Wednesday, March 27, 2013

performance piece

https://vimeo.com/62821264

chapter 2 greg p

In Chapter 2 Rush talks about narratives, formal experimentations, short humorous tapes, and large-scale meditations all in the form of video art. The most interesting part of Chapter 2 was the segment on personal narratives. The notion of arising artists in the 1990s that attempted to take questions of identity using passive and majestic approaches. This was represented in robinson or me, engaging in metaphors of solitary and lonesome life. Another instance was is Oriental Elergy in the attempt to capture a suspended time and space between life and death on a remote island. These pieces remind me of the representations and aspects of the modern day TV Series Lost. Here is a clip from Oriental Elegy, which depicts a narrated story intertwined with video.


Oriental Elegy, by Alexander Sokurov (excerpt) by medicitv

Commercial Art is Still Art

In Chapter Two, Rush distinguishes video art from commercial television, documentaries and news reporting. "At issue here is the intentionality of the artist," he writes, "as opposed to that of the television executive or even commercial filmmaker or videomaker: the work is not a product for sale or mass consumption... Video, as an art, should be distinguished from the uses of video, however artfully executed, in other purposeful, that is, applied, arenas. Art and Artful are separate, though linked, terms that exist to help us differentiate between what can and cannot be considered to be art," (Rush, 83). (An FYI Rush, if two things are separate they cannot also be linked.) What is it about commercial use or practical application that manages to corrode the artistic value of video piece? Is it simply the presence an alternative purpose, a function extending beyond a moment of "pure" personal expression for the artist? If so, I have some bad news for all of us in FMS161- none of our video pieces are art. They were all created with an ulterior motive- fulfillment of the course requirements. Thus, we might take solace in knowing are pieces of "artful," but still not up to the pristine standards of Rush's definition of art. It seems to me, Rush has adopted one too many hackneyed ideas from Fluxus artists he enjoys citing. Today, we no longer have to see art as the opponent of the Man, Man. Advertisements are art just as experimental video pieces are art.

Chapter 2 Response


        What stood out to me in the chapter reading was the conflict between finding what falls into the definition of video art. There is of course videos that are specifically catered towards expression and has a forward artistic approach, whereas there are commercialized and more mainstream videos that can be considered expression of one's self however it is catered towards an audience looking for entertainment. This somewhat connects to the growing debate today of whether video games are considered art as well. Of course the broad idea of creating video games, like most creations of today, is to create revenue. However, the people who devote all their time to create something they love and care about express themselves through their creation which in this case is a video game. It's difficult to find a definite place to draw the line between art and a piece of product. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNeuuUx-SQ
The part of the reading that I found most interesting was the comparison of Korean-born Fluxus artist and musician Nam June Paik's footage of the Pope to that of a newspaper photographer covering a story. As the author had stated, Paik's Pope footage (which he showed the very same night at an artist's hangout spot as his first presentation of video art) was a "...non-commercial product that was a personal expression". He further distinguished the difference by pointing out the cathartic and individually poignant aspect that Paik's footage had compared to the panoramic, all-encompassing (and probably mentally overcrowding) nature of the news, or commercial media in general.
To me, this separation of video "art" and video "commercialism" all boils down to whether the viewer discovers or believes to be a personal significance behind what they are seeing, regardless of whether or not it is true the screen of a television or one's own eyes. It doesn't seem unlikely that a viewer would not subconsciously use the video media as a reflection of what he finds familiar in his own day-to-day world, what he can relate to...etc. And through these intricate connections and interpretations that he makes, the individual --as both the viewer of and the experiencer of life-- believes he has taken away something special from that moment, whether it is from a commercial on his old TV or a moment that he shared with his lover a few minutes ago. People must remember that it isn't a sin or an offense to believe that one form of video art or another isn't what one would consider a work of "art". "Art" is the impression that can only be captured through one's personal connection with the work and whether one feels that cathartic pull or not is not up to artist or the art itself. Instead, it's the deep meaningful connection that can only be established through personal experiences and values gained from them. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6odQHn9GBA8 
a documentary on video arts as a medium in the 1980s, featuring artists including Nam June Paik.

ADHD

ADHD from Allison Dolin on Vimeo.

