Special Episode: “Media Relay: Intervals” with Elizabeth King NA + Stephen Vitiello

In this special episode of Exquisite Corpse, Host Adrienne Elise Tarver and Chief Curator, Sara Reisman talk about a recent exhibition at PS-122 Gallery, “Media Relay: An Exhibition in Two Parts” and present a unique conversation between two of the exhibition’s artists, National Academician Elizabeth King and Sound Artist Stephen Vitiello. This conversation was sound designed by the Exquisite Corpse podcast production team at SeeThruSound.

© National Academy of Design
nationalacademy.org
nationalacademy.org/calendar
instagram.com/natlacademy

Transcript

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 0:11

Hi, I'm Adrian Elise Tarver, the Director of Programs and the hosts of the National Academy podcast, Exquisite Corpse. This podcast is a series of conversations between artists and architects who've been elected by their peers to the National Academy of Design for their extraordinary contributions to art and culture in America. These are the National Academicians and they are at the core of the oldest artist run organization in the United States. This is Exquisite Corpse. Welcome back to the Exquisite Corpse podcast. Well, almost. We're getting ready to launch season two with new episodes of the podcast in a few weeks. And just like before, each episode will few feature one Academicians in conversation with another. Talking about their work, life and being a part of the National Academy of Design. But we do a lot more here at the National Academy than produce this podcast. In the past year, we've worked to revitalize all parts of the academy, including exhibitions. And this winter, we were able to present two great exhibitions, organized by our chief curator, Sara Reisman and curatorial fellow Natalia Viera Salgado. In February, we opened 'Consequences - A Parlor Game' at the National Arts Club. An exhibition of works by your 2021 National Academician inductees - Andrew Freear, Joanne Greenbaum, Peter Halley, Trenton Doyle Hancock, Rashid Johnson, Julie Mehretu, oanna Pousette-Dart and Gary Simmons. In January, we opened 'Media Relay - An Exhibition in Two Parts' at PS 122 Gallery. Part one featured moving image artworks by six National Academicians - Peter Campus, Elizabeth King, Mary Lucier, Christian Marclay, Shahzia Sikander and Carrie Mae Weems. And in part two, works by five more artists were added to the show. These artists were nominated by the Academicians from part one. They included Cecelia Condit, Kathleen J Graves, Tala Madani, Camila Rodríguez Triana and Stephen Vitiello. These shows have helped to bring more energy and excitement into the Academy."Media Relay" provided the opportunity for us to bring an artist from outside of our Academician membership. So today on the podcast, we're bringing you something a little different. But before we get to that, our Historical Acknowledgement. The National Academy of Design was initiated by artists and architects to fill will in the American artistic landscape of the 19th century. But we recognize our history has excluded many communities and cultures whose lineages and practices must be included in this country's art historical cannon. indigenous peoples, people of color, queer and non-binary individuals and people with disabilities. We are committed to a process of dismantling the ongoing legacies of settler colonialism, and white supremacy. We're excited to move forward and have conversations that reflect the important questions and issues of today. This is the Exquisite Corpse Podcast. For Media Relay, we hosted a few conversations with artists on Zoom. This special episode is based on the conversation between Elizabeth King, a National Academician from part one of the exhibition, and sound artist Stephen Vitiello, who she chose to be included in part two. Here to help me introduce the Media Relay exhibition and this special podcast episode, is our chief curator, Sara Reisman. Who you might remember from our very first episode of the podcast. Sara, this exhibition was a long time coming. Can you tell us a little bit about how it came to be and how you envisioned it's ultimate execution with the exhibition in two parts?

