Art as a Performance/Fantasy in Video Response

Both of these readings point out the interactive aspect to performance video. In the article, “Art as a Performative Act,” the author uses the metaphor of a game being played, which involves the spectators to participate in the movement of play as they watch the game being played. Putting on a performance takes away from the one sided dynamic video can present. The art becomes a communal festival that everyone participates in and the performance is what unites the performers and all the spectators together. This article also pointed out the use of symbols and how everything in the piece carries a meaning, such as the scrim in Russ’s piece contributing with the healing ritual being presented. Similarly, the “Fantasy in Video” article pointed out that performance art requires viewers to react and because it occurs in real time, it allows the viewer to connect with the piece. The author says that the act of viewing a captured image creates distance from the event while the captured image itself becomes “a relic of the past.” Therefore, performance video breaks down the barrier from the viewer to the performer allowing more interaction and more of a “communal festival.” When reading these articles, I thought of Pes and his work where he takes inanimate objects that look like food, for example, and makes things like guacamole with them. In other works, he personifies couches and tells a short story, mainly using stop motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNJdJIwCF_Y I also just re-discovered this other performance video which I thought really combined the new technology with performance art. https://vimeo.com/45417241

Art as a Performative Act

The reading goes through the three main aspects of art: Play, Symbol, and Festival. The play are the characters in the piece. The way they interact inside the piece represents an aspect of the art. The art is literally represented through the actors and their movements in the piece. I liked the metaphor of the game used to describe this. The players and the game itself compliment each other. The symbols are the objects in the piece of art that have relevance pertaining to the story as a whole. Finally the festival is the unification that is caused by the art itself. The art brings a community of people together to which the art speaks to. The festival or the art itself can bring people together in communal unification.

For my example I chose one of my favorite movie sequences ever. Its a scene from Shutter Island. The sequence has so much symbolism that moves the story forward. The acting and movement of the characters also has relevance. In the sequence the emotions of the characters are not only expressed by words, but by movement. The sequence perhaps speaks to a community of people who have experienced the hardships of letting go of guilt and tragedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0eG0O9qNB4

response to art as performance

            The reading talks about the act of playing in an interesting way. It starts off about how you need movement for play. It then goes into this whole thing about how first you start playing the game, and then others join you in the game, and only then is the game being played. Then it says if there is an audience for the game then they are in fact part of the game and have to move as such. At least that’s the basic idea that I understood from reading it, I honestly found it all very confusing and I didn’t really understand how it related to video or performance art.

This got me thinking about I idea of filming kids playing games. I feel like if it was shot in the right way it could be a very cool thing to watch. I say this because I feel like kids, unlike adults, are very “real”. What I mean by that is that I think that what kids do, and say and how they act is very genuine. Because of that, I think the recording them when they are free to play whatever game they want with other kids, with no direct adult supervision or influence, could be an interesting thing to see. It could kind of be like getting a glimpse to what the world would be like if there were anarchy instead of government, how social society would be different and how people would act towards one another. Of course I'm describing the ideal version of what the video would capture. However it would probably end up just being silly and stupid.

Part of my influence for this idea came from this video (at the 10min mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYmv9aP8foA           

Response to "Art as Performative Act"

The author describes art in three ways, which it can be shown as a play, a symbol and a festival. A play suggests the movement or the performance itself. The art is presented through actions. The subject or the main focus in this case is the actor. He/she illustrated the piece, which is also defined as "self-presentation". The second way is the symbol. It is the object that is used through a performance, or plays the function of recognition during the performance. The third one is the festival. The festival brings all the performance elements together and all participation represents different artforms. 

This is one of my favorite performing pieces from MoMA. Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker created the piece. The sand and the platform are the symbols in the performance. The dancer, herself, is the play. We can understand as a way that she is playing with the sand. I feel the piece tide to the reading that the author is trying to explain. 

In Camera Edit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPTgS5xEzX0&feature=youtu.be

Origins of Video Response

    There is certainly a perceivable relationship between the development of art and changes in technology. This is also true for society in general; we are constantly progressing. From an economic perspective, there is reason behind this growth, especially in the arts. In the past people spent most of their time obtaining food, and taking care of household duties, but as we became more efficient in accomplishing these tasks, more time was available for leisure, and therefore the arts. Today art has become a major part of our lives, so more and more technology has been developed, which allows us to express ourselves in more and varied ways.

     I thought it was interesting how Meigh-Andrews mentions that works in forms such as videotape and more recently disk are become obsolete. Pieces that weren’t considered “significant” were not preserved, archived, or restored. This was true for the past, but with the great strides in technology I doubt that this will be a problem anymore. Much video is now digital and can be preserved and stored much more easily, regardless of any perceived significance.

     The power of video extends even beyond aesthetics and even into political and social context. The video artist Kubota claimed video is a medium that empowers women, enabling them to achieve a place in Western art that couldn’t be achieved through traditional means such as paint and sculpture, both which had been dominated by males. This is true for any platform, not just feminism. Technology has become accessible for anyone, and improvements have allowed video to become widespread so many can watch and identify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_RTnd3Smy8

    The link includes some of the earliest color motion picture film you can find. It is the Kodak 1922 Kodachrome film test. I found it interesting because it was shot right here in Rochester, NY. New effects such as color revolutionized film, and this city was a crucial part.

Response to Origins of Video

Around pages 8-9 of the reading, author Meigh-Andrews discusses the historical quandaries surrounding the categorization of video as an art form. Some considered video an extension of film and television. Others saw it as a separate entity, one that was liberating because it wasn’t bogged down by tradition or scholarly discourse on account of its novelty.

I myself lean more towards the former view on video simply because, like film and television, video records moving images and uses them for aesthetic and communicative purposes. When contemplating the nature of motion picture media, I see a spectrum. On one end, we have the stereotypical Hollywood product: an expensive, glossy money-magnet whose cast and crew have more or less relinquished all creative control to the studio’s whims. As we move away from this pole, we get a good view of film as a collaborative art form, with director, cinematographer, sound designer, screenwriter, actor, and hundreds of other staff members working together to fulfill an artistic vision. Move even further and we hit the independent circuit, where budgets are smaller and the director has more creative reign. Film begins to look more and more like how we envision video, and eventually, the two become indistinguishable (consider Jonathan Caouette’s Tarnation, a documentary comprising only home videos, old Super 8 footage, photos, and answering machine messages; and the Korean short film Night Fishing which, though I haven’t seen, was shot entirely using an iPhone).

Television defers from film only in narrative and the way it allocates its budget. Whereas a movie finishes within two, two and a half hours, TV shows run on through multiple episodes and seasons, so writing becomes especially important. Production quality for TV tends to be lower (for an exception, see Breaking Bad) because many resources have to be invested in sustaining the story. As a moving image medium, TV’s relationship to video is the same as that between film and video. And while the narrative-heavy nature of TV makes it different than much of the video medium, there are many web series online that rely on narrative without foregoing the creative autonomy inherent in making video.

Below, I’ve posted Primer (the whole thing’s available on YouTube), a movie that was shot in five weeks on a $7,000 budget. Though very much of the film medium, this movie showcases how the gap between standard issue Hollywood product and video can be bridged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfxDFbQY10