<videovortex> Video Vortex report by Malka
Sabine Niederer
sabine at networkcultures.org
Tue Jan 22 10:38:17 CET 2008
Hi all,
Thanks to Malka, who works at the Netherlands Media Art Institute
(www.nimk.nl) and posted a conference report on Moving Web.
http://www.movingweb.org/2008/01/18/video-vortex-conference-report-
day-1/
http://www.movingweb.org/2008/01/20/video-vortex-conference-report-
day-2/
Best, Sabine
http://www.movingweb.org/2008/01/18/video-vortex-conference-report-
day-1/
all the fantastic photos in this entry were taken by Anne Helmond -
thanks a lot!
You can also visit the Institute of Network Cultures flickr set of
all Video vortex events.
On a rainy morning in Amsterdam (that demanded lots of coffee!), the
Video Vortex - Responses to YouTube Conference was kicked off at Club
11. I will be blogging on the conference for movingweb, but I was
also there because I have been involved with the project through my
work at the Netherlands Media Art Institute where we made an
exhibition with the same title and related topics. Well, the program
of the conference is quite extensive, and I was very disappointed by
some of the presentations today (that seemed unprepared, unfocused,
had nothing new to say…a total contrast with the first Video Vortex
conference in Brussels!). So I will focus on the gems of today’s
presentations!
The conference started with a presentation by Tom Sherman, a video
artist, writer and professor in the Department of Transmedia at
Syracuse University in NY. He gave a more general introduction to
video art, explaining the constant death and revival of the genre
that have come forth (also) through technological evolution. The
analogue has changed to the digital, the linear to the non-linear,
distribution and exhibition were transformed through the method of
file sharing. Sherman sees video (art) not as a product, but a
process: It’s about the taping, re-taping, experimenting, deleting,
not the finished thing. He also described the development of the
genre as very much dependent on the cultural sector such as
galleries, musea, and funds. In fact video art had it’s ‘hey day’
between 1972 - 1978, and then again in the early 1990s when video art
was embraced by musea in the form of installations. The upcoming of
the internet again has changed the way video art is perceived. It
stays an art form difficult to sell and also (even more important)
difficult to conserve. Video art has been de-professionalized over
the decades and is now often seen only in its relation to traditional
visual art forms. Its ongoing “life support systems” are educational
and art institutions concerned with video art, the limited funds
available, collectors, as well as genres such as the music video
clip. Sherman describes vernacular video as “the people’s video” made
possible through file sharing. Vernacular video is thus characterized
through being short (becoming shorter and shorter), the use of canned
music, voiceovers replacing writing, vidually dynamic but
semantically crude forms, the proliferation of video tourism and road
films, as well as the use of standard paint programs and filters. The
vernacular puts the content first, makes it more important than the
form. As Sherman explains, video art was traditionally a response to
television, and now that the web replaces TV, it will become an
answer to the web. And just toquickly mention it, I loved Sherman’s
story about how he had once met Marshall McLuhan who had insulted him
for being a video artist (quote: “…and I thought: wow, he really IS
an asshole!”).
Florian Schneider, a filmmaker and initiator of the campaign Kein
Mensch ist Illegal at dokumenta X in 1997, then explained his concept
of ‘imaginary property’. His research has produced a series of texts,
films and video installations researching the question “What does it
mean to own an image?”. He claims that we do not live in a knowledge
economy, but an “image economy”, constantly translating information
into images. Platforms such as youtube where users hand over all
their copyrights to a commercial corporation make us rethink the
question of ownership. Schneider proposes a concept of ‘imaginary
property’ in contrast to ‘intellectual property’. His concept can be
read in two ways: property produced by imagination, or images as
property. In this case, ‘imaginary’ does not mean unreal or
fictional, it defines a situation beyond real and unreal, an
impossibility of distinguishing between what is owned and what is not
(and by whom). Yet, he says, this does not mean a form of
indifference, but it makes us aware that copyright issues are not
about the relation between us and the object of property, but between
us and the other users and what they could do with the object. So
sharing is not the problem at all, but multiplication is!