Sara Reisman: 3:45

Sure. Well, this exhibition was originally meant to be a presentation at Volta Art Fair in 2019, to showcase the six Academicians whose diploma works, which diploma works are the art and architecture works in the Academy's collections. So, these six Academicians, their diploma works are video. The six video works in a collection of nearly 8,000 works. So, our Director of Collections, Diana Thompson was working with David Goodman, who was on the Academy's Programming Committee at the time. In 2019, you might remember Volta was canceled because of an issue with the pier. So there was a subsequent plan to have the videos presented in a show at PS 122 Gallery that was scheduled for spring of 2020. Fast forward to 2021, when I started as Chief Curator at the National Academy, I heard from a few Academicians there'd been a show plan for PS 122 Gallery. And I'm actually on their Exhibitions Committee. So, I looked through the files and saw a very straightforward plan to show the six video works that are in the collection. I tried to think about how the show could activate a different idea of curating. So we asked the six National Academicians whose video works are in the collection and they include Peter Campus, Elizabeth King, Mary Lucier, Christian Marclay, Shahzia Sikander, and Carrie Mae Weems. We asked if they could be up for recommending an artist whose work they admire to make the show kind of relay. Hence the title Media Relay. In a way, the structure follows the logic of Exquisite Corpse. That's the title of the podcast series that Adrienne's been leading. Except it's not Academician to Academician. But the impulse is to look outside the Academy to push past this kind of insularity that comes naturally to institutions.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 5:18

So, it's unexpected for the National Academy to have an exhibition of new media works. Uh, and as the National Academician selected, artists participate in the show with them. What questions arose for you and Natalia and what became important to you about how these works would be displayed and experienced?

Sara Reisman: 5:35

I think there were questions of whether the Academicians would wanna engage in this idea in the first place. Pretty much every one of them responded really quickly with an artist in mind. And having the show in two parts, Natalia Viera Salgado, who I worked with closely on the show, we wanted people to be compelled to come back and see the show as it unfolded. So, that was the idea for two parts. But we also had to consider how the works would compete with each other in terms of sound and even lighting. So two artists, Camila Triana Rodríguez and Kathleen J Graves were invited by Carrie Mae Weems and Peter Campus respectively. Their work involved photography. So, a still form of media, but not moving image. No screens involved. So, there's a question of how do you light the work with videos nearby without washing out the video screens or creating unnecessary reflections and glare? Of more interest to me, is how to position work so that the dialogue between the artist could be perceived without being too literal. I like that in Elizabeth and Stephen's case, his work could be added next to hers, and as a sound piece, whereas her video has no sound. Not to say the sound of his piece should somehow be understood as a soundtrack to her video. Not at all. But there's an interesting relationship in terms of how differently, but compatibly, they think and make work. If that makes sense. And as a curator, I think it's import-, it's important always to try to honor what the artist wants. But of course the conditions of the space will always impose certain limits. What is a capacity for lighting, sound absorption, amplification? And for leaving enough space between the works so that each of them can breathe and be kind of taken in on their own terms by the viewer.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 7:02

So we're thinking about these ways to reinvigorate the academy and thinking about the membership expanding, what the definit of art have been traditionally for the Academy. Can you talk a little bit about how the artists included in this show have really helped to start that dialogue?

Sara Reisman: 7:18

Yeah. Um, I mean, with the example of Stephen Vitiello, um, a sound artist whose sound work was in the show, we're able to extend the idea of media based artwork from film and video, to an object that plays audio. So, it was two speakers with live wires with this, kind of, edited and kind of distorted soundtrack of an interview that Vitiello did with Alvin Lucier in 2004. But more generally, it's important that as an Academy, that we, we have this process in which we nominate and elect new members on an annual basis, our understanding of media has to continue to evolve with what artists and architects are doing in the contemporary moment. Even if some might understand the work as fitting into the art historical canon. Let's just say not yet, right? I mean, the canon is always in formation. When the National Academy of Design was founded, the arts of design included, drawing, painting, sculpture, engraving, and architecture. So those aren't the things we think of as design, right? And that's always, I'm sure Adrienne, you have this issue when you tell people where you work. They're like, oh, I love design. I love design... graphic design. You know? And it's, it's not what it is. But, but it's, um, that was just the, you know, nomenclature of the time. Aside from architecture, those would be considered fine arts now, the original. So terminology aside, I think it's important to remain open to what art and architecture will become and how artists and architects manifest their ideas.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 8:35

Well, and I think what's interesting about that as a concept about, sort of, the continual evolution of the Academy, is one of the questions that came up up in the conversation, the original Zoom conversation. Was, uh, what is the work? You know, as we're embracing new forms of work, as they're being created, and as we're introducing them into a place that is known for traditional, um, the traditional sort of arts, um, in the Academy. That question becomes really relevant and important to help people understand how it fits into the canon. Like what, with a sound piece, what is the work?

