Stefanus Rademeyer and Regardt van der Meulen in conversation, September 2007 RvdM. So, what are you working on at the moment? SR. I am privileged enough to be a full time practising artist and that gives me a great deal of time to explore quite a few areas of interest. There are several different projects, most of them in progress. I have always been very interested in experimental music and sound design, and right now I am busy working on a few compositions that will potentially be realized in a CD or DVD format and ideally in an installation. In my previous exhibition, titled Ideograph, I did an animation piece called 'Audiograph', were I mapped sound files into 3-dimensional computer simulations. The concept was to translate spoken language into a visual form that becomes a representation or emblem of the ideas discussed in the spoken words. So it was a kind of translation. RvdM. You state "that the concept was to translate spoken language into a visual form that becomes a representation or emblem of the ideas discussed in the spoken words" Also in ‘Surface Depth’ you wanted represent an idea with a structure, or some kind of abstract representation. SR. In Ideograph, my approach was more related to patterns of thinking, or a mapping of a conceptual landscape created by an author. So I wanted to create a form... or rather a structure that has a semblance or a translational correlation to the authors’ pattern of thinking. This kind of thinking is often characterized by highly abstract concepts and it was a challenge for me to see if these abstract concepts can have a visual structural correlation. In Surface Depth, especially with the timber works, you could say that I wanted to create a visual representation of the concept of entropy. RvdM. Structuralism and deconstruction is something which immediately comes to mind when viewing some of your work. SR. Yes... I think my interest in language developed purely out of my research and further studies, and it is interesting to see other artists also dealing with language. I have done some reading in philosophy, which is maybe my first interest. And in contemporary thinking, especially deconstruction, literary criticism has replaced much of philosophy. And as deconstruction is a form of post-structuralism, it is closely tied into structuralism, in the sense that it is a kind of investigation of various structures; (social, linguistic, moral, ideological, architectural...) an investigation that exposes the faults, contradictions, paradoxes and artificiality of these structures. RvdM. Derrida also questioned the assumptions of structuralism and saw it as idealistic. He argued that language always involves delay, deferral of meaning, ambiguity, some degree of the speaker’s distance, the possibility of confusion, deception and unreliability. All factors which I feel are exploited in most of your work? SR. There are many references to language in my work, even references to specific texts and authors. An example where similar ideas are appropriated is Mimetic Reconstructions. In this sculpture I have created a fictitious encyclopaedia that is in a sense set up to fail, because of the inherent properties of language and an inability to create a complete or even partial model or representation of the world through language. This leans towards post-structuralism and deconstruction because it posits language as an unstable and ever-changing system. Another interesting observation is that the halo of floating words orbits an empty centre. This is a reference to Derrida’s notion that historical systems or structures are always anchored to a centre, from which it originates. This might be notions of God or the Self or even a principle
like a dialectic. MR creates an image of a decentralized world filled with free floating signifiers and a gaping hole where an absolute referent was meant to be. RvdM. This is a somewhat different view to that of the Structuralist who believed language shapes and records our world? SR. Well, I think deconstructivists uses some of the modus operandi of the structuralists, and that would be to move away from the notion that there is an absolute reality out there that can be passively described by language. Also they would agree with the notion that we are embedded in a system of language which determines our experience of the world. But for deconstructivists these structures of language cannot be reduced to an a-historical principle. But none of this applies to certain mathematical or scientific languages, especially physics and astrophysics which accurately describes physical laws. So it depends on your definition of language... As far as I understand, for Derrida language is not anchored to coordinates of an absolute world that it describes. Language itself is an inter-textual network. Hence the ‘deferral of meaning’ through the ‘trace’ and the impossibility of the ‘transcendental signified’. Derrida challenged the notion of ‘presence’ and ever being completely ‘present’. To be present, we have to go through the detour of the sign, and the real is lost. One could say that the world is experienced in terms of language. And a lot of what our world is; is the constructed product of language. But in all probability our experience of the world slips in an out of this screen of language, in psychoanalysis this would be called the symbolic order. There are experiences which, one can say, shatters the coordinates of this screen. And we know that art is not completely language based. It is even more ambiguous