Performance/Installation/Documentation

The distinctions between different “kinds” of video art are all very vague. Attempting to define it is basically futile. Many have tried, but the best that can be done seems to be breaking it up into 3 (or so) different areas: (1) formal experimentation, (2) recorded performance (as Forrest mentioned last week), and (3) installation. But then there are so many crossovers, that it becomes pointless to categorize them, even though that is the nature of art historians and media theorists. Video art really is the medium of our post-war/postmodern/contemporary/what-have-you culture. Unlike other fine art forms, it creates a sort of immediacy that the viewer experiences in one-way or another, and it depends on a wide variety of materials for its production and display. As a postmodern art form, video is inherently mixed-media—both in physical form and in its relationship to visual culture. Video installation gets even more confusing in this way, because it requires the use of a wide range of materials and ideas, and it demands a different viewer—one that must react, and physically experience the artwork. In “Video Installation Art: The Body, the Image, and the Space-in-between,” Margaret Morse describes video installation as “the most complex art form in contemporary culture” (154).

Video installation depends on the museum or gallery for its very existence, in contrast to painting and sculpture, which may use a museum for validation, but exist outside of the institution. Installations are time- and site-specific, they may be able to be reconfigured in another location, but the context has changed. Installation has no aura, it cannot be commodified, and it is impossible to document (since the art is “the actual construction of a passage for bodies or figures in space and time” [154]). Video installation is in the same realm as conceptual art, performance art, body art and earthworks, in that it is defined by a sort of “liveness” (Morse, 156). Paintings, sculptures, and even films, are all placed behind a frame—they depict an “elsewhere, elsewhen” that the viewer can contemplate, whereas installations cause the viewer to physically become a part of here and now of the piece.

A lot of the videos Forrest and I watched this week were found in short clips on youtube, because, while you cannot actually experience an installation through its documented form, many people video tape them in an attempt to document their experience (like taking photos at Disneyland, or videotaping your road trip—people keeping pieces of their experiences in a visual form, so they can attempt to relive them, or share them with friends). Tony Oursler’s talking heads, Bill Viola’s large projections exploring human emotion, and Shirin Neshat’s dual-channel projections are all frequently documented, and can easily be found on youtube. However, there is no way to actually experience them without seeing them installed.

In our search for documentations of installations, Forrest and I ran across a couple other pieces. One performance piece in particular seemed to work in the same way as installation, although, it seems more effective as a performance, rather than video. Dan Graham’s Performer/Audience/Mirror consists of the artist standing in front of an audience, with a mirror behind him reflecting the viewers. As the artist stands, adjusts his posture, and moves, he describes every gesture, pose and action in a flat, continuous monotone (the same dialogue that so many performance artists use), during which, as we can see in the mirror, the audience watches him without any reservation. After about 10 or 15 minutes, however, the artist begins to describe the audience. Their actions change, they begin to look away from him, and at the mirror. As they do this, he continues to describe their aversion to looking at him, making them more uncomfortable as they observe themselves in the mirror. As they watch themselves, he turns to face the mirror and begins to describe both the audience and himself as reflected in the mirror. The piece is meant to as call into question the line between subjectivity and objectivity. It seemed interesting to me, because it directly involved the audience, like an interactive video piece would (for example Bruce Nauman’s Video Corridor). However, like with installations, the video seemed like a documentation of a piece, rather than an artwork in and of itself. So why is the video an artwork, whereas a documentation of an installation or a performance is not (usually) art?

Videos Watched:

Dan Graham
Performer/Audience/Mirror
http://www.ubu.com/film/graham_performer.html
Rock My Religion
http://www.ubu.com/film/graham_rock.html

Tony Oursler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkK-ljuhOE
http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/oursler.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbZ6Mi0WDuo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aqIk_ynVak&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s31r2Id390g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aORLLe3HCtY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giROCwGx9wo&NR=1

Dieter Froese
Big Brother Cycle Spy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqkpv1hBMDE

Shirin Neshat
Turbulent
Rapture

Bill Viola
Crossing