FUTURE BLINDNESS

While I was working on House In Bali in Berkeley, I had the thought that it would be a good idea to run some video signal through a steak. It was mostly the drawing I had made of the signal flow, and the name (“Steak Filter”) that I thought were so simple and adorably right. I am hard to dissuade when I insist something is right, even if I am clearly wrong; you might already know this. I got excited about it, and ended up not talking about much else for a day or so. I think I was pretty insufferable about it being a good thing to try.

Just last week, I finally got it together enough to just do a dry run, and I’m glad I did—somehow I never remember how easy it is to just throw something together, or how little I ever regret spending an hour or an evening to throw together a little test that will leave me with some digital or physical records to work with.

I meant to tell you about this sooner, because I liked the result. The actual mechanics of the filter worked really well, better than I thought, and it made for a nice contemplative couple hours, watching the steak (it was a roast, actually) cooking. Almost as soon as I put it up on Vimeo, I got an email from an editor at a food blog called “Eat Me Daily.” Not, if you ask me, a great name for a blog, but they had some cool work there. Raphael, the editor, asked me “exactly what’s going on here.”

This was exciting, because it was a chance to put an actual artwork into the world with a statement accompanying it. I’m glad I thought a bit ahead, though, and asked him to hold off publishing for a day or so while I got my website updated and generally cleaned house and prepared for visitors. Using Google Wave, Harlo and I co-edited the text of the statement and sent it off. Here’s the statement:

Hi Raphael, thanks for your patience – there’s now a (hopefully) more coherent web representation of the project online.

I think the >init< video is perhaps the most explanatory: http://vimeo.com/7491585 , although the green-and-red video you referenced does look a little nicer (both are from the same performance event). Quite literally, I am plugging composite video into a big steak, which is then cooked. The video signal going through the steak is the image of the steak cooking. Gradually, the steak loses moisture and signal can no longer pass.

With this performance I'm trying to get at the reflexivity of live video - the taut line between the space and the image that results. It's possible to think of almost anything that mediates as a filter of some kind...sort of a "the-map-is-not-the-territory" territory.

In this system, the filtered image is recursively processed in a feedback loop, allowing minute perturbations to ripple and echo across the screen long after the original impulse has ended.

Part of my interest in video lies in its exploded body; the signal is a ghost that resonates and deforms, trapped in our waveguides: when the system powers down the image fades into incoherence, leaving no corpse behind. Steak Filter gives body to this infinite recursion, making it real; incarnate. With this corporeality comes mortality: as the meat sputters and pops, we watch the cascade of images until finally, the steak is done.

This piece was a study for a performance series I might be doing at the Harvard Museum of Natural History this spring. I'd love to hear any thought/feedback/reactions, etc you might have - thanks!

After I sent that off, Raphael wrote back with some questions, which I’ll post verbatim:

Hi Raphael, thanks for your questions! I’ll do my best to answer these well but please feel free to push me for clarification or more details…

You write “the signal is a ghost” — is part of what you’re capturing the last remaining life of the animal, right before its consumption? Its “last gasp” so to speak. Is the meat itself a ghost?

It’s not particularly about the life/soul of the animal – meat is meat. For me, the ghost I mention is the fissure between the physical and virtual realms involved in the performance – a real space is abstracted, ghosted, into a temporal phenomenon (the video signal) that we see as a series of transient images onscreen. There’s no way to “catch” this live signal, but you can see its traces.

Was there a reason to use beef over other meats?

It was very important for this project not to be wasteful, both out of respect for the medium and due to financial limitations – I asked a couple butchers for spoiled/unwanted steaks, but nobody would provide any. Often, a title is one of the first elements I’ll start with when making a piece, and “Steak Filter” has a compelling ring to it. Also, I don’t really eat pork, and I was worried chicken or fish would not present an easily-readable image onscreen.

How will your upcoming performance series incorporate this study?

I’m not entirely sure yet, but I will probably be doing this performance, cooking a steak filter, while the audience explores the rest of the works on display. The smell, and the amplified sound of the sputtering of the meat, will provide an interesting ambient counterpoint to the museum’s usual fare of sterile, long-dead, never-changing objects. (There is no sound in some of the videos this time because I did not have the proper mic setup)

How did it taste?

It was delicious. I might experiment with different marinades, though, to see their effect on the image and palette. There is something special, though, to the simplicity of the current setup.

Have you worked with food before?

I have done a few poorly-documented projects in the past, like signing my name using a pen that dispenses a rapidly-solidifying “gummi” mix. I am working on a piece now that involves custom-molded chocolate circuitry, although it is too soon to tell if that idea will bear
fruit.

also, please confirm: the official name of the piece is “Steak Filter v0″ and should be credited to Noah Feehan / AKA MEDIA SYSTEM

Thanks for asking! This is version 0 of the “Steak Filter” series, so “Steak Filter (v0)” or “Steak Filter, v0″ would be fine. I’m Noah
Feehan / AKA. AKA MEDIA SYSTEM is a term I use to include any collaborators and/or participants, but this piece is pretty much solo.

I just couldn’t be more pleased with Raphael’s write-up here. I was a little worried when I saw the “is this about the animal’s soul” part, as it looked a little like a leading question, but it turned out fine—I think that by providing a strong set of responses and a clearly-written statement, it became easier to tell my story than to do the usual conjecture/opinion that often accompanies reblogged web art.

Raphael’s piece really took off after a few hours, which was super-exciting. First it was on kottke, then Gizmodo, then Lady Ada’s blog, then Today and Tomorrow. Overall, I got 14400 views in about 3 days. And this was a test shot, done on Friday night, more or less because I had nothing better to do.

The thing I learned is, this is the better thing that I have to do. The more I spend a couple hours doing a lil thing like this, or making Mylar Mountains, or making little chocolate circuitboards, the more something good is likely to happen.