THIERRY FOURNIER
portfolio
June 2014
www.thierryfournier.net
Contact: [email protected] / +336 6366 0853
THIERRY FOURNIER
13 rue Balzac 93300 Aubervilliers France
T. +336 6366 0853
[email protected]
www.thierryfournier.net
Artist and curator, Thierry Fournier has developed an artistic practice that
incompasses both installation, digital media, video, sound works and performance.
Through this practice, he explores how the body and perception qualify and
determine the relationships between individuals and their environment, both in a
poetic, social or political sense. Interactive or static, autonomous or in situ, his works
brings together commonly dissociated space-times to create critical situations:
relations between fiction and reality, living and non-living, personal and collective,
interior and exterior, human and machine.
His works are regularly showed: ZKM (2013), Centre Pompidou (2013, 2011, 2009,
2008), Fantastic (Lille, 2012), Festival d’Automne (2009), Contexts (Paris, 2011),
Ménagerie de Verre (Paris, 2006), Nancy Fine arts Museum (2011), FRAC Normandy
(Rouen, 2007), Chartreuse National Stage Writing Center (2008, 2009, 2010), Next
international festival (Valenciennes, 2008), Lux Valence (2009), Nibelungen Museum
(Germany, 2001), Techniches Museum Wien (Austria, 2006, 2009), international world
fairs of Aïchi (Japan, 2005), Saragosse (Spain, 2008), etc.
In a close relationship with his artistic work, he curates group shows and
performances, by regularly inviting artists and authors in the context of specific
apparatus: Augmented Window (2011-2013), Cohabitation (2009 et 2011), Outside
Lectures (performances, 2008), Open 2007 (2007), Ce qui nous regarde (2005),
Shadow of a Doubt (2003), and the CD review Pandore (1997-2004 + 2014).
Having started out as a musician, composer and architect (graduate of the Lyon
National School of Architecture), he contributed to contemporary art galleries in
Lyon. Practicing and studying both architecture and art, he approached the digital
arts with Ircam in Paris. He gives an autonomous form to his work in 2000.
He teaches and conducts researches at Nancy National Superior College of Art, Paris
National superior College of Art and Design (Ensad), and Sciences Po Paris. He lives
and works in Aubervilliers (Seine Saint-Denis, France).
Solo shows
2015
Lux Scène nationale de Valence
Synesthésie, Saint-Denis
2011
2010
Hotspot, Contexts, Paris
Only Richard, La Chartreuse / CNES
2009 2008 2006
2005
2004
2003
2001
2000
A Never Ending Gesture, Lux Scène nationale de Valence
Fermata, Kawenga, Montpellier
Step to step, École régionale des beaux-arts de Rennes.
Reanimation, stage creation with Samuel Bianchini and Sylvain Prunenec, Next International Festival, Valenciennes
Outside Lectures, performances, La Chartreuse / CNES
Only Richard Arcal Lyrique, Paris
Reanimation with Samuel Bianchini and Nathalie d’Auzon
National Choreographic Center – Ballet de Lorraine, Nancy
Stories Machine, Jardin du Nombril, Pougnes-Hérisson
The Nibelungen Treasure, Le Carré des Jalles, Saint-Médard en Jalles
Vers Agrippine, Studio-Théâtre de Vitry
Shadow of a doubt, Lyons Natural History Museum
The Angel’s Moult, stage creation, Bourges Culture House
The Angel’s Moult, Archa Theater, Prague (Czech Republic)
The Nibelungen Treasure, Nibelungen Museum, Worms (Germany)
The Nibelungen Treasure, Goethe Institut, Paris
The Angel’s Moult, Théâtre de la Ville, Montréal (Canada)
Curating
2014
2014
2014
2013
2012
2011
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
1997-04
Augmented Window 05, Château Royal de Collioure
Augmented Window 04, La Panacée, Montpellier
Ce qui manque , La Panacée / Université Montpellier 3, Montpellier
Augmented Window, Friche de la Belle de Mai / Panorama, Marseille
Augmented Window, Fort Lagarde, Prats de Mollo
Cohabitation, Galerie NaNiMa, Ensa Nancy
Augmented Window, Centre Pompidou, Paris
Cohabitation, Musée des beaux-arts de Nancy
Outside Lectures, La Chartreuse CNES Avignon
Open 2007, Collectif Echolalie / Lelabo, Paris
Co-fonder of Echolalie colective: curating, production, critique
Ce qui nous regarde, Aichi World Fair, French Pavilion
Shadow of a doubt, Lyons Natural History Museum
Pandore, audio magazine, 10 issues published
Group shows (selection)
2014
2013
Artist in residency, la Maison Populaire, Montreuil:
Préludes flasques pour un chien, curator Marie Frampier
48h Chrono, Friche la Belle de Mai, Marseille
Digital Choc Festival, Tokyo / Kyoto / Sapporo, Japan
Alter Narrative, Atsuko Barouh gallery, Tokyo, curator Yukiko Shikata
New Cinema Festival, Montreal (Canada)
ZKM App Award group show (Karlsruhe, Germany)
Chemins Electroniques Festival, Pau
(France)
Bouillants #5 Festival, Rennes
(France)
Silent Rooms, Kawenga, Montpellier
(France)
Hors-Pistes Festival, Centre Pompidou, Paris
(France)
Emergences Festival, Lux Scène nationale, Valence
(France)
Silent Rooms, curating Grégory Diguet, Montpellier
(France)
2012
Nuit Blanche, Aubervilliers
(France)
Fantastic, Lille 3000, Lille
(France)
Bouillants #4 Festival, Rennes (France)
Des Souris et des hommes, Saint-Médard en Jalles (France)
Gamerz, Fondation Vasarely, Aix-en-Provence (France)
2011
Access, art in public space, Pau (France)
Nuit Blanche, Aubervilliers (France)
Rubbing Glances, Espace Poirel, Nancy (France)
Cohabitation, Nancy Fine Arts Museum (France)
Entrelacs, stage creation with Lionel Hoche, CDA Enghien (France)
2010
Interactions, Maison Consulaire de Mende (France)
2009
Ososphère Festival, Strasbourg (France)
Images en Scène, Lux Scène nationale de Valence (France)
Reanimation, avec Samuel Bianchini et Sylvain Prunenec,
Carthage International Choreographic Festival, Tunis (Tunisia)
(Anti)Realism, Norrköping Kunsthall, Norrköping (Sweden)
2008
Autumn Festival in Paris, Centre Pompidou, Paris (France)
Ososphère Festival, Strasbourg (France)
International Zaragoza World Fair, Monaco Pavilion (Spain)
Cube Festival, Le Cube, Issy-les-Moulineaux (France)
Jim08 Festival, Albi
(France)
Seconde Nature, La Chartreuse / CNES
(France)
2007
Montre moi l’œuvre autrement, FRAC Normandy
(France)
Outlab, CITU, La Bellevilloise, Paris
(France)
Open 2007 (collectif Echolalie), Lelabo, Paris
(France)
Feedbackroom, Nancy National Art School
(France)
2006
Les Inaccoutumés Festival, La Ménagerie de verre, Paris
(France)
Alltag, ein Gebrauchanweisung, Techniches Museum Wien (Austria)
2005
Aichi International World Fair, French Pavilion (Japan) Ars Numerica, Montbéliard (France)
2003
Synthèse Festival, Maison de la Culture de Bourges
(France)
Novellum Festival, Toulouse
(France)
2002
Les Paravents, Jean Genet / Frédéric Fisbach, Colline Theater, Paris
2001
Cyberarts Festival, Goethe Institut, Boston (USA)
2000
ISEA Festival, Paris
(France)
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2000
1999
1998
Grants, residencies, competitions and public commissions
Catalogues and publications (French)
2014
2014
2013
2012
2011
- Ce qui manque, exhibition catalogue, La Panacée, Montpellier, June 2014
- La création numérique : Tendances - lieux - artistes (Digital Creation in France :
Trends, Places, Artists), MCD, 2008
- Le Feedback dans la création musicale (The Feedback in the Musical Creation),
conference proceedings, Grame, 2006
Artist in residence, La Maison Populaire, Montreuil
Festival du Nouveau Cinema Montréal, special prize of the jury
ZKM App Award nomination (Karlsruhe, Germany)
Digital creation grant (Languedoc-Roussillon Region, France)
Dicréam grant, French Ministry of Culture / CNC
Winner of Digital Culture competition (Languedoc-Roussillon Region)
Winner of Futur en Seine competition (Ile de France Region)
Artem Creation Grant, Nancy
Residency, La Charteuse / CNES (France)
Residency Grant (Languedoc-Roussillon Region)
Commission by Technisches Museum Wien (Austria)
Dicréam grant, French Ministry of Culture / CNC
Residency, La Chartreuse / CNES (France)
Winner of competition for Monaco Pavilion, Zaragoza World Fair (Spain)
Digital Creation Grant (Languedoc-Roussillon Region)
Commission by Technisches Museum Wien (Austria)
Residencies at Arcal Lyrique and Avant-Rue, Paris (France)
Dicréam grant, French Ministry of Culture / CNC
Winner of competition for French Pavilion, Aichi World Fair (Japan)
Residency, Mains d’Œuvres, Saint-Ouen (France)
Public commission, Navel Garden, Pougne-Hérisson (France)
Public commission, Studio-Théâtre de Vitry (France)
Public commission, Institut de Musique Electroacoustique de Bourges
Public commission, 21th Century Celebration, French Ministry of Culture
International Grant, Arts Council of Canada
Winner of Nibelungen Museum Worms competition (Germany) with A+H
Catalogues and publications (bilingual)
- Flatland, catalogue of Augmented Window project, Thierry Fournier and J. Emil
Sennewald, Pandore / Art Book Magazine (nov. 2013)
- Transmitting History, collective book, B42 Publishing (sept. 2013)
- Last Room / Dépli, DVD + iPad artwork + book, texts by Philippe Avril, Pierre
Carniaux, Nicolas Feodoroff, Thierry Fournier, Jean-Pierre Rehm, Anne-Lou Vicente,
directed by Thierry Fournier, Shellac & Pandore 2013
- R&C / Research and creation, collective book directed by Samuel Bianchini,
Burozoïque / Editions du Parc 2010, Art Book Magazine 2012
- Feedbackroom, DVD, Éditions du Point d’exclamation / Éditions du Parc, 2009
- 4th Monaco International Dance Biennal, catalogue, MDF, 2006
- French Pavilion, catalogue, Aichi International World Fair, Hachette 2005
- Editor of Juliette Fontaine special issue, Pandore, 2004
- Editor (1997 - 2004) of the audio magazine Pandore (10 issues published)
- The book of the anonymous poet, collective book, NibelungenMuseum Worms, 2001
- ISEA 2000 - Revelation, catalogue, Musica Falsa / Art3000, 2000.
