Radiator
Søren Assenholts installation Radiator is the third piece in his series of works where the concept analogy is the focuspoint. Just as with his previous works, the analogy is first and foremost present at the concrete, physical and visual levels between an everyday object - in this case a thermostat - and its replication in wood. But the analogy is also present at a higher, immaterial level, which lies outside the immediately comparable. Thus at closer inspection the piece seems to open up to or uncover significant structures of the reality surrounding us and the society we live in. At the same time the piece reflects our way of obtaining experience through perception, i.e. the cognitive process, which via a sensuous experience leads from unconsciousness and ignorance to consciousness and acknowledgement. Assenholt has expressed that he as a person is curious of nature and therefore has an instinctive natural interest in exploring how humans obtain experience through actions and senses.
The essence of Radiator, which was exhibited at the gallery Koh-i-noor, Copenhagen, in March 2007 was the relation between the piece and the spectators who chose to see and experience the piece. It was the spectator, who with his/her previously obtained experience, engagement and will to immerse decided how much the piece should open itself and narrate - thus also to the undersigned.
My personal perception of the piece combined with my following conversation with the artist make me believe that it makes sense to talk about the spectator accessing the piece as a sequence of processes from which the spectator’s perception and experience develop and undergo various stages.
The sensuous, physical experience was the absolutely first stage of perceiving the piece - the first sense the spectator got when arriving at the gallery was an overwhelming heat pouring out from the radiator in the gallery. During my talk with Assenholt we discussed this first experience - the heat as a point of focus for the spectator or the initial framing of the piece. Assenholt pointed out how the physical experience often reacts faster than consciousness, wherefore the spectator will initially probably only register the heat as opposed to reflecting on its source. This first framing of the piece will inevitably expand the instance the spectator’s reflection of or wonder at the extreme heat replaces the simple registering. I myself experienced a shift of focus as I became aware of the unnatural heat in the room and the fact that something was not as it should be. Instead of just accepting the heat I began to seek its cause, which lead me to the radiator and thereafter the thermostat. It was not till I reached this stage that I noticed the thermostat had been replaced by a replica in wood. The interesting part was that at first I did not consider that this could have any influence on the functionality of the radiator. My experience told me that the thermostat functioned as a regulator of the heat supplied by the radiator, and therefore my initial impulse was that the thermostat had been set too high. During our conversation Assenholt reflected on this immediate belief in the thermostat’s functionality. Our experience with and expectation to the workability of a thermostat are embedded in our consciousness to such a degree that at first glance we will automatically give the replica in wood - the analogy - the same characteristics and qualities of a real thermostat - both concerning form and content. Thus Assenholt characterises the thermostat as a performative object, which to the spectator acts as something it is actually not. As he expresses it, the spectator unconsciously accepts the mask of the thermostat and in this way becomes part of his, the artist’s staged room. But in a way the piece exceeds its own illusion. It is not interested in maintaining the spectator in the belief in the qualities of the analogy. The construction or the fictive element is illustrated in the drawing, which Assenholt has placed above the radiator showing a cross section of a real thermostat. At this stage it is clearly pointed out that the replica in wood could never contain the same complexity and functionality as a real thermostat.
In order to describe the complexity or the structure of the thermostat, Assenholt has adopted an analogy from reality; namely Montesquieu’s well-known division of power which our society is based on: the legislative, judicial and executive powers. In relation to the core structure of the thermostat, the legislative power is represented by the spectator or the user, who has the power to decide, when the radiator is to be activated; the judicial power is represented by the thermostats authority or power to decide when the heat is adequate, and the executive power is represented by the radiator, which function or power is, however, determined by the regulation of the thermostat. To me personally the drawing became the centre of the entire experience of the piece as the disfunctionality of the replica thermostat was emphasised here. Compared to a real thermostat the replica was insufficient - a primitive, crafted object in wood, which only in its form was analogue to a real thermostat - not concerning functionality nor content. At this level I as a spectator seriously became aware of the causal relation, which is incorporated in the experience of the piece. The reason for the heat in the room had suddenly been found; it was related to the disfunctionality of the replica thermostat, which it was a reaction of. Where the heat initially constituted the frame of the piece, it was now the replica thermostat - the reason for the heat, which became the point of focus or the core of the experience of the piece.
