HOUSEWATCH was a pioneering artist collective that redefined the relationship between film, architecture, and performance through immersive, site-specific installations. Emerging in the late 20th century, their work spanned a range of experimental formats, from large-scale projections on buildings to mobile structures and interactive performances. Projects like Little Big Horn and Contraflow explored the visual potential of cars as moving screens, while Paper House and Imaginary Opera in Japan pushed the boundaries of projection mapping, using innovative technology to transform spaces into cinematic environments.

By shifting experimental film practice beyond traditional venues, HOUSEWATCH blurred the boundaries between private and public space, expanding the language of visual storytelling. Their installations engaged directly with the rhythm of city life, using elements like bicycles, cars, and even entire buildings as vehicles for artistic expression. They invited audiences to become active participants rather than passive observers. HOUSEWATCH’s radical approach not only challenged conventional spectatorship but also left a lasting mark on contemporary media art, redefining how moving images interact with the built environment.

The first HOUSEWATCH project emerged from Ian Bourn’s vision of transforming a domestic house into a multi-screen cinematic experience, projecting films across its windows to engage both architecture and audience in a new way. Recognising the logistical and financial challenges of using multiple projectors, each window requiring its own synchronised film, Bourn realised that collaboration was essential. He initially brought in Tony Sinden, whose expertise in projection and mirrors helped overcome technical constraints, and George Saxon, whose film From a Window (1984) aligned thematically with the project’s concept. Lulu Quinn joined after demonstrating an installation using a shower screen, while Alison Winckle was invited based on her previous work with curtain projections at the Serpentine Gallery (1984). Together, they formed the core group, each artist creating distinct works that responded directly to the architectural space rather than simply displaying films in windows.

A small Arts Council grant allowed them to focus on publicity, platforming the project to reach wider audiences. With a striking poster designed by Bourn, depicting silhouetted figures in hats and overcoats, reminiscent of film noir,  the project evoked a sense of mystery and unexpected discovery. This clandestine atmosphere was central to Housewatch’s appeal. For Bourn, the project was an extension of his early ambition to infiltrate everyday life with moving images, breaking free from designated cultural spaces.

Unlike traditional exhibitions, a HOUSEWATCH installation would blend seamlessly into its surroundings until nightfall, when the ordinary house would suddenly transform, room lights remaining off while moving images flickered through the windows. The building itself took on a new personality, becoming an enigmatic presence within the urban landscape. The unexpected nature of the experience was key, the passersby would stumble upon it by chance, finding something they had not sought out.

The film was based on a novel written by Charlotte Bronte as Jane Eyre (1847). The artist did a piece of work which directly related to that novel, specifically the house, focusing specifically on the house in Fairfield Hall burning down. Wanting to give a very strong feeling about the incarceration that Jane went through in the novel and her relationship with  hope. The following year HOUSEWATCH toured Cinematic Architecture For The Pedestrian by adapting the six original compositions for three further house-venues sited across London.

The central theme of Wounded Knee was to question political and environmental notions of ‘transport and road building versus ‘homes and housing’ as it was sited in a street due for demolition and in a residential community living under threat from a motorway building scheme. It was shown in London as part of The Whitechapel Open Studios Programme 1990.

It was an experiment in expanding the HOUSEWATCH concept. Using two separate buildings and two motor vehicles along with recorded sound, improvised music, car horns, engine noises and the rattle of the nearby railway. The window displays featured a variety of images that were projected onto the glass, these projections included footage of people walking through urban landscapes, maps of the area marked for demolition, and abstract patterns that played with light and shadow. The combination of these elements created a layered effect, making the windows appear both transparent and opaque at different moments, engaging viewers with the precarious state of the surrounding community.

The group also used preprogrammed slide projection and film loops, making the event continuous. Inside of the house installation, hidden from the audience, a group of musicians improvised a soundtrack for the moving images on windows.

Taking place at the South Bank Centre in June of 1992, Little Big Horn used the context of its location to create a new series of individual installation pieces and live events; each artist working with a particular choice of vehicle/s. Producing a collaborative mixed-media event made-up of individual ideas that share a common focal point with time and place — cars and contemporary cultural icons.