Sara Reisman: 9:10

I think that that was a question we, I think we posed in the podcast. And I, I think that, you know, there are different layers to what that work can be. It can be the initial recording of a conversation that Stephen did with Alvin Lucier. It can be the remixing of that conversation. It can be, you know, the speakers on display as a way, as a signifier for this is a sound work. So, all of those, I think, contribute to what the work is. I think in some ways, for the purposes of this show, and I wouldn't have known it, you know, even at the point where we were installing, the second part of the show, is that the, the relational aspect is also part of the work. What are these relationships that formulate an artistic community? Of course, that doesn't necessarily constitute an artwork, per se, but I think it constitutes an art, artistic and creative dialogue, which is critical to the emergence of work. And, and the development of new work.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 10:02

So, as with how, kind of, the National Academy itself is formed, there are all these relationships between artists and architects who ultimately end up nominating and inducting in their peers revealing all of these relationships, um, and networks between this community of creators. Elizabeth being a national academy Academician, uh, reached out to Stephen, and what was your understanding of their relationship and how that connection came to be?

Sara Reisman: 10:30

Yeah, when I, when I, um, contacted Elizabeth back in December about the show, early December, her response was, I think I'd like to put forward Stephen Vitiello. The ask that I'd put forward to each of the Academicians about nominating another artist to be part of the show, was really like, can you think of somebody who's work you admire? Someone you've mentored? Someone who's mentored you? Somebody you, like, wish you knew? Just to kind of think about how we can make this as relational as possible through a chain of media, right? And, um, she was quick to say Stephen. And she explained that the two of them had taught together at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, I think where they're both based now. And so, that was, I think Stephen's first class there. And they co-taught a class together. He continue teach there. She had, I think been teaching for several decades, at that point. And so, it's not just a pedagogical relationship. It's like, or it's not pedagogical, like, you know, teacher to student. It's two people teaching together. But at different points in their teaching careers. And I thought that was interesting in relation to the Academy having been an art school and us looking to the future of how education, what role education plays in our programming. And thinking about, you know, different frameworks for mentorship. So the idea of them as co-educators will was, um, really interesting. And so, in some way, their relational exchange, you know, references a space of learning. And I relate to that as I teach art history and continue to learn from students and other faculty every time we meet. So I think this podcast series, even though it isn't live, supports the idea of sharing ideas in a pedagogical sense. Maybe it's not instruction exactly. But it's creating a virtual space for learning.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 12:06

I want to ask about, in the initial development, you know, the conversations between Programs and Curatorial, about how to highlight artists and aspects of this show. And this idea came up, and I'm attributing it to Natalia, but correct me if I'm wrong, this idea of highlighting sound work in this way that we hadn't had the ability to do, or sort of, the opportunity to do before. So, I'm curious of about like your hopes or thoughts for, like, what that could have manifested into? And then, like, how it's manifested since?

Sara Reisman: 12:37

Are you asking in terms of the show or the Academy?

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 12:40

Um, I think I was thinking more specifically the show. But, like, I think for the Academy as well.

