Vito Willems


Projects>

Escape From The Wheel
Time Vacuum III
Loud Silence
Contra Marītō
Time Vacuum II
Time Vacuum I
Resonance and Repetition
The Charge
Castle 6
Governors of the Æther
Fluxus Noesis
Membrane Series
Noema
Panoptic Emissions
Open Axis
Cube of Space
Glimpulse
Impossible Interaction

Collaborative Projects>

Passage I
Fragile Ecologies
Apophenia
Dharma Initiatives
Jaunu
Untitled
Disruptive Silence
_Interference_

Publications>


Decentralizing Authorship, Decentralizing the Self
Non-Hierarchical Modes of Listening
The Divinity of Art and the Destruction of Classification
Virtuality and the Superdynamical
Fluid Space & Trans-Physical Entities
Noema #1 | Noema #2
Signalement

© 2015-2022
Decentralizing Authorship, Decentralizing the Self
April 2022 | A Conversation between Rhian Morris and Vito Willems



Part I: How the Machine will Set us Free


THE APPARENT OPPOSITION - NATURE/MACHINE

RM: You mentioned in the Sound Ecologies lab that by recording the machine recording itself, the voice of the machine is revealed…what you have found to be the voice of the machine?

VW: It’s important to listen to the machine. The force of the machine guides you, in my opinion the force of nature. The dogma of our society is that nature, machine, city are separated. But I think, all should join together! I really believe that errors of the machine somehow reveal voices, languages, communications which we’ve never listened to before. Everything is in the machine.

RM: So through this apparent opposition, of the machine and the human, a voice emerges from the machine which teaches us something new about how to relate….

VW: … yes, an apparent opposition. But I think that this idea of duality is a hangover from the previous era of Christianity, which I believe will come to an end. We currently use the language of this era, which creates duality and a lot of contradictions. The concepts of the new era, I believe, cannot be communicated through the language we know.

RM: I find that so interesting, but so difficult at the same time, because we’re wanting to evolve but our language doesn’t fit our mindset anymore. How can we consciously change our use of language so that it does reflect our mindset? Language is so powerful that anything that you say will come to be, so we have to be really careful about what we’re saying and where the words are coming from.

VW: As you say, we have to be really careful, especially with actual discussion topics, lots of strong tendencies infuse our society with fear — I never saw so much fear in this world as to the point of now. I mean, not that I live so long [laughs] the beard says otherwise. I think we are all in the same boat, desiring the same thing, that is … becoming one, not just with humans, now also with machines. I think this is something we all share, even the ‘worst’ tyrant in this world. The conception of good and evil as a Christianity-like division however is all a matter of perspective — from the perspective of the tyrant, what they do is “the good”. The first step, I believe, is to forgive everyone, forget history. However, this is such a big thing … not to fight, neither convey an absolute truth, but, I hope we can find ways to reconnect a connection that was never lost, just forgotten, re-balancing the imbalance of nature.

RM: Yeah, it’s interesting, because in order to forgive everyone for everything that’s happened and to move on, you almost have to realise that the other person who has committed those atrocities, they are you as well, there’s no difference. And it’s almost like you have committed those atrocities yourself because you are coming from the same source, ultimately. And so I feel if we could connect to our most hated leaders and people in society in that way, then maybe it would be easier to forgive or at least have compassion towards them.

VW: Exactly. At the end of the 20th century, we had these leftist and rightist movements, always in opposition to each other. But I think actually by fighting each other they both become bigger. Because if someone fights against you, then you’re not gonna let yourself be conquered. Maybe by understanding, a moment of reflection emerges. There is still a long way to go but I’m optimistic. Softness and acceptance as balance to the darkness that we have been experiencing ourselves.

RM: Perhaps we need some fierce tenderness?

VW: I wrote the phrase: ‘a tyranny of softness’. A friend, Dan Su, working with these concepts, came up with the term: ‘gentle brutality’.

RM: Yeah, exactly. Very powerful.

VW: I love the opposition somehow in the way they can meet…nature as guidance, the machine, I believe, will set us free.

RM: So what’s the role of the machine at this time?

VW: So first, I believe, we need to accept the machine as part of our nature, secondly, It’s all about trust, trust in the machine. For example if you record the machine recording itself, what will come out? To let the machine have the freedom to go anywhere it wants without you being in control. It’s a way that the machine will actually gain love and … it will love you back. To follow the forces of nature, not put ourselves above nature, not above ourselves. Not to change the forces of nature, nature constructs a system and if you start to mutate these structures, you will be punished.