In my opinion Radiator is a consciousness-expanding piece, which seeks to involve the spectator actively in the interpretation. Based upon the prerequisites of all people - the senses, the piece opens up to a train of reflections and acknowledgements, relating to the way upon which we acquire experience and gain knowledge by placing things and experiences in a causal relation.
However, at the same time the piece gives the spectator the opportunity of becoming aware of the relations, we ourselves as individuals partake in during our daily dealings with each other and the everyday phenomena. What does this then mean to our acknowledgements and understandings of the world and our own positions herein, when an everyday object such as a thermostat is replaced by a replica or analogy in wood? As mentioned, first and foremost we become aware of the complexity and complicated structure, which is the core of an object as well-known and common as a thermostat. But at the same time we also become aware of our own role in relation to the thermostat - our interaction with it from the moment we use and activate it. Thus we enter into a relation with the thermostat where we as users become part of a larger context. It is this context or structure, which Asenholt attempts to emphasise through the analogy of the division of power. By using this analogy the piece seems to reflect on what the division of power is and how it is manifested in our everyday lives. During our conversation, Assenholt pointed out that whenever there is a social relation, there will always be a relation of power. Thus different types of power structures are present everywhere in our daily lives and in our social relations with each other, however, we are not always aware of this fact. In this way the inner logic of the thermostat also constitutes a form of power structure, which we as users necessarily are part of and acknowledge as being natural.
It is not a coincidence that Assenholt has chosen the thermostat as an example of an everyday object, which in relation to the user determines a power structure. According to Danish Law all radiators must be regulated by thermostats. Thus the highest legislative authority has decided how something as ordinary as turning on the heat must be determined by a structure where a controlling force regulates the heat. In this way Assenholt’s thermostat, with its construction, exemplifies, how various power structures and relations are present at all levels in our everyday lives, and that we often unaware, and by habit, convention and legislation conform to and acknowledge the structures almost as basic conditions for our existence.
One cannot help thinking about Michel Foucault who theorized about power structures and exercising of power in modern society. According to Foucault the states regulating and disciplinary power is embedded in various authorities, which establish a codex or a number of conventions which each individual should conform to. Thus the exercising of power is not apparent but is invisible as it is transformed into a habit or a norm, which you must conform to if you want to be part of the normalised society. For obvious reasons Radiator can be considered as a piece which actually questions what is normal and correct and what is wrong and deviating. The structure of power, which is contained in a real thermostat, is dissolved and disintegrated in Assenholt’s installation due to the wooden functionless analogy. As Assenholt describes it; the judicial power is stripped of its intelligence whereby the executive power of the radiator is given free reins. As mentioned the result is an exaggerated and uncontrolled heat, which completely breaks with our expectations of what is normal. Thus the spectator’s immediate reaction is naturally that someone has set the thermostat too high and therefore not understood the logic of the thermostat nor been able to conforming to its regulating abilities. By breaking with conventions of what is considered normal, Radiator opens up to interesting structures of the way in which we understand and experience the world, and it is impossible not to reflect on how we always determine the causal relation of things based on a preset conventional, defined foundation.
Visually, Radiator is a small piece, which, however, opens up to large general reflections. The installation incorporates and stages the entire room wherefore the spectator cannot avoid becoming part of the piece, and by his/her presence and decoding be part of giving it meaning. Assenholt’s piece gives a number of clues which give the spectator the opportunity of decoding and interrelating through his/her physical, sensual and active participation. In this way Assenholt’s piece is a continuation of a widespread tendency within contemporary art, which emphasises the importance of the relational and dialogue-based relationship between the work of art and the spectator. Thus Radiator challenges the traditional work of art by transgressing its frames and inviting the spectator to participate in a dialogue concerning our private and common lives. This way the piece expresses the necessity which contemporary art has in relation to society as it can function as a means of communication establishing contact between the spectator, piece and people in general.
Karen Elsebeth Jensen
BA - Art History
Translation by Helle Marianne Holmgaard Møller