Video Art, Commercialism and Animation

This reading bothered me for a couple of reasons. For one, I found it rather precarious that Rush's dividing line between "art" and the "artistic" was whether or not the piece in question is being created to make a profit. In my opinion, that is always a slippery slope. He makes this claim on page 83, claiming "Art lies in the intentionality of the artist: to make or conceive of something without the constraint of some other purpose." I believe half of that statement to be true. Of course art should have intentionality, some sort of personal expression that the artist is trying to make. But the presence of another purpose (even a monetary one) does not mean that the whole work is no longer art. Some of the most iconic films throughout history have been produced by studios seeking to make money. But the directors and actors who created those films were not solely in it for the money. Many of them were trying to make something beautiful and legitimate, with a personal message attached to it. Take classics such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane. These were distributed by Warner Bros. and RKO Radio Pictures, respectively. But if the fact that admission to these films was sold for the price of a ticket makes them not art, then I don't know what art is.

I also found it problematic that Rush claimed  "it is curatorial museum culture that has become the ultimate validating source for all works of art." (page 83) Talk about an exclusive institution that is highly obsessed with revenue. If museum culture decides what is and isn't art, then Rush's argument against art vs. the artistic thus contradicts itself.

I understand that the primary target of Rush's argument is television and I will concede that most of what is shown on television today (especially network TV) is crap. I do appreciate the work of video artists such as Richard Serra's Television Delivers People and IImura's Double Portrait. We definitely need artists who understand the evils of mass media and are willing to confront its numbing effects. But I also feel we need artists and thinkers such as Baldessari, who understand the evils of art and know how to confront it through videos such as I Am Making Art.

I must add that there is television existing today that is not total crap. Independent networks like HBO and Sundance take advantage of their subscription-based privileges by presenting programming with a far more filmic quality than commercial-based TV. Programs like HBO's Mildred Pierce have an artistic integrity and quality to them that cannot be denied. Additionally, the internet has emerged in the past decade as a promising frontier for future video artists. I predict it will no longer be up to "museum culture" to validate what is and isn't art. Thanks to internet video sharing sites, the future of video art will be put in the rightful hands of the masses.

I have long been obsessed by the relationship between art and money, as well as the ways in which mediums explore themselves. These two topics which Rush focused on in this chapter reminded me of filmmaker/animator Don Hertzfeldt. Hertzfeldt is an animator who explores what it means to be animated and what it means to be a video through the painstaking process of analog animation. Each frame of his videos is individually drawn and photographed, and then erased and redrawn over for the next frame. He uses no digital effects, analog technology being the only way he can accomplish his visions. His use of simple doodles confronts the longstanding tradition of animation as a precise, extravagant, highly detailed art focused on beauty (such as in classic works by Disney and newer works by Pixar) in fashion similar to I Am Making Art. At the same time, he incorporates wild effects and beautiful imagery into his work using innovative methods. This combination of techniques produces a work with the roughness of video art combined with the beauty of film.

The following video, The Animation Show, specifically explores what it means to be animated, as well as engaging with what it means to be an animator. At the same time it criticizes commercial videos through its "3D" scene and climactic final battle scene. It is interesting to note that Hertzfeldt has been offered and turned down numerous commercial contracts, and has been the victim of plagiarism by numerous ad campaigns. One you might recognize is Pop-Tarts' "Crazy Good" campaign, which I have also attached to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZzKAZODy2c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b0Ry97BgAU

Criticism to TV

Personally, I believe that the sakes of criticizing television by artists derives from three incentives. First, the advent of television diverges the audience of video arts. People who made their living upon video arts suffer from such shift. Because the spread of television was so fast and became dominant in the market - people spend 7 hours per day watching it, less people will appreciate video arts as they used to be. Second, the technological inability is easy to be targeted. Since the television was only in black-and-white and the images are vaguely presented, the disadvantages are obvious and can be easily mocked by video artists. Third, even though the television expanded the artists' methods of publicity, it drastically changed the skill set needed to be successful. With television, some artists made the transition and study new technologies while others don't. Those people especially includes old video artists, who were less likely to make such shift because of their relative inability to accept new ideas.

Fight Fire with Fire: Commercial Media Commentary Through Artistic Versions of That Media

Towards the beginning of the chapter, Rush writes of the beginning of this video art as developing from two branches: "activist-driven documentaries linked with alternative news reports and more properly so-called art videos" (80) What I found interesting was the start of what Rush calls "guerrilla videographers" like the two mentioned, Les Levine and Frank Gillette who were "guerrilla" because they "forced their way into political conventions and other newsworthy events without the proper credentials customary to news media" (81). This kind of independent, "covert" news reportage became attractive because of their raw style - the footage was shot while being sly and subtle, so they couldn't employ lots of tricks and put a lot of care into it. Therefore the images and the effects are low-tech but it became attractive to people because it felt more real, and less produced. Taking a cue from these guys, Top Value Television (TVTV) "produced alternative coverage of the 1972 Democratic and Republican conventions... in what amounted to an entertaining, provocative look at the foibles of American political and news gathering processes" (81).

I liked this idea of using the media you're critiquing as a way to critique it, and a way to get attention for your art. People were probably watching the TVTV footage as sincerely as they would normal broadcast coverage of the conventions (maybe more so because they believed they were less directed and controlled by "The Media"). This reminded me of the effects of the band U2's 1992-93 world tour titled "Zoo Tv." The entire stage show was set up to replicate the total media saturation people encounter in their daily lives. Numerous clips from famous, or not famous, footage was haphazardly edited together and presented on giant screens throughout the stadium during the entire show. Occasionally the lead singer Bono, while in one of his alter ego's "Mr MacPhisto," would call a number - maybe a taxi service, or a maybe a politician - and try and engage them in conversation during the concert. During some concerts the band would check in with a correspondent they had in Sarajevo who would inform the audience of life during wartime in Bosnia. The concerts were total media experiences, almost like living in a television. Through utilizing the medias they were commenting on and criticizing  they made their point - without "fighting fire with fire" the message would not have been as strong.

