Rendition
Over the years since its founding, our democracy in the United States has moved in the direction of eschewing torture as a legitimate means of interrogation. Constitutional principles such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the writ of habeus corpus, the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and the due process of law all tended to delegitimize coerced evidence.
However, beginning with the “War on Terror,” this trend has reversed. A euphemistic language about torture has emerged in our criminal justice system (Hamden v. Rumsfeld, 2006), and images of torture have become a routine part of our visual vocabulary (Abu Ghraib photos).
Before this time, the word “Rendition” most commonly referred to an artistic interpretation. This is no longer the word’s principle meaning — it now refers to the act of removing a suspect who is being interrogated, from a country in which torture is legally banned, to one where it is allowed.
The installation, “Rendition” addresses these ideas by implicating the viewer in a passive acceptance of torture. The act is legitimized through the viewer’s silence. The chair and its placement in the center of the room facing the viewer as they enter, calls into question the role of the viewer (torturer or tortured) in the narrative that the installation establishes.
Lit by a single point-source light, the installation also references theatrical lighting and the motion picture trope of interrogation. In a nod towards Guy Debord’s “The Society of the Spectacle,” this creates a representation that is twice removed from reality (a rendition of an image) and hence, causes the viewer to examine and question the distancing effect of language and imagery that is so effectively used by those in power. By pointing out these layers of insulation between the viewer and the reality, it is hoped that these layers are rendered transparent and the horror of the reality shows through for what it is.
[1] The Supreme Court decision on the Hamden v. Rumsfeld case No. 05-184, argued March 28, 2006-decided June 29, 2006 is an example of this. This decision held that the military tribunals and the interrogation techniques set up by President George W. Bush were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.