Chapter 2 Response

Something that struck me with this reading was that in the early days of video art, there became a striking difference between actual video art, and artful use of video for commercial reasons. It creates this idea that art is naturally opposed to commercialism, especially in video with the onset of television. It presents the question, can a commercial product be considered art? A widely released film, a popular novel, a television show? Does the fact that these items are made for mass consumption, and for the most part profit, take away from the argument that they could be considered art? What makes a scene like this: less of a work of art than this:

Chapter 2:Video Art

After reading Chapter 2 on Video Art, I found myself especially interested in the sections that talked about video as an extension of the body, or as a way to explore the body. I was first drawn to this idea when the chapter introduced the works of Vito Acconci and Bruce Nauman. These two artists would use video to tape themselves making art in studios or other scenarios. The chapter states that "in this way, video became an extension of the artistic gesture so long associated with painting." Just like how the arm is just as important to painting as the paintbrush is, video has now become an extension of the body that is essential to the works of certain artists.

Here is an example of one of Bruce Nauman's pieces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkfOgavdhak). While watching this I thought of it as a primeval version of a performance piece, which leads me into my next discussion of video as a way to explore the body. Later on in the chapter the works of Joan Jonas are mentioned. Jonas stated that "working with video enabled me to develop my own language, a poetic language. Video was something for me to climb into and explore as a spatial element and with myself inside of it." In this way, video allowed Jonas (and many other artists) to explore the physicality of bodies (their own and others), and derive meanings from studying the human body. Video allows artists to develop a theoretical artistic limb on their bodies, while simultaneously allowing artists to study their bodies. Here is a link to Hannah Wilke's piece "Gestures." It's an interesting performance piece that I think has a lot of resemblances to Bruce Nauman's piece. https://vimeo.com/14760777

Television and Video Art

What caught my attention from this chapter is they was Rush describes how the many “sides” of television are interacting and how that lead to the development of video art, especially conceptual video art. The beginning of the chapter Rush shows us how the many "sides" of television are interacting. The struggle between news, advertisement, cinema and video art is interesting because they were all competing for a place in the new culture dominated by television. Video was the newest medium at the time shared by people with all different motives, (the government, artists, news broadcasters, commercial companies) as compared to sculpture which is a medium used almost strictly by artists. Rush describes this “invention” of the Media as one of the initial targets for video artists who tried to sway the use of television from commercial companies towards artists, criticizing advertisements and challenging the control television had over the public. As I was reading I found myself asking the question is advertising art? or is footage of the war art? And Rush makes it known there is a difference between being art and being artistic and explains how the the earliest forms of video art explored the distinction between art and artistic by alternative news and anti-advertising TV commercials. In the following video, Balderssari uses art to explain LeWitts definition of conceptual art: 



This is interesting because it focuses on the idea of being irrational to present a logical idea, which to me is something that helps distinguish video art and artistic videos. Another thing separating commercial video and video art is the desire to mimic reality. Artists, such as Peter Campus in "Three Transitions" [1973] challenged this by showing how reality can be manipulated through video and how that is a metaphor for the reality of self: 


Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Response to Chapter two (Zoe)

What I found most intriguing about this chapter is the continued assertion that television is a destructive and terrible medium. It is destructive in the sense that it’s creation pushed out other forms of art such as theater and cinema (to some extent). Terrible in the sense that it is a commercialized badland that consumes the viewers mind and turns them into a blind consumer. Perhaps the previous statement is a bit fanciful, but the artist of the time did not react towards television as if it was an innocent nuisance, they reacted as if it was and is an active evil. I can’t help but wonder if artists are naturally drawn towards mediums that produce an evil. There is something naturally powerful within television, perhaps it is it’s ability to compel the viewer; the artist appropriated a medium typically used for consumerist propaganda and turned it on it’s head. They used the medium because the viewer would notice the juxtaposition between their own work and the ‘work’ displayed on television. The model of using a certain medium to critique the same medium can also be applied to more contemporary media. The comparison of the emergence of television and the emergence of the internet and social networking, for example, should produce a number similarities in the art world. Perhaps social media art, internet art, post media art will every reach the popularity and strength of message that video art possesses in the 60‘s. Perhaps that will be the second chapter of New Media: Early 21st- Century Art.

