Bill Vorn and Louis-Philippe Demers have produced robotic artworks since the early 90s, achieving more than 30 projects that have been presented at major international venues and festivals of new media and electronic arts. Inferno, which just took place at ARCHA+ in Prague as a part of the Lunchmeat Festival, is an interactive dance performance centring volunteers from the audience wearing teleoperated upper body exoskeletons. Taking name and inspiration from Dante’s classic text, Vorn and Demer’s Inferno takes audiences on a dive into the circles of the underworld where mortal sins are punished for eternity and in utter monotony. As already mentioned, the audience is no mere observer but plays a pivotal part in this participative robotic performance. The involuntary choreography of 60 minutes for 2×24 participants from the public produces a radical instance of immersive and participative experiences. Theme parks such as Haw Par Villa’s Ten Courts of Hell or Joe “The Mechanical Boy” also served as inspiration as these, in their core, are also examples of bodies being handed to eternal and external forces controlling and afflicting them.
The volunteers are controlled in synchronization with techno-industrial music while navigating through strobe- and haze-soaked space. Inferno emerged after several more immersive installations by the artists (Repeat 2019, Devolution 2006, Grace State Machines 2007) as a desire to bring machines as close as possible to the human body without breaking the skin. Furthermore, their new upcoming project is called Godspeed and the artists hope to finish it by the end of this year.
We thank Louis-Philippe Demers and Bill Vorn for their time and thorough introduction to Inferno. Enjoy the interview below.
Take me to the roots of your Inferno project. Describe its origins and how you eventually arrived at the concept that you presented during the Lunchmeat Festival at ARCHA+ in Prague. Why Dante and his immortal story?
Bill Vorn: It wasn’t that we chose Dante, we were inspired by the idea that Hell can have different levels and Dante was an example, we also had other inspirations. It’s a representation of Hell, which we decided to use as a background for creating the piece. Of course, the idea was not to create an artificial Hell of any kind, it was just a theme around which we built the piece.
Louis-Philippe Demers: Another idea was also to bring the experience of the “robot” as close as possible to the audience. You kind of cannot get any closer before it starts to enter the body itself. We did a lot of performances and installations before and we kind of wanted to push the limits of how intense or “present” the experience would be for the audience. We also, certainly, played around with the idea of Hell as something that makes you do something involuntary endlessly, some kind of strange punishment.
So it was all designed with audience participation and cybernetics in mind from the get-go?
BV: We can say yes to the audience part, participation is the point of this piece, to even almost use the audience. As for the cybernetics, that’s our tool, we’ve been doing cybernetic art for decades. That’s the way we do things so it was naturally involved from the start, we use it to create systems and use their feedback as a tool to create a relationship between machines and humans.
LPD: We explore different ways to manipulate the bodies of people, given the fact that it’s participative. The idea that you take people and put some apparatus on them and then you make them move – that comes with a lot of complications regarding security, logistics, and so on. There are a lot of different appendages that we could’ve put on the bodies but in the end, we decided to go with moving the upper body. That was a nice blend of people still being able to move and us creating a generative process that we can fully control.
BV: And don’t forget that the participants are from the general public, they are no dancers or performers. It’s the first time they will carry these things on their backs and we have to deal with that too.
LPD: That’s part of the experience as well, the fact that it’s a novelty. They don’t know what’s going to happen during the performance. This generates something radically different than if it was choreographed with professional dancers and much more scripted scenarios.
So I assume you ran some tests before you unleashed your project upon the audience?
BV: No. (laughter)
LPD: Yes, we ran tests, of course, but we never really tested it with a large group of people dancing together. We did smaller tests with 4-6 people so in the beginning, never a full-scale one, it was unpredictable for us as well. But now, after all those years, it’s very different, We kind of know where not to go.
How long did it take you to develop the concept and craft the robotic prostheses given the demanding technical conditions?
BV: The entire project is a different matter because it involves so many parts, such as funding, music, scenography, rehearsals, etc. There are things that we continuously improve. But the exoskeletons took a good three years to put together. Prototyping, trying out things… We didn’t have any kind of template, we were starting from scratch. We had to imagine the suits and how they would fit the, sort of, average body because they’re one-size-fits-all. There were a lot of constraints, also with security and comfort. The biggest problem is that, because we have 24 exoskeletons, we have to replicate any change to them 24 times.
LPD: Because the two of us connect every department of the project, the logistics, the music, the lights, the build, every outside help is very short-term or maintenance-based. Mostly it’s the both of us doing the work.
What decides the movements, or the “infernal punishments”, of the participating audience members?
