Video Installation Art

Until now, I haven't really ever considered the manipulation of space and how it effects art. I'm familiar with installation pieces, but the idea that "context becomes content" is novel to me. I'm hyper-aware of space and how it is utilized within the frame of a work, but I rarely consider how pieces themselves are placed in space. The one exception I can think about is the Barnes Museum in Philadelphia. Albert Barnes collected art, mostly impressionist pieces, and became obsessed with how laying out the pieces could affect how they are perceived. The museum maintains his layout, which I personally feel is cluttered. While it slightly undermines the value of each individual piece, subordinating it to Barnes' overall vision, the house itself is a unique piece of art.
I dislike how Rush tries to distinguish video and cinema, perpetuating the art vs. entertainment "dichotomy," which is, in fact, a continuum, if any distinction can be made. The past few years have made this especially apparent, as both large-scale and independent productions have begun to shift to digital production. I also resent that he tries to make a distinction, but then talks about Steve McQueen, who embodies the continuum between video art and cinema. I saw his Deadpan at the MoMA and it was presented as an homage to Keaton, a filmmaker. Another work in the chapter incorporates part of Scorsese's Taxi Driver, yet Rush still finds a difference between video art and cinema.

The clip I've included is from David Cronenberg's Videodrome, a surreal criticism of modern television culture that deals with many of the same issues about the nature of television that some video artists discussed early in the chapter were commenting on.