- Step to Step, catalogue, Rennes School of Fine Arts Publishing, 2009
- Nathalie Candito and Maud Gauchet, L’Ombre d’un doute, récits d’une expérience
singulière (Shadow of a Doubt, stories from a singular experience), Lyons Natural
History Museum Publishing, 2003
- Composer des hybrides (To Compose Hybrids), Revue d’esthétique n°43, Jean-Michel
Place Publishing, 2003
Press (selection)
- Last Room / Dépli, special issue of Archée online review, June 2014
- Libération, March 13th 2013, Marie Lechner, Last Room / Dépli, doigt it yourself
- France Culture, La Vignette, 10 janvier 2013, interview by Aude Lavigne
- Beaux-Arts Magazine, special issue January 2013, Fantastic Lille
- Étapes graphiques, January 2013, A+
- Futur en Seine, June 2011, Véronique Godé, Une œuvre peut en cacher une autre
- Digitalarti n°5, 2011, Laurent Diouf, Thierry Fournier, les ombres collectives
- Poptronics.fr, October 2009, interview by Cyril Thomas
- Intramuros, January 2009, Annick Hemery, L’interactivité au bout des doigts
- Cahiers du Cinéma, November 2008, Emmanuel Burdeau, Cinéma en numérique
- Mouvement, July 2008, Dominique Vernis, Théâtre d’opérations
- Beaux-Arts Magazine, June 2008, Anaïd Demir, La ville écran
- Paris-art.com, June 2008, interview by Evelyne Bennati
- Mouvement , June 2008, Véronique Godé, La ville digitale mise en cube
- Paris Art, October 2007, Agathe Attali, Montre-moi l’œuvre autrement
- Arte.tv, June 2005, Véronique Godé, Ce qui nous regarde
- Oc-TV, December 2003, interview by François Besson, Le seigneur de l’anneau
- SVM, October 2003, Annik Hémery, Thierry Fournier, artifices et sensations
- France Culture, Multipistes, April 24th 2003, entretien avec Arnaud Laporte
- Création Numérique, January 2001, Quand la réalité virtuelle ratrappe le mythe
- Le Devoir, January 20th 2001, Julie Bouchard, Un trésor virtuel sous la ville
- Libération, December 8th 2000, Marie Lechner, Tragédie en sous-sol
Research and teaching
- Ecole nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy, research coordinator
- EnsadLab / Ecole nationale supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, researcher
- Ecole nationale supérieure de Création Industrielle, Paris, master supervisor
- Sciences Po Paris, art workshop
Recent positions:
- Chairman of jury, École supérieure d’art d’Aix en Provence, 2011
- Masterclasses at École régionale des Beaux-arts de Rennes, École européenne
supérieure de l’Image (Poitiers), etc.
- Paris-Villemin National Superior School of architecture, creation and coordination
of Space and Interactivity workshop, 2001 - 2004
- Paris-Villemin National Superior School of architecture, creation and coordination
of the Digital Creation Workshop, 1998 - 2004
Works and curating (selection)
As a large number of works are video and/or interactive,
feel free to watch video documentations on www.thierryfournier.net/en
Precursion
network installation, 2014
Artist in residence, Maison Populaire, Montreuil, 2014
Precursion questions the relationships between cinema, reality TV and
infotainment, thru their common perspectives about catastrophes and
redemption. This generative installation associates in real time RSS news, in
situ shots and found footage blockbusters musics.
Ce qui manque
What is missing
exhibition, curating workshop and publication, 2014
With Armand Behar, Laura Gozlan, Stéphane Degoutin and Gwenola Wagon
La Panacée, Montpellier
Ce qui manque addresses the notions of utopias and human evolution. The
exhibition was created within the frame of a curating workshop lead with
students of the University Montpellier 3, during three residencies at La
Panacée, art center dedicated to the relationships between contemporary
art and digital studies.
Noli me tangere
interactive installation, 2013
16 speakers, 8 bass cabinets, camera, computer, variable dimensions
A wall of speakers and a microphone generate a huge saturated sound
feedback whose intensity and frequencies increase as the visitors approach
them, variating from from infra-bass oscillations to treble frequencies.
As it were a living being, the installation reacts to any movement or gesture
in the room. The visitor’s behavior become the origin of what threatens him.
Last Room / Dépli
Film and interactive artwork on iPad
Pierre Carniaux / Thierry Fournier, 2008-2013
The interactive work on iPad Dépli by Thierry Fournier and the film Last
Room by Pierre Carniaux were created simultaneously from the same shots
filmed in Japan.
Dépli proposes a new form of cinematographic experience: a navigation
through the shots and space-time of a film. The film’s material is treated as
a seamless on-going matter, in which the spectator navigates through an
interface that involves him physically. Created on iPad, Dépli can be showed
and played in movie theaters, exhibitions or at home.
Last Room deals with the relationships between shared and intimate, the
spoken word and the landscape. It combines stories shot in hotel rooms and
a collective history around the island of Gunkanjima.
The special box Last Room / Dépli includes the film DVD, the Dépli iPad
licence and a book dedicated to the project (French-English-Japanese)
Anne-Lou Vicente
The Fabric of images
Published in Last Room / Dépli, Shellac & Pandore 2013
Anne-Lou Vicente is a contemporary art critic and independent curator. She co-directs the
publication VOLUME - What You See Is What You Hear, a bi-annual contemporary art magazine
devoted to sound, distributed by Les Presses du réel. She is co-curator in residence for the year
2013 at the Maison populaire art center in Montreuil.
Dépli originated in an encounter between artist Thierry Fournier and director
Pierre Carniaux in Japan, during the filming of Last Room. This encounter
resulted in a fruitful collaboration where duo, dialogue and diptych are
closely associated. The number two is of particular significance here:
indeed, the very essence of Dépli, from the point of view of its origins and of
its operation, lies in the interstices.
As with the «intermediary apparatus» designed by Thierry Fournier,
Dépli summons an important network of relationships: between the
installation and the film Last Room (and their respective authors), between
the installation and the viewers/players, between the viewers/players
themselves, between their bodies and the space/environment in which they
find themselves, etc. To a certain extent, the inter-human dimension that
is literally put into play is a matter of “relational aesthetics1”, especially
in that it pervades existing social and cultural forms, such as the movie
theatre2, a paradigm of the ritualized experience that is at once individual
and collective.
Presented as a “playable cinema” project, Dépli addresses the viewer/visitor
while it also requires his participation. As he is invited to trace his own
path through the film, or rather, through its interspaces (shots), the viewer
combines observation - which is by no means passive - and action, emission
and reception, in an alternative logic that varies between watching as others
do and making others watch. While, as Marcel Duchamp famously put it, « It
is the spectators who make the pictures », in this case the spectators do not
rewrite the story, they are invited to make their film, and become actors to
the fullest extent, in this context in which a film is extended, not so much in
1See Relational Aesthetics (1998), a cult essay by art critic Nicolas Bourriaud in which he
exposes the way in which certain contemporary artistic practices contribute to the emergence
of a «relational society».
2
Exhibition spaces are another example of public spaces in which Dépli might appear;
the installa- tion can also be experienced at home.
its rewriting, but rather, in its reinvention through the prism of a person, a
spirit, a voice in itself.
Sustained by practices that lay at the crossroads of contemporary art and
traditional cinema, such as experimental cinema, video art, and multimedia
art in particular, a broadening of the cinematographic form3 occurs, in the
case of the installation Dépli, on different levels: beginning with the very
places it may invest – a movie theater, home video set up, or exhibition
space – and as a result, on the level of the users, and with them, of the
usages. These are related in more than one way to post production, as the
installation involves « treatments applied to recorded material4 », pre-existing
or even preliminary, insofar as, at least in movie theatres, it follows the
projection of the film Last Room.
« Cinema is both the source and the paradigm of new media. It is the source,
insofar as it is the instrument that enables us to understand how representation
is transformed by the very screens that condition it. There is a move from the
classic screen (a rectangular surface, a window onto the world, as André Bazin
sees it) that offers a frontal vision of a fixed space, to a dynamic screen on which
images are in motion and lead to other systems of vision, where questions
of viewer immer- sion and identification are prominent5 ». The dozens of
sequence-shots extracted from the film, stored in the interface’s timeline,
appear as samples, from which the player may compose his own music. He
is invited to clear a path feeling his way along, to navigate – even to drift –
until he feels the breath of images turned porous, which he may freely slow
down or accelerate.
In this manipulation of images and sound – on a formal, temporal and
kine(ma)tic level – the viewer uses a tactile tablet that makes touch the
experience’s driving force. Offsetting (or rather, in this case, complementing)
the classic viewing scheme of cinematographic projection onto a (large)
screen, which, while it prompts the viewer to delve into the film, almost
3
The reference here is to expanded cinema, a concept theorized by Gene Youngblood
in an epony- mous work published in 1970.
4
Part of the definition of the term postproduction to be found in the first words of
Nicolas Bourriaud’s essay Postproduction (2004) ; the term forms somewhat of a diptych with the
concept of «relational aesthetics», mentioned previously.
5
Yann Beauvais, Open source code, preface to the french edition of Lev Manovitch, Language of New Media (MIT Press, 2001 for the original english edition, Les presses du réel, Dijon,
2010 for the french edition).
keeps him at a distance, Dépli offers to engage in it physically, sensually,
to touch the images in order to affect them (and be affected by them). «The
different kinds of relationships that exist between cinema, film, sensorial
perception, physical environment and the body can be represented as a series
of metaphors, dichotomous concepts, that, in turn, can be “mapped” onto the
body: its surfaces, its senses and methods of perception, its tactile, affective and
sensory-motor faculties », write Thomas Elsaesser et Malte Hagener in the
introduction to their book Film Theory: an introduction through the senses6. In
reference to the fifth chapter, entitled “skin and touch”, the authors add: “We
will be dealing here with theories based on the idea that skin is an organ and
that touch is a means of perception. From them, ensues the understanding
of cinema as a tactile experience, or, conversely, as one which endows the
eye with “haptic” faculties that go beyond the usual “optical” dimension”.
Who plays (and what is playing out in) Dépli? This interactive installation,
where participants share what they perceive through their senses, renews
the cinematographic experience and, like an invitation to travel within the
images and listen to them, the viewer is invited to move them (physically and
emotionally) by drifting through the infinite folds7 of their fabric.
6
Thomas Elsaesser and Malte Hagener, Film Theory: an introduction through the senses,
Routledge, 2009.
7
Etymologically, the term diptych means «folded in two».
Augmented Window
interactive installation and curating, 2011-2014
The Augmented Window project proposes an interactive window on a
landscape as a group show protocol.