Sara Reisman: 12:44

Yeah. I mean, for, for the show, I think it just was, if you have a show of six videos, and those six artists are asked to invite six artists, to me, it was, like, definitely more interesting if the media was not consistent in the next generation, in the second generation of the show. For me, that that would, that could work. But it's, like, a dense video show that got, just got denser. And that second stage feels a little bit like it's obvious. And there's also a question of how long people will spend with the same kind of media, like, one screen after another screen after another screen. Of course, one of the things we talked about, and I wrote about it in the exhibition essay, was the way in which the first part of the show, with six screens, did kind of, like, harken back to, not even back, but just the, the last two years of us spending a lot of time on screens. Like we are right now. So, so, like, a lot of art was experienced on screen in a way that it hadn't been before. So, maybe there's a different appreciation of media. Like, media based art that you would see in a kind of video format or? And I think, so, so when we, when Carrie Mae Weems suggested we get in touch with Camila and Camila's work in the end, she's a filmmaker, but what she was, she presented to us was a, an installation that included a sound piece and a photograph and a kind of, uh, cultural object. Uh, I'm not sure what to call it. But it, it almost like a spiritual object that accompanied the photograph, that to was special because it, it becomes like the artwork mediates something spiritual. Not just technological. Like, if we think of, I mean, it's a kind of wrote reference, but like Marshall McLuhan's notion that technology is an extension of man. It's like, you know, a spiritual object can become an extension of humankind. So, I like that Camila's work veered away from the sort of cold technology or, you know, machine technology. And then, the idea that sound was part of it, to me, just felt like a more interesting way to activate this space than with just another video. Not to say, I mean, Shahzia Sikander suggested Tala Madani and Tala Madani's videos are painterly. So, that's like in dialogue with Shahzia's work. But also different, much more, comical, I would say. But also dark, critical. But, so, to see those different, comparative ways in which one artist relays to another artist and the progression, let's say, or the kind of transition of media, the change in media, is an interesting way of understanding that, like, all of these are art forms that, I don't want to really reside in the canon, but they all have a place in contemporary art and ultimately we'll have a place in art history. I think within the Academy, it's just really important that we loosen up these kind of antiquated ideas of what is legitimate artwork. Is it a certain kind of painting? Is it a certain kind of sculpture? I mean, the idea that engraving was one of the art forms at the time, we don't really have engraving now. It's, like, something that we see in the election process when artists are nominated. So, I mean, it could happen. But it's not so common. So, I think that as we go forward, we have to be mindful of the fact that media keeps changing. And so these relational exchanges between the artists and the show gave examples of where medium, the kind of evolution of a medium might go. So, from video to sound. Or from painting and video to painting or to an object. And I was talking a little bit about Triana Rodríguez's work with, an artwork that includes a photograph, a spiritual object and a sound recording. And I like that, you know, the spiritual object is a kind of softer way or a more human way of thinking about technology as an extension of man. But in her case, it's like the artwork or the art object is a kind of spiritual extension of her humanity. It's vital that we are always open to new forms, even if we don't understand exactly what they are in the moment. Because I think ultimately, emerging art forms are what make art contemporary. And that's not to say a painter's work is not contemporary. But, but it being in dialogue with, let's say a painter being in dialogue with sound, being in dialogue with a spiritual object and another sound installation. All of these things kind of contribute to a contemporary dialogue. But if we remain in the constraints of the old forms, or the original forms, I don't know that we move forward in the way that we can if we, we open this up. And I think that was one of the goals with Media Relay, was to just give some small examples of how we might open up how we think about the kinds of artwork that are part of the Academy's collection and the kinds of artists and architects that are part of the Academy.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 17:22

A big thank you to Sarah for coming back to talk about the Media Relay show. And thank you to everyone involved. It really has been a relay. Where the curators left off, Anjelic and I in the Programs Department were able to pick up with artists conversations. And then hand one of those it conversations off to our editing team at SeeThru Sound. This episode as the end of that chain. And we were able to have a little fun with it. We wanted to create a listening experience that explores the ideas and passions that motivate these two artists. Our podcast, producers, Mike and Wade, put together this very special piece. And now please enjoy 'Media Relay - Intervals' featuring Elizabeth King and Stephen Vitiello.

Elizabeth King: 18:04

But why is it that the sounds, why do they feel so much more immediate and so much more direct and such a time machine? I, I don't know the answer. What would you say?

Sara Reisman: 18:18

Both of these works have really substantial histories, which we've established. Um, Stephen's builds on an interview recorded in 2004, nearly 20 years ago. And Elizabeth, your video was first made in 1991 and then has been reworked. I guess that was 2008?

Elizabeth King: 18:35

Right, it was 2008. Yeah.

Sara Reisman: 18:36

I wonder, yeah, and I, I wonder if this kind of timeline and process, how often does that happen in your work? I'm gonna bundle in a few questions. But, how does time affect your process? And maybe, maybe we can also talk about archives. But let's start with a question of, like, is this, is this normal? And earlier, Elizabeth, you said that Stephen can, have, kind of, record something and make a work in the same day. So there's a kind of shorter, the shorter time span, the immediate spontaneous artwork. But then, something can be, I guess, in the back of mind and retrieved later on?

