CLAUDIA HEINRICH / MATTHIAS SCHAMP THE HELIX Hochbau Events on the Expanded Concept of Art In October 1995, the Kunsthaus Essen launched the project 'THE HELIX HOCHBAU - Events on the Expanded Concept of Art'. For approximately one year, 13 events (performances, interactions, lectures, etc.) took place in various locations throughout the building (boiler room, music rehearsal room, restrooms, film room, kitchen, community center, copy room, etc.). The successive sequence of these venues gradually formed a sprawling, imaginary spiral that wound its way upwards, floor by floor, from the basement through the Kunsthaus in a steadily ascending motion. The selection of events was not arbitrary: Firstly, each event was related to the specific functions and social processes of its immediate surroundings (e.g., kitchen: theme 'food, eating'; restroom: 'hygiene'; copy room: 'information, reproduction'). Secondly, these were not conventional artworks with their established patterns of production, distribution, and reception, but exclusively boundary-pushing works - art in the broadest sense, so to speak. Thus, by thematizing the processes taking place within it, a kind of instrumental interrogation of the building emerged. And overall, the construction of the helix - a large-scale conceptual figure placed in the space - gradually progressed as an imaginary connecting line between the (also quite independent) events, creating a conscious link in the mind. ... ... QUESTIONS Of course, the development that led to the numerous innovations in the conception of art described in the 1960s and 70s did not radically cease at the beginning of the 1980s. Instead, other programs, characterized, among other things, by a return to painting, regained their dominant market position - and thus their position shaping the general discourse - not entirely independently of broader societal trends. In parallel, however, a continuation of strategies aimed at transcending boundaries was pursued in smaller circles - in a sense, as a counter-movement to the dominant art scene. Network and crossover are examples of this. In this respect, HELIX HOCHBAU does not represent a new beginning. The line of tradition from which the project derives its self-understanding was never broken. But just as the objectives of the 1960s and 70s - despite highlighting certain common elements - can hardly be reduced to a unanimous content (as numerous debates demonstrate), this tradition by no means represents a binding norm today. Rather, it is a network of heterogeneous positions that tend to point in similar directions, exhibiting points of contact in some areas and even contradictory positions in others. Therefore, the artists for whose work HELIX-HOCHBAU created a platform cannot be defined by a common program. Their overlaps are more akin to negation: all of the selected artists are not involved in the production of traditional artworks; that is, their work subverts the classical patterns of design, production, distribution, and reception. And it was precisely a key element of the tension inherent in HELIX-HOCHBAU to highlight the diversity of the positions with which this occurs. One of the key differences that emerged was, for example, whether the term 'art' was understood in an essential way or more contextually. Artistic positions that presupposed a kind of core essence of art from which they drew (although the chosen forms did not correspond to traditional patterns) contrasted with those that saw art primarily as a means of distribution, providing the opportunity to convey certain content that was not understood a priori as artistic, but rather as serving a general interest in knowledge. Works that were intended to be understood as creative, i.e., created by a specific subject as a creative act of self-expression and thus an end in themselves, encountered those that were intended more as means, freely available instruments with which their respective users could gain knowledge, with the person of their creator playing a rather marginal role. The degree of proximity or distance with which artists referenced the tradition - ranging from Duchamp to Fluxus, Situationism, Conceptual Art, and others - that challenged conventional notions of art, was judged extremely differently. Works explicitly referencing Fluxus contrasted sharply with those that consciously distanced themselves from it and aligned themselves more with contemporary concepts like 'crossover'. The question of how to understand the elements of 'work', 'distribution', 'mediation', 'reception', and so on, as well as the relationships between them, also led to alternative assessments—as did the question of the relationship between art and everyday life. While some artists consciously operate within the context of 'art' to utilize it as a space for specific experiences (which are then intended to influence life in a rather secondary way), others deliberately transgress contextual boundaries to, for example, establish different modes of reception as equally valid experiences. Despite their heterogeneity, commonalities repeatedly emerged between the various positions, which, of course, cannot be applied to all elements, but can be attributed to specific aspects. INSTRUMENTS OF PERCEPTION One such commonality was the fact that several of the artists ascribed to their creations the function of catalysts for perception rather than intending them to be understood as the ultimate goals of observation. As an example of such an instrumental understanding of art, Christian Hasucha's work should be mentioned. He constructed such an instrument of perception in the form of a ramp within the community center. This ramp not only addressed the processes of the association's work taking place there, but also, retrospectively and in a sense self-referentially, the processes of art reception. The observer, by perceiving themselves as reflected in the eyes of their counterparts, became a self-observing system. This interest in initiating cognitive processes directed toward the surrounding environment through his works is one of Hasucha's primary objectives. He creates a kind of