The next interesting talk was by Andreas Treske, a filmmaker, media
artist, and teacher of courses in new media, video production, and
visual communication design at Bilkent University in Ankara. In 2005
his feature length football documentary Takim Böyle Tutulur was
actually screened in over 50 cinemas all over Turkey. Treske
explained the differences in format between movies made for huge
cinema screens, and those that now have to be produced for small
mobile devices such as mobile phones or the ipod. The size of the
screen influences the way we view an image, and the huge cinema
screens of the past have aesthetically influenced the way we view
film today. In a cinema room or in front of a huge television set, we
get absorbed into the image and there is nothing to distract us. But
when we are watching images on a small device, there are lots of
things that surround us that distract our attention. So while cinema
is ’shutting down the senses’ as Walter Benjamin wrote, the mobile
video on a small screen is competing with all our senses. Therefore
formats for portable devices have to follow a different design
principle: The image has to be more intense, simplified, and this can
only be reached through making them short, using close ups, lesser
detail, strengthening of a reduced number of colors, and an emphasis
on sound. Such formats could be done drawing inspiration from other
art form that are essentially ’short’, such as the literary forms of
haiku poetry, jokes, fables and aphorisms.
And now my favourite thing of today: Tal Sterngast’s video blog
Karasek spricht for netzeitung.de! Tal Sterngast is a visual artist
and freelance writer with Israelian roots, living and working in
Berlin. And she is also the Berlin correspondent for Israelian art
magazine Studio and has worked as a camera woman for several European
documentary projects. In 2006, she started the weekly video colum
Karasek Spricht for netzeitung.de, a series of little videos in which
Manual Karasek, son of the famous German literature critic Hellmuth
Karasek, gives the review of a new novel. The project ran for about a
year and i nthe end had to stop due to a lack of funding and the
limited availability of copyright-free footage to use - what a shame!
Sterngast showed some of the videos, and explained how she addressed
the projects, what she had to keep in mind while making video to be
watched on the net, and what kind of footage she used (for example
from public archives). It is really quite a nice project, especially
because the camera really focuses on Karasek, the background is very
plain, and the image of him is only interrupted by found footage that
in some way relates to what he is talking about (for example a topic
in the book he reviews). The movies had to be done very quickly, but
the crude editing and sometimes ‘trashy’ look only increase the
charm. And, of course, the fact that Manuel Karasek resembles his
father to a degree almost a bit creepy - especially in the way he
speaks and uses specific gestures!
Last but definitely not least, let me tell you more about tank.tv, an
online gallery for video art and very interesting project indeed!
Philine von Guretzky, who has been involved in the project since 2004
and has a background in media design, introduced tank.tv and the way
they work. They describe themselves as a platform and archive of the
contemporary moving image. The works online are either gathered by
addressing the artists or through submission- basically anyone can
submit their works to the site and hope for them to be shown there!
The project has been widely acceptedover the last few years and
they’re getting a lot of support and interest. Recently they have
started showing their online shows in actual art institutions, such
as Amsterdam’s Zuidas Videoscreen and the Tate Modern, and they have
just released their first publication of works by UK based artists.
They have also collaborated with the Dutch Park DDDD TV.
Well, that’s it from me and the conference for today….and hopefully
tomorrow there will be an even richer outcome! Looking forward to the
session about curating online video! Until then…cheerio and good night!
Conference report day 2:
http://www.movingweb.org/2008/01/20/video-vortex-conference-report-
day-2/
Conference report by Malka, Netherlands Media Art Institute
...And on yet another rainy morning in Amsterdam (not surprising, you
get used to it after a while!), full of curiosity and hopes for the
day, I went to the second day of the Video Vortex - Responses to
YouTube conference. I was hoping that today would be more fruitful
than yesterday, and indeed, what a pleasant surprise! Well, call me
selfish, but instead of giving a general overview I will focus on the
session that was the most interesting for me personally: Curating
Online Video.
The session started with a very inspiring presentation by Sarah Cook.
Sarah is co-founder, editor and researcher at CRUMB (Curatorial
Resource for Upstart Media Bliss), an online resource and mailinglist
for people involved with New Media Art. She did her PHD at the
University of Sunderland and is now a post doctoral fellow working
with Eyebeam in New York for 2008. She is also a curator, and has co-
edited several publications on new media art. Currently she is co-
curating the exhibition Broadcast Yourself at AV Festival 2008.
In her presentation, Sarah talked about the works that she selected
for this exhibition. One of the main questions of her research was
whether such a thing as “tv art” actually exists, and what can be
seen as “tv art”. A great source of inspiration was Dieter Daniels’
essay “Television-Art or Anti-Art” in which he discusses artists’
interventions with television. One of the most famous examples is
Chris Burden’s TV Hijack (1972) in which the artist was invited to a
talkshow and, during the course of the interview, attempted at
kidnapping the show host by holding a knife to her throat.
More examples are ANT FARM and their residency at a Texas news
organization, during which they produced news items with their own
fictional content (which were shown at the end of every news show),
and the first reality tv show ever made, American Family (1971).