In this video you see the intro to a concert during the tour (the first four minutes, before the band comes on) and it's already inundating you with various media, recognizable and not. They appropriate seemingly harmless media and turn it into something aggravating and noxious to our senses, how it probably should have been in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMneYa8gJBY

Artists and Technology

This chapter referenced a slew of artists whose works were developed along with new technologies for artistic use. Dan Sandin developed the Image Processor in ’73, a computer “for the manipulation of video images." Robert Moog developed the Moog synthesizer. Steina and Woody Vasulka “creat[ed] devices for artists...in the fields of digital processing and electronic image processing” and “possessed a passion for understanding the inner workings of video.” The work of these artists led me to question, what should the role of an artist be in the development of new technologies for art? It is clear from the work of the artists mentioned that video art during this period was intertwined with technological innovation, not only by commercial manufacturers, but also by the hands of the artists themselves. Rush says that the Vasulkas’ work is “keeping with the age-old tradition of artists’ [sic] constantly exploring the tools of their medium,” but I see the work of these 60’s artists as something different. The development of tools that video artists during this period were using for their works would have required completely different skill-sets from those of painters or sculptors. To make works such as Transformations, one would have to be not only a talented artist, but also a talented scientist. But as technology becomes increasingly complex, it may no longer be feasible for artists to be on the forefront of technological development. Should artists be content with being users of technology instead of creators? Does it affect the intentionality of a work if the artist is tinkering as opposed to creating?

Keenan

Why Criticize Television?

I find it interesting that for such a long time, television was looked down upon by video artists. To me, a 30 minute episode of any television series could offer more in terms of social or political message than most pieces of video art I've seen. Richard Serra's 1973 work Television Delivers People is meant to criticize television as "corporate entertainment"; however, isn't any form of art entertainment in some way or another? If art weren't entertainment, if it didn't make us think, then we wouldn't be interested in it. What makes "corporate" entertainment so much more low-brow than any other kind of entertainment? In the '70's and '80's, while these video artists were looking down at television and mocking it through their black and white, vague, postmodern tapes, Michael Jackson was breaking racial boundaries through television with his music video "Thriller". It just makes me wonder if artists like Richard Serra or Klaus vom Bruch were actually contributing anything beneficial with their art, or if they were simply adding more cynicism to an already cynical society. Not only that, but in the '60's, when shows like Alfred Hitchcock Presents became visionary classics for the writing, camera work, and title sequencing, the idea of video artists criticizing television and technology was already becoming cliched and overdone due to the numerous artists who were doing it.

The show's intro, in its utmost simplicity, can still unsettle viewers thanks to the use of shadowing.

Of course, with shows like Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore, modern television can be ripe for criticizing. But when I see women like Tina Fey and Lena Dunham becoming successful with their own television shows, it inspires me, and it makes me realize that even though I'm a woman living in a male-dominated world, I can still break through those kinds of challenges and be successful doing what I want to do. These women are creating art in their own way. It may not be the typical "postmodern" kind of performance art that women like Marina Abramovic are doing, but it's still critical. It's still satirical. Just like with any other artist's work, these people are putting all of their effort into writing, directing, and producing something that becomes their own masterpiece, and this kind of hard work has existed ever since television was first invented. Why does this kind of art have to be mocked simply because it's mainstream?

Art vs. Artful

“At issue here is the intentionality of the artist, as opposed to that of the television executive or even commercial filmmaker or video maker: the work is not a product for sale or mass consumption.”  I found this distinction to be fascinating because I have often tried to discern what qualifies something as art.  It seems that Rush believes that if one has the intention of exploiting his work in the hopes of making a profit, then he can not qualify his work as art.  Even more interesting is the separation of the terms “art” and “artful.”  Rush says that a commercial filmmaker can use artful techniques to elevate his work, but because his intention is to make money, he cannot call his film “art.”  This reminded me of an interview that I saw with the Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, who discussed Michael Bay, one of the most well known commercial filmmakers, and showed that his films have a very specific and extravagant visual language.  He also went on to discuss Christopher Nolan, who I believe exemplifies Rush’s definition of an artist, and how even though his films go on to gross millions of dollars, they are still considered great films.

 The clips that I thought were interesting appear from 34:30-35:30 and 36:00-36:45.  

I think it is amusing how artists thought of the television as a destruction to video art when it had also helped the artists expend their methods of presenting their work and had given them another method for distribution. For example, the methods used in "Four more years," 1972 was widely admired by mainstream television that it used its method for their interviews. It may be true that the goals of mainstream television were and still are vastly different from a video artist; however, some artworks did run on television, especially ones with a political idea.
With the use of television, artists were able to directly talk to the common people, something that was impossible when there was one copy of the actual art piece. I think that is why artists started to use video as a way to look for their identity. If you look at history, the mid-20th century was when people were done with the World Wars and wanted to look for their place in society. Women looked for equality and people in communist countries looked for their freedom. Video was a way they could fight for their passions because video was something that could be distributed widely and easily. With over 90% of households with a television, more people had access to art. In some sense, the television was the internet of the mid-20th century.
Chris Burden's "Through the Night Softly" was actually put on television in between television commercials for the wider audience. Even thought this is not done anymore, the fact that a video art was literally displaced in front of millions of viewers just made video art that much more successful.