my head around why. “Like the aural, the atmospheric suggests a relationship not only with the body in its immediate space but with a permeable body integrated within, and subject to, a global system… (p. 17).  The electromagnetic spectrum itself is a specific type of atmosphere that encompasses not only the physical world as a whole but also in smaller subsets that transmit and impact the greater (spectrum) by surrounding and interacting with each and every one of us. 

Knowing this, it allowed me to better understand what the statement (above) Dyson made meant by putting into terms I could better understand.  Simply put, through her work Richards attempts to give a physical embodiment to the electromagnetic spectrum allowing for a visual illustration of the spectrum itself through the semiotic use of physical material, the incorporation of technological devices and addressing cultural ideas.  Furthermore, it is through these created material objects that Richards hopes to not only bring to light the spectrum that we still know so little about but also have a profound physical and emotional impact the viewer. This impact then causes a flux of their own electromagnetic spectrum that will subsequently impact the spectrums of the art object, surrounding individuals and the greater atmosphere in general.

In order to gain a sense of awareness of the atmosphere that surrounds the individual, they must first gain an awareness of their own physical embodiment.  This awareness is partially accomplished through the mirroring caused by the physical nature of her work, reminding the viewer of their own physicality.  Likewise, the early moments of engagement with the art object brings to light the individual’s metaphysical counterpart and ultimately the effect it has as it is intertwined with the system of “unseen” it occupies through the emotional and sensory changes of the individual brought about by said interaction.  Dyson herself even cites that the characteristics and attributes of each material used can have very specific connotations that can affect the viewers mental state towards the piece and emotional state of being in general (ex. the fragility of glass along with the conductive nature of a metal that appears to be charged can make a person very reluctant/fearful to touch or interact with said materials in the case of Charged Hearts).  This ultimately affects the surrounding electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, these realizations are aided and amplified by the focusing effect a gallery or viewing space can provide by confining both the viewer and the art object into a contained environment.  It is within this specific and contained space where the two parts can have a very immersive experience with not only one another but also the surrounding atmosphere they occupy. 

Each one of Richards’ works beckons for engagement, for the living and inanimate to affect not only each other, but also the atmospheric system that the two are contained in.  Take for example the piece in which the quote I selected was originally derived from, Charged Hearts.  Broken down, the piece connects two glass hearts and ‘terrella’ to form a simple circuit (made of glass, metals, computer and gasses), relying on the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum to stabilize the containment and the changes brought about by interaction of an individual to stimulate and amplify the contained spectrum.  By the individual’s lifting and touching of one of the hearts it charges the circuit, immersing their own electromagnetic spectrum into a union with that of the piece.  This allows for individual’s electronic pulses to emit charges to the contained spectrum of the piece, causing the gasses (the physical manifestation of the spectrum) to “excite” and for the objects themselves to become illuminated by each pulse sent from the individual (http://bit.ly/AnTJGI).  Having such a powerful impact on the physical state of an inanimate object can affect an individual’s emotional state of being as well (pushed to extremes in the piece I was scared to death / I could have died of joy http://bit.ly/xloJLy).  This emotional change not only has bearing on the frequency/strength of pulses sent by the individual’s spectrum to that of the art object, but also those sent to the surrounding unmanifested atmosphere.  These emotional changes cause the visual state of the object to fluctuate, further pushing the emotions and curiosity of the individual. 

What I find extremely dynamic about this piece is that it works in two ways; not only does it give physical illustration to the affect that two entirely separate electromagnetic spectrums can have on one another when directly interacted, but it also brings to light the unknown affect the interaction has on the larger “unseen” spectrum that encompasses both.  It is as if Richards understands that many individuals have a much easier time relating to or understanding that which can be seen as opposed to that which cannot.  You could say that her purpose (and that of her creations) is meant to serve as a vehicle of awareness pertaining to the unseen, something that most do not really comprehend or consider.   It is also safe to assume that as a viewing audience (of one of Richards’ works), their primary concern is witnessing the direct state of change brought about to the art object as another interacts with that object, as opposed to the unseen impact the interaction brings to the spectrum of each individual and the gallery as a whole.  Which brings about a larger question: Does the unseen which impacts an atmosphere need to be seen in order to bear any relevance to the objects that are immersed within that atmosphere? 

Take for example, the ever flowing and ever present debate on climate change.  While I’m not going to cite my opinion on the subject in particular, it is a very interesting subject to view in the case of the impact of the seen vs. the unseen.  This, at times, heated and widely publicized debate has used both visual representations and daunting language to evoke visions of ultimate demise and absolute disconcern on the subject at the drop of a dime (http://bit.ly/fb0Xll).  The use of imagery and video of glaciers cracking and falling into the ocean, animals losing their habitats even the smog and pollutants engulfing an entire cityscape bring to light horrible visions and allude to what can be and are often accompanied with profound statements of warranting a need of change for the better.  Where as images of a beautiful day city day or even animals thriving within their habitat evoke happiness or even repress the concern an individual may have previously held about climate change (representing the unseen).  But what impact does this have on the individual?  On days of low-air quality warnings does the individual using his lawn mower during day light hours think about the impact the object has on the atmosphere in which they are contained?  Does the late night scholar think about the power he and his computer consume as the seen manifestation of burning coal or nuclear fusion?  Or in the same light, consider the unseen emissions of impacting multiple spectrums as it passes through the greater atmosphere.   Personally, I view the question at hand as more so “a barometer” of sorts measuring an individual’s perception and aptitude to handle and process the unseen in an as meaningful or disinterested way as those who require a direct view of the physicality. 

After viewing and investigating Richards’ work, she truly has mastered the ability to give a material representation to the unseen environment(s) that surround and the ideas that incorporate and impact only all individuals but the physical realm we occupy as a whole.  Though the “digital” aspect of her work is rooted more within the realm of science as a whole, it is beyond a doubt that without the technological advances made since the modern era; these representations would not be possible.  For Richards, science and technology serves as the vehicle for the ultimate awareness of not only our own physical embodiment but also illuminating the surrounding unseen and how little we understand about it.

**The latter part of the quote I selected is more so a secondary concern that has peeked my interest as an artist rather than a contributing piece of the whole.  I’m really just looking for some opinions after the fact.  Personally it’s hard for me to view Richards’ art objects as investigations of contradictory desires in both the realm of technoculture as well as raw human emotion.  I am a firm believer that a primary purpose of art is to evoke a raw, unassuming human response.  But to say a work like Charged Hearts can be viewed along the lines of an investigation of “being wholly immersed in technology while remaining an individual” is a bit far fetched.  In this day and age, the vast majority of individuals between the ages of 16 – 40 are mostly if not teetering on the edge of complete immersion into technology.  Because technology surrounds the vast majority of daily life in a “First World” country it has become almost an afterthought, background noise of sorts.  I’m reminded of the recent string of Samsung commercials poking at the Apple Sub Culture and the constant need and blinding effects Apple products has on their devoted allegiance.  What bothers me about these adverts are as follows: Samsung reduces the Apple faithful to a group of late 20 something hipsters when the larger demographic spans much further than the 5-8 span represented and secondly, the Android/Google faithful are just as devoted to gadget/tech releases as their Apple counterparts.  In a state of being where an item or set of items is common place, how do those items have any bearing on a being’s sense of individuality?