than written language, and invokes a different sense of presence than spoken language. Objects might have the power to be a bit more tied into the real, and a lot of the work that I create is made with the purpose to induce an experience of the sublime, which is maybe closer to the real, with the sense of being overwhelmed, and being confronted with the presence of an object that represent a form of communication that is more optic and haptic than conventional language. But these experiences that fall through the net of language are part of everyday life. RvdM. Your work, I feel also plays with the idea of knowledge and its relationship with power. Especially in Mimetic Reconstructions which contains endless textual reconstructions and references, allusions to ways in which the world is described. The viewer is left bewildered and a bit unsure. SR. Not only ways in which the world is described; also ways in which the world is constructed. There are different responses to the work. If one really thinks about the existential implications of certain of the works, it can be overwhelming for certain viewers, because it critically questions many of our fundamental beliefs. But the work is not fundamentally cynical. Also it might not even require extensive knowledge to get a sense of the ‘message’. In Mimetic Reconstructions the uncertainty, groundlessness and relativity of existence is articulated purely through the physical qualities of the sculpture. Also, our notion of self is tied into our belief systems, and once that is challenged, it can cause uncertainty and a re-assessment of some of the basic principles of our beliefs or understanding of the world. RvdM. Barthes stated through his studies of signs that all text stand independent and is not possible to unify or limit by any notion of what the author intended. So, the text is not something which is produced by the author, but the reader. SR. This statement is quite appropriate in relation to Mimetic Reconstructions. As a text, it is very open, and is constantly reconstructed into different narratives by individual viewers. But
ironically this was my intention. So the message becomes the unstable and unreliable relations between the artist, artwork and the viewer. RvdM. Your work shares many similarities with the theories of Post-structuralism, in that it often contains puns, allusions and the central line of argument is usually based on word play of some kind. SR. I think word play shows the pliability and poetic nature of language. There was one of my first works which I called ‘Deferred Reconstructions’. It was a physical cathedral model that was reconstructed in virtual reality and then disassembled, deconstructed and disintegrated in this virtual form, but this animation is on a loop, so the building goes through the process indefinitely. RvdM. Interesting that you should mention the Architect Daniel Libeskind as one of your influences, because his earlier work is also heavily involved with Deconstruction. SR. Yes, the architects form of deconstruction is an adaptation of the original linguistic discourse. There are others... especially Eisenmann and Tschumi. But in short, as far as I understand it, architecture is also a form of language. In terms of its style, site specificity and even pragmatics. All these things can be deconstructed. Incidentally, in 'Surface Depth' the entropic process portrayed in the timber works was a kind of architectural deconstruction that I formulated after looking at geological processes. RvdM.[Quite similar to the land artist Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty who incidentally was also practising at the time of the minimalists. If I'm not mistaken, in his monumental works, like architecture, he was interested in entropy as well.] RvdM. And the process of conceiving most of your work is also quite similar to the methods of architecture where intense design, vector and 3d modelling computer programs are used to create the end result. SR. Absolutely. It is a specific kind of process. Concept - Model - Physical Form. In this case the modelling is computer based. For me it is purely because most of the structures I create is almost impossible to visualize vividly without the aid of 3d modelling. It has something to do with the amount of detail, complexity. All the works in 'Surface Depth' was roughly designed in 3d modelling before construction began. RvdM. Also, I feel, that the process of creating your work is heavily depended on exact calculations for it to work which once again shifts towards architecture and engineering. SR. Yes! RvdM. What is your next step? SR. In the current work, I want to create an installation that consists of various 'sonic sculptures', which are essentially 3-dimensional structures created with sound. I am doing research into algorithmic spacialization of sound, which is the ability to create sound with definite spacial characteristics, and also being able to change a shape or a position of a sound. RvdM. Does this relate in anyway to the work of John Cage who you mentioned? SR. I think Cage was the first musician to really look at sound independent from conventional composition, so incidental sound, arbitrary or even everyday sounds in our environment was given aesthetic and 'musical' credibility. This also has quite a few implications... Sounds in the
