In this Phone Tag interview, Christopher Ulutupu discusses inspirations ranging from images of a 1970s drug-fueled photo shoot, Romantic painting, and kareoke. We also talk about his close collaborative relationships with those who work on his filmed projects, often friends and family, and how he came to the role of artist relatively recently. Chris makes video- and performance-based works out of Wellington, New Zealand. You can watch some of his work here.

Phone Tag is a generative interview format, where I ask each participating artist five questions (plus others as the discussion meanders). At the end, I ask him or her to introduce me to an artist whose attitude and work they find interesting and/or inspiring, who I then interview with the same five questions.

*****

Linnea West: It was great of [previous participant] Olivia Koh to connect us. Do you know her through the project you did on recess, or did you know her before?

Christopher Ulutupu: I met Olivia at the Hobiennale. It was in Hobart in Tasmania. For the first time, they decided to do a biennale. I was the exhibiting artist for a gallery up here in Wellington called play_station. I also met another guy, Jake Preval, there. We got on like a house on fire.

I don’t know if you know the context of Hobart or Tasmania. It’s the most southern part of Australia. It’s an island separated from the rest of the land mass. It’s colder. It’s got a different feel to it than the rest of Australia. It’s got a very tight‑knit community there. Our community is amazing and very supportive of each other.

From there, Liv contacted me and was like, “Do you want to show one of your video works?” We went from there.

LW:  Nice. Is video and film typical of your work?

CU:  I generally make videos now, video and performances, because I’ve found that it’s probably the most payoff I get in terms of creating or money‑making is through a moving image.

LW:  Performance as well? Are you a performer?

CU:  Yeah, I was both. I did my undergrad in performance design, which was a course set between the New Zealand Drama School, Toi Whakaari, and Massey University. I was specifically looking at performance for theater, film, also performance art.

It was a degree very specific to performance, and being very attracted to different types of performances, especially dynamics between public and private performances, ritual in performance. All these kind of things, I was really interested in earlier on in my career.

LW: What are you working on right now?

CU: I just finished a show down in Christchurch, which is in the South Island, which was part of a public arts festival called SCAPE. It happens every year. They commissioned me to do a work, and I proposed to them that I would do the third part of a trilogy.

This final one was shot in the ski field. I took a camera crew and the cast out to the ski field and did some performance stuff there, sang some songs and choreographed a set of pieces.

I was inspired by this strange magazine article in Elle Magazine about a winter Vogue shoot back in the 1970s in the Andes, on the border of Chile and Argentina. I got inspired as the story was very kind of Bond‑esque.

The story goes, photographers and a whole bunch of models including Jerry Hall go down to this resort, a ski lodge, down in Argentina and Chile. They get snowed in and they get surrounded. All they have in the hotel is an open bar and a bag of cocaine and a few bits of food.

[laughter]

CU:  They decide to have this drug‑fueled photo shoot. It turns out to be one of the best winter shoots they’ve ever had. They got these beautiful shots of them fooling around with all this fur, absolute decadence. Actually really an absurd story.

And then, the Chilean government won’t let them leave the resort. There’s a whole bunch of security guards there, and so the Argentinian and American government hatch this plan to release them by getting them to ski down this ski field, in their furs and the jewelry that they wore for the shoot. They ski all the way down to meet this helicopter that takes them away.

LW:  That’s a real thing that happened?

CU:  Real thing. It is very Bond‑y. I was inspired some of the images of the story and use it as an aesthetic crux to inform someone my costume ideas and how I wanted it photographed.

LW: What’s the story arc over the course of the trilogy?

CU: The first one, Into The Arms of My Colonizers, is about courtship and desire… lust. Framing it so you’re asking questions about identity politics. I feel the question has always been, “Where do I belong?” or “Where do I fit in?” Then in that particular work I’m asking more “Who do you want to be?” or “What is it you desire?”

I feel like we, as diasporic artists, can start to piece those things together ourselves. We spend a lot of time though articulating or asking, “I don’t belong here, but where do I belong? I’ve got connections here.” A lot of energy is spent doing that. I feel we should be asking more along the lines of “Who do you want to be?” You can construct these narratives, I think, and I have the luxury to do that.

The second one is called Do You Still Need Me. It’s a lot of performances in nature, in a forest, and a sand dune. A whole bunch of people, all of them actors and models, are singing karaoke. There’s a screen and they sing karaoke in nature. That was inspired by an artist friend Etienne De France. He asked me one day if I enjoyed poetry in nature. I was like, “Well, not really. It’s kind of a white thing.” [laughs]

It’s not really what I do. The equivalent for me is probably karaoke in nature. I really enjoy karaoke. So I did that. Took a whole bunch of singers out to these really picturesque places around New Zealand and just sung some big ’80s and ’90s power ballads.

If the first one’s about love and courtship, I think the second one was about heartbreak, dissonance, and miscommunication, and longing for the other person. Both these works have a strange dynamic where I tease or allude to this relationship with a colonizer. [laughs] I can be quite playful with it, but also present the heartbreak.

Then the third and final chapter, it’s the marriage: the acknowledgement that we exist in the same space, that we have a partnership. Through all the heartbreak and miscommunication, it’s a sense of acknowledging that we exist in the same space and we must coexist. I feel that this is an ongoing thing. It’s not going to just disappear.

LW: It’s interesting that you cast it all as a romantic adventure.

CU: I feel like there is so much heartbreak and so much sadness between this particular relationship between indigenous, colonizing…anywhere. Specifically, I was looking at probably more a New Zealander binary in that relationship. For me, it’s hard to say, “You did me wrong.” [laughs] “And you should pay me.” It’s not really how my personality goes. It gets layered with a whole bunch of funness or laughter and humor.