Stephen Vitiello: 19:22

We met at VCU. And right when I started teaching in 2004...

Elizabeth King: 19:26

ok.

Stephen Vitiello: 19:27

I heard somebody was teaching a class on noise and contemporary art. And I, I got all excited cuz I thought, I will, I will have colleagues. And I reached out to you and said, can I come visit your class?

Elizabeth King: 19:40

Wow. So 2004? And you came in to a department that was not yet called, or was it called Kinetic Imaging?

Stephen Vitiello: 19:50

Yeah, I think it was not officially. But it was just, just as I came into the department.

Elizabeth King: 19:55

Yeah.

Stephen Vitiello: 19:55

I started, it started to be, being called that.

Elizabeth King: 19:58

Yeah. Yeah. And then over the years, we, we just, you know, we shared the same students. We, we've, my last year, my sort of final year of teaching in my teaching life, I taught a graduate seminar with Stephen. And we had a blast. You know, we, we put together a different show every week from our two different worlds. And it was amazing. And the very, actually I remember the very first, you know, the very first thing we show the students was Alvin Lucier's piece."I'm Sitting in a Room".

Stephen Vitiello: 20:32

Sure.

Elizabeth King: 20:32

First, we had them read, first. We had them read Borges's story Pierre Menard. Then we, you know, then we sat them down. And you had, you had that beautiful sound room by then. So it was optimal conditions. Turned all the lights off, listened to the full 40 mile, 45 minute piece. Um, both artists dealing with repetition in really interesting ways. It was amazing. So, yeah, I just, you know, I immediately chose Stephen for a couple of different reasons. I mean, first of all, an artist who listens. And who listens closely. Not just to what you're saying, but to a thousand other things going on at the same time. And I always found Stephen's work, I listen to it while I'm working. He's wonderful about sharing it. I have discs. I have files. I love the way it unfolds in time. I love the way it operates on my mind. I love the way it tracks, sort of, the neural behavior of the mind. It's imediacy. I love his imediacy and his mobility. A walk in the afternoon can generate a work of art that night. His ability to move through institutions and locations and find, and capture and catch for us, things that might allude us. And, you know, my own curse, the curse of the long form, is remedied and rendered moot in the presence of, of Stephen's spontaneity and his immediate relationship to the world. So, yes, I chose Stephen right away.

Sara Reisman: 22:08

So now we'll really hear an excerpt from Vitiello's new work "Alvin Lucier Laughing with Electrical Interference, 2004, 2022".

Stephen Vitiello: 26:00

But I think when you come up to it In the gallery, hopefully it's functioning the way I dream it is, it's almost like the sounds are hovering up and moving out and crossing. And so the, the interaction and the physical interaction, almost feeling sound sculpturally, is something that I always aim to achieve, um, especially in a gallery or a public art space. And then time too, mean it's a 14 minute work that has transitions and almost little chapter headings when Alvin is clear again between the laughter variations and the electrical interference that just buzzed weirdly through my system...

Elizabeth King: 26:40

Talk about that.

Stephen Vitiello: 26:41

...only that day ever.

Elizabeth King: 26:42

Talk about that. What happened?

Stephen Vitiello: 26:44

Yeah, and, and that's, I mean, I just, I was transferring, I had his laughs and I had his voice and I was moving between two systems the way I always did. And it just started to buzz. And the buzz started to move through the delays that I had in my mixing board. And, you know, maybe someone's gonna tell me it's, you know, there's something wrong with your patch cable. Or there was, you know, radio interference or there was aliens. But I just, whatever it was, I just wanted to embrace...

Elizabeth King: 27:13

Keep it.

Stephen Vitiello: 27:14

Keep it. And, um, you know, I think, you know, I mean, it's not that I was trying to make Alvin Lucier work in any way. But I know very important to him is to set up a system and see what happens. So, I also wanted to honor, well, this is what I'm supposed to get rid of but it's also wonderful. So I'm gonna to amplify it.