environment also have generally random structures, an individual sound does not really have any compositional relation to another individual sound, unlike the conventions in traditional musical composition. The same applies for spacial positions of sounds. But this is a whole topic on its own... RvdM. All art is conceived through language which makes it impossible for the two to be separated. Audio is prevalent throughout all your work, from linguistics and its implications to the actual sound wave? SR. As we briefly discussed in the question regarding Derrida, art is definitely embedded within language, but it also has its own type of signification or representation, and sometimes it might even escape these forms of communication all-together. If we look at Audiograph for instance, the voice samples and phrases used are initially recognizable, but as the animation progresses the voices are layered, dissected and reconstructed to form an abstract sound field. It now communicates more in terms of an emotional resonance with the sound. The sound is abstracted even further, to the point that it does not resemble language or human voices at all, and the attention is drawn to specifically the visual structures generated from the sounds as they grow, evolve and ripple onto a different form of communication. RvdM. Do you have any specific plans for the future? SR. As far as my work is concerned, I would like to expand my work into the field of music and sound. Continue creating physical sculptural objects... but creating the design of these works in a virtual environment, 3d modelling, mathematical and algorithmic structures. As far as the exhibiting of works, I would like to partake in shows that deal with artists working in similar fields overseas. RvdM. It seems as if computer aided design plays a massive part in the creation of your work? SR. Yes... As I briefly stated... It is an effective way to model complex structures, and it allows for a kind of workflow that is impossible with traditional mediums. RvdM. You use light and mirrors to dissolve the surface of the sculpture and evoke virtual space in 'Surface Depth'. But in your latter work you abandon the constructed virtual space for the actual virtual space as in 'Deferred reconstructions'. How did this come about? SR. Interesting observation, I think it is best understood as a dialogue between the virtual and the physical. It really works both ways... in my early work, the computer modelling served as a design for the sculpture. Later on I became interested in retaining the ephemeral virtual qualities of the computer design in the physical sculptures. The 'sound sculptures' I am currently busy with are also very similar, they are liminal objects, somewhere between the virtual and the physical. RvdM. Do you do all of your own computer production or do you source people outside to help? SR. I do the large majority. I needed help for the algorithms used in Audiograph, so I had the concept but employed a mathematician / programmer to work on the actual algorithms. They were quite complicated... RvdM. But this extra mathematical angle on which your work is so dependant also helps to add even more weight and value to the actual piece.
SR. It is fundamentally necessary for the work to exist. I have always found it highly interesting to take a form of advanced logic and applying it to something more irrational or creative, it creates fascinating hybrids. RvdM. There is quite a drastic shift from your award winning piece 'Mimetic Reconstructions' to your latest work 'Ideograph'. It seems as if your work gets simplified with each step? SR. 'Surface Depth' took enormous resources. After that I was working on various commissions etc. that were all sculptural based. Ideograph was essentially a show of some of my designs, virtual models that could potentially be transformed into sculptures, in fact some of them will be build quite soon. So in a sense they could be described as materially or physically simplified. But structurally or conceptually I would say it is more complicated. I will explain in short, it could be a long discussion. If you look carefully at 'Surface Depth', the structures are all based in a normal xy grid... which has a uniformity across the surface. It looks complicated because the units or modules that fits into the grid are extruded or reflected (multiplied) along the z axis, which gives it depth, hence the title of the show. In Ideograph, the 2D pattens or models have more advanced spatial properties than the 2D grids used in 'Surface Depth'. There are the works for Deleuze & Penrose which creates non-linear or chaotic grids that changes angles across the surface, no area on the surface is structurally exactly the same as another. The reason why it was just a 2D show is because I had to familiarize myself with these very complicated 'grids' on a flat plain before I could even think about building them in 3D. RvdM. You use many references to theorists in your work, specifically in "Ideograph", what is the link between these different theorists, philosophers and your work? SR. There is a little reference in the catalogue... but to recapitulate, for me, these theorists all have a kind of aesthetic sensibility in their writing, in other words, the writing and ideas lends itself to be translated into a visual representation. This is were I started getting excited, because the theoretical implications are quite dramatic. If abstract ideas can be represented within visual structures, what is the correlation between ideas and conventional language? Is language a medium to express ideas or a medium which makes them possible? Is abstract visual representation not just another 'new' or advanced