BV: Well, we decide. (laughter) There are some varying moments during the whole hour, the interactions are different. Most of the time it’s programmed and we can, of course, intervene – there’s a sequencer and it plays back the sequence. But other times, we have a little “puppet” that we manipulate, which allows us to control the movements live. Sometimes we even pick someone from the crowd and we put this person in an exoskeleton with a controller so they can control everybody else.
LPD: And there are some sections as well that are more randomised. The playback has its own sections, it’s a bit like a structured improvisation, if you like. The final “collage”, when played live, has a bit of variation. But it all sits within the same framework. We are always altering where the system is going, it’s a mix. But even if all the exoskeletons move in the same way, the people have different body shapes so it will never look exactly the same. It’s not a bunch of tin soldiers doing the same movements.
BV: It’s not like a K-pop band, like little robots.
What is your most common feedback from the participants? How do people usually feel, being at the mercy of a machine?
LPD: Everybody is quite nervous in the beginning because we explain a few security concerns but you still don’t know what to expect.
BV: Yeah, because, generally, then don’t listen to us. (laughter)
LPD: Some are excited, some are nervous, there’s a high level of energy. But when the show starts, they will start laughing a very nervous laugh because they just react in a strange way. That changes really fast after they get acquainted with the system and the music gets more groovy. What is actually surprising is the speed with which they start performing and engaging. Another thing that happens is people realise it’s easier when you let yourself be manipulated, when you don’t fight the movements – it’s a kind of trust exercise. They get into a strange state of mind after a while. After the show, most are exhausted from dancing but they are also smiling. Nobody ever ran away. And people have to sign a waiver. (laughter) Participants also get swapped midway through the performance so it’s not that straining.
BV: Because everything is quite repetitive – the music, the movements – it’s not surprising that some told us that they get into some kind of trance after a while. I guess it’s also because it’s quite heavy to wear for a longer period of time so you eventually get tired but have to continue anyway, which gets you into a certain mindset. But it also comes down to people’s personalities, some are more expressive and some seem pretty unphased. But we certainly want them to have a good or at least a different experience.
What do you hope people will take away from your performance? What feeling/impression do you want both the spectators and participants to take home?
BV: Well, it’s the experience – the fact that they experience machines in a totally different way compared to their iPhones, for example. Also being centered on stage and being the star of the show.
LPD: This is more like a post-show thing but some people experience a feeling like they’ve just caught a glimpse of the future, all these humanoids that are coming up left and right and they are mostly used for entertainment, which is not such a sci-fi. In the end, the people realise they did the show and went through something experiential. It’s also not as dark and threatening as it seems from the pictures, the atmosphere is usually curious and laid-back so that’s an interesting contrast.
What do you think is so tempting for the participants about relegating some sort of control to something/someone else? What draws people to try on the exoskeletons?
LPD: There’s always this curious side of us that is into new experiences. You don’t know how you’re going to feel or react – any other activity would be the same. On the other hand, this activity is very specific. It’s not like there are exoskeleton dances all over the planet. I don’t think people go into it thinking, “I’m going to be a puppet for a while,” they’re mostly curious about performing and being on stage. Being manipulated is one part of it, I don’t think it’s on the forefront.
BV: But there’s a paradox there we kind of work with. It’s the fact that people, at some point, enjoy being controlled. It’s still interesting for us to watch it happen. People laugh when they let go and let themselves be totally controlled by the system.
Given the semi-voluntary movements and the ominous title of the performance, should the involved audience members be worried about their bodies and/or souls?
BV: It’s not that they should be worried, they should be aware.
That still sounds ominous.
LPD: Of course, the devices people wear won’t break their arms of anything, you can actually resist them if you want. The body’s integrity is maintained. But they have to be aware there’s some exhaustion during this, there might be sensations they won’t like. In the end, you realise it’s a “soft Inferno” somehow. There is a bit of coercion because, of course, we could increase the effect on the body way more but we have to make it wearable for an extended period, not to injure anyone, etc.
BV: During the intro, we tell them to be aware of others but also of themselves because if they let themselves go a little too much, they can bang themselves on the machines because they’re still on their body.
All in all, it sounds like an automated Inferno for busy humans. Would you like to experience this infernal punishment of your own making instead of the good old fire-and-pitchforks kind of thing?
LPD: I think you would get bored very quickly in case of an eternity. I think that’s what makes us afraid of eternity. Not the loneliness but the repetitiveness and monotony.
BV: It’s also about technology – our technology is a bit infernal by itself even though we believe it makes our lives better or more fun. Somehow, there’s a repetition in all this. It takes us somewhere really deep.
