GUEST ESSAY BY NATE HITCHCOCK
Angelo Plessas, Berlin BYOB 2010
Editor’s note: Nate Hitchcock is an artist and guest contributor to Image Conscious. Edited by Karen Archey, this essay was commissioned as part of a writing program during the site’s previous incarnation as bien-pensant. Though the program is heretofore on hiatus, more essays are to follow. This essay is published on the occasion of BYOB London taking place tomorrow, February 25.
BYOB Worldwide (Bring Your Own Beamer), developed by Rafaël Rozendaal in 2010, defines a new type of exhibition. Firstly an “exhibition format” and secondly an “exhibition-social,” BYOB reimagines the relationship of new media to traditional modes of exhibition. Consisting solely of “beamers” (more commonly known in the US as “projectors”) brought to an exhibition space by participating artists, BYOB offers a DIY alternative to exhibiting new media. Taking place in cities such as Athens, Portland, Los Angeles, New York, Berlin, and Amsterdam, BYOB has experienced worldwide popularity.
This beckons the question: what is a so-called exhibition format? An exhibition format can be understood as a type exhibition in which its structure is reproducible. Its reproducibility is based on a simple set of rules: its rules are what define it. Exhibition formats create an extra or parasite set of rules that exist within what is normally considered an exhibition. Two popular examples of exhibition formats right now are the aforementioned BYOB, developed by Rozendaal, and Speed Show, developed by Aram Bartholl. Both of these examples are reproducible through a simple set of rules that define them.
Makis Faros and Rafaël Rozendaal, Athens BYOB 2010
In the case of BYOB the rules are as follows: a group of people bring projectors to a location and project whatever they want to for a short period of time [1]. Speed Show’s rules are, similarly: rent out an internet cafe for a short period and show artwork on the computers [2]. Notably different here is that within BYOB, artists supply their hardware, whereas within Speed Show, the hardware is rented.
I stated that BYOB is also an exhibition-social. What is that? Aren’t all exhibitions social? Speed Show is an exhibition format and it is social. Is Speed Show an exhibition-social as well?
Daniel White and Rod Walmart next to U-Haul truck, Portland BYOB, 2010
An exhibition-social is a subcategory of the exhibition format with added inherent social stipulations. Speed Show is not an exhibition-social because the “social” is not built into its format. The title “Bring Your Own Beamer” can give us a clue to why it can be considered a social format. A party that advertises “bring your own beer” suggests that in order to participate in the drinking of beer the partiers must bring their own. Within BYOB the participant must bring their own projector, or at least be present with a projector somehow dedicated to them to be considered a participant. Importantly, the participants MUST be there. If they are not then the show cannot be considered a BYOB. When many people are in the same place, socializing will happen (through conversation etc, or through what is projected).
A brief look at BYOB within Rozendaal’s greater practice:
Rafael Rozendaal is best known for his websites, which are commonly described by himself and others as paintings [3] [4]. I want to consider them in another light: as video games. I am aware that Rozendaal may not agree with an analysis of his practice from a ludological standpoint, but since we are talking about BYOB as a reproducible scenario defined by its rules I believe that it is necessary and can shed some light on what BYOB actually is.
Installation view of BYOB Austin, 2011
Video games are generally defined by their interface (no specific need for set goals [5]). In his interactive works (and arguably his non-interactive ones as well), Rozendaal consistently investigates types of interaction possibilities between people and their machines. As in a video game this is only possible with through a rule set [6]. In the larger picture we can easily define this as a walled garden. In the traditional sense, a walled garden creates a micro-climate allowing certain plants to grow inside a harsher environment than usual [7]—which is generally considered positive. Within the technology industry a walled garden is described as the restrictions placed on users by the company to limit their interaction with a service or product, [8] and generally considered bad.
Video games can be understood from a synthesis of both examples. The rule set instantiated in a video game does limit the interaction of the player. They cannot usually walk through walls and there are consequences for touching lava with their avatar. If you are shot in a first person shooter you will probably loose the game or have to respawn. So in this sense video games are like the second definition of a walled garden. The upside to all of these rules is that a different type of interaction can take place. The rules and goals (whether defined by the player or the game) allow for emotive play, learning curves and the possibility of new emotions and unexpected interactions. In this case video games are more like first definition of a walled garden: they allow for the plants (read: players emotions and interactions) to grow in a micro-climate. Most importantly though, a video game, or a walled garden, creates a structurally (read: rules) reproducible scenario.
Nicolas Sassoon, BYOB LA 2010
But, how reproducible is BYOB really? The structural (read: rule based) elements of BYOB are what make it reproducible. They are actually the only parts of BYOB which are. What parts then are not reproducible? The interactions taking place at each instantiation of the event. Just as in video games (read: Rozendaal’s websites) the emotive responses they elicit are unique to each player and furthermore change each time the game is played. So in this sense specific BYOB sessions and their outcomes are not reproducible, but the structures eliciting them are. [10]. One can imagine possibly getting all of the same artists/ participants in the same place again and attempting to recreate a specific instantiation of BYOB, but the knowledge of the prior event would change the socializing entirely. The social aspect is the user-end substance of the event (a micro-community?). Herein lies the learning curve of BYOB. Each time someone participates in a BYOB they will likely learn something more about it and such as thus adapt their interaction strategy to better suit the format.
Screengrab from Rafaël Rozendaal’s Facebook photo album documenting BYOB NYC at Spencer Brownstone, 2010
BYOB as an exhibition-social seems to resist documentation as the exhibition itself [11] due to its social aspect. Instead, Rozendaal’s website hosting information and documentation ’s services are secondary to the actual show. They are used to perpetuate BYOB’s primary function through advertisement. The documentation itself may also be viewed as part of a meta-game of social and political posturing in the wider world/ art world/ internet/ internet art world [12].
BYOB is static but constantly evolving. As an exhibition format it is unmoving and reproducible but as an exhibition-social it is in a constant state of change. If in one hundred years a museum desired to host a BYOB, they would in essence make something historically new.
***
[1] BYOB FAQ, Rafael Rozendaal
[2] How to Set up a Speed Show, Aram Bartholl
[3] Miltos Manetas Interviews Rafael Rozendaal for Purple Magazine, MM & RR
[4] Without a Goal, Jesper Juul
[7] Walled Garden (Technology), Wikipedia
[8] Relational Aesthetics, Nicolas Bourriaud
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Karen Archey, Filippo Lorenzin. Filippo Lorenzin said: BYOB: The Worldwide Domination of an Exhibition Format http://j.mp/eM2dwZ [...]
rob :>