The works of the invited artists and authors take as starting point the real
time view on a landscape proposed by the curator. The exhibition is displayed
on a large screen that the visitors explore by touch. The project protocol
addresses simultaneously the geographic site, the work with the artists
within this specific apparatus and the sensitive experience proposed to the
visitors.
Augmented window is an traveling series: each new landscape implies new
artists invitations and the creation of original works. Three exhibitions were
already created: Centre Pompidou (Paris 2011), Prats-de-Mollo (Eastern
Pyrénées 2012), Friche la Belle de Mai (Marseille 2013).
Since 2011, twenty artists and authors created 206 works within this project:
Benjamin Laurent Aman, Ivan Argote, Christelle Bakhache et Clément Feger
(social scientists), David Beytelmann, historian and philosopher), Marie-Julie
Bourgeois, Pierre Carniaux (filmmaker), Grégory Chatonsky, Jean Cristofol
(philosopher), Céline Flécheux (philosopher and art critic), Juliette Fontaine,
Thierry Fournier, Simon Hitziger, Marie Husson, Tomek Jarolim, François
Parra, Jean- François Robardet, Marcos Serrano, Antoine Schmitt and a
collective formed by Christine Breton (patrimonial curator), Jean Cristofol
(philosopher), Thierry Fournier et Jean-François Robardet (artists).
Augmented Window led to a research and creation process developed in
collaboration with several institutions and laboratories: EnsadLab / Ensad,
Sciences Po Medialab and Pandore. The main frame of the project was
produced by Languedoc-Roussillon Region and Ile de France Region.
In November 2013, the first three Augmented Window exhibitions (Paris,
Prats and Marseille) will be published on iPad, reproducing at a mobile scale
the experience of the works.
A digital catalogue of the project, Flatland, will be published in November by
Pandore and Art Book Magazine (French digital editor in contemporary art).
It will be conceived and curated by Thierry Fournier and art critic J. Emil
Sennewald.
J. Emil Sennewald
The Floating Eye - the art of Thierry Fournier
(excerpt) catalogue Flatland, Art Book Magazine, November 2013
J. Emil Sennewald is art critic and freelance journalist. He works in Paris on behalf of various
newspapers and magazines, including «Kunst-Bulletin» (Zurich, Switzerland), «Springerin
«(Vienna, Austria),» Kunstzeitung «(Regensburg, Germany),» Kunst Auktionen & «(Munich,
Germany),» Roven «(Paris). Covering the contemporary art events in France, he is particularly
interested in drawing, the concept of visual space, questions of the relationship between text
and image and theories of criticism.
Topos
Once upon a time – this is how Roberto Simanowski opens his chapter
on interactive installations in his book on digital art and meaning1. Upon
choosing this all too well known formula, he summons what is referred
to in literature as topos: a commonplace, which we may come back to for
reassurance, to make certain we have not lost sight, in our reading, of the
space delineated by the text. A space that does not exist outside of the text,
of course, which leads us to ask: if it is true that the world is only accessible
through a medium, through a substrate on which we can give shape to
what we will be naming Reality or World, how are these substrates used
to convince us that we are looking outside, and that that very outside is not
accessible to us without the frame through which it appears to us?
Frames
How are image mediums that lead our vision towards the imaginary built?
As a first answer, let us mention that there always a structuring part that
must remain invisible at all costs in order to make the image appear as if
it were behind the screen. This absence justifies the presence of what the
image represents, the image itself acting as a screen that blocks our gaze
in order to pull us towards the projections of our imagination. In order for
this to work, in order for us to believe what we see, one must forget the
medium. The same goes for the very text you are reading: in order for you to
read it properly, in order for the page layout to be effective, it is accompanied
by a plethora of signs, albeit invisible. The signs of the code define their
form. To give you an idea, some of these signs have been made visible in the
text. They are signs that organize the space of the page (or of the screen).
1
Roberto Simanowski : Digital art and meaning : reading kinetic poetry, text machines, mapping art, and interactive installations, Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press 2011.
They are, in this case, invisible signs that make other signs readable, by
structuring the field in which they appear.
Gaze
Art historian Meyer Shapiro has studied “non mimetic” signs that do
not represent anything beyond their technical function of “establishing
perception”. The world of apparitions is filled with this type of structurally
essential signs: suspension of a body’s movement (not the gesture itself but
that which comes before it and gives it its direction and meaning), the space
between the reader and the support (head slightly tilted when reading a book
or leaning forward for a screen), a window frame (which creates a barrier by
transforming the outside world into an image, extracted from a supposedly
larger composition). (...)
Placements
Consider the frame placed before us, this “augmented window”: does
it become part of our space, the viewer’s space? Or rather, is it already
an element of the magic that emanates from this device? Is this window
placed between the viewer and the image? Some of the works selected
and showed by Thierry Fournier, such as the drawings by Juliette Fontaine
or Jean-François Robardet have made on the landscape, reassure us as
they re-engage the concept of surface by bringing the viewer’s gaze (which
so willingly settles in its spatial landscape) back to the bi-dimensionality
of the support. Others, such as Thierry Fournier’s or Tomek Jarolim’s
interventions, intensify the spatial illusion by incorporating elements in
the fictional space of this landscape that nevertheless claims to reveal an
imminent reality, transmitted in real-time by a camera pointed towards the
Prats de Mollo valley. What place, then, does this window offer the viewer?
Places
Let’s observe closely the visitors in front of Augmented window: they settle
in, position themselves in front of the device in order to handle it, and,
finally, they touch it. When there are multiple visitors viewing the device
simultaneously, they begin to play, share opinions and give each other
advice. They also try to understand how it works, sometimes even checking
behind the screen, like a child would look behind a mirror for the person
whose reflection he just spotted. Nevertheless, when the viewer who has
positioned himself according to the screen touches it, he is transformed.
In order to use the window, he must move slightly in front of the screen,
towards its surface, perhaps even “into” the screen: he must act, delve into
the image that is hidden behind several layers or windows.
The user acts in order to see the image, either through his deliberate
navigational movements or by separating elements one by one. He acts the
image that becomes an integral part of a perception that occurs through
the body, not merely through the eyes : he sees the picture with his entire
being. Admittedly, one never looks at a picture only with the eyes - a painting
requires that the viewer find the right position to take it in. But in this
case, it is the space that determines the image’s and the viewer’s reality.
The watching body is placed and arranged (even exposed) in front of its
substrate. In order for this body to engage in an imaging activity, it becomes
the very topos of the support it is watching.
In other words: the conventions of looking at a picture, together with the
requirement of viewer action, form a "gesture of gaze". This gesture, once
it has occurred, integrates the viewer in the very space of the image and
of its particular spatiality - which may be defined by an exhibition space
or by an electronic device. In this “image act”, the viewer/user does not
“take” his place, but he “receives” his space as a viewer2. He is subjected
to the image. He loses control, as he pictures himself making room for the
existence of the image. The subject fools himself when he objectivates the
contents of the picture through the frame - which he ignores, along with the
screen’s reflective surface. But it is this very frame that reminds him that
he is nothing more than a negative reflection of his own image. The image,
therefore, takes shape in its viewer. It becomes the genius loci that reminds
the viewer that he exists by subjecting himself to its substrate; a genius
according to Giorgio Agamben - a spirit that accompanies me, that watches
over me, that prepares the paths that I will follow and that, at the end,
resembles me. Having pre-traced my representation of the world, it will then
accompany my choices3. How does this genius of space establish itself?
2
See Horst Bredekamp’s reseach on image act and embodiment : http://bildakt-verkoerperung.de
3
See Giorgio Agamben, Profanations, translation Martin Rueff, Bibliothèque Rivages,
Paris 2005.
Anachrones
series of 3 digital videos, 2012
Large-scale liquids or cloudy phenomenons unfold and then disappear in a
mountain landscape. As if they were living and behaving independently, their
figures can evoke original phenomena, fiction or impending disasters.
One deploys a mountain of smoke that grows and fades, the second a cloud
appearing on the horizon and then dissolving in a valley: the third generates
two living forms from the mountainside.
Only Richard
installation and feature film, 2010-2013
2.4:1 video projection, sound diffusion, tele-prompt, variable dimensions
Shakespeare’s Richard II describes the path of a man convicted of being
beyond the laws of reality by his divine nature. Overtaken by events, his
constant questions about his role and status lead him to its loss.
The installation literally removes the presence of Richard, within a film
featuring only the other characters, played by amateurs and filmed with a
subjective camera in a forest. Only the text of Richard is displayed, next to
the video. Their confrontation draws a figure of the power vacuum: an inbetween, in which stands the spectator.
See You
video installation, 2008-2012
steel hull, LCD screen, camera, computer, 120 x 120 x 220 cm
Placed in a street, a video screen displays exactly what could be seen behind
it, as if it was a window – except that it is displayed with a constant 24h delay.
Alternately actors and ghosts of the same scene, those who pass in the
image and those who observe them coexist without ever communicating unless they come back at the same place exactly 24h later. A future and a
past refer to each other through an image, on either side of a screen.
Cohabitation II
curating, with Jean-François Robardet
group show, NaMiMa gallery, Ensa Nancy (France) 2012
Created within the frame of a research and creation workshop at École
nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy, Cohabitation proposes a series of works
sharing the same room, each of them proposing an interaction with the
visitors and/or the other works.
Cohabitation proposes a reflexion and a pratique about the interactivity and
the creation process of a show : how to collectively develop an exhibition
where each object is defined in its relations with the others and the public?
How could we think the necessary autonomy of an apparatus, while
designing a common project and space?
Works by: Anne-Sophie Banach, Laureline Maudet and Guillaume Cadot /
Wei Chang, Charlotte Moreau et Se Won Hwang / Alice Adenis, Romain
Hantz and Jérôme Gonzales / Benoît Henry / Brice Mantovani / Xiao-Jun
Song and Guilhem Mariotte.
Cohabitation I
curating, with Jean-François Robardet
group show, Nancy Fine Arts Museum, 2011
The Cohabitation I group show is based on the same protocol than the second
edition. This research and creation workshop proposes a research and
pratique about the notions of collaboration, neighborhood and interaction.
The participants are invited to develop a series of works whose rule is to
share the same space and propose interactions between them and/or with
the audience. The works associate fixed mediums (installation, painting,
sculpture, video, sound…) et interactive projects.
Works by: Mathieu Sarrasin, Sylvain Spanu / Mélanie Jayantha, Laura Kwan,
Florence Pewzer, Marie Rollin / Aurélia Lucchesi / Thierry Fournier / Kathy
Denise, Coralie Forissier, Jenny Partouche / Jean-François Robardet.
