Da's Blog

My interest lies with stretching people’s definitions of video art and artful video. Could we define video as anything on a digital screen that changes over time or addresses a change in time? I’ve been thinking about how this definition effects video art and artful video, and I am planning a video response to my question.    But back to pushing the definition of each. We see the definitions of each transform throughout the history of film and video. Originally, the boundaries of film were pushed with the creation of Metropolis. The imagery in the film showcases characteristics that are found in avant garde film and modern day video art. The clip that exemplifies these video art characteristics would be when the machine girl (forgive my lack of character detail) is dancing for the crowd of wealthy men. Her body movement is abnormal and is an artistic interpretation of movement. This definition again is stretched with the introduction of the avant garde film movement. This movement transforms film into collage as well as footage of the unobserved or overlooked. The films, Rain and H2O, spotlight a common element, water, that is overlooked and the films focus on the magic that occurs when water is filmed. This focus on the overlooked is carried over into Warhol’s work, especially in his video called Sleep. By being a voyeur and allowing the camera to act as a voyeur to interactions between people and situations, Warhol is capturing unnoticed expressions and by slowing the video down, he allows the viewer to analyze these expressions and interactions. He transforms the overlooked into the ambient through his Silver Floatations videos. He also introduces the abnormal and preys upon the viewers natural inclination to indulge in a fascination with the abomination in Chelsea Girls.   Modern video art uses the history and expansion of video art as a toolbox and foundation for video art. Ambience, abnormality, fascination with the abomination, and highlighting the overlooked are all characteristics of modern video art. In addition to these, some video artists tend to respond to the conversation and battle between artful video and video art, and through this are continuously expanding the boundaries of each until definitions are blurred and answers to questions like “What is artful video and video art?” are cyclical and allusive. But that’s the fun of it all.

Here is a Vice TV video interview with a New York video/performance artist Laurel Nakadate. Also, take a look at the Richard Prince and Dan Colen interviews.

If there were no traditional fine arts, such as sculpture, painting, and printmaking, and no feature films, than the divide between video art and artful video would be arbitrary. Therefore, the existence of fine arts and feature films as well as the dialogue between the two creates a context through which those works that are a combination of the two, namely video art and artful video, are categorized. Some methods for categorizing or giving the standard for each are context, length, and pace. Traditionally, featured films or movies are shown in theatres and then released for personal viewing but video art is shown in galleries and vary rarely is it easily accessible for personal viewing. Given this it is seen that the purpose of video art is to express a message or concept in a controlled environment, such as the gallery. In doing this is it seen that these works are classified as art first with its medium as video; therefore, video is acting as a modifier or an adjective to the art. On the other hand, the purpose of artful video or movies is to reach the general public in a manner that is convenient for the public. The environment for viewing these works are not necessarily controlled and restricted by the location of the viewing. This is why these works are longer in length so that the viewer is sucked into the movie and the environment becomes the movie and therefore is, in a roundabout way, controlled. Personally, what is interesting is when a work crosses over from its respective category by placing it in a different context, for example, Mathew Barney’s Cremaster videos. These videos have the length and pace of feature films but are shown in galleries and rely on symbology to inform the narrative. Another example of this crossover would be to have a gallery work shown in a movie theatre. Imagine Paul McCarthy in a theatre.

In addition to the environment for which a work is placed, pace and the manner in which content is addressed are ways that video art and artful video can be classified relative to feature movies and fine arts. Artful video, like featured movies, paces with a crescendo to keep the interest of the audience, whereas video art can use a crescendo but it is normally an off kilter crescendo or pace. As far as the manner for which each addresses content, normally artful video, like feature movies, uses narrative to address content. Video art, on the other hand, uses abnormal imagery.

Overall, video art is seen as a step beyond artful video into the abnormal and as the norm changes video art responds.

The two are very similar. Both involve capturing destructive actions for the sake of entertainment, and what draws us into both is our fascination with the abomination. This is a human characteristic that has existed in us for centuries. For example, the Colosseum. The audience disassociates the gladiators fighting in the Colosseum because they are slaves and therefore they can watch and enjoy as they destroy themselves. The TV allows for us to watch people destroy themselves because the screen acts as a barrier between our world and the TV world. For Warhol, I feel as if it was art that served as a barrier or justify for being a voyeur. Now the question I have is are people more destructive on TV, in Warhol’s videos, and in the Colosseum. I believe they are. It is as simple as putting someone, anyone, in the spotlight and suddenly they will do anything to prevent their 15 minutes of fame from ending. Our society, like Andy Warhol, loves seeing others have their 15 minutes of fame because we all hope that someday it will be our turn to be in the spotlight. Even if we don’t find the actions of those who are currently in the spotlight endearing, we all want to be in the spotlight either to prove that we will be better or just to soak it all in. But no one ever knows how they will act during their 15 minutes of fame until they stand in front of a camera and are told to be themselves.

When looking at his work and watching an interview with Charlotte Moorman about their collaboration, or “partnership”, I realize the value of collaboration between artists. Is the apprehension to collaborate caused by the question of property rights or really idea and concept rights? Have any of you looked down on collaboration? Not necessarily that it is a lower art-form, but more so that it doesn’t fit within the realm of works done by solo artists. Maybe because tradition gives artwork one author. For instance, Jeff Koons; he does not make his own art. Instead he collaborates (well, in his case he hires) other artists to construct his piece. Yet even though he doesn’t make the art, it is his art piece. How come it doesn’t say Bubbles by Jeff Koons, Artist A, Artist B? Is it because it was Koons’ idea to make Bubbles? So then does the possession of idea determine the claim of the artwork?

Is video collaboration more accepted than sculpture, painting, and ceramics? I think technology allows us to collaborate, or makes it easier for us. Maybe it’s not technology, but more-so it’s that art caused by the advancement in technology since the 1920′s is a newer type of art and for that it has new rules. The art history that we art learning has impressed on us that for some reason art has to be done or claimed by one person, and it was not until watching the interview by Moorman that I realized I thought this way and realized I needed to change the way I look at collaboration.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video. 

Specifically about Paik’s Fluxus Film: Zen for Film… Is this a response to Cage’s 4’33?

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Watching Paik’s videos involving cellos I think of Carole’s piece, Loveland, where Honor was playing the cello. Even though there may not be a connection between the two works, it makes me think about whether or not my initial critique of Loveland is less substantial considering I now have an artist in my mind to connect and compare it with. If that’s the case then I, or anyone else, can give a better critique of someone’s work if I know all I can about all the art that has happen since the beginning of time. Or is it better to look at a piece of art without connecting it to others work – to just simply soak the piece in and respond to it as it appears in front of you? How can an artist denote that he or she wants the viewer to connect things? Also, if we need to make connections between artists’ works, how strong do the connections have to be? Is it fair to say that Carole was thinking of Paik when she decided to use a cellist in her work? If having a cello performance in a piece associates the piece with Paik, and if the artist who wants to have the cello in the piece intends for it to come across not as a response to Paik, but for the sole purpose of enhancing the aesthetics of the piece as an individual object, then aren’t these connections limiting artists? 

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

I found some Paik videos.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

This was suggested to me by a chemistry professor. It is an animation of the life and inner workings of a cell. 

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.