language? RvdM. And again you highlight the importance of language an how it relates to your work and thinking. SR. Yes, so above the mere structural concern in the works there was the dimension of the author, problems inherent in language and translations between different signifying systems, (written, spoken language and abstract forms). RvdM. What made you gravitate towards these specific theorists? SR: Maybe the answer in the previous question is an influence, I could relate to their writing because I tend to visualize thinking naturally. But over the years, I have had interests in many writers, especially those that dealt with metaphysical or existential questions... RvdM. There is also quite a prevalent link between these different theorists themselves? SR. This is a tricky one. They are very diverse.... they might have known about one another, for instance, Cage and Duchamp were friends, and that became a little insider reference in Audiograph... Duchamps theories regarding indeterminate structures influenced Cage. That also explains the correlation between the crumpled paper and the broken glass. And quite a
few were highly active in the 70s... but I don't want to speculate, their theories are diverse in very different fields. I think the link between these theorists ultimately resides in myself, but that being said, they all form for me a part of a puzzle to make sense of the complexity and depth of the world we find ourselves in. 'Mimetic Reconstructions' was an attempt to create a kind of sculptural encyclopaedia of a myriad of theories, that each gives another interpretive or descriptive angle on existence. RvdM. For me 'Mimetic Reconstructions' is such a successful piece because the phrases give you some clarity but in the end like existence which it is symbolising uncertainty and confusion will play a major role because of the complexity of the work and that which it represents. RvdM. Interesting that you should mention "..puzzle to make sense.." because it is a good way to describe most of your work. Different pieces which interact to form the whole. One piece will not give the viewer any clarity but together it forms a complete idea.. Not to dissimilar to Penrose tiling. SR. Yes... true... but also the complete idea or full picture is always impossible in my work. There is always a continuation beyond the periphery or horizon, or its internal complexity is inexhaustible. I do not believe in a complete idea, or a complete encyclopaedia. In Metaphysical philosophy and theology this was a goal... if one looks at Hegel for instance. Maybe one can only build up incomplete and internally fractured models of the world to do its complexity any justice? RvdM. Are there any other artists who work with the same theme as you? SR. I work with so many different themes and mediums, and combine them in quite a unified expression. In that respect, it is very unique. I don't really look at art that much, I prefer to look at other disciplines, especially scientific areas. There is however correlations with other contemporary artists. Right now I am reading a bit about Gerhard Richter and his systematic and conceptual approach to painting. I did an in depth analysis of the work of Anselm Kiefer and Anish Kapoor in my masters thesis. I like the material impact of Damien Hirst's work, and his switching between different styles. I greatly respect all the minimalists from the late 60's and 70's practising in America. RvdM. Before I read about your admiration for Rothko, Sol leWitt was a artist who I thought you might be quite interested in. Is it because of your interest in spacial and structural geometry that you admire minimalist art? SR. Sol leWitt is one of my favourite artists. Exactly. His geometric sculptures were mathematically systematic, so they would exhaust all the possible configurations of a certain amount of parts in a series. 'Incomplete Open Cubes' is a good example. RvdM. Your work is quite similar to the Minimalists. It reflects the ethos of Minimalism in its emphasis on materiality and elemental geometries (and siting).
SR. Yes, definitely all of those qualities. I also find them interesting historically, stylistically and conceptually they mark an eclipse from modernism to post-modernism. RvdM. Like most Minimalist artists your work also appears extremely well organised and ‘clean’. Making order of the chaos as one would say. Which is probably another reason why your work lends itself so well towards computer aided design.
RvdM. You are known as a sculptor but in the classical sense of the word many of your works are not sculptures at all. How and why did your work progress in the direction it did? SR. I think it has to do with an interest in exploration, experimentation and change. Art is after all a language that evolves and changes and adapts with technological advances and social change. Avant-garde thinking is ultimately about pushing the envelope of representation. And traditional mediums or structures or aesthetic conventions did not have the capabilities to express the concepts I was interested in, so the form had to follow the thought. RvdM. Meaning the conventional idea of the art object has shifted? SR. It shifts all the time, and could potentially take on more guises. But I think, well maybe all the absolutes have been covered in the sixties and seventies regarding the possibilities within the relations between the artist, the art object and the viewer. Maybe what’s left is the evolution of signifying systems, new signs and new ways to sign?