Usual Suspects
interactive installation, 2011
camera, computer, LCD screen or videoprojection, variable dimensions
A camera focussed on a public place frames in a red rectangle any moving
person or object. The device is extremely sensitive and reacts to any
movement: passers-by but also pigeons, plastic bags carried by the wind,
light reflections, opening windows, etc.
Using a CCTV system rendered absurd by the indiscriminate nature of the
machine, the installation stages the fictionalisation of reality shared by
the “surveillance society” and blockbuster films: law enforcement as a
spectacle.
IRL
network installation, 2011
computer, LCD screen and LCD foot, 120 x 50 x 200 cm
IRL is a network installation that involves a prior intervention of the artist on
the exhibition site, during one day.
A series of short silent video shots show details of the neighborhood
around the exhibition site. The shots are taken in situ in the language of
a news bulletin (mini stills, zooms and panoramic shots). They are edited
automatically at random by the machine, which displays also a news ticker
giving the time, breaking news and stock quotes from the internet.
The whole configuration provides infinite superimpositions of text and image,
where the banality and formatting of the TV shots is contaminated by the
news – and vice versa.
Hotspot
interactive installation, 2011
glass debris, microphone, computer, sound system, variable dimensions
Crushed underfoot, glass debris smashes as spectators cross the exhibition
floor. Amplified and distorted, these sounds trigger the apparition of disaster
films sound excerpts, randomly choosed in a database.
The installation forms a derisive theater of operations in a threatening
environment whose spectators are both observers and protagonists: a
storytelling of fear in experimentation.
Associating raw material, video, sound, interactive systems and cinema,
Hotspot engages the spectator and his-her body. It develops a research on
the relationship between art, politics, fiction and the documentary, deployed
in situ.
Open Source
installation, 2008-2011
inflatable basin, wood and glass panel, cameras, IR projectors, video
projectors, sound system, 2 computers, 700 x 350 x 400 cm
In front of an ellipse-shaped, shallow translucent basin of water stands a
panel allowing the visitors to write or draw directly with the hand, as if in
the condensation on a window pane. Once a drawing is finished, it appears
on the surface of the pool and drifts about with the others ; then it can be
touched and moved by the visitors around the basin.
The surface of water becomes a projection of fragile traces and sounds,
which gradually fade with the individual and collective actions of visitors. A
circular relationship is established, visitors writing while others look on, and
either play with the signs, or look at them.
Setup
sound installation, 2011
iPod, speakers, variable dimensions
At regular intervals, Setup gives orders to the visitors of an exhibition, in the
tone of service and security messages: “Everything’s going to be alright”,
“Everybody down!”, “If you’re young, rebel against older people”, etc. On the
iPod screen which diffuses the messages, figures a picture of the exhibition
room, as if it were seen by the eye of the machine.
Playing on the ambiguity between artwork and service message, the
installation embodies the fantasy of a robotic control over the spectators,
questioning paradoxically their freedom.
Limbo
interactive installation, 2011
IR camera, IR projectors, video projector, computer, 700 x 700 x 300 cm
Limbo confronts the visitors with spectral shapes they generate with their
own presence. Blurred and saturated, reversed, delayed and extremely slow,
these white shadows look similar to them, as they seem irreducibly strange.
They seem to repeat their movements but in a different space-time – a limb.
A paradox appears between the organicity of this forms which seem to follow
the visitors, while they turns to act in a more and more distant temporality.
The relationship between living and non-living becomes the source of an
uncaniness.
Infocus
installation, 2009
slides, slide projector or video projector, variable dimensions
A series of fixed-focus photographs of the body are taken with an extremely
short depth of field, the position of the operator being the only variable
parameter.
Almost entirely blurred, these photographs are projected with a slide
projector on autofocus mode, thus unable to stabilize itself. The adjustment
made by the spectator is relayed by the machine, which seems to take hisher gaze in charge.
Fermata
interactive installation, 2009
cameras, camera foot, computer, screen, video projector, 700 x 200 x 300 cm
In a window, a camera films the street. Its image is projected on a large
screen behind it. Initially, this image is just a mirror of the outside.
As soon as a visitor enters the room, the video’s speed is disturbed by
his-her movements and gestures. If the visitor stops, the image is quite
frozen, leaving a vibration reacting to the slightest gesture. Although, while
image and sound are frozen, the camera goes on recording the image of the
street: if the visitor moves again, the video starts up again, speeded up, and
becomes gradually synchronized again with the real time outside.
Passers-by see themselves in a mirror controlled by inside observers, who
are themselves part and parcel of the scene seen through the window. The
illusion of a power over time becomes the springboard for a generalized loop
of exhibition and collective interaction.
Step to step
interactive installation, 2008
video projection with sound, computer, wood socle, 275 x 600 x 220 cm
Step to Step is composed by two elements facing each other: a video of a
fitness lesson, given by a coach in regular conditions with techno music and
costume, and a low white socle in the room. A soon as a visitor puts a foot
on the socle, the speed of the video begins to slow down, until getting quite
completely freezed if he-she climbs on the plinth.
A situation of “double bind” is spontaneously established, as the indications
of the coach are systematically inhibited if they are followed by the audience.
The action is transferred to the visitor, “at work” on his socle and conduced
to a very sharp perception of his-her own temporality.
Juliette Fontaine
Testing space, the contingency of the present
in Step to Step catalogue, Rennes Fine arts School Press, 2009
Juliette Fontaine is artist and author. She lives and works in Paris.
In many of Thierry Fournier’s interactive installations, space is not so much
a site as it is a material. Time and time again, engaging with one of his
apparatuses means penetrating a singular if not peculiar audio material.
Sound always retains a strong physical presence, it is almost organic, if not
erotic (Electric Bodyland, Siren). The visitor’s movement through this space
modulates the sound which is then “sculpted” by their presence.
In Step to Step, the visitor does not navigate a musical piece like in Electric
Bodyland, nor do they insinuate themselves into the dark matter of troubling,
animal sounds that constitute Feedbackroom. Once again, however, he-she
has to test and experience space. The installation presents a white block
on the ground in front of a life-size video coach giving a step class. All this
situation - the stepping class, the symmetry between step and block encourages us to explore the set-up. Setting down your foot or climbing onto
the block instantly slow down the music, the coach’s movements and his
voice, as if kneaded by clay yet still comprehensible. Yet your control over the
image is a passing impression; as if through a conditioned response, visitors
inevitably mimic the screen and become manipulated by it in turn. It’s no
longer clear who is biting and who is being bit—who is aping whom? This is
the installation’s humorous side: the impossibility of imitation turns into an
absurd and farcical game founded on denial, recalling the singular antics of
Buster Keaton. In this way and with intelligent irony, the question who has a
hold on whom is constantly replayed through role inversion.
Putting the spectator into play is worth remarking upon because he must
cross the space, go to the middle of it, and climb onto a block. In other
words, you’re asked to expose yourself. Staying away from the apparatus
would deprive you of this particular experience of the work. You have to
explore the piece, undergo the slightly upsetting experience of forgoing
the reassuring familiarity of privacy, the security and invisibility of
self-effacement, and then enter into an exposed and collective space.
Furthermore, each spectator is prompted to encounter their connections
with the space, but also the otherness of fellow spectators and the coach,
particularly since the latter is a projected image rather than a tangible
body. Indeed, the body is focal point of the other’s gaze in this configuration
of mutual acknowledgement. There are other ways that the installation
raises these questions of the other and the gaze. The block that the
spectator stands on is opposite the projection: face-to-face, step-to-step,
and, ultimately, peer-to-peer. In his patent absence, the coach looks at the
spectator; combining energy with gregariousness, he addresses, signals,
and shouts at them. The mirror effect is almost flawless: the coach’s “step”
and the one within the space are exactly the same size, and the coach’s
distance from the frame is identical to our own. The image could be our own
reflection—except that we’re face to face with another.
In Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel writes : “The now is precisely what no
longer is when it is.” If we take this sentence to be an enlightened axiom,
it becomes a striking aporia that creates a vast field of inquiry. And yet
the territory it plots out is ultimately akin to an uninhabited clearing: a
rich albeit overgrown garden, but one that, from certain angles, is utterly
barren. The initial remark will not yield: the present is unsolvable. Testing
present time, or better yet trying to formulate it, is like catching fish in
the river with your bare hands. With Step to Step, we experience spacetime empirically: inconstant, slippery and fundamentally indeterminate,
improbable. Rebellious and subversive, space-time forming both immediate
and imaginary time in a troubling relationship between the present and the
presence of the body. My body is in the present moment, both what does it
experience in this moment, what does it perceive through intelligence and
feelings—both inevitably intertwined—and what will my body retain of this
always already former present? The last aspect of this question underlies
the installation as it purposefully submerges its spectators in pure present:
standing on a block, their bodies move in front of another projected, moving
body. Yet the distance and detachment necessary for this observation only
comes from stepping out of the installation. This uncertain concurrence
is established in the impossible imitation of the coach’s movement. The
present therefore feels like an instant fleeing our feelings’ very present.
Sébastien Le Gall’s image becomes the perpetual vanishing point for an
unreachable horizon.
Step to step produces a contradictory impression of present time: it exists
only in as much as it rescinds itself. The metaphor which sees the present
as the only point on a curve that we can intersect becomes a tangible
experience, a brutal reality confirmed by the installation set-up. The weight
of the body on the block slows down the image until it almost freezes it,
yet it never quite stops : ever-elusive, ever-escaping, we either give up on
grasping (at) it or we freeze it and are left powerless to experience and so to
describe the standstill.
Réanimation
interactive performance for dancer and audience
Samuel Bianchini, Thierry Fournier, Sylvain Prunenec, 2005-2008
Reanimation is both an installation and a performance: a dancer and the
audience share the same apparatus. A dark and square playground is
divided in two parts by a screen, on which is projected the image of a dense
fog. On both sides of the screen, the dancer and spectators face one to each
other. The fog is quite opaque, but the presence of the spectators provokes
the apparition of black and moving shadows which allow to see thru them.
The dancer explores this shared space and this variable conditions of
visibility. He is in constant relationship with the public and the music, which
is completely generated in real time by his movements.
The apparatus calls an action, a reanimation on both sides of the stage. In
this active confrontation, the performance is the result of the spectator’s
behavior, as well as of the dancer’s.
Frost
performance, 2008-2010 - Thierry Fournier and Jean-François Robardet
polystyrene, microphone, bass amplifier, computer, variable dimensions
In Frost, the journey done by a performer with a microphone on a polystyrene
sculpture, becomes the sound metaphore of a polar landscape and
architecture.
