Political Video: Cultural or Technological Context?

A lot of the videos we watched this last week were primarily political. Even though their methods were a bit different—some text based, some medium specific manipulations, some performances—they all were making political comments on their contemporary cultural context. For many of these artists, as Forrest mentioned, the medium was essential for their message to be successful. They were working in a new medium, which was also beginning to be widely used for mass consumer culture. They played with this medium specificity to circulate their critiques of the very same medium. After the initial excitement, some artists, such as Martha Rosler, began to use the medium as a means to comment on other (yet still somewhat related) political issues. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the medium, apparatus and subject of all these videos are so deeply entrenched in specific technology, the visuals and themes tend to become outdated rather quickly.

Rosler’s Semiotics of the Kitchen (1975), had many critical levels, however on first viewing, it did not seem very subtle—in our current cultural context, her feminist critique of gender roles seems worn out. In 2010, people have been exposed to feminism for years, and it is no longer controversial. Having grown up in the Pacific Northwest in the 1990s, feminist ideas were the standard. At this point in time, while gender roles still exist, our culture has already done a lot to break down stereotypes, and we are all fairly familiar with the, what are now standard, critiques. Watching Semiotics of the Kitchen, her violent, yet humorous, actions did not have the intended shock. While she was a bit ambiguous with her postmodernist restructuring of signs (there is no way for semiotic play to NOT be somewhat ambiguous), it was obvious her position on the issue.

It makes me wonder if it was so blatant when it was released. While these critiques may seem passé to us now, were they actually provocative at the time? As Forrest said, these videos were “in effect the beginnings of an important cultural critique that is now mainly delivered to current generations in the form of bumper stickers.” These critiques of society have now become engrained in our culture—the problems (television, gender roles, etc.) may still exist, but everyone is aware of them. It is interesting how these videos, created merely 35 years ago, seem so dated. While some of this is due to the rapidly changing political climate of the 60s and 70s, I feel an even more influential aspect of it is tied to the fact that they were created with a new and quickly evolving medium (which is very different with other media, such as painting).

When video was first introduced, artists could not really think of it outside the context of television. Their works were basically based in political critiques of the medium, performances, and experiments with time. Over time, however, television became less exciting, video had been in an art context for a little while, while at the same time the technology developed to allow for a disassociation of video from television. With improved video projection devises, large scale pieces could be made that had no real connection to television (if anything, they could now be linked more closely to film). With the flexibility of video projection, large scale installations could be made. Artists continued to create videos with political messages, but they were no longer directly associated with television. Installations and soundscapes allowed these pieces to also connect with audiences in a different way. Instead of watching a video restricted to a small screen, viewers could and can now be absorbed into an environment.

Unfortunately, one must actually experience an installation to fully understand it. Luckily, I ran into one today.

At the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, they have a show up titled: “Border Zones: New Art Across Cultures.” Many of the pieces were created by artists specifically for the exhibition, all using very different media to comment on the question of our contemporary cross-cultural experience. French artist Tania Mouraud created a video installation titled Face to Face. The piece consisted of a loop of static shots of a garbage dump. A crane moved scrap metal and other trash from one pile to another, and trains loaded with scraps would sporadically travel across the screen. The soundscape was a combination of industrial noises—smashing steel, roaring engines, grinding, etc.—all mixed into a disconcerting, somewhat jarring white-noise (if that makes sense). The location was unspecific—it seemed to speak of the universality of metropolitan/consumer life and industrialization. Spending any time in the endless loop of abrasive images and noise caused one to become emotionally and physically uncomfortable—an effect that is only possible with installation.

This work was very political, yet the message did not seem trite. I do not know if this is due to the fact that the technology is more up-to-date, if it was the fact that it was immersive, or if it was simply that the political issues were more contemporary. I feel like the politics will become outdated, but I do not know if it will seem as silly as a lot of older video art has become. I also wonder if the reason I feel like some older video art is silly, is that we as a culture have a hard time taking antiquated (if I can use that term) technology seriously. It is kind of shocking how quickly 60s – 80s (and now even 90s) videos have become dated. It is something that seems unique to the medium (for example, even though photography equipment has changed over the years, older photographs do not lose their credibility). Is it the technology itself that makes these videos' issues seem dated? Cultural specificity is important, but then why does a political photograph or essay from the 70s, or for that matter a Barbara Kruger shopping bag, not seem silly? Why do we take those artworks seriously, and giggle at what seem like videos with ridiculous retro graphics, yet are just as—if not more—innovative (Good Morning, Mr. Orwell)?