Marc Mer; Feuerstein, Thomas INTERVIEW CHRISTIAN HASUCHA MM: Your interventions in so-called public space differ fundamentally from others in that they themselves have the character of events or catalytically trigger events. When you intervene in the mechanistic urban everyday life in this way, as you yourself put it, does this indicate an intention to provoke non-mechanistic, i.e., conscious, potential for action? CH: First, I would like to clarify that my work does not refer to or against public structures in general, but rather that I create limited, model situations, addressing specific aspects of everyday events. This can go so far as to involve an event being triggered within a selected environment by individual informed or acting participants. For these actors, the concrete experience with the implanted device is relevant; for passersby, the interventions can prove to be unexpected disruptions of the ritualized daily routine, and the actor's options for action are conveyed through indirect co-experiencing, that is, through observation. Thus, a part of the multifaceted, interconnected urban system merges with an exemplary installation that allows for unusual experiences. In my most recent interventions, however, the addressed aspect can be perceived by passersby in an entire small town. Here, the intervention is realized as a widely dispersed subsystem or sub-network. MM: In your work, the disruption of entrenched spatial and event structures is often linked to the offer of using instruments designed for individual experiences. Can the relationship between the individual and the public be seen as a crucial aspect of your interventions? CH: The relationship between the individual and the public plays a central role; therefore, with my arrangements, I want to evoke a certain observer status through which the unfamiliar within the conventionally public can be experienced. In this sense, the intervention, the result of which can be a "displaced" location, is merely a trigger. Often, it causes a shift in the attitudes of those involved, which can then be transferred to other areas of the public sphere. TF: Your work generally aims at the implantation of a foreign element into existing structures. How does the different or foreign arise in this process, and above all, what distinguishes it from the identical? CH: What you refer to here as the identical can be brought into a familiar relationship with the other components and phenomena of the environment. The foreign develops when something seemingly familiar, through the way it is arranged or used, drifts into the unknown in the further course of events - for example, through unusual repetition or similar means - and evokes uncertainty. "Am I now facing a random chain of circumstances or something subtly staged?" This is a question that should arise more often in this context. This uncertainty destabilizes the entire situation, making the seemingly orderly normality appear deceptive. For this reason, I don't announce my interventions, nor do I declare them as belonging to the realm of art. The unfamiliar only unfolds to a limited extent when conventionally announced as a work of art, no matter how exotically designed. Conventional placement also leads to its categorization within the all-consuming concept of art, which socially legitimizes the strangest things, which many therefore don't question further. In my view, the interestingly unfamiliar can develop better from the everyday and will only reveal its full uniqueness in the course of its interaction with, or rather, its reaction to, the phenomena of its surroundings. TF: So, in your interventions, is it a manipulation of what already exists, or is it an alienation of what is imagined? More precisely, does your method attempt to operate on the level of a partly unconscious - because automated - reception of and interaction with the everyday environment, or do your interventions aim for a reflection on everyday patterns of behavior and thus a political value correction in the tension between the individual and public collective spaces? CH: My manipulations of what already exists create constellations that not only alter structures, but also - unlike in media-virtual works or those presented through publications - enable vivid and complex spatial and process experiences. The character of these experiences can be shaped by the mode of combining the various elements involved, which is understood in professional circles as artistic articulation. The political dimension arises automatically, since the concrete experience, situated in the conceptual spectrum of "solitary-collective" in many of my works, allows the causal, triggering moments to be traced. I am therefore interested in activating the language of what already exists and modulating it through manipulation and implantation. Naturally, the respective social constitution plays a major role. If I initiate a similar intervention in St. Petersburg as in Cologne, it will, of course, be interpreted very differently. TF: Not the evocation of an image, but rather the reference to and demonstration of structural relationships is part of the conception of your "Attributive Sculpture." The constellation of elements, or the "mode of combinations," determines, as you say, the statement. Does this connect to the approach that the change of values, functions, and situations can only occur through a shift in their significance? CH: I think it's not just about changing values, but more generally about a shift or expansion of individual agency. Functionalist structures in urban public spaces restrict this agency unbearably, so that we occasionally see residents taking the initiative to change things. Vandalism, citizen initiatives, graffiti, or private planting of streetscapes are examples of this. Communication in these contexts varies greatly, and the artists currently experimenting in urban spaces are also trying to develop exemplary forms of communication. In that sense, I see my work more as a research project with an uncertain outcome than as a play-through or analysis of the forms and structures of urbanity. The sometimes subversive nature of my work, especially when it's done without permission, is intended as a model for reclaiming the now hostile public space; it's not at all formalistic, but rather a very vital matter. The urban space between inhabited areas should, because of the short distances between them, actually serve as an excellent forum for communication and interactive interaction for the residents. The vast majority, however, are now limited to the silent presentation of vehicles. MM: In your project 'NOW,' in which an actor sitting on a chair above the rooftops projects the word 'NOW' as a light signal into the night space of the square at specific moments, the announcement of the current moment points to the constant change and thus relativity of the spatial constellation on site. Besides this statement, can the illuminated 'NOW' not also be understood as a call to action, to carry out a specific instruction now? To what extent does 'NOW' address a public, i.e., political, need for action? What role does the theme of the political, of public space, and, furthermore, a manipulative interest in it, play in your work? CH: As you rightly pointed out at the beginning, the situation