The sculpture faces a bass amplificator on which the microphone is
plugged, at the limit of the feedback. Transformed by a real time apparatus
which transforms it into grans, rumblings and cracklings. The sound is
permanently modulated by the performer’s gesture who modulates and
excites the sound resonances in the sculpture’s holes. A gesture and a
dance result of these actions, searching a balance between motion, sound
and protection against the sound threats of the apparatus : the image of a
survival in a hostile environment.
Frost is born from a story told by Pauline Cunier-Jardin. It also takes part in
the Outside Lectures performance series.
Outside Lectures
curating and series of performances, 2008
Outside Lectures is a series of seven works for solo performer, created in
collaboration with five invited artists (David Beytelmann, Juliette Fontaine,
Noëlle Renaude, Jean-François Robardet, Esther Salmona).
Each performance proposes a specific relation to the outside, through
a protocol including a specitif apparatus and actions: TV transcribed by
real-time voice description, video interview with an Argentine immigrant
in France, conference on homeless language codes, live description of a
landscape thru the telephone, description and direct attack of a ministerial
circular, simulation of a miniature disaster, mongoose alert.
The performer and the audience share the same space, in a global
apparatus recomposed each time in situ.
Jean Cristofol
The net theory
About Outside Lectures, unpublished text
Jean Cristofol is philosopher and teacher-researcher at Aix en Provence National superior Arts
School. He lives and works in Marseille.
When I think of Outside lectures, the first image that comes to mind is a net.
It’s not quite the idea of the network though, at least not in a first instance,
however important this idea is here. Before becoming a network, nets are
merely an aggregation of things: a housewife’s webbed grocery bag gathered
in a ball, or the fisherman’s fishing nets clumped in a heap on the jetty.
An aggregation of things, though always retaining a particularly malleable
quality, a shapeless density allowing the housewife’s net to fit in her pocket,
or the fisherman’s in the rigging of his boat.
The props needed for Outside lectures fit in the trunk of a car. The form
is light, literally. Nomadic, if you will. In any case, it’s transportable and
adaptable, it’s meant to be performed from place to place, set-up and
bumped out. These different elements are then spread out (deployés) in
a display (déploiement) that changes from site to site, depending on each
location’s conditions and circumstances. The first act of Outside lectures
consists in casting the net, distributing its various constituent elements
throughout a given space. Something akin to a shape is thus drawn, loosely
traced around a center point in a circular motion. Some of the crowd takes
to this webbed circle, they’re captured by it, caught up in it.
This description, however, is not entirely accurate. A first reason for this is
that the circular form is, by definition, closed. It draws a line that folds back
on itself and splits the world in two: inside and outside. As it happens, what
spreads out (se déploie) is a never-ending movement that does not fold back
on itself, for it calls forth differing scales and carries over onto discontinuous
planes. And, as it happens, though a loop is made, it’s hardly circular—even
if you are left with the distinct impression of a stage or a playing field, even
if something does indeed take place, spread out, and resonate. For, as the
name of the Lectures suggests, the distribution of inside and outside plays
out differently. The movement inherent in the theatre design gives way to
another movement, or runs into a kind of displacement that penetrates this
design, transforms it, articulates it in another dimensional register.
The net is thus an assemblage, a system (dispositif) articulating a variety
of elements linked by this “crossing” (traversée). This system is made up
of a sequence of situations that hang together, insofar as it is said that a
work of art seeks an equilibrium where it “holds” according to the principles
of composition, in the musical meaning of the word. There’s something
in installation work that gathers up a variety of elements through the
interplay of their connections, whether a movement, a journey, or, indeed,
a crossing. It’s both stationary and in motion; stationary like a house of
cards, in motion like a breath or a dance step. Add to this the fact that the
appliances gathered here, and through which each moment occurs, are so
utterly banal and common that they’re part of our everyday lives: a television,
a table and a microwave, a laptop, a cellular phone, etc., all laid out around
a chunk of polystyrene placed on a sheet of plexiglass. It’s a sort of modest
sculpture, a ready-made taken out of its packaging, a blank and empty
architecture that the sounds produced by a microphone’s audio feedback
come to explore, transforming it into a block of ice, an iceberg, the detached
and fragile fragment of an ice shelf. As things ice over in this moment of
sonic decomposition, the movement stops and turns around, form fissures,
and language breaks down in a static-ridden avalanche. In the progression
of sequences that make up Outside lectures’, only this moment sees the
sonic loop become the closed circle of the stage, reduced to the kernel of
its presence, to the here and now of the scene—and, yet again, you get the
sense that its on the inside that things are unravelling.
Outside lectures starts at a set time, with a sequence of words akin to an
absurd challenge: plainly recounting what happens on a television screen
between the end of the early evening shows, often game shows, and the
beginning of the 8pm newscast—in other words, this rapid sequence of nonevents blending soundbytes, advertising, weather forecasts, announcements,
jingles and the opening spiel from the news anchor relating the day’s main
stories. The performer, Emmanuelle Lafon, sits in front of a television
screen with headphones on. Watching a screen that we cannot see, she
gradually describes what goes on, what is said, what is shown, and all of
this in a continuous stream while obviously unable to say everything given
the onslaught of images that our minds conjure up, bubbling on the very
surface, in an uneven race between voice and mere speech act when faced
with the dull enormity, steadily flickering and churning away. The actress
sits at the very heart of the TV apparatus, at the crucial moment when the
premier private French television station sees its highest viewer ratings. This
banal explosion of empty signifiers in an instant shaping and structuring the
daily lives of millions of homes is precisely what is hidden from view and represented through the performance’s blueprint: a body, present and opaque
in its encounter with the screen—the brain in its encounter with the televised
stream. This particular moment, both fascinating in itself and in its spoken
rendition—in which we have to recognize (though some spectators cannot)
that what’s at stake in this very moment is what really occurs on screen,
what we in fact do not watch because we are here, listening to the actress,
watching her expend her energy as we would empty our minds—in this way,
this particular moment is not reproduced, imitated, figured, represented,
but, in a certain sense, “over-produced.”
The screen weaves a temporal field before it describes a surface. Indeed,
it is constituted by way of a dynamic relationship grounded in the interactions of thought and image. What happens in Emmanuelle Lafon’s
spoken performance, in the striated tension of her delivery, in her efforts
to articulate words that are always already wrapped up in other words, is
that a temporal vacuum is created—a difference in speed that endlessly
attempts to conceal itself. In actual fact, there is no movement, no shifting
synchronic mass, but rather a constant back and forth between lapse
and recovery. With speech front and center, thought becomes unravelled.
The gap widens between hearing and seeing, the movements of mouth
and words, and holding them together requires effort, the object of the
performance being this effort’s very limits, beyond the rest of the “show”
that is Outside lectures—if, indeed, show is the right word for this kind of
piece. To my mind, this ever widening gap—repeatedly covered over, always
shifted, renewed, multiplied—is what founds a general dynamic, spanned by
clearly identifiable extremes (technological, political, mental) that entangle
themselves in a composite experience that questions the everyday realities
of the network and the place that subjects such as ourselves occupy within
it. Folded back on itself, reduced to the grainy decomposition of a feedback
loop, this same dynamic drifts in realtime with the sound performance Frost.
“The brain is unity. The brain is the screen. (…) Thought is molecular.
Molecular speeds make up the slow beings that we are. (…) Cinema,
precisely because it puts the image in motion, or rather endows the image
with self-motion, never stops tracing the circuits of the brain.” Deleuze
wrote this in the 1980s, finding it to be the basis for a philosophical
disposition. “One naturally goes from philosophy to cinema, but also from
cinema to philosophy.” Around the same time, Fredric Jameson noted
however the paucity of video theory, especially regarding its dominant
commercial form, television: “the blockage of fresh thinking before this
solid little window against which we strike our heads being not unrelated
to precisely that whole or total flow we observe through it.” The flow in
question is an uninterrupted discharge. In a surprising moment of cynical
clairvoyance during his time behind the reins of the aforementioned
television station, Patrice Lelay blatantly stated that it was his mission to
create the conditions of sale for “available brain time.”
Jameson contrasts this televised continuity with the cinema, or the theater,
in which movement is constrained within the limits of the spectacle or
the film. Cinema is, indeed, a temporal art; it aptly develops what Deleuze
patently recognizes as a flow, but a flow that ends with the ending of the
film’s very form, and thus its narrative construction: “Turning the television
set off has little in common either with the intermission of a play or an
opera or with the grand finale of a feature film, when the lights slowly come
back on and memory begins its mysterious work. Indeed, if anything like
critical distance is still possible in film, it is surely bound up with memory
itself.” Through the dual effect of this ending and editing, the temporality of
cinema is not the same as the continuity of everyday life. It’s an independent
temporality, just like cinematic space is an autonomous space, with its
own laws and rules. It’s a time to which we travel, a moment up in the
air, a moment apart. In truth, cinematic fiction is established through the
specificity of this space-time, much more so than through a given narrative
invention. Jameson deduces from this that much like we should concern
ourselves with memory, and our ability to create and store memory, so
too we should question the fictional abilities of video, or its particular
means of producing fiction, insofar as video’s temporality can no longer be
distinguished for the continuity of passing time.
Television’s flow, however, is the product of a concatenation of consecutive
elements that vary in nature—entertainment, games, movies, current
affairs, advertising, etc. Homogenenous, unilateral and levelling, it cannot
be equated with the digital flow generated from the multipolar distribution
of ever changing information that ebbs and flows with the distributed
participation of its users. It’s worth asking if Jameson’s point of view isn’t
beholden to the “outside” that he finds himself in, beset by the flow spewing
forth his television screen. Today, in any case, this “outside” has become
an imaginary standpoint, an unreal space, not so much because we now
live in a world without walls, rather because we now inhabit and think in
networks, the objective forms of our globalized world. The same thing has
happened to what we used to call cities. Town and country differed like two
opposite realities and this opposition was spatially construed in the objective
gap between the dense urban habitat and its ring of fields and forests. Long
ago, cities lost their form and were separated into zones of varying density,
thereby ramified, making up megacities that have, in turn, taken over chunks
of countryside. The straightforward opposition between inside and outside or
of here and elsewhere has but a relative significance in a networked world.
This is why we can say that a world of networks no longer has an outside.
Further still, the material city is compounded in the texture of information
networks. The flow’s dimension and form have changed. With the process
of generalized digitalization, video’s place has not been taken by one single
sphere of communication, but by the spread of interconnected networks,
coupled to reality through specific exchanges, multiple mechanisms that
activate behaviors, modes of kinship and communication, as well as various
power relations and strategies.
radio reportage. In each instance, it’s a matter of language and words, the
way in which meaning is produced and exchanged. In each instance, it’s a
matter of how what is said can establish a space: speaking space, listening
space, communication space. And, in each instance, a relationship is made
beyond the silence and the solitude, a reaching-out to the other, a possible
experience of self, an encounter with what might make up a scene or begin
a story.
