In what way do video installations differ from films shown in cinemas? List the Physical differences and use these as evidence to explain the differences in experience and aesthetic appreciation.
Think about the environment as well as the immediate space in which the film is shown. Consider the types of film and select an example for more detailed discussion. If you have not seen a video installation before now, try to make up for it by viewing available material on YouTube. (1000 words)
| Video Installation | Cinema Film |
| Environment: Shown in a Gallery, Museum or “Art” space | Environment: Shown in a public cinema |
| Often free to public | Charge per viewing |
| Audience: Seen by a smaller number of people – those willing to go deliberately to see it, or those who happen upon it during a visit | Audience: Seen by large numbers of people who go deliberately to view it |
| Environment: Often surrounded by other works of art – some may even be part of the same exhibition by the same artist | Environment: Often the sole focus of the viewer, with no other visual stimulus in the room |
| Environment: Sometimes can be viewed while standing in an empty room, sometimes there are chairs available | Environment: Chairs available and viewed en-masse at the same time as all other viewers |
| Piece: Usually not much of a “storyline” – leaving it to the viewer to interpret, out of the control of the artist. | Piece: Usually follows a strict specific storyline, which is revealed to the viewer as the creator wishes it to be revealed. |
| Piece: Sometimes low budget or poor quality of materials used | Piece: Usually have a high budget and good quality materials used |
| Audience: Not discussed in popular media to the same extent as cinema would be | Audience: Discussed and reviewed worldwide by popular media |
| Environment: Room could be dark or it could be lighted specifically to enhance the video or it could be daylight | Environment: Usually shown in a dark room |
| Piece: Sometimes looped over and over to allow new entrants to view the entire film | Piece: Usually played once at a scheduled time |
Having finished my list of Physical differences, I can see that they are broadly categorised into three specific points on which they differ; Environment, Audience and the Piece itself. I will use each category to explain the differences in experience and aesthetic appreciation.
Environment:
Cinema film, and also in some cases “home cinema”, is generally shown in a specific, similar environment. The room is generally dark, the audience are seated on comfortable chairs. Food and drink is encouraged and available. The film is promoted with several visual marketing pieces even before one enters the theatre; in the lobby, on the external building etc.
Installation video differs in terms of environment in that it is not specifically shown in a dark theatre room. Often, it is placed within an art gallery where lights are bright- even if the lighting has been dimmed in that room, the general experience will be brighter than that of a sealed cinema theatre. Seating is not always available, and even if it is, it is not guaranteed to be comfortable. Food and drink is generally discouraged in case it may damage the work (as seen recently at Galleria OMR[1]!). The work most likely is not marketed visually within the same building.
The difference in environments encourages different experiences; dark, cosy, comfortable environments mean that one can relax, maybe not even pay attention, but still enjoy the overall experience. The film actually doesn’t even need to be entertaining; food, drink and comfort are also provided. However, in a Gallery setting, one must pay attention. It may be for a shorter period, and it may be less comfortable, but the experience is one of urgency, importance, focus and mental involvement.
Audience:
The cinema theatre audience all know what they are there to see. They may have read synopsis’, they may have seen parts of the movie already in the adverts, they may have seen it before, they may know all of the actors, they may know the story that it will portray, they know the genre, they know the type of film (black and white, colour, loud, soft, violent, language, rating etc.). The audience will pay money each to view the work. They will often go in groups and discuss the piece in both that group and wider social circles. They are expecting to be entertained; to feel a specific emotion (based on their previous conceptions of what genre the movie is) and either feel satisfied to have experienced it as they wish, or disappointed it did not live up to their ideas.
Video installations are often a mystery to the audience (sometimes, even after they are seen!). The content of the piece may be explained briefly in the gallery listings, or on the artist detail post beside the work, or it may be left entirely up to the audience to interpret. The film might contain nudity, language, sounds, experiences, genres, violence etc. but the audience may not know that before they enter. They might experience the piece alone – not in large social groups – and may only discuss the work with other people in their social circle who would be interested in art. The visit is often free and can be seen at any time during the day when it suits the audience, not at a set time.
The audience are prepared to experience what they expect. If one expects a romantic film, then that is what one chooses to see. If one expects only that the piece will be film and will be in a gallery, there are less expectations to fulfil. The art installation may be experienced differently by each different member of the audience, and each member may take a different meaning or emotion away with them. Most likely, the audience returns from a cinema experience having felt what the director, writers and actors wanted them to experience.
Piece:
Cinema film is often hours long, divided into clear narratives and timelines, features famous people, amasses a huge amount of wealth for all parties involved. It may include live action, CGI, Animation, sound and colour; it takes a massive amount of money in order to create one.
Installation video “provided a cheap way of recording and representation through a dynamic new avenue, shattering an art world where forms such as painting, photography, and sculpture had been the long-held norm” (The Art Story, 2020). It does not have to cost millions to make, it does not have to feature famous people and most likely doesn’t, it does not make anyone else wealthy (other than the artist – and even then it is a maybe/if). It can still contain similar elements though; colour, light, sound, people, animals, storylines, moral messages etc. and that is what makes it similar.
Installation art is meant to be experienced on a deeper interactive level. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing as cinema film, but the meaning of the work is often profound. Cinema is generally experienced and enjoyed, beautiful in one way or another, and maybe watched dozens of times over by the audience and experienced the same way each time. Installation art is generally not for individual resale or watched dozens of times over by the audience.
While researching this piece, I came across the work of Douglas Gordon, which combines cinema and installation film with fantastic results.
Douglas Gordon Déjà Vu
This piece blurs the lines between cinema and installation, showing an actual movie scene on three different screens, with the left screen starting about 1 second before the middle screen, the right screen starting another second after the middle screen. The environment in which the installation was set also mimicked a cinema; darkness, the feeling of being far back and slightly below the screens themselves, the surrounding music. There can be no doubt that this is a cinema film rather than an installation because of the credits listed and the atmospheric music. However, the placement of this film within an art installation is extremely interesting; what is the difference? What makes this repeated scene, in this setting, art instead of cinema? Is there a difference?
Its difference is subtle. The scene does not last 3 minutes in total – and although the viewer instinctively knows that the movie itself is longer, the scene seems self-contained, there’s no eagerness to continue the narrative. The aural effect of the second delay between each screen is incredible. The timing of the spoken lines in the cinema film itself lends the experience of the repeated scene a kind of eery solidity that may not have been experienced in the cinema. The repeated screens and delayed playback are technical, physical differences to separate the exhibition from a cinema experience. However, the unmistakable difference really is the setting and the viewer. Most likely presented in a gallery space, the installation is intended to be experienced as art – not film. It is intended to be viewed by a smaller audience whose intention was to view an installation piece – not a cinematic piece. The use of a cinematic scene in the installation feeds into the title of the piece “Déjà vu” which is the feeling that one gets when viewing it. Yes, it’s cinema, but no, it’s an art installation. It’s disconcerting but also familiar and comfortable. It’s this reaction in the viewer that holds it apart from cinema film. This is how cinema and video installation differ – the experience of the audience.
REFERENCES
Gordon, D. (2012). Déjà Vu. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9uZA7JT53c [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
The Art Story. (2020). Video Art Movement Overview. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/movement/video-art/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
[1] https://news.artnet.com/market/art-critic-smashed-sculpture-zona-maco-1780827
UVC - Shóna 