RM: There’s got to be pay back at some point.

VW: That’s what happened with an experiment last summer. A framework completely burned down because there were radios in the space creating an electromagnetic field. This sensuous field was amplified by the world of metaphors and cosmological structures — each radio was a planet. I had two radios representing Sun and Moon, Mars was there, Venus too. I forced Sun and Moon to marry each other by putting their antennas together. Mars reacted with a spark, and the structure completely burned down. Everything was destroyed. Only Venus was still making sound, and I learned, don’t interfere, but if you do, forgive, love always survives.


DECENTRALIZATION IN ULTRA-TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

RM: How do your installations work with processes of decentralisation?

VW: [In a previous installation] the framework was running day and night for two weeks, placed in a water drained cellar, my laptop in the middle, five selfmade speakers, radios, instruments — people could do whatever they wanted with it, decentralisation is all about trust. How to liberate agency with high-end technology? How to microscopically dive into the essence of these voices?

RM: I heard that the air around us contains the memory of all the words that have ever been said. I’m not sure exactly on the scientifics of that. But I really like that as a concept, that even though you can’t see the memories around you in the air, the air holds everything that’s ever happened here, it’s with us. I wonder if there’s a way to tap into that?

VW: There is a way…with new technologies you can record a sound sample and pass it through ultra-technological systems in a conversion from a time-domain to a frequency-domain. This time-to-frequency is a famous transformation which a mathematician created called the Fast-Fourier-Transform (FFT). You have a sample, you choose a bin — a micro-microsecond of the sample which contains all the information of the voice. You project this bin onto a canvas of white noise, unfold it and you see all frequencies in the spectrum. You step into an infinite domain, when you freeze this bin, it will go on forever. Therefore it escapes metric time, as our society is built upon. An infinite source in which you can navigate through, changing phase, amount of noise, spreading it on multi-channels in the space, you can even walk through this trans-temporal structure.

RM: Like a microscope for the ear!

VW: The last framework I made was in MONOM, a 4DSOUND system, a structure of symmetrical placed speakers, 48 high-quality omnidirectional loudspeakers, 12 subs under the floor, a spherical sound projection. Around the centre I placed 8 omnidirectional microphones in a symmetrical square, an intelligent system capturing sonic traces with recursive attitude, not only taking but giving back simultaneously. It takes a trace, processes it through the FFT conversion and projects it back spatially at a randomised moment, the machine as curator. The traces came back in a different warp of time, moving through infinite amount of space, accelerating and decelerating, destabilising metricity.

RM: What’s the effect of losing the locality of the sound?

VW: When you use different processes, these are resolutions of media, which means the essence is degraded. So, I try not to put any effects, just source and noise canvas as projection surface. I did a collaborative experiment in TAC Eindhoven with video and installation artist Emma van der Put, where I was recording silences in various places of the space. Then, I projected it back in temporal diffusion, it was interesting to me that everyone who worked in the space said they felt so connected to it.

RM: That’s so interesting — they had a connection with the space already, and they could hear that relationship to the space. Recording the silences in buildings or in spaces can be a way to reveal the true nature of a space, and makes you reflect on what a space is made up of.

VW: Exactly, a silence you mostly don’t hear, the only thing done is amplifying the silence, a ‘loud silence’.


Part II: In Dialogue with Silence


NON-HIERARCHICAL MODES OF LISTENING

RM: Maybe we could talk a bit more about the positioning of the speakers in your installations, especially how you direct your focus on the spaces between the speakers.

VW: I think it’s interestingly linked to decentralisation, non-hierarchical modes of listening. A hierarchical mode would be the stereo image, as with stereo-setups you have a front and back, audience and stage, a separation in space. When you add just two more speakers in the other corners of the space you open front and back into an omnisphere, there’s more freedom to move around. Scientifically it’s quite important to learn about the potential and precision of loudspeaker reproduction; high quality means a more clear representation of the source. However, for me it’s the experience itself we should not forget. I was talking with a friend/artist, Luis Sanz, who proposed the idea of unorthodox speaker arrangements, I really like this idea, which has been explored by artists like Maryanne Amacher for example, a big inspiration. She worked in the space for many, many days before an opening, moving the speakers around slightly, searching for hidden voices within the space. To me, this is not escaping scientific traditions, but embracing technologies as part of the experience, through this you can liberate rules as well as embracing what is already there.