LW:  You mentioned one person who influenced you, but in general who or what are your influences in the making?

CU:  I’m very influenced by those who are around me, my loved ones. Especially in all the films that I have, I’ve mainly just cast friends and family. I see a person, and for some reason I get a flash of, “Oh, it would be great if they were here in this setting in this particular way with these people.” That’s how I make work actually. I’m inspired by other people and that triggers other things or other images.

LW:  It was interesting watching your videos. It felt at times like I was watching a painting. It’s like a living tableau.

CU:  Yeah. Lots of my works—not particularly this trilogy, but including this trilogy—reference Romantic painters.

LW: Romantic, capital R. Like Delacroix.

CU: Exactly. I think it was because when I first started looking at shooting in nature and I started recreating postcards and these beautiful picturesque places, I was looking at photography specifically. Photographic practices that documented indigenous people, brown people.

LW: –which there is such a history of.

CU:  Yeah, there’s a huge history of. But then, when I developed and created more work, I realized it wasn’t those images that actually helped inform my practice or the way I make decision‑making around designing the frame and the staging. I was actually painting. It felt more like the Romantic painter, trying to emulate the scale of things or the beauty of the surroundings. There’s a two‑dimensionality that I really enjoy about having no moving frame or just having a still frame. Just the action, the performances be very still, static.

I’m also inspired by other video. I’m not the greatest fan of Matthew Barney, but I really enjoy the way he creates imagery. He superimposes or juxtaposes a whole bunch of different things to make a new meaning. I love that. I work inherently like that, try to put together certain things, make it new.

Who else? Sofia Coppola, the director. I read somewhere that she compiles a list of songs, and then writes a script based on these 10 or 15 songs. There’s something really nice about that.

LW:  When did you first think of yourself as an artist?

CU:  Honestly, I think when I finished my master’s degree, because I didn’t do my undergrad in fine arts or visual arts. I became a set designer and worked in an art department for many years. I worked freelance as an art director for film, mainly.

Then I got sick of that because I was working too much. It was, “Oh, I wanna help people!” I would try to become a social worker, but I wasn’t going back to study. I ended up working for corrections. I worked in a probation office for a couple of years. Then I was like, “Actually I want to be an artist.” So I quit my job. That’s when I decided to do my master’s.

LW:  That’s a 180 shift.

CU:  It was like: “Go,” and then I did it. I remember the point where I started, I had just finished working at corrections. I had my leaving party on the Friday, and had Saturday, Sunday, and then Monday started the Masters of Fine Arts.

Since then, I’ve been propelled into a whole world. The art industry, for me, is still relatively new. I’m still trying to navigate that as well, and be familiar with the industry I’ve chosen to be in.

LW: That’s exciting. What’s an ideal day in the studio? Are you in your studio now?

CU: Yeah. I also work next door. I manage a costume store. Between these two places, that’s how I create ideas for my work. It’s funny because this year I’ve been working here and at home, and between the two you can come up with ideas and sketch out and plan, because most of my practice is about logistics and planning…facilitating a whole bunch of people to come at a certain time to do this one thing. Between those two places I feel like I get a lot of room to explore and do stuff.

LW:  What’s your process like for a film? Do you have it all story‑boarded out? Is it a little bit left open?

CU:  For me now, the way I work and how I dig into the answers, I bring all the elements to the site of location that I’m shooting, and then I build a frame. There’s no script or storyboards—that’s what I was trying to get away from. When I was working as an art director, I couldn’t help but feel there was something missing. Because it can be quite hierarchical, it can be very negative.

As part of that, I decided that I would not have a script, not having a storyboard. Be more like: “Bring your talents, what can you do?” Some people were like, “I’m really good at makeup and hair. I did my sister’s wedding?” I was like, “Great you’re in!” One film shoot that I did, I shot at a church one time. The people making the food were my aunties. They catered the two days’ shoot that I did.

That’s the energy I want to create. The final work is important, don’t get me wrong, but just as important as the process. Making sure that people who were involved with the project have autonomy over their experiences whilst shooting the work.

LW:  Do you have any interest in being in front of the camera?

CU:  Oh no. [laughter]

LW: Do you think it is more important for an artist to be in a big city where you can have a career, where there are galleries, where there is an art scene and people to talk to about it; or to be in a smaller place where maybe it’s easier, it’s cheaper, there can be more of a focus on making?

CU: I would love being in a big city, but I fear that my work would suffer. My practice relies on those around me and specific references: Samoan people in New Zealand or indigenous people in New Zealand and references to the land even. That’s where I get most of my inspiration. I worry if I was to move to other places, it would actually change my practice. I’m very based on my environment, who am I’m surrounded by, what’s happening around me. I don’t know if it would be a bad thing. All I know is that my work would change and my practice would change accordingly.

I love living in a smaller space or city. Wellington is a small city in relation to many other cities, even though is the capital of New Zealand. It’s got a population of 400,000, 500,000, something like that. One great thing I enjoy is that you can walk everywhere. There’s still a thriving art scene. There are heaps of galleries, lots of artists. Here we manage to do quite a bit to support the local community of artists.

If I was to move to a big city, I think it’d be great for my career in terms of networking, access to other resources. It would be really hard to have to find a new crew, where I trust in their abilities and vice‑versa that they trusted me, etc. Although I am also thinking about moving to Melbourne. There’s a lot of crossover between the art scenes. A lot of my friends have done it.

LW: Great. Thank you.

CU: Thank you!