Sara Reisman: 27:45

What I was thinking earlier, and it goes to Stephen's work that's in the show that's new and it's installed on, on a shelf with two speakers. The chords are exposed. I mean, there's, there are a number of aesthetic decisions made and how that's presented. Um, and so, but, for both of you, I think the question is partly about, like, where does the work reside? And I think you asked this earlier? Is it in the object?

Elizabeth King: 28:06

Yeah.

Sara Reisman: 28:06

Is it in the, in the, in the movement? Is it, um, does it matter?

Elizabeth King: 28:14

It's a great question. And it's, you know, it's an in, it's a, a deliciously, indeterminate subject. All we can say, at least in my case, is that there's very different things going on in each of those, each of those hands. And what about you, Stephen? Where does the work live? It lives between your two ears, yeah?

Stephen Vitiello: 28:33

Or the ears of the visitor? Yeah, the guests. The...

Elizabeth King: 28:36

Yeah. Yeah. The walking visitor often, most likely.

Stephen Vitiello: 28:40

Yeah. But you know, when my work has gone into collections, there's that immediate discussion of what is the work? Is it the hardware or the software? What happens when something becomes obsolete? Can it be migrated? How do you keep...

Elizabeth King: 28:55

Does it change?

Stephen Vitiello: 28:56

How...does it change? Yeah, will it be the same work if it's a different speaker? If it's a different playback system?

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 29:09

Where does the work reside? Is it in the object? In the movement?

Elizabeth King: 29:14

I mean for me, the once that film was made, the first time I displayed it in a gallery, I displayed it with the sculpture. And, um, in a show in North Carolina. And people came to the show. And of course they all grouped around the film. And didn't spend much time looking at the sculpture. And, and I remember people saying wow, how long did it take to make that? You know, and well, it took two weeks to make it. It took three years to make the sculpture, you know? And it's, it's, it's something that I think about a lot, you know? I think that, that in an interesting way, the animation goes somewhere far away from the sculpture. Um, once it, once it's committed to the film format, suddenly, we're thinking a different set of thoughts, you know? And, um, we're thinking about robotics and, you know, cyborgs and female cyborgs and a whole set of readings that come from the culture that have absolutely nothing to do with what was in my head, what I was trying to do when I made the piece. One other comment about time. I'm willing to put that time in for the moment to come at the end when I can pose it. And stand back and then adjust the pose. And stand back and adjust it again. And adjust it again. And find what it can do. And then find that certain poses have more power than others. And certain poses tend to, it's a kind of choreography. And I think of, specifically of choreography for what Richard Kizu-Blair and I did when we thought up what we were gonna have the piece do each day at the beginning of the day in this delicious two weeks that, um, that I got to make that film. So, um, another aspect about time for me too, in showing the sculpture by itself, is that the viewer might see that it's in a specific pose temporarily. That it's movable. That it might be in a different pose later. And was in a different pose later. So, there's an aspect of time, as my husband, Carlton Newton, says, coming into the life of the piece. Just in the form of something that's visibly adjustable. You know, I'm just thinking, what's the difference between those, those things. One is a sculpture. One is a film. One is a film still. One is a pose, a photographic pose. Those are all pretty categorically different things. Even though I use the same sculpture in each one of them. For me, I think that animation is the thing that I'm happy to spend the time that I spend making the sculpture. To get to that moment is a moment of ecstasy and possibility and, and mystery.

Sara Reisman: 32:16

What I liked with the hand just now is, we got to, to affect or gesture.

Elizabeth King: 32:21

Yeah.

Sara Reisman: 32:21

Right.

Stephen Vitiello: 32:22

Yeah, this is unrelated to any questions, but have you, I was just thinking about the movement of your, the hands and the variability of your work. You know, I think of you as sculpture first and foremost, but I wondered if you'd ever worked with a choreographer or what would that, what that would be?

Elizabeth King: 32:40

That is a great question. You know, I, I, I have a beloved friend, Chris Burnside, a choreographer and dancer...

Stephen Vitiello: 32:46

Yeah.

Elizabeth King: 32:47

...here in Richmond, who, who was chair of the dance department for many years. And, and really changed that department in an extraordinary way. And we've talked about it. Mostly I just watch him, you know? I just would love to, I would love to capture some of the ways that he moves his body and his hands. And I would love to do that. I mean, in some ways, Richard Kizu-Blair and I choreographed together. And Blair added a huge number of actions that I wouldn't have thought of doing. Um...

