In the Round with Rufus
Interview by Jill Conner
Rehearsals for "Raptus", January 2005. Katarina Oikonomopoulou, Annette Previti, Grayson Millwood, Helen Pickett and Sofie Zamchick. Photo: Eve Sussman & The Rufus Corporation.
After seeing Diego Velazquez’s painting of "Las Meninas" (1656) at the Prado in Madrid, Eve Sussman founded the Rufus Corporation which sought to abduct the soul of the royal family through a combination of film and improvisational performance. Titled "89 Seconds At Alcazar," this short film became a phenomenal success at the Whitney Biennial in 2004. As a viewer who was transfixed by the creation of a photographic sensibility within the scope of art history, I caught up with some members of Rufus namely Eve Sussman, Jeff Wood, Helen Pickett, Karen Young, Annette Previti, Walter Sipser, and Sofie Zamchick, for some questions to find, among other things, a clear distinction between film and video. Their current project "Raptus" is set for a release sometime this fall.
Jill Conner: Your work is normally a-historic, from what I have seen. What drew you to use art historical subject matter as visual content?
Eve Sussman: Well, I suppose initially seeing this painting in the Prado. I mean I wouldn’t say I’m drawn to art historic subject matter. I’m just drawn to things that are inspiring in terms of looking for ways of thinking about making work.
JC: Wouldn’t you consider this to be a form of appropriation?
ES: I actually don’t. I’m so tired of appropriation I can’t tell you. I think appropriation is very different. Appropriation actually incorporates artwork verbatim and that’s not what I’m doing. I find it pretty boring.
Jeff Wood: From an actor’s standpoint, this was really interesting for all of us since we had no idea what we were doing. We were constantly working through process. Working with such a period piece, gesture and language was sometimes hysterical and dare I say embarrassing which was great because it forced us to find a way to make this mean something to us.
JC: How would you say that your work differs from other video artists like Matthew Barney, Bill Viola and Pippolitti Rist?
ES: I think Barney is really ambitious and visually really stunning, but he leaves me cold. I don’t think I’m into what is cold. I think that’s the main difference. Bill Viola is also kind of emotionally cold to me. Pippolitti Rist’s work is very different. I’ve seen her work a lot. Her work seems to be more about herself. My work is not about me. Mine has more to do with the interaction that occurs between people in a room and the emotional conditions of people, and so on. I’m really interested in emotional conditions. I don’t think Barney is at all. I know Bill Viola is but within Rist’s, it is much more about her own conditions within the world. I don’t put myself in my work.
JC: So you seek to leave meaning open to the viewer?
ES: Well, I want the viewer to feel something. I don’t think Barney’s work carries that as a priority. I’m really interested in something that provides the viewer with an emotional experience, connecting them to what they see. That’s what I don’t like about most video art. I consider myself closer to filmmakers than video artists. I think my concerns are more of a filmmaker as opposed to that of a video artist.
JC: How does Rufus compare to the performance groups that flourished throughout the 1960s?
Annette Previti: It’s like we live, eat and sleep together.
Helen Pickett: Well we did that when we were in Greece. The whole time we got incredibly close. This collective atmosphere is indicative of things that happened in the 60s and 70s. I think the lack of money in general has prevented the art world from having more performance groups at this time. It has caused artists to move away from collaboration. But in this kind of co-operative situation, everyone has different strengths which together create a full picture.
Walter Sipser: Eve thrives on working with collectives whereas others don’t. She doesn’t mind showing the structure when it’s not well-put together yet. Eve actively seeks out input on the process whereas others are very secretive.
Sofie Zamchick: Every moment is being filmed, and every moment is the collaboration. It’s not based on a specific moment. Instead it is about everything that everyone experiences.
Jeff Wood: We were filming ourselves going to the airport with no idea why. Eve looks for everyday gesture.
JC: What is "cinema verité"?
ES: A movement that began simultaneously in a number of countries — France, England, Canada and the US — and has been called a number of things —free cinema, direct cinema and observational documentary. The subjects are not acting. I’m interested in where cinema verité and fictional filmmaking meet. It’s something that I think about a lot, especially with respect to the next piece.
JC: By reducing an art historical icon to the money shot, your work clearly is imposing a photographic sensibility back into history. Do you think that this makes your work more redundant or more visionary?
ES: Obviously the choice and hope is to be visionary. I’m not really interested in repeating existing things. I’m really about trying to discover a language that I think communicates some sort of emotional state or some psychological condition between the viewer and what they’re seeing on the screen; and between the characters on the screen. Whether you do that using cinema verité or on a sound stage, you’re still trying to create that emotional moment, and you’re still trying to get a psychologically poignant thing that people can connect to. You know, you still need a hook. And I’m interested in that, the way a filmmaker is. I believe video artists don’t often have that as a priority.
That’s why the difference between film and video art, and why I have little patience for boring motion picture art. So I’m certainly not interested in being repetitive. I’m merely trying to give you an experience that’s meaningful.
It doesn’t matter if it’s an experience you’ve seen before or not. It just has to be meaningful. You can see the same narrative love story at different times but it doesn’t prohibit you from being moved every time you watch the movie. It’s about finding something gripping. Gripping doesn’t have to be new it just has to be gripping. I don’t think what we did with"89 Seconds" was anything new, but it definitely had a certain emotional and psychological tenacity that kept people watching even more than once.
JC: "89 Seconds" has been incredibly successful, but despite this have you encountered any criticism from art historians?
ES: Not really. Sometimes the occasional boring comment that’s based on the fixation of a particular detail, like we forgot the key on Velazquez’s belt. Only things as tedious and petty as that, but that’s not the point.
Nobody has come up to say that the piece really sucks or it’s horrible that it’s a duplication of a masterpiece. I think most people are pretty infatuated with it. So no, I haven’t had any constructive, negative criticism. The only criticism I have had has been kind of petty. If someone has constructive or negative criticism, I’d love to hear it.
JC: How does your work attempt to reach out and generate catharsis within the viewer? Does it break down the Brechtian 4th Wall in doing so?
WS: We experimented with that. Sometimes the camera was visible which created tension. With respect to the "Las Meninas" piece, we were looking out at the audience who was watching us. As the painter, I looked out at the audience who we documented. The painter was actually imagining the tension that you see unfolding in the film. So there was tremendous pressure in which you’re not only acting with a capital ‘A’, but you’re also acting in front of a group of people.
Annette Previti: Eve had the camera on us all the time in which ultimately helped us forget about the 4th wall. But if someone ever says "you’re on camera" it is much more nerve wracking.
JC: Your previous work has not been cathartic. What attracted you to communicate with viewers on an emotional level? Do you think that this is romantic?
ES: "89 Seconds" has more of the emotional experience of going to the movies. I think that "Ornithology" created an emotional response in the viewers since some people got involved with it by going out on a ramp and then stayed out there on the platform. As a result they were in the piece that was being projected back into the gallery.
It was a different type of involvement, because you’re not really drawn into the pigeons as characters. In "89 Seconds" I tried to create an emotional connection with the people in the picture. I don’t see this mix happening very often in video art. I’m seeing work that uses pure doc style shooting or the current strain of video art that employs visual art direction, as in Barney’s work, and more about the fantasy.
The problem for me is that Barney’s fantasy is so much his own, and I don’t have a fantasy of shitting my teeth out of my ass. That’s his fantasy since he can feel something for it but it’s not common enough for anyone to really attach to. Thus you can’t really sympathize with him.
It can be as simple as two people entering a room, they turn around and see someone else and leave again. That’s narrative. I’m interested in people having some kind of cinematic experience, and I think a lot of video artists don’t care about that.