Often, the image that we have of a network is overly simplified: a flatted,
two-dimension representation that struggles to rid itself of a center around
which it could still attempt to organize itself, something halfway between a
maze and a spider-web. We forget the networks call on networks and thus
proliferate within diversified dimensions where relationships with time and
space play out differently—which also goes for what we typically call the
here and now of the present. In this multidimensional universe, it is less a
matter of centers—singular or plural—than of knots which, though they act
as filters, feed on the energy provided by the network itself. The flow is no
longer the product of a particular point of creation and dissemination, but
rather what constantly circulates, what certain extremes congeal and mingle
together, what they attempt to commercialize, and, possibly, what they
control.
The only thing is, each time the sequences also produce a shift, they create a
gap between discourse and speech, status, weight, the reality that’s involved
and the manner that it crosses the present’s net. Indeed these successive
systems even shake the present. They reveal its complexity, how it is crossed
by another moment, how it is porous and run through by an elsewhere
that is barely identifiable and potentially temporary. If the “out of screen”
is decisive to the narrative potential of both photography and cinema, it’s
no doubt this particular movement, the interim crossing of the present
moment, that augments the narrative potential of networked devices.
We also have difficulty recognizing the fictional and political issues raised
by the systems that activate these network dimensions. Outside lectures
pertains to this context. One could say that each of the show’s sequences
unfolds by activating a pattern, a situation or a relationship that plays on
one of these modes. I use the word “activate” because it is as much about
inventing a system specific to creating a particular experience as it is using
existing, everyday devices in the service of a performative situation. The
show’s very script makes use of devices not in and of themselves, rather in
terms of what relationships to speech and to others they conjure, or even the
simple fact of their presence and the diversity of their modalities—hence the
loss overcome in their just “being there” and recognized as such.
All you need to do is spin the television around and it becomes a monitor
showing an honest, almost intimate interview that’s halfway between
charade and critical account of a foreigner’s administrative adventures in
France. The actress turns into a lecturer and presents us with a speech
emphatically drawing an analysis of a homeless man’s speech act: “I have
nothing to eat.” Or perhaps a telephone call is made to an accomplice,
describing the space she’s sitting in, moving in, letting us simultaneously
though remotely experience her presence elsewhere, in a similar vein to
The last sequence, Sentinelle, shows us something so obvious you want
to call it out, despite the slightly paradoxical, mysterious or opaque effect.
It’s a video on a simple loop: a mongoose shakes, turns around, stands up
completely straight, in an almost feeble standstill, falls back on its feet and
jumps out of frame while another, the same one, comes into frame, shakes,
stands up, over and over and over again. One leaves and becomes the other,
and both of them are just one animal, turning, shaking, standing, watching,
reaching for an elsewhere we cannot see. A simple loop, with a match cut
that, like a scratched vinyl, points to the slightly pixellized presence of the
image. A figure at once direct, immediate and perfectly abstract, like the
circular nature of the loop that produces it, that establishes its freedom of
movement, its perpetual starting over.
Lectures suggests a communications space where memories of a recording
slot into the span of what’s told, read, played or fictionalized. Strands of
thought unravel in a space that’s made up of condensed layers, gathered up
on themselves, dragged onto the folded heap of a net of which we’re ever
constant interested parties.
Echolalie
collective of curating, production and critique, 2006-2008
Thierry Fournier, Marie Husson, Jean-François Robardet (artists), Myriam
Marzouki (stage director), Daniel Migairou (producer), Valérie Pihet
(Sciences Po - Ecole des Arts Politiques), Isabelle Pellegrini (author), Gérald
Gauguier (communication manager).
Dedicated to interdisciplinary creations from 2006 to 2008, Echolalie
explored transfers between visual arts, performing arts, digital media and
writing. His project was based on a critical observation of the current state
of knowledge, information and resources available to the artists involved in
these research fields. Echolalie organized in 2007 a ​​series of five lectures
with Miguel Benasayag (philosopher and psychoanalyst), Samuel Bianchini
(artist), Celine Flécheux (philosopher), Per Hüttner (artist) and Bruno
Latour (philosopher, sociologist and anthropologist) and the event Open
2007 featuring the works of Samuel Bianchini, Manuel Coursin and Theo
Kooijman, Emma Dusong, Juliette Fontaine, Pascal Kirsch, Bénédicte Lamer
and members of the collective.
Emma Dusong, La Corde, 2007
Siren
interactive installation - Samuel Bianchini and Thierry Fournier, 2006
tactile interface or iPad, computer, projection, sound, variable dimensions
A white dot on a black screen is following the spectator movements while
he-she moves his-her finger on a surface. Without activity, it broadcasts the
sound of human breath, barely audible. Following the movement of the hand,
the voice of a woman appears.
The sound unfolds as the spectator’s gesture develops or focuses on a point.
The voice shifts from breathing to whispering, from singing to shouting, from
the tiniest details to burgeoning vocals. It develops like an exploration into
the very matter of sound and its depth only with gesture; the voice is reacting
to the gesture and requests it.
This blindfolded voyage ushers in a dialogue in between instrumental
gesture and stroke. This sound gradually gives a shape to an acoustic body
that stretches and opens through the tactile exploration – although this
sensual and mental appreciation is offered to the player and spectator.
Ce qui nous regarde
interactive installation and curating, 2005, with Emmanuel Berriet
French pavilion of Aichi World Fair, Japan
Ce qui nous regarde immerses the audience in a form of collective
representation, through their physical relationship with a series of texts
and medias. It proposes an hybrid form between cinema and interactive
installation, extending in another form the experience developed in 2033 with
the interactive installation Shadow of a doubt.
In front of a large panoramic screen folded on the ground and the wall, the
audience is followed individually by coloured lights. Each person triggers the
apparition of texts, artworks, videos. The association of the individual actions
transforms these elements into narrative units about collective and political
questions.
The title Ce qui nous regarde is an untranslatable french pun, meaning both
What is looking at us and What is concerning us.
Electric Bodyland
interactive installation, 2003
camera, 4-channels sound system, bass cabinet, computer, var. dim.
In a empty space, each movement of the spectator generates an electronic
musical piece which is composed, mixed and spatialized in real time.
The installation installs a situation of "time depth" in which the music
unfolds itself according to the gesture’s scale and temporality. It establishes
a continuous perceptive loop between the music and the gesture.
Shadow of a doubt
interactive installation and curating, 2003
cameras, video and IR projectors, computers, variable dimensions
Shadow of a doubt is a “controversy space”confronting several points of view
about relationships between science, media and politics, activated by the
audience’s presence and actions. The installation features 17 interviews (see
credits page), artworks, TV archives and texts read by actors.
The installation displays a great number of words on a wall, on which the
visitors appear as white “ghosts”. These ghosts follow their silhouette and
movements. Rolling over the words, they reveal videos and archives. This
individual dimension is amplified by a collective one: the presence of several
persons in front of a video modifies its size, creating hierarchical or even
conflictual relationships within the exhibition space.
Each person faces two simultaneous collective experiences: one that is
talked about in the video sequences, and one that builds up continuously,
improvised by the visitors, in the installation area.
press (recent selection / french)
Libération, 13 mars 2013
Le Blog Documentaire, 19 mars 2013
ARTISTE THIERRY FOURNIER
ARTISTE THIERRY FOURNIER
LES OMBRES
COLLECTIVES
PHOTO © ALEXANDRE NOLLET 2010
Quatre siècles séparent la pièce en cinq actes de Shakespeare "Richard II" de "Seul
Richard", la création scénique de Thierry Fournier qui s'en inspire. On le sait, les
grandes interrogations humaines qui sont au cœur de l'œuvre du dramaturge anglais
sont intemporelles, mais le "contexte" dans lequel elles sont re-présentées permet
de faire ressortir d'autres facettes, saillir d'autres angles… De trouver un écho au
sein de la modernité technologique par trop autiste à certaines formes d'expressions
"classiques"… C'est là tout le sens du travail de Thierry Fournier sur le corps
et le son, le geste et la narration, le mouvement et l'espace, transfigurés par des
techniques et dispositifs audio-visuels qui permettent de dessiner de nouvelles
lignes de force, de nouvelles lignes de front. Entretien.
Seul Richard,
mise en scène de
Thierry Fournier,
photographie
de répétitions,
2010.
Il est spécifié que "Seul Richard" est
un "projet en cours". Pouvez-vous nous
décrire les étapes qui ont marqué le
développement de cette création scénique,
depuis son origine en 2006 jusqu'à sa
forme actuelle ?
En novembre dernier, une moitié du spectacle (45’ pour une durée de 1h30) a été
présentée à la Chartreuse, après deux résidences consécutives. Le processus s’est
déroulé en trois temps : une première
maquette en 2006-2007, l’adaptation et la
réalisation du film en 2008-2009, et en
2010 les répétitions avec Emmanuelle
22 - digitalarti #5
Lafon, Juliette Fontaine et Jean-François
Robardet. "Projet en cours" signifie que
nous recherchons aujourd’hui le dernier
coproducteur du projet, qui pourra en
accueillir la création. Cette logique est
courante aujourd’hui pour les compagnies
qui aboutissent des étapes de travail, tout
en continuant à rechercher des partenaires.
Notre travail sur ce projet se poursuit
donc depuis cinq ans, pour plusieurs raisons. Il a été conduit en même temps que
Conférences du dehors, série de performances que j’ai mis en scène, et de Réanimation, créé avec Samuel Bianchini et
Sylvain Prunenec — tous deux en 2008.
Ses recherches sur les relations entre dramaturgie, cinéma et dispositif interactif
ont été menées à l’École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy dans le cadre de
l’atelier de recherche et création Electroshop
— dont les étudiants sont également les
interprètes du film. Enfin, mettant en
scène Richard II dans la traduction de
François-Victor Hugo, avec une actrice
solo, un dispositif interactif, un film avec
des amateurs et des musiciens au plateau,
le projet ne s’inscrit pas spontanément
dans le sens des spécialisations qui ont
cours dans les réseaux de spectacle vivant.
Sa production prend donc plus de temps
que la moyenne et nécessite de pouvoir
montrer le travail en cours.
Quelle "progression", quels autres
développements envisagez-vous?
La forme à laquelle nous sommes arrivés
fin novembre est vraiment celle ce que je
souhaite mettre en œuvre. La dimension
qui reste à développer aujourd’hui est celle
de la lumière, en même temps que le passage au plateau (nous étions jusqu’à présent en studio de répétition). Nous commençons des collaborations dans ce sens.
Pourquoi avoir précisément choisi
Shakespeare ("Richard II") pour ce type
de création "multimédia" qui mêle vidéo,
narration, interaction… ?