In this display, the car windows were used as projection surfaces. One window displayed a slow-motion film of galloping horses, while another featured fragmented news footage about contemporary conflicts. A third window was covered with a sequence of images related to transportation and movement, reinforcing the idea of cars as both personal and political spaces. The soundscape accompanying these projections included recordings of distant traffic, muffled conversations, and the rhythmic beat of hoofs, further immersing the passerby in the installation.

With the Arts Council of Great Britain redirecting financial support toward television and larger-scale productions, primarily in collaboration with Channel 4, small independent grants that had previously sustained experimental film and media projects began to disappear. As a result, many artists, including those involved in HOUSEWATCH, had to rethink how and where their work could be experienced.

Contra-flow was a live cinematic performance that took place in Broadgate’s Exchange Square. This event transformed 18 Morris Minor cars into moving sculptures and projection surfaces, blurring the line between cinema, performance, and urban choreography. The cars followed a carefully devised zig-zag path through the pedestrian space, creating a dynamic interaction between movement, light, sound, and architectural surroundings. Taking place at scheduled intervals, both during the afternoon and evening, the projections consisted of continuously looping images that depicted road signs, traffic lights, and detours. The tape descending from above was an integral part of the piece, descending down and piling up on the ground, mirroring the imagery of disrupted pathways. The projection setup allowed the images to blend with the real-world surroundings, creating an interaction between the moving visuals and the scene.

As with many of HOUSEWATCH’s projects, Contra-flow challenged conventional spectatorship by removing the passive viewing experience associated with traditional cinema. Instead of being confined to a fixed screen, images and sounds unfolded within the environment itself, requiring pedestrians to navigate through the moving installation. The piece also reflected HOUSEWATCH’s ongoing exploration of mobility, both in a literal and metaphorical sense, by using automobiles as central elements in their artistic vocabulary.

The project was made possible through sponsorship and collaborations with various organisations, including the Morris Minor Centre in Bath, Wyse Hire for lighting, and Associated Stone Fixers for road signs. Additional financial support came from the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Polytechnic of East London, reflecting a collective effort to bring experimental, site-specific media art into public spaces. Contra-flow was well received, with The Times humorously noting that “to see this phenomenon, pedestrians do not have to be under the influence of anything stronger than cocoa.” [The Times (1985), Monday Edition]. The event’s success further cemented HOUSEWATCH’s reputation as pioneers of urban cinematic interventions, bridging the gap between experimental film, performance art, and the built environment.

Paper House was an innovative multimedia installation created in Japan, marking the collective’s first major venture into video projection. The group decided to design a traditional Japanese-style house themselves, using materials like rice paper screens and wooden frames, marking a bold new phase for the project. The Paper House itself was a mobile architectural structure, designed and built by Japanese carpenters with adaptability in mind. It could be easily assembled, disassembled, and transported, ensuring that it could be set up in various urban locations without disrupting the surrounding environment. The house’s unassuming appearance often led the audience to mistake it for a kiosk or temporary shop, only to be surprised when its surfaces came alive with video projections.

The project introduced a new member, Stan Steel, and was structured around six individual compositions, each developed by a different artist within the group. The installation featured twelve synchronised projections, a first for HOUSEWATCH , made possible through sponsorship from Sharp, who provided portable video projectors. These suitcase-sized projectors were state-of-the-art at the time and allowed for seamless integration of moving images across the entire structure.

One of the most outstanding works within Paper House was a piece by George Saxon, which depicted a young boy submerged in water, projected across the entire structure. He achieved this effect by filming a child floating in a bathtub from multiple angles, creating the illusion that the boy’s body extended through the house itself. Saxon’s work also included a sequence of slow-moving faces, eyes opening and closing, and figures in motion.

Conversely, Paper House encountered some challenges, designed as a 360-degree film installation meant to be experienced from multiple angles, the work did not evoke the expected audience behaviour. Viewers chose to remain stationary, focusing on a single projection rather than moving around the space. However, as Ian Bourn reflected, this response was not necessarily a cultural limitation but rather an essential challenge in influencing how audiences engage with immersive media.