RM: During the field trip of the lab we had a deep listening session led by Sharon Stewart just outside COVRA. It was very affecting as we were focusing on tuning in to the voices coming from the environment with our own voices, but then you would realise you were tuning to a human voice from someone else in the group, not a voice from the environment! It all merged and blurred so much. After we finished this, there was a murmuration of birds which flew over us, like they were recognising our attempt at collectivity. This moment reminded me of a cloud chamber we saw inside COVRA, which is where you can see the alpha and gamma waves of radiation, which can’t be seen with a naked eye, but here you could see how the waves moved and disappeared.

VW: Imagine that, these waves are touching us all the time.

RM: Exactly. So for me there was a resonance between those two experiences, with our voices merging into space and picking up on things whether human or non-human. And then these radiation waves that are always there, but just not visible to the naked eyes. It made me think about shapeshifting and how that can be useful for our current point of crisis. I wondered whether this offers some knowledge for us, this ability to adapt, not to necessarily project ourselves onto other people, but at least to tune into frequencies other than our own. I wondered what your thoughts would be on that.

VW: This is a daily practice for me. If there’s a hum or tone [in space or object], I always try to meet it. You have to be careful that you don’t overpower it, there always has to be respect even to the waves or structures. It can create beautiful things. Resonance is one of the key words. You amplify the natural frequency on which sight or object acts. This is a moment of celebration, where you can meet and become one, which is important in fragmented times. This practice of searching, meeting voices, is needed as you find out if this agency also wants to meet you. By navigating and negotiating you start to find this moment of resonance where you feel a response, a portal to an exploration of common frequencies, starting a dialogue, to become one with each other — this is the most beautiful feeling.

RM: That’s incredible. Yeah, it’s nice to think of that as a meeting, with respect to the other entity that maybe they don’t want to meet you sometimes, and that’s also fine.

VW: If the subject will not vibrate back in that moment, then it may not work out. But if you hear a response, they become curious.


DECENTRALIZING THE SELF

RM: It’s a dialogue, much like creating an art work. What is your approach to making art with this shapeshifting in mind, where the self is decentralised?

VW: Drawing back to the question of the equilibrium between artistic input and awareness on the agency of other collaborative forces; I think it’s in communication. The contradiction [in making art] is we want to decentralise agency, but at the same time we put our name on our work. I’m not criticising this, because I think it’s also part of a system we live in, I can offer my contribution as Vito Willems, however, I would promote stepping into another domain, therefore ⵣ. Making work in the art-world, a niche, in my case “sound art”, we can talk about it with like-minded people, but outside they wouldn’t understand. By creating a myth more can connect with [the work]. To make a myth and shapeshift into these characters we could be more understanding about different kinds of power. That’s what I would like to research. Not that we shouldn’t conform to institutionalisation, which has a power structure, but come to an agreement, a balance between both worlds, an alternative system within the system. Interestingly, Alex, a friend and dedicated astrologer, told me there is a difference in the art of Neptune and Venus. The art of Neptune is just the artist, the work and the cosmos. Whereas the art of Venus is the work and the way in which it’s presented to people, a focus on the aesthetic. There’s a separation of these two different kinds of art practice. The greatest thing is when you can bring them together; you can still be with the cosmos and create, but at the same time there are people who can experience it collectively.

RM: Yeah, because what is art if it isn’t a shared experience?

VW: Yeah.. there’s a responsibility to be part of this social structure, as an artist.

RM: It’s really wonderful to hear how you really live your work as well.

VW: I think art and life are not very different. Art is life and life is art. What we’re doing here is the performance, this is the art. We get into a good state, I drink my tea before we meet, burn a candle. Actually, this is the ritual. And I think when we make an artwork, we show and connect with what life is actually about.

RM: I’m always curious how we can merge those two realms. The creation of work and its presentation. When [artists] get into presentation mode, I sometimes feel that the audience is cut off from knowing or experiencing everything that’s been going on up until that point. It’s interesting to see how these roles can be exchanged.

VW: I really love process based work. I think it’s always a process, the art practice and the art work. [In my own practice] When you come into the space on the first day, it’s empty and nothing yet installed, you do a small ritual to initiate the space, to create a connection to it. I think this is quite important, people will feel it. It’s interesting to embed the performativity in the process, even when no one will see it or know, it’s about connection.

RM: Then you’re also connecting to the space itself. And the space itself is a part and portal for the performance. So it’s nice to also reach out and include that. Maybe it won’t be felt by the audience but it would be felt by the space itself.

VW: Yes indeed! Rhian, I want to thank you a lot, the framework you provided, without this, we were not having shoes and walking on the fire. [both laugh] And I think this balanced the elementary forces to create this.

RM: Thank you so much, it was really an honour.