Stephen Vitiello: 33:19

Definitely.

Elizabeth King: 33:19

It, like those crazy fingers, that was Blairs', uh, choreography. And an extraordinary accomplishment for the, for the animators to do too. So, I would love to, I would love to do more of that. Just love to.

Stephen Vitiello: 33:34

I feel like you were just dancing for us anyway.

Elizabeth King: 33:38

Well... I mean, for me, the, that piece, what happened, was shot on 35 millimeter movie film. And this was well before computers had any role at all. Or much of a role, in, in the making of animation. There was a computer program for the motion of this camera. Which is a huge camera on a, on a railroad track. And there's a little bit of camera tracking in that animation. But, other than that, the animators Mike Belzer and, and Trey Thomas, worked out of their heads. Um, um, as a kind of invisible chess game. They could see only the last shot. Um, so, across a given day of work when there may be, um, many hundreds of shots. They had to just imagine what they were doing. And the next day we would look at the dailies and only then see what was happening. Um, so that's now a very obsolete way of working. Now there's Dragon Frame. There's ways that an animator can see the entire, some of the shots of that day or the day before. Can run through them quickly. Has a sense of the momentum. Where of motion is going. Where the hand is going. Um, so, I just can't say enough about the skill of the animator in doing, in animating an object that might have six or seven moving parts, moving at different speeds and on different trajectories and keeping it all in their head. So I turned, one of the galleries into, with the help of an extraordinary fabrication crew at Mass Mocha, into a film studio. And, and shot, um, a short stop motion film in the gallery while people were there. We were shooting during the opening and we were shooting for, um, eight days. And I did this with Mike Belzer, who flew from Seattle. I had made a pair of hands out of boxwood. Jointed hands out of boxwood. Um, the armatures under the hands were made by Chris Taggart, uh, an artist in Berkeley. And he came as well to sort of troubleshoot things. Here's Mike setting up a single frame. Maybe he's just moving one or two fingers less than a millimeter each. I wanted very slow motion, which is super hard to do and stop frame. Um, he might spend five minutes. And here's the time lapse of him doing that over and over again. You know, you might walk through the show and walk out again. It would be in a different position. You might come the next day. It would be in a different position. Meanwhile, there would be this lovely accrual of footage and potential narrative and the life of a piece in time. So, um, I think Stephen and I both tried to use the show space at Mass MOCA. And I think you do this anyway, Stephen. Every show you do that's in a gallery, is a show where you're thinking hard about what can be seen in the gallery as well as heard in the gallery. What's, what its acoustics are as well as its volume. And what sound in space is as well as, this is another thing I wanna ask you, sound in space versus sound in time. This seems to be at the heart of, of what you do.

Stephen Vitiello: 37:19

I do think of how quickly technology changes. My, my day jobs before I started teaching, I worked at Electronic Arts Intermix for 12 years. And I worked at the Kitchen for three or four years as media archivist. And just to get works into distribution meant constantly dealing with obsolete formats.

Elizabeth King: 37:37

Mm-hmm.

Stephen Vitiello: 37:37

Hoping things that have had, survived. Sometimes they had changed. I remember transferring some Bruce Nauman films where the color had changed and he ended up saying, okay, I accept this new color. And, and rebranding them. Um, uh, and then maybe just quickly, just thinking of obsolescence, I mean, that's, that piece with Alvin, there's also an obsolescence of a person and a moment captured. A person who's no longer alive. A lot of my field recordings have captured things, including the World Trade Center, a church in Boerum Hill. Things that are, are no longer there.

Elizabeth King: 38:13

Mm-hmm.

Stephen Vitiello: 38:14

So there's something about capture too. But, I'm always thinking about obsolescence.

