Assignment 5

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

Douglas Gordon , Deja 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

Exercise 5.5

Watch Richard Serra’s films Hand Catching Lead and Boomerang. Familiarise yourself with his work and say why you think he made these films.

Serra’s work varied but circulated around the idea that art work takes up space in realms other than the visual. To this end, he explored various mediums to communicate this idea. He often worked collaboratively with contemporary artists in various mediums; music, dance and video. These various mediums allowed him to share ideas on how to push the limit of the viewers experience of his art. (TheArtStory, 2020)

To say why he made these films is difficult to define; especially without much (that I could find) written by the artist himself. I feel that they were made in video because the medium was popular at the time and it allowed him to introduce movement into his work which otherwise might be lost. The choice of a silent movie for Hand Catching Lead was deliberate, I think, because it directs the viewer to the title of the work to determine what it is that the hand is catching. It feels as though he filmed his own hand, due to the closeness of the arm to the lens and the movement which seems to be correlating with the movement of the arm. It allows him to infiltrate not just the visual sense of the viewer but the physical reaction that we have to videos like this; where one can almost feel it within ourselves. It arouses emotions, physical sensations, within the viewer that would be difficult to replicate if the work had been a series of paintings or stills only.

Boomerang seems to be focused more on the viewer’s aural senses. The visual aspect is less interesting; and had it been a silent film it would have directed our interaction with the piece in another way. The sound of the woman’s voice is familiar, it could be our own. Since she is experiencing the delayed repitition of her words – just as we are – we experience all of the same emotions and reactions that she has, and we feel akin to, connected to, this work. It is so personal that it almost arouses feelings of anxiety; as though we have been sucked into this unusual world of slow speech and altered sound.

In each piece, the engagement of the viewer is heightened. The viewer is also vital to the work; it has very little aesthetic attraction and therefore it is designed to function as an almost interactive piece, even if the interaction is only on a mental level.

References

The Art Story. (2020). Richard Serra Sculptures, Bio, Ideas. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/artist/serra-richard/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].

Exercise 5.4

Does institutional critique presuppose an ‘insider’ audience requiring familiarity with artworld topics and issues or can it be understood by almost anyone spending an hour or two in a gallery?

According to the Tate Museum definition Institutional Critique is “the act of critiquing an institution as artistic practice, the institution usually being a museum or an art gallery.” (Tate, 2020). In direct association with this quote, I believe that it presupposes an “insider” audience in order to be taken as critique and not general criticism.

While I think that many people of the general public have some kind of notion towards art as an institution – it’s only art if it’s in a museum, if it’s worth millions, if the artist is dead etc. – but they would not have the intimate knowledge of the subject required to make a critique of it. Their opinions – whether for or against – are just their opinions; and since they (the public) are “outside” the institution in terms of belonging, their criticisms are directed to dismiss or hurt or damage the institution, whereas the artists critique is more about exposing that which has been hidden and should be brought to light in order to enhance the institution.

Personal Notes on the exercise

Having read some more work on Institutional Critique and “site specifity”, I have now come to understand the term in a much more detailed light.

Institutional Critique is about how the artist produces work that will highlight – not alienate – the meanings behind the site in which the work is to be displayed (the Institution). It can also comment on the art market, on art history, on the studio, gallery, museum, etc. The act of addressing the site – the framework – in which the work is to be displayed is required and perhaps inherent in all works of art, in order to be seen and understood in a social context. As Daniel Buren put it, “any work presented in that framework [museum], if it does not explicitly examine the influence of the framework upon itself, falls into the illusion of self-sufficiency”(Buren, 1973). Any work that believes itself to be self-sufficient is no longer a part of the Institution of Art – and isn’t it the very recognition of the Institution which makes something “art”?

Interesting to me is the underlying rebelliousness against the very institution that holds us all; the rebellion against the very art market which most artists require in order to make money, in order to survive. For example, creating site-specific works means that the work is only understood within that space and cannot be translated anywhere. It is therefore not sellable, it cannot be traded and shipped and transferred as other pieces might[1]. The feeling I get from this type of work is that the artist is aware that the work cannot continue indefinitely (for what site avoids change?) and therefore is “mortal” in a way that other art might not be. It must be recognised by the Institution, but it cannot be taken by the Institution. It cannot be used to further the disenchantment that the artist might have with the Institution of art; the haughtiness, the extreme monetary values placed on such a small minority of works. The site-specific artist removes any boundaries between his work and the public; it is open and free to be interpreted, loved, hated, defaced, enhanced, or destroyed, as the public see fit. It is not protected by glass and walls and security. It is much more exposed to the world; and to me that feels very personal, like the artist themselves is standing out in public being adored or hated or damaged but continuing to be just the same. It’s an extremely interesting subject.

References

Buren, D. (1973). Function of the Museum. [ebook] Available at: https://bortolamigallery.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Buren-museum.pdf [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].

Tate. (2020). Institutional critique – Art Term | Tate. [online] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/institutional-critique [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].

Footnotes

[1] Mostly this idea comes from reading “One Place after Another: notes on Site Specifity” by Miwon Kwon cam.usf.edu/CAM/exhibitions/2008_8_Torolab/Readings/One_Place_After_AnoterMKwon.pdf

Exercise 5.3

Take a work of contemporary art and imagine it was not and never had been a work of art.
What is the difference? (100 words)

For this exercise I am taking Richard Wright’s installation at the Modern Institure of Art (Glasgow) – photo above

I enter a building with four skylights in the roof. The function of these skylights is to add light to a room with no peripheral windows. They are punctuated by the wire caging above them, intended to stop people/objects fall through from above.