Interestingly enough, American Family also includes an episode that
documents how the family goes to visit the Andy Warhol exhibition at
the Whitney Museum. And, luckily, the show can be found on Youtube!
As you can see, Sarah had quite an impressive list of examples, and
that’s not even all yet! UK’s Channel 4 also produced a series of
‘art tv’ called Dadarama in which artists could basically develop
their own tv show concept, including the decisions on length, time of
airing, feature film or series, content, etc. And at
joanie4jackie.com, you can submit your very own favorite video
material, and every once in a while a list including all sorts of
different submissions will be send to all members of the mailinglist.
Other projects mentioned are tv swansong and the Bastard Channel.
Sadly, make tv was not as successful as its biggest competitor,
YouTube, which was lounged just a few days later. At make tv, users
can have their own 15 minutes of fame. They get to pick an airing
time and can either show uploaded material or do a live show.In order
to find out how such projects can work curatorially, and explore the
question of the producer vs. distributor relationship, Sarah
suggested looking at projects such as Cory Archangel’s Blue Tube ,
Jeff Krauss’ you3b.com that shows 3 youtube channels next to each
other in a sort of simulation of a gallery installation form, and
Nina Simon’s blog Museum 2.0.
The last project that Sarah mentioned is one she is involved in
herself, Star and Shadow Cinema in Newcastle - a cinema completely
built and run through volunteer work that blurs the boundaries
between producers, distributors and viewers by letting people submit
their own work for the film nights. They also host art exhibitions
and give workshops on film making and presenting.
The next and also very interesting presentation was Thomas Thiel’s
talk about the Curator as Filter / User as Curator. Thomas works at
the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany, and has
curated and organized several events such as MindFrames Media Study
at Buffallo 1973-1990 with the Vasulkas. This exhibition was
experimental in so far as it consisted of more than 150 hours (!!!)
of video works that could be viewed in three different ways: As a
static exhibition (single presentations), as a dynamic exhibition
(program schedules), and as an on-demand exhibition (visitor’s choice).
Thomas claimed that YouTube is just another form of video
distribution, just like galleries, art institutions, festivals,
archives, and collectors. He participated in a symposium in 2005 with
the title The Future Of Video Art Distribution, and some of the most
important questions raised were: What are the financial models of
internet distribution? Will supply increase in demand? Is there a
need for video art watched at home? This can lead us further to think
about why artists do NOT want their work to be published online. For
many artists, this means losing a certain control over the context in
which the work was made and in which it will be shown (as anyone can
show it anywhere they like in whatever context). This also raises
questions of exclusivity, availability, quality and rights. General
video platforms do not allow to include other media such as PDF, so
they cannot serve as an alternative to a personal site with a
portfolio. Furthermore, sites such as Youtube only work for single-
channel works (that’s why you3b.com is such a great idea!). Thomas
rightly pointed out that actually most video material on such sites
is not art in itself, but a lot of things about art, such as
marketing, gossip, openings of exhibitions, walkthroughs, artist
talks and interviews…basically, a documentation of art and the whole
community around art. As an example, see the clip below about the Art
Radio WPS1 at the Venice Biennale 2007. So, Thomas concluded, YouTube
should be seen not as a platform for art itself but as a resource for
the arts.
The last presentation I (quickly) want to mention was that of Emma
Quinn who basically introduced the Institute of Contemporary Art UK
where she works. Emma is also a curator, and director of Live and
Media Art at the Institute of Contemporary Art UK. At the ICA she has
helped setting up the digital studio, a sort of media lab, that
initially started off with workshops for people who wanted to learn
what the internet was. They gave people lessons in the history of the
WWW and showed them how to use it, how to create an email account,
and so on and so forth. Later they were being addressed by artists
working with the net, and this developed into exhibitions and
collaborations with festivals and other organizations and projects
such as tank.tv. The digital studio is now being changed into a real
working space for artists, and they’re also planning to create an
online gallery. Their most successful exhibition so far was the Viral
Awards Exhibition in 2006. Bizarrely enough, although people could
have watched all the material at home on their computers, the crowds
were literally lining up to see the exhibition that combined works
from artists as well as amateurs.
So, after all, the second day of the conference made up for the chaos
of the first day! The presentations of Sarah, Emma and Thomas were
really interesting, I loved that they showed lots of examples, so
thanks to them for saving the conference for me! =)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/videovortex_listcultures.org/attachments/20080122/50858c42/attachment.html>
More information about the videovortex
mailing list