C’est plutôt l’inverse, et on touche là au
cœur du projet. J’ai été attiré précisément
par cette pièce pour ce qu’elle raconte de
l’exercice et de la perte du pouvoir. Le texte
m’a été présenté par Benoît Résillot, acteur,
avec qui se sont élaborées les premières
prémices du projet. J’ai ensuite élaboré une
proposition mettant en jeu cette séparation
et ce rapport, fait de maîtrise et de perte
de contrôle, entre un homme et le monde
extérieur. Or, justement, un dispositif
interactif est d’abord et avant tout un instrument de contrôle, dans une relation qui
s’exerce toujours réciproquement: on joue
et on est joué, on contrôle et on est contrôlé, face à une console comme à Facebook.
Dans Seul Richard, ces dispositifs sont
assumés comme tels, faisant partie intégrante de la logique du personnage.
Pour résumer, Richard II décrit la trajectoire d’un monarque convaincu d’échapper
aux lois du réel de par sa nature divine.
Face aux événements qui lui échappent,
son interrogation permanente sur luimême et ce qu’il représente le conduit à la
destitution, la prison et la mort. J’ai choisi
de mettre en scène ces rapports entre
Richard et le monde extérieur en travaillant avec un film, qui est manipulé et
rejoué par le personnage. La comédienne
produit des opérations de contrôle, mais
également d’éloignement ou d’absorption
dans l’image, de mise au point, de flou, etc.
On ne sait pas si l’image lui est extérieure
ou si elle résulte de sa propre pensée.
Cette relation est renforcée par le fait que
le film est tourné en steadycam et en caméra subjective : le "geste" de la caméra est
constamment rejoué par celui de la comédienne au plateau. J’ai par ailleurs fait le
choix de travailler avec une majorité
d’acteurs amateurs. La fragilité de leur présence à l’image s’oppose à la maîtrise apparente du discours de Richard, en même
temps qu’elle l’ébranle et le contamine.
Ensuite, la projection au plateau est constituée de plusieurs occurrences vidéo diffusées parfois simultanément, à plusieurs
échelles qui permettent un grand nombre
de dispositions entre le public, les interprètes et l’image. On voit que les choix opérés ne se situent pas seulement au niveau
des dispositifs numériques, mais aussi des
THIERRY FOURNIER
LES OMBRES
COLLECTIVES
Quelle "progression", quels autres
développements envisagez-vous?
La forme à laquelle nous sommes arrivés
fin novembre est vraiment celle ce que je
souhaite mettre en œuvre. La dimension
qui reste à développer aujourd’hui est celle
de la lumière, en même temps que le passage au plateau (nous étions jusqu’à présent en studio de répétition). Nous commençons des collaborations dans ce sens.
Pourquoi avoir précisément choisi
Shakespeare ("Richard II") pour ce type
de création "multimédia" qui mêle vidéo,
narration, interaction… ?
C’est plutôt l’inverse, et on touche là au
cœur du projet. J’ai été attiré précisément
par cette pièce pour ce qu’elle raconte de
l’exercice et de la perte du pouvoir. Le texte
m’a été présenté par Benoît Résillot, acteur,
Seul Richard
avec qui se sont élaborées les premières
Création scénique d’après Richard II de William Shakespeare - Traduction de François-Victor Hugo
prémices du projet. J’ai ensuite élaboré une
proposition mettant en jeu cette séparation
Conception et mise en scène : Thierry Fournier - Avec : Emmanuelle Lafon
et ce rapport, fait de maîtrise et de perte
Adaptation, scénographie et musique, interprètes : Thierry Fournier, Juliette Fontaine,
de contrôle, entre un homme et le monde
Jean-François Robardet - Chargée de diffusion : Frédérique Payn ([email protected])
extérieur. Or, justement, un dispositif
Vidéo consultable sur demande
interactif est d’abord et avant tout un instrument de contrôle, dans une relation qui
s’exerce toujours réciproquement: on joue
et on est joué, on contrôle et on est contrôlé,dispositifs,
face à une console
comme
Quels
techniques
ou à Facebook.
logiques d’écriture filmiques et scénograPour répondre plus largement à votre
Dans Seul
Richard, ces dispositifs
artistiques,
aimeriez-vous
utiliser sont
phiques, de la direction d’acteur, etc.
question, je pense qu’il faut prendre garassumés
comme
tels,
faisant
partie intéou explorer à l'avenir ?
de à ne pas confondre écriture et mise en
grante
de en
la logique
du personnage.
Je suis
de plus
plus intéressé
par les rapD'autres pièces ou auteurs "classiques"
scène. Les écritures sont toujours contexPour
résumer,
Richard
II
décrit
trajectoiports de domination dans le travail etlapar
la
auraient-ils pu également se prêter à
tuelles, on peut donc être tentés d’aller
re d’un monarque
convaincu
d’échapper
transformation
de la nature,
deux thémace "jeu" ?
plus spontanément vers les textes qui
aux
du réel de par
sa nature
divine.
Lafon,
Juliette
quilois
se redéploient
vivement
à travers
Oui, bien entendu. C’est un des enjeux
partagent nos codes. C’est ce
que font
du Fontaine et Jean-François tiques
Face aux événements
qui aussi
lui échappent,
Robardet. "Projet en cours" signifie que la mondialisation.
Je m’attaque
en ce
majeurs et constants du théâtre que de
reste beaucoup de programmateurs
son interrogation
nous recherchons aujourd’hui le dernier moment
à des questionspermanente
sur le genresur
quiluitrapouvoir réinterpréter des textes classiques
aujourd’hui. Mais c’est justement le tramême
et
ce
qu’il
représente
le conduit à la
coproducteur du projet, qui pourra en
versent mon travail de manière souterraine
avec de nouvelles modalités de représentavail d’un metteur en scène que d’actualidestitution,
laEnfin,
prisonjeetrenoue
la mort.
J’aipréchoisi
accueillir la création. Cette logique est
depuis
longtemps.
plus
tion. Ce n’est pas parce que ces modalités
ser des problématiques, de faire entendre
de mettre
scène cesetrapports
entre
courante aujourd’hui pour les compagnies cisément
avec laensculpture
l’architecture,
passent par des dispositifs numériques
ce qui, dans un texte de 2011
de
Richard
et le monde
extérieuravec
en traquiou
aboutissent
des étapes de travail, tout ce qui
commençait
à
se
manifester
des
qu’elles se couperaient de leurs antécé1170, va surgir de permanent
pouvoir à rechercher des partenaires.
vaillant
avecFrost,
un film,
qui
est d’orgue.
manipulé et
en et
continuant
travaux
comme
A+ ou
Point
dents : l’histoire est continue, il s’agit
nous interroger.
rejoué par le personnage. La comédienne
Notre travail sur ce projet se poursuit
toujours de mise en scène.
desen
opérations
contrôle, mais
donc depuis cinq ans, pour plusieurs rai- Pourproduit
conclure,
dehors dede"Seul
Vos précédentes performances
également
d’éloignement
ou d’absorption
sons.(Vers
Il a été conduit en même temps que Richard",
sur quels
autres projets
Inversement, aimeriez-vous "mobiliser"
Agrippine, Réanimation, Core)
mettaientdu dehors, série de perfordans l’image,actuellement
de mise au point,
Conférences
travaillez-vous
? de flou, etc.
des auteurs plus contemporains, Beckett
également en jeu des images,
des que j’ai mis en scène, et de RéaniOn ne une
sait pas
si l’imageHotspot,
lui est extérieure
mances
Je prépare
installation,
avec
ou Ionesco par exemple, autour d'une
regards, des gestuelles, desmation,
espaces
ou siElectroshop,
elle résulte de
sasera
propre
pensée.en
créé avec Samuel Bianchini et
l’atelier
qui
présentée
telle scénographie ?
redéfinis… Pouvez-vous nous
préciser
relation
est renforcée
le fait que
Sylvain
Prunenec — tous deux en 2008. avrilCette
à l’espace
Contexts
à Paris.par
Toujours
le fil rouge, les lignes directrices
qui
Oui et pour les mêmes raisons — sauf que
estnancéen,
tourné enl’exposition
steadycam collecet en caméSes recherches sur les relations entre dra- danslelefilm
cadre
jalonnent votre travail artistique
? cinéma et dispositif interactif tive Cohabitation
ces exemples sont plutôt des figures du
ra subjective :(dont
le "geste"
deco-curateur
la caméra est
maturgie,
je suis
siècle dernier. Tous les co-auteurs de
On peut donc ajouter Conférences
rejoué
par celui
de
la coméont étédumenées à l’École nationale supé- avecconstamment
Jean-François
Robardet)
sera
présenConférences
du dehors sont contemporains
pour les est
raisons que rieure
j’évoquais.
Seul Richard,
dienne
audes
plateau.
J’ai pardeailleurs
d’art de Nancy dans le cadre de
Il est spécifié que dehors,
"Seul Richard"
tée au
Musée
Beaux-Arts
Nancyfait
dule
(David
Fontaine,
Il est
intéressantnous
que vous parliez
miseBeytelmann,
en scène de Julietteun
de
travailler
avec
une
majorité
l’atelierdedeCore
recherche et création Electroshop5 auchoix
"projet en cours".
Pouvez-vous
25 février. Du 27 février au 4 mars,
Noëlle
Renaude,
Jean-François
Robardet,
Agrippine
Frost)
Thierry
Fournier,
d’acteurs
amateurs. LaLionel
fragilité
de leur pré— dont
les qui
étudiants sont également les Entrelacs
décrire
les étapes ou
quide
ontVers
marqué
le (mais aussi
du chorégraphe
Hoche,
Esther
Salmona). Je travaillerais
aussi
sont des
performances
Car un desdu film. Enfin, mettant en
à l’image
s’oppose
à lainteractimaîtrise appaphotographie
développement
de cette
création
scénique,solo.interprètes
dontsence
j’ai signé
la création
vidéo
volontiers
avec des auteurs comme
Sonia
fils2006
rougesjusqu'à
de monsatravail estscène
bien Richard
la mise II dans la traduction de
rente
du au
discours
Richard,
en même
depuis son
origine en
de répétitions,
ve, sera
joué
CND àdePantin.
Ensuite
Chiambretto,
Eliactuelle
Com- ? en jeu du corps, presque dans
le sens
temps
qu’elle
l’ébranle
et
le
contamine.