Alongside Paper House, the group also created Imaginary Opera, a 25 minute piece, at Kyoto’s Prefecture Museum. First developed as part of their ongoing interest in bicycles and movement, this work featured large-scale projections across approximately eleven windows of a building, creating the illusion that cyclists were riding through the space. Drawing inspiration from Tony Sinden’s techniques, HOUSEWATCH employed a high-contrast visual style, using stark silhouettes of cyclists moving against dark backgrounds. This approach heightened the dreamlike quality of the piece, reinforcing its ethereal, almost ghostly aesthetic.

A defining feature of Imaginary Opera was its integration of music as a structural element of the performance. The group collaborated with British composer Steve Martland, whose orchestral piece Crossing the Border (1995) provided the foundation for the work. Martland’s compositions, influenced by minimalist music pioneers like Steve Reich, featured overlapping rhythmic patterns that mirrored the looping, synchronized movement of the bicycles in the film. This relationship between music and projected imagery played a crucial role in the work’s immersive quality, as the rhythmic interplay of film loops and sound created a dynamic, ever-evolving spectacle.

One of the most ambitious aspects of this project was its staging, which challenged traditional audience behavior. Initially, the project’s Japanese commissioner, Mr. Fujishima, expressed concerns that local audiences would remain passive observers, hesitant to engage with the performance. To counter this,  incorporated a live processional element, with six artists cycling around the building carrying film reels before entering the venue. This performative gesture encouraged the audience to follow them inside, transforming spectators into active participants. Once inside, visitors encountered a richly layered environment: projections illuminated both the windows and the orchestra, with moving shadows of bicycle parts (spokes, pedals, and cogwheel) cast across the musicians.

Despite initial skepticism, the event was a success, with audiences engaging in ways that defied expectations. The performance resonated so strongly that in the following nights, people began spontaneously cycling around the venue, mimicking the artists’ initial procession. This unexpected engagement demonstrated the power of HOUSEWATCH’s participatory approach.

Conservatory was one of HOUSEWATCH’s most ambitious and logistically challenging projects, taking nearly three years to develop. Conceived as a mobile, immersive projection space, the work aimed to transform a glasshouse into a site for an experimental film installation. The initial vision was to construct a touring conservatory that, much like their earlier Paper House, could be easily assembled in parks and gardens. The transparency of the structure would allow for 360-degree projections, creating an environment where moving images would blend with the surrounding landscape. However, due to significant logistical and financial challenges, this plan was ultimately abandoned in favour of adapting existing greenhouses.

The search for suitable venues took HOUSEWATCH across the UK, with potential sites identified at the Horniman Museum in London, an unglazed historic greenhouse in Liverpool, and Sheffield Botanical Gardens. Despite securing partial funding from the National Lottery, the Arts Council, and LUX, the project remained difficult to execute. The absence of a dedicated administrative structure meant that much of the organisational burden fell on Ian Bourn and Tony Sinden, the two members most heavily involved in the project at this point. Technical difficulties further complicated the project. HOUSEWATCH struggled to source matching video projectors, ultimately assembling a mismatched collection with varying light levels, which made achieving a cohesive visual experience difficult. Transporting and installing the equipment also proved to be a logistical nightmare, requiring coordination with suppliers in Liverpool and other locations.

Despite these obstacles, Conservatory was successfully staged, with its inaugural presentation planned for a park in Hoxton Square in London as part of LUX’s opening events. The installation took place inside an existing greenhouse structure, with multiple projections illuminating the glass panes and the plants inside. The projections included close-up footage of leaves, water droplets, and shifting light patterns, making the entire space feel as though it was in constant motion. The setup allowed the location to merge with the projected images and the reflections off the glass created multiple layers of imagery. Unlike some of HOUSEWATCH’s earlier works, which evolved into repeatable or touring formats, Conservatory was only exhibited once.

References:

Bourn, I. & Warwick, M. (2007), Interview of  Ian Bourn REWIND Archives. University of Dundee.

Sinden, T & Warwick, M. (2007) Interview of Tony Sinden REWIND Archives. University of Dundee.

Bourn, I. (2024), Phone Interview with the author, [3 December].

The Guardian & Gazette Newspaper (1985), November 8 Edition.

Performance Magazine (1985), Oct/Nov Issue, No. 37.

The Times (1985), Monday Edition, November.