surrounding the 'NOW' on the facade was also situated within the tension between 'individual' and 'public'. The publication of a subjectively selected, preferred moment within the urban time continuum underscores a claim to appropriation and communication. Strangely, some passersby believed the artist intended to jump from the facade along with the 'NOW' announcement, while others stood back-to-back to check or observe for whom or what this invitation was intended. These unexpected connotations stem from the fact that I don't package the actions into any familiar 'label', neither making a public announcement nor labeling them as art, in order to prevent prejudices from taking root and thus make it more difficult to avoid participation. This leaves questions that can sometimes be misleading, but which always have something to do with the viewer's disposition and are therefore self-referential. Moreover, the formal design also countered the anonymous neon signs, which, with their stereotypical blinking or static display, outlast changing situations until they break down. I see the political aspect of my work quite generally in demonstrating possibilities for using urban space differently. However, I don't feel called to political or civic-minded activity. My interest in public space, which everyone can use to a certain extent, lies in inter- or contextual engagement, as it developed from the imprecise term "spatial installation" of the 1970s and 80s. In institutional presentation complexes, and especially in commercial ones, these consistent developments can currently only be inadequately demonstrated. There, a lively jumble prevails between relatively hermetic works - that is, works enclosed within the picture frame or isolated on display elements - and contextual designs that relate to their surroundings. All of this has led to a confusion of interpretations and receptions, and ultimately to a lack of interest in current developments. Only a clear separation from legitimately conventional presentations and a willingness to entrust the design of presentations - an essential part of the work - to interventionist artists could resolve the current dilemma. Therefore, and because my artistic development led me in this direction, I sought out and moved away from museum-educational, audience-oriented art tours. Here, I reach passersby and residents within the everyday cocoon of conventions, where they must navigate each other and the urban's interstitial spaces. Uncategorizable events or foreign elements can shimmer within the fabric of the urban environment. MM: The architectural character of a location plays a constitutive role in its event structure. Your works often have a structural or constructive-technical character. Beyond the possibilities of leaning, setting up, or securing, what significance does the architecture or the built framework of the location hold? What role does it play in the selection of the site? CH: The existing structural framework is of equal importance to that of what I have installed. Interference and mutual influence are intended to occur. So there is no "beautification" taking place. On the other hand, it is a question of means and will to initiate such gigantomanic interventions that two equally effective structures actually confront each other or merge into one another. I think the dimension of expression appropriate to me and my artistic interests relates to manageable situations. I also like the paradox of public intimacy when something idiosyncratic appears in the niches and lanes of public life. Finding a suitable model situation for this is enormously important; it is a constitutive element of the artistic ensemble and must be able to assert itself vicariously against the force of the city. Increasingly, I insert interfering structures into the existing technical and architectural systems and subsystems, causing everyday occurrences to shift. Within a limited district, a particularity is temporarily staged. These interventions are situation-specific and often cannot be easily transferred. Viewed in isolation, many of these installations are as banal as any other everyday phenomenon. However, if the constellation that exists between the deployed entity and the receiving environment is perceived, the overarching, model-like idea, the arrangement, can be recognized. Individual residents/passersby are confronted during such interventions, which are often process-oriented, meaning they correspond to the temporal dynamics of the host environment. The unannounced appearance, persistence, and unexpected removal of the intervention are carefully planned. This naturally has an element of occupation and imposition, but it seems to me a counterpoint to the arbitrary power of urban planning bureaucracy and is legitimate due to its temporary nature. In any case, the direct experiences of the individual within their familiar environment are affected. This environment is not transformed into a temporary open-air museum. This type of contextual work, which also sees itself as a contribution to development, does not address consumerist, intrusive art tourism; information on this topic is disseminated primarily at the secondary level of publications and documentation. MM: When you write in your text about PUBLIC INTERVENTIONS: "If not conceptually justified, no 'representative' squares or boulevards should be worked on," it must be noted that it is precisely this representative space that requires a corrective shift. Can't the risk of the artistic intervention becoming a tourist attraction be easily avoided by foregoing an auratic artistic character in the way it is conceived and executed, as is evident in your work? At this point, the question also arises: wouldn't this lead to a greater accuracy of the artistic action in general, and especially in dealing with public space? CH: It is not the 'representative' space, the place designed for it with its architectural layout, that needs to be shifted, but rather the attitude from which such spaces are still planned today. When "representative" spaces are redefined by unadorned, unembellished works, this process is nothing more than a correction, an attempt to paper over existing problems. Furthermore, I believe that some "representative" spaces should be preserved for authentic design in the interest of preserving history, also to highlight the contrast with differently designed interventions. As I stated earlier, I believe that many works in urban spaces—due to their official classification as art - are primarily received through a prejudiced or rational, didactic lens, and their peculiarities and exoticisms, made suspect by the many unspeakable art-theoretical embellishments of the recent past, fail to convey meaning. They should therefore appear anonymously and be arranged contextually. The languages inherent in these works and their dialogues are only accessible to those who can approach them without prejudice and who possess sufficient interest to embrace the unfamiliar in its distinctiveness. In the long term, the more frequently the unfamiliar, subtly installed, appears as a matter of course, the greater the sense of ease and acceptance. Architects, urban planners, and other interventionists are needed to create the conditions for this interest, this 'in-betweenness'.