François-Victor
Hugo, avec une actrice Futur
forme
2010. Philippe Malone,
en Seine à Paris en juin avec une
mins, qui ont une vraie conscience
des dernier,
qu’évoquait
Foucault
Ensuite,
la projection
au plateau
est constisolo,traversé,
un dispositif interactif, un film avec nouvelle
En novembre
une moitié
du spec-: un corps
installation,
Fenêtres
augmentées,
D’INFO : au plateau, donttuée
enjeux politiques et sociauxtacle
contemporelient
au et des+musiciens
par lesaforces
plusieurs
occurrences
vidéo le
diffuamateurs
(45’ pour une distribué
durée de 1h30)
été qui ledes
unede
édition
pérenne
verra ensuite
rains, et développent parfoisprésentée
des logiques
monde,après
parfois
conflictuelles,
mises en
parfoisLanguedoc-Roussillon.
simultanément, à plusieurs
le projet
ne s’inscrit<pas
spontanément > jour sées
à la Chartreuse,
deux
résiwww.thierryfournier.net
en région
d’écriture extra-littéraires, issues
des
évidence
à
travers
des
situations
et
des
échelles
qui permettent
grand
nombre
dans le sens des spécialisations qui ont
dences consécutives. Le processus s’est
Et, bien
entendu,
la suite deun
Seul
Richard,
réseaux par exemple. C’étaitdéroulé
déjà le cas
de temps
dispositifs.
J’ai compris a posteriori
queles réseaux de spectacle vivant. dontde
dispositions
entre
le public,
les intercours dans
en trois
: une première
j’espère
que nous
pourrons
vous
préConférences du dehors qui travaillait
avec
c’est ce
qui m’avaitetconduit
de
musique prend donc plus de temps senter
prètes
et l’image.
Sa la
production
On voit
que les! choix opémaquette
en 2006-2007,
l’adaptation
la
bientôt
la création
complète
des textes issus en temps réel
de la télévià l’architecture,
artisque la moyenne
et nécessite de pouvoir
rés ne se situent pas seulement au niveau
réalisation
du film en
2008-2009, etpuis
en à ma pratique
montrer le travail en cours.
des dispositifs
mais aussi
PROPOSnumériques,
RECUEILLIS PAR LAURENT
DIOUFdes
sion, de la lecture du paysage…
2010 les répétitionstique
avec actuelle.
Emmanuelle
Quatre siècles séparent la pièce en cinq actes de Shakespeare "Richard II" de "Seul
Richard", la création scénique de Thierry Fournier qui s'en inspire. On le sait, les
grandes interrogations humaines qui sont au cœur de l'œuvre du dramaturge anglais
sont intemporelles, mais le "contexte" dans lequel elles sont re-présentées permet
de faire ressortir d'autres facettes, saillir d'autres angles… De trouver un écho au
sein de la modernité technologique par trop autiste à certaines formes d'expressions
"classiques"… C'est là tout le sens du travail de Thierry Fournier sur le corps
et le son, le geste et la narration, le mouvement et l'espace, transfigurés par des
techniques et dispositifs audio-visuels qui permettent de dessiner de nouvelles
lignes de force, de nouvelles lignes de front. Entretien.
PHOTO © ALEXANDRE NOLLET 2010
THIERRY FOURNIER
PHOTO © ALEXANDRE NOLLET 2010
Digitalarti n°5, 2011
22 - digitalarti #5
digitalarti #5 - 23
Credits
NOLI ME TANGERE
Technical direction: Philippe Machemehl
Production : Festival Cent pour cent, Montpellier
Production management and distribution: Grégory Diguet
AUGMENTED WINDOW
Conception and curating: Thierry Fournier
Production management and distribution: Grégory Diguet / Bipolar
Curating preparation with Jean-François Robardet
Ingeneering and technical direction: Jean-Baptiste Droulers
Interactive programming: Mathieu Chamagne
interactive programming (iPad): Olivier Guillerminet, Jonathan Tanant
Translations: Clémence Homer and Anna Lopez Luna
Construction: Grégoire Chombard / Boutabout
Interface research team 2011 : Christelle Bakhache, Grégory Diguet, JeanBaptiste Droulers, Clément Feger, Thierry Fournier, Tomek Jarolim, JeanFrançois Robardet, Marcos Serrano.
Production of Marseille exhibition:
Zinc, Friche de la Belle de Mai, Ville de Marseille, Le Silo, Coproduction
Marseille Provence Capitale de la Culture 2013, with support from
Dominique Poulain / Höfn and Hôtel du Nord association
Production of Paris and Pyrénées exhibitions:
Languedoc-Roussillon Region (lauréat de l’appel à projet Culture et TIC,
Pandore Production, Ile de France Region (Futur en Seine).
Executive production: Pandore Production with Bipolar Production
Executive production (Futur en Seine) : Aquilon / Orphaz
Executive production (tablets) : Illusion & Macadam, Mathieu Argaud
Prototype co-developed within the Research Laboratory EnsadLab, École
nationale supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Diip program, Sensible Surfaces
axis. In partnership with Sciences Po Medialab.
DÉPLI
iOS programming: Olivier Guillerminet
Last Room film direction: Pierre Carniaux
Editing: Pierre et Matthieu Carniaux
Production: Lux Scène nationale, Pandore Production, Dicream
COHABITATION
Co-curating, direction of Cohabitation research and creation workshop:
Thierry Fournier and Jean-François Robardet
Production: École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy, Artem Nancy
LIMBO
Initially created for Entrelac stage creation by Lionel Hoche
Production: Lionel Hoche company
USUAL SUSPECTS, IRL
Coproduction: Pandore Production, Artem Nancy
With support by Contexts, Paris
HOTSPOT
Projet co-developed within the frame of the Electroshop research and
creation workshop, École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy, directed by
Thierry Fournier and Jean-François Robardet
Coproduction: Artem Nancy - Pandore Production
With support by Contexts, Paris
SEUL RICHARD
Adapted from Richard II by William Shakespeare
Translation by François-Victor Hugo (1871)
Conception and film direction: Thierry Fournier
Co-adaptation and research: Jean-François Robardet
Cast: Pierre Carniaux, Judith Morisseau, Sandrine Nicolas (actors),
Éloïse Chabbal, Aurélie Claude, Charles Gonin, Mathieu Guigue, Sophie
Jaskierowicz, Marianne Kaldi, Émilie Legret, Alexia Mérel, Claire Moindrot,
Tram Anh Ngô (students of Electroshop research and creation workshop)
Programming: Mathieu Chamagne, Jean-Baptiste Droulers
Executive production: Pandore Production and Bipolar Production
Coproduction: Pandore Production, Lorraine Region, Dicréam, French
Ministry of Culture / CNC, La Chartreuse - National Center of Stage Writing.
With support from Cidma, La Draille, Studio-Théâtre de Vitry, Théâtre de la
Mauvaise Tête, Arcal Lyrique, Avant-Rue and Mains d’Œuvres.
Projet co-develop wthin the frae of Electroshop research and creation
workshop, École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy.
INFOCUS
Thanks to Juliette Fontaine
With the technical collaboration of Jean-Yves Bernier
FERMATA
Programming: Mathieu Chamagne
Production Pandore Production, Kawenga, ARCADI.
Production manager and distribution: Grégory Diguet
With the support of Languedoc-Roussillon Region, Paris City Cultural Affairs
Department, Le Troisième Pôle and CIDMA.
STEP TO STEP
Performer: Sébastien Le Gall
Creation at the invitation of GEPS research workshop,
coordinated by Luc Larmor
Ecole régionale des beaux arts de Rennes
SEE YOU
Production: Lille3000, Pandore Production
With support from Le Cube – Digital Creation Center
Executive production and distribution: Bipolar Production
OPEN SOURCE
Programming: Mathieu Chamagne and Jan Schacher
Ingeneering and technical direction: Jean-Baptiste Droulers
Assistant: Jean-François Robardet
Production: Monaco Pavilion, Zaragoza World Fair 2008
Executive production: Le Troisième Pôle
REANIMATION
Conception and stage direction: Samuel Bianchini and Thierry Fournier
Choreography and performer: Sylvain Prunenec
Dance captation and real time music: Thierry Fournier
Visua Programming: Frédéric Durieux
Animations: Samuel Bianchini
Production: École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy, Espace Pasolini
(Valenciennes). In partnership with CiTu, Laboratory Federations of Paris
1 and Paris 8 universities. With support from ICN Group and SFR. With
the collaboration of Mathieu Redelsperger, Marine Fechtig and Marjolaine
Phulpin, students at École nationale supérieure d’art de Nancy.
OUTSIDE LECTURES
Conception and stage direction: Thierry Fournier
Authors: David Beytelmann, Juliette Fontaine, Thierry Fournier, Noëlle
Renaude, Jean-François Robardet, Esther Salmona.
Performer : Emmanuelle Lafon
Production: La Chartreuse, National Center for Stage Writing
Executive production: Pandore Production
Production manager: Daniel Migairou
SIREN
Co-authors: Samuel Bianchini et Thierry Fournier
Voice: Maryseult Wieczorek
Production: Dispothèque and Écholalie
CE QUI NOUS REGARDE
Research: David Beytelmann
Research and voices: Julie Carbonnel
Actors: Valérie Blanchon et Christophe Brault
Programming: Emmanuel Berriet, Jan Schacher
Production: French Pavilion of Aichi World Fair 2005
Executive Production: Le Troisième Pôle
Thanks to Andreas Gursky
SHADOW OF A DOUBT
Interviews of: Marc Augé, Bernard Bachelier, Alain Claëys, François
Desriaux, Bernard-Marie Dupont, François Ewald, Christophe Gérard, Olivier
Godard, Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Martin Hirsch, Pierre Lascoumes, Anne-Laure
Morin, Christophe Noisette, Guy Riba, Isabelle Stengers, Jacques Testart,
Hervé Touraquet.
Actors: Valérie Blanchon et Christophe Brault
Research: Anne-Laure Stérin
Programming: Thierry Fournier, Jean-Baptiste Droulers
Video shooting: Pascal Nottoli
Production: Lyons Natural History Museum
Project manager: Hervé Groscarret
© Thierry Fournier 2013
Photographs © Thierry Fournier, Samuel Bianchini, Jean-Michel Couturier,
Frédéric Nauczyciel, Alexandre Nollet, Jean-François Robardet.
The images and texts of this document cannot be reproduced without the
authorization of their authors. Photographs are available in high definition,
under demand.

ボリス・ヴィアンと他者表象

d`informations - Université de Rennes 1

Annonces - semaine 13 - paroisses

massage aux - Metamorphose

SPACE MARINES - Games Workshop

Secrétariat général

Programme Asnières

depliant V222:csg - Le Centre Spatial Guyanais

le dernier UCP Flash

Bio PDF - Cercle canadien de Montréal

Organisation médicale (PDF)

JOURNEE TECHNIQUE - Atec/ITS France

La thérapie par pression négative dans les pertes

FIA Technikai Szabályok 251.fejezet