Elizabeth King: 38:21

You know, I, I just am thinking while you're talking, like we have pictures of those places. And those people. But why is it that the sounds that, that are connected with the World Trade Center or Alvin laughing, why are those sounds, so why do they feel so much more immediate? And so much more direct. And such a time machine. More than images. I, I, I don't know the answer. One other comment about obsolescence. So back in 99, 1991, we looked at this piece on tape. Um, typically a film would be transferred to tape. One inch, say tape and edited on tape. And then we would watch it. Well, 10 years later, there were DVDs. Um, so the original version is much softer. We remastered it. We went all the way back to the film and remastered this film in 2005. And it's much sharper now. So, you know, you're more aware of it as an object. Um, and so it changed, you know? As we changed the platform and went into a digital world with it. There's just, you know, there's something about the sound that feels very much like you're, you've traveled back in time in a, in a direct way. And yes, in, in an emotional way as well.

Sara Reisman: 39:42

This project in particular, it takes a village, right? It takes a lot of...

Elizabeth King: 39:46

Yes.

Sara Reisman: 39:47

A lot of people and...

Elizabeth King: 39:48

Collaboration.

Sara Reisman: 39:49

...collaboration and I wanted to ask about how that figures into your work? How you think about authorship? Because I think, I think it varies from artists to artists, right?

Elizabeth King: 39:58

Yeah. I, I have really relied on the skills of, of some extraordinary people. Photographers, animators, and in a more traditional sense, the foundry. You just can't do these things alone, for sure. But Sthephen, you also have, you have probably more directly collaborated more than I have.

Stephen Vitiello: 40:21

I know I've never counted, but I would, I, I was just thinking, I, I would, wouldn't be surprised if it's over 200 collaborations.

Elizabeth King: 40:28

Wow.

Stephen Vitiello: 40:28

But, but every collaboration is different. And sometimes you're coming in as equals. Sometimes in a support system. There filmmakers that I work with, but I'm relatively at their service. There's musicians I play with and maybe we're playing together. But I always try to figure out what is the relationship from the beginning and what are our terms? And, um, when Julie Mehretu asked me to collaborate on something way back in, like, 2005, the first thing I said is, what do you want me to do for you? And she said, no, I want us to work together. And then I understood that we, we had equal voice or relatively equal voice. She may be making some of the most spectacularly gorgeous, impactful visuals that I could dream of. But that allowed me to know that my sound had a voice that we were thinking of authorship. We did a piece for the Sydney Biennial and she was asking for feedback cuz she was drawing and I was asking for feedback cuz I was mixing. And, you know, that that's the kind of dream relationship. But I've also worked with biologists or engineers.

Elizabeth King: 41:35

Yeah.

Stephen Vitiello: 41:35

And just, every time, I just try to figure out where, where, what are our roles? What are expectations? And then listen to each other. I sometimes imagine sound for Liz's objects, you know? And this would be a kind of, in my mind, at that moment, it's a collaboration at the service of. But I also think the beauty of her work is that they suggest sound without being sound.

Elizabeth King: 41:59

I certainly thought about it listening to Stephen's compositions while I'm working. Um, especially if I'm trying to do something difficult. Especially if it's a challenging, labor intensive process in the studio. That those pieces, not all of them, but many of those pieces roll over me in a way that keeps me, keeps me moving.

Adrienne Elise Tarver: 42:41

You're listening to the Exquisite Corpse Podcast. What I love about conversations like this is hearing the mutual respect and admiration amongst artists. Here, not only between Elizabeth and Stephen, but also between Stephen and the subject of his piece, Alvin Lucier. That interest in each other's practices is really at the core of the National Academy. Artists and architects elect each other into this community, revealing a network of interconnected creators, all inspired by each other's work. Thank you for coming back to the podcast. We've got some great conversations coming up and I'm looking forward to sharing season two in a few weeks. By the way, to see the entire Media Relay Zoom program, with the video of Elizabeth King's work "What Happened?", you can watch it on our website, National Academy dot org. Thank you for listening to Exquisite Corpse from the National Academy of Design. We're a 5 0 1 C three nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting art and architecture. And we rely on your support to make programs like this possible. To learn more and to donate, visit National Academy dot org. This conversation was recorded on February 15th, 2022, as a part of the Media Relay program series with the help of Anjelic Ownes, Programs Assistant at the National Academy. Exquisite Corpse is produced, mixed and edited by Mike Clemow and Wade Strange at SeeThru Sound.