Video Art

Throughout the chapter, Rush throughly explained the evolution of video into becoming a medium for art. One particular part that really interested me was when he explained how many authors find their own spatial identity through the process of making a video or just in general through this medium. He includes artists such as Peter Campus, Chris Burden and Ana Mendieta, all who included their own bodies in their pieces. Again this encouraged self-exploration and in a way these artists learned about themselves in a very distinctive, new way. He even goes to say how well known artists like Andy Warhol, who shared significant things about his daily life, sometimes used video as a form of diary. Realizing how personal and symbolic these art pieces become to their artists simply amazes me. Sometimes something so simple or unimportant becomes magnificent once explained and this is crucial to have in mind when viewing performance pieces. Another point I truly find relevant to the rise of video as a more artistic medium was the way Rush discussed how social movements and just overall anything occurring during the time when video was evolving impacted this medium. Topics such as gender, sexuality and feminism all "contributed to the cultural contexts in which video art emerged". These became critical in order for video to develop into a more expressive, artistic tool. The reason why I say this is important is because what happens around society impacts and transforms art mediums and video is a good example that proves this. Lastly I just wanted to mention that video in general is unique compared to any other medium because of its spontaneity and instantaneity. We, as artists, can plan for an experience but never fully prepare the experience and that is the trait that makes video so powerful.
An artist that caught my attention was Hannah Wilke, who with her videos, explored "the dynamics of the artist and her body in relation to conventional portrayals of women".The diminishing way the female body was portrayed at the time became the source of inspiration for this piece.

 

 Here is another video that explains how political causes are linked and become the source of inspiration for some artist's pieces. This video explains the work of Ana Mendieta.

 

Cameras Required

Much of the artists work in this chapter is about exploring the ways that video can be used as a new form of expression. Further more, an integral part of expression through video is using the technological defects to create a new type of video effect. Examples of this are forcing video cameras to repeat images or to make a video scroll across the screen.
This gives the impression that early video art was more based on experimentation with the camera rather then self reflection. This could be looked at as an oversimplification of an exciting new medium, but today people still rely of the capabilities of the camera to create their art.
Michael Haussman's "Gravity" project shows how the camera's abilities are as important as the artistic vision. His piece shows naked people jumping up and down in slow motion, something only capable of being captured with specialized equipment. Again this piece would not be possible without such advanced technology.

Response--Chapter 2

After reading the Rush’s article, I ‘m pretty interested in the form of art that some artists use language in their videotapes and found out that the artist Gary Hill, who was introduced in the book, had so many interesting artwork and presentation.
 Gary Hill is an important contemporary artist investigating relationships between languages and electronic images and he made videotapes of these kinds of art. And he has worked since the 80s with the idea of video installation as a whole that involves the viewer both mentally and physically. A famous exhibition from Gary Hill is the Writing Corpora, which is amazing. A studio even developed two softwares for this exhibition: one is fluid dynamic “touch floor” and another one is for tracking body skeleton’s movement to trace the artist’s body movement.

 This piece is about translation from spoken language to physical language and also from English to Spanish, and represents the human’s body part in a more literal way. I can’t find out exactly how the system work simply from the video and introduction online, but from the video I can see the relation between body movement and the big “soup” of letters on the floor.



 Below is the video of Gary Hill’s Writing Corpora exhibited in Spain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGBN6k4ylo

Monday, March 25, 2013

Chapter 2 - Kevin Silverstein

One particular part of the chapter that I enjoyed was the Personal Narratives subsection.  A personal narrative is a way for an artist to tell the audience something about them through different mediums of art.  In the case of chapter 2 the medium is video.  Bill Viola was a video artist in the 1970's and 80's that caught my attention.  He had a series of videos about, "his long exploration of the physical and spiritual self."  He used interesting camera effects to make things disappear or fade like in the "reflecting pool" below.
In the 1990's there was an increase in these personal narrative videos.  Cheryl Donegan created a 1993 piece called "Head" where she drank white liquid from a plastic detergent bottle and made sounds of pleasure.  (I found someone who filmed the film at MOMA on youtube where they made fun of it for how odd and disgusting it was).
I find a lot of the personal narrative videos very odd just like most of the artist's videos from Rush's book.  However, when I discover the meaning of these videos and how they relate to the authors life, I find them way more entertaining and compelling.  Although I may never make a video as weird as the ones I've seen, I fully understand why most of these narrative videos are that way.  All together I thought the chapter was interesting, but its hard for me to relate to a lot of the older, and more artsy video artists that are featured in the chapter/book.

greg's performance piece

https://vimeo.com/62816705

Jeff's Performance


Untitled Performance from Jeff Williams on Vimeo.

Performance Piece - Max

https://vimeo.com/62637715

Performance Piece

Performance from Brynn Wilkins on Vimeo.

Performance Piece by Qi

Performance Piece--Choice from Qi Su on Vimeo.

Javier's Performance

No Child Left Behind from Javier Torres on Vimeo.

Catharsis (Zoe's Performance Piece)

Catharsis from Zoé Pruitt on Vimeo.

Performance Piece, Sam Fetter

The Point from Sam Gregory on Vimeo.

Shyah's Performance

Performance Piece from Shy on Vimeo.