parameter of consciousness by which the processes occurring around it can be measured and thus experienced more intensely. ... ... Regarding Christian Hasucha's work: Christian Hasucha's preferred field of work is public space. He does not place autonomous, self-referential sculptures in it, but rather his 'Public Interventions' introduce parameters or irritations that serve as aids to perception, allowing everyday processes to be grasped with heightened intensity. He installs or displays objects that, often using casual, unspectacular means, stealthily infiltrate an everyday environment, briefly stirring irritation and curiosity, and are removed before one has become accustomed to their presence. For example, he channeled the viewer's gaze through metal signs with strange cutouts onto architectural details neglected in everyday life, such as chimneys or lampposts ('Urban Icons', Trondheim, 1991/92). Or he had the exact height above sea level of a round snack bar table in Langenhagen measured (51,301 m above sea level) and marked this measurement on all the city's lampposts with black and white marking tape as a reference height ('Level Table', 1993). The object or motif, isolated from its surroundings, primarily serves an exemplary function - representing everything else to be discovered: the seemingly trivial details of daily life, in which so much of its meaning is nevertheless contained. To an even greater extent, however, it is the processes taking place in public space that are made tangible through these interventions. For passersby, moving through the space in the course of their daily activities, a parameter is suddenly brought to their awareness, a parameter by which they can measure these distances (and thus also their destination and purpose). Privacy and publicity are two frequently recurring motifs: individuality and society. Through his work, Hasucha conveys a completely unexpected experience of one's own physicality and thus of one's relationship to the outside world. This might involve the passerby moving with their imagination across the tabletop extending over the entire city, climbing a 5-meter-high steel platform alone in the evening and looking out over 'Over the City' (1991), or viewing a section of their daily surroundings from a miniature platform attached to a lamppost at a height of approximately 20 centimeters. It is the space itself that changes to the extent that one adopts a different relationship to it. In numerous cases, Hasucha relies on the active participation of a more or less informed group of people. This was a particularly noticeable experience for every visitor to the Helix event who looked down at the gathering from the ramp, and also for the members of the citizens' association (with whom the event had been pre-arranged). Both processes - attending the art event and the citizens' association meeting - were briefly brought into overlap. Without attempting to romanticize them, both maintained their distinct identities. Yet, in this overlap, each was reflected in the other and thus experienced more intensely - with mutual respect. EVENT LOCATION: Citizens' Association Room The Rellinghausen Citizens' Association 'Gottfried-Wilhelm-Kolonie' rents a room in the art center on the first floor. This room, in keeping with its function, is a unique space within the building; its interior is a colorful mix of furniture donated by members. Seating areas, a pool table, cabinets and shelves filled with beer steins, trophies, photo collections, and plastic flower arrangements - a veritable hodgepodge of mementos, everyday objects, and decorative items - give the room a rather heterogeneous yet cozy appearance and underscore its dual purpose as a meeting and discussion venue for community work, as well as a place for social gatherings and informal celebrations. Once a month, the members of the citizens' association meet around a large central table to discuss current issues—for example, on the day of the event, the association's contribution to the upcoming 1000th anniversary celebration of Rellinghausen. EVENT 11: 'The Meeting' Simultaneously with the opening of the meeting in the community association room (signaled by the ringing of a bell), a short opening speech, introducing Hasucha's method of 'intervention,' began in the hallway outside. The artist and organizers welcomed the arriving visitors, and drinks were served. This vernissage-like format had been deliberately chosen. However, there were irritations from the very beginning: not only was the reception not held in the event space itself, i.e., the community association room, but in the hallway leading up to it, not only was a barrier consisting of a room divider shelf and a long, black curtain placed directly in the doorway emphatically preventing entry and visibility - moreover, all guests were asked to confirm, by signing a specially prepared list after the speech, that they were entering the meeting room at their own risk. What awaited those entering was revealed only to this extent: a meeting of the community association. Excitement and curiosity quickly led to a petition with 35 signatures, which also determined the order of entry. The doorwoman, positioned outside the curtain, then allowed the signatories to step through the privacy screen one by one, requesting them to remain as quiet as possible. The scene unfolded as follows: Immediately behind the curtain, a staircase led up to a 6-meter-long, 1-meter-wide wooden ramp, which jutted into the room from the doorway at a height of approximately 1.5 meters, like a diving board. It ended precisely above the center of the meeting table around which the club members were discussing their topic. At the end of the ramp, a fixed office chair invited visitors to sit down. From this exposed position, the guest could observe the proceedings as a silent observer, while remaining under the gaze of the club members. A light signal indicated after approximately three minutes that their stay was over. They then left the room to make way for the next visitor. Cf. Project documentation No. 18: Level Table Cf. Project documentation No. 25: The Meeting