The provide adequate light within the room, assuming the day is bright enough to do so. I am oblivious to them, unless I require light in that room to be adequate. Should they fail due to low external light or dirt, I will use Electric Lighting. They do not hold the attention of anyone for any reason other than providing or failing to provide light.

Image taken from https://www.themoderninstitute.com/artists/richard-wright/exhibitions/the-modern-institute-airds-lane-glasgow-2014-06-25/4840/

Exercise 5.2

What would be the significance of reversing the arrows in Barr’s chart? Make two columns – one ‘forwards’ the other ‘back’. List as many relevant concepts as you are able to develop the contrast between the two columns. Feel free to ‘cheat’ with a thesaurus.

This exercise allowed me to go back and review Barr’s Chart step by step, which is really helpful to get a grip on the various terms/movements/styles and their timelines.

Considering the reversal of this chart was interesting. Since, in most accounts that I have read, one movement or style leads on to the next, inspiring change as they go. Therefore, to consider the reversal is to consider a reversed role of inspiration.

What struck me the most having reversed the arrows was that the start and finish “style” was reversed; our current “contemporary” art would be based on the neo-impressionist style. How interesting that would be! Not that our current contemporary style is not appealing, but the emphasis on colour and brush strokes, pointilism, juxtaposed colours, vague anarchist undertones; I feel like we have lost out on something.

One stumbling block in reversal that I came across was the jump from Surrealism back to Expressionism; while I believe the style could easily have developed in reverse, I think that the most influential world events would be in the wrong order here. Specifically, the development of psychoanalysis. In the reversed order, psychoanalysis would have come before Expressionism, which according to The Art Story was developed in responce to “widespread anxienty about humanity’s increasingly discordant relationship with the world” (The Art Story). As a student of psychotherapy myself, I can’t help but wonder if Psychoanalysis had come first, then such widespread anxiety could have been avoided. But what affect would that have had on the art world? It would be a shame to be missing a section of some of the greatest art in history. One could also argue that Psychoanalysis would not have developed, had the anxieties of 1905-1920 occured.

I found this a very interesting exercise; however I did not structure my response as was directed in the question. I found that the idea of two columns with similarities did not do justice to my thoughts on the exercise.

References:

https://www.theartstory.org/movement/expressionism/)

Exercise 5.1

Access a summary of Kant’s Critique of Judgement and select three key points that you should then further summarize in approx. 50 words each.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/section3.rhtml

“Judgement of taste” is different to judgement of pleasure or of ‘goodness’. A judgement of pleasure can only be established if the item we perceive happens to bring us pleasure – but it’s ability to do so depends on what I find pleasurable, what you find pleasurable, what another person finds pleasurable – and we will not all have the same wants and needs in this regard. Therefore, a judgement of pleasure is individually subjective, and based on the object providing us with something.

A “judgement of ‘goodness'” brings about a feeling of pleasure for us because it completes our expectations of social norms and requirements. This, in turn, makes us feel as though the object is acceptable within our social group and that allows us to feel approval and possibly pride towards the object. Of course, what is morally acceptable in my social circle may not be acceptable in yours; and some people may find pleasure in admiring those objects that do NOT fit in with ‘goodness’ of their society. Therefore, this type of appreciation is personal, individual and subjective.

By saying that a “judgement of taste is “disinterested””, Kant is saying that we do not have an interest – a vested interest – in the object except for it’s aesthetic appeal. One does not appreciate the aesthetics of a large stately home, for example, without all of the needs that this home fulfills; warmth, shelter, social status, wealth, investment, equity, ownership, pride etc. In order for an object to be judged by taste, we must find them appealing without their fulfilling any other needs. We appreciate the object without the need to have it, or own it or belong to it etc.

Exercise 5.0

Read the first three pages (at least) of Arthur Danto’s essay ‘Works of Art and Mere Real Things’ in his book The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. http://pcnw.org/files/Danto.pdf
Then conduct your own ‘thought experiment’ by choosing a picture or object that is, or you can imagine to be, a work of art. Give this ‘work’ three or more different titles, then reflect on the effect of the title on the work and the work on the title.

Title One: Marlyn at Rest

This personalises the image. It brings a sense of the artists life into the work. It removes some of the movement from the stature of the dog with the word “Rest”. The name Marlyn conjures references to Marilyn Monroe and the eyelashes on the dog underpin this relationship. It feels like a quick, homely sketch of a loved pet.

Title Two: Flight

This title gives the image movement. The lack of a ground on which to place the figure, along with the title, creates a feeling of speed and agility that is counter intuitive to the portly shape of the dog. It seems a cheerful, lively piece, sketched “on-the-go” or of some memory. It does not necessarily have to be the artists dog, since it is not named, there is no personal connection created. In fact, it is reminiscent of something seen in ancient cave drawings.

Title Three: Drawing #4

This depersonalises the image. It is not a specific dog, it is just a dog. It is not realistic or even anatomically correct. It is intended to inform, rather than to please the eye (although, the eyelashes might suggest otherwise). The yellow background, the vague title, the lack of accurate line work or anatomy suggests that this was an “idea” for a sketch or painting, rather than a finished piece. Is it a finished piece?

Reflection:

One part that is left out of this exercise is the addition of “size” – nowadays, we see a lot of art on screens. One cannot tell whether a painting is the size of a building or the size of a postage stamp. I think varying sizes would also have an effect on the title and therefore the work.

I found it unusual to be asked what the effect of the title was on the work, I had always assumed and experienced it to be the other way around – where the title came first. I suppose it would be possible to create title first and work from that. Or to choose a random word and assign it as title – with little connection to the work – but I find that a little false.