SMU Video Art 2019

nishika n8000 gif images

 “This film exists only in the present: the moment of projection. It refers to nothing beyond this real time. It contains no illusion. It is a primary experience, not secondary…the space is not referential; the time is real, not referential.” McCall said. Projection film created an opportunity to experience a film in a way that is only closely matched by witnessing a live play. Except even in the live play, though the space may not be referential, time within the narrative typically is.  The projection, in the case of Line Describing a Cone, is not a story that was recorded on a set somewhere and then replayed. It is a story that is unfolding before the viewers in real time, not a playback. This experiment with temporal and special elements of time make room for new experiences that projection film can bring.

I like how the work is described as being perfectly in the present, with the past and future playing no role. I definitely agree that Line Describing a Cone is a participatory performance. It adds a completely new layer of depth to the piece since the amount of people viewing change the ambience. It is helpful the level of specificity McCall uses about his set ups and how much thought goes into these complex installations. After reading this excerpt it is clear how much knowledge McCall has of incorporating projections into “non time-based” interactive art.

When Anthony McCall begins to describe his term “Line Describing A Cone” I became instantly confused: “ Line Describing A Cone is what I term a solid light film. It deals with the projected light beam itself, rather than treating the light beam as a mere carrier of coded information, which is decoded when it strikes a flat surface” (McCall, 61). This definition could genuinely not be more vague. Is he arguing that the light is the film/art and the story that the light is carrying is irrelevant? As in: the medium of light should be the only thing taken into consideration...But isn’t light just a carrier of information anyway? (In terms of a film, I guess).  I feel as though this line is important (when he was describing this film) but am unsure with what McCall is trying to depict: “the space is real not referential; the time is real, not referential” (62). When trying to actually break this down: objects are where they are based upon what other objects are around them (what ref...

I really appreciated how Laura U. Marks depicted the accessibility of different platforms in today’s modern technology because this is going to have a continuous influence on society (something imperative for artists to take into account before showing their work). This was something I witnessed a lot when I traveled to Ghana, Africa. The communities there may not have enough money for food or water or a toilet, but they would somehow save enough to buy a phone so they could have Instagram, Twitter, Facebook: not only to communicate with others but for the sharing of photos/art.  Marks’ depictions brought on thoughts from my own experiences at galleries. I have had some pretty unpleasant experiences watching films/videos or viewing different pieces of art in galleries. Art gallery is not a place that excites a lot of people my age. Nevertheless, maybe some of these memories are from my childhood where my family spent hours in the museums of Italy and France (which looking back ...

"the space is real not referential; the time is real, not referential."  "the more people that are present the more 'solid' the form becomes."  what does he mean by that? does the presence of people effect how solid the cone becomes, or does he mean solid in a different way.  participatory performance I thought it was interesting that the viewing is shown in a traditional manner, but is also interactive and acts as an installation. He incorporates the experience of a screening, and the experience one might have in a gallery.  I also couldn't help but think about Picasso's light drawings in relation to McCall 

Simulacrum: image or representation of someone or something Borges fable: "On Exactitude in Science," (1946) short story by Jorge Luis Borges about the map-territory relation. In an empire where cartography becomes an exact science, a map is made that portrays every element of the country with perfectly accurate detail. A map that precedes what it depicts, and therefore causes the territory's rise, raises a simple but valuable dilemma of what is representation and what is real. The author says the sovereign difference between the representation and the real is what gives that abstraction charm. In this case, mapping is simply equating the real into a system of signs of the real. "The real will never have a chance to produce itself." It's like removing death as even an option in life. Simulate (from text): to feign to have what one doesn't have Dissimulate (from text): to pretend to not have what one has If one were to simulate an illness, he wo...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/t-magazine/possibly-in-michigan-tiktok-artist.html?fbclid=IwAR02kYb4prJ4clwJMPKGDyEiMhtwOPpd23RBJdAzV-vtJX_0mngT7Eh4Pzw

It is understandable yet chilling to see how experimental media has changed its way of presentation. Economic gain has shifted it from festival circuits to more museum/gallery circuits. Again, this makes sense but it would seem like Art is the one industry where money would not outweigh the artistic value. Taking away the option of making an installation seems rather limiting, since that should ultimately be a choice to the artists. I understand these inclinations well though, since at times I feel pressured to create a certain kind of piece as opposed to what I had in mind. It’s a bit scary to read that experimental film work is increasing while venues for it are decreasing! The privileging of time over space again puts the artist in a sticky situation. What is the point of expressing your creativity if you must do it a certain way? Before reading this article I had no idea how much goes into the actual presentation/exhibition process. Everything from screen size, distance, color, b...

I never actively thought about how the transition from showing experimental films at festivals to galleries and museums would impact the media's use large-scale. If the majority of media artists now make films with a certain institutional aesthetic, how do/will the works reflect this? the financial situation what does a "traditional distributor" of experimental media mean? I'm still confused by the distribution process Marks talks about. I had also never considered media like film being sold at auction -- how do you protect a $500,000 purchase of a video from being replicated? some personal reflections on the shift the idea of experimental film becoming a "ghetto," or at least a "voluntary displacement" is something I'm curious about. How has this happened/is happening? aesthetics of duration I thought I was just compulsive or something, but I liked reading that having a set duration in a film provides the viewer with some freedom. K...

Immersed in the Single Channel Response Laura U. Marks articulated her view of the status of experimental video art exceptionally well. Experimental video artists are losing space. Money is a factor, free platforms like YouTube and Vimeo are tough for galleries to compete with mainly because of how relatively accessible they are if you can afford a device that is Wi-Fi enabled. She mentioned that the quality is usually poor, but for most people, quality can be compromised for affordability, and that’s just a reality. The nature of experimental video determines the best place to present it. If galleries are where the artists want their work installed, then the duration of the piece matters. Do they want the video consumed in its entirety or are they okay with people sticking around just long enough to get the gist? When I encounter films at the gallery, I often catch it somewhere in the middle. I don’t know how long the piece is or where I am in it, and time starts to really expa...

On page 18 there is discussion on the different experiences in viewing video works. I thought it was interesting to hear the opinions of different artists on the different environments that house video works. One making the comment that the museum is the home for dedicated film thinkers with nowhere else to go. Then right after that the UK based Otokith group said how they preferred their work to be shown in galleries based on their content. I always found the museum space to be a space closest to that of a cinema. Often museums have screening areas (depending on the films) which are really just big black boxes that can house you and the work. I always proffered that viewing because I could be isolated from people and other works and allow my brain to concentrated only on the one work. With works that are shown more within a gallery setting I find are harder to watch from start to finish. Galleries, at least in my experience, are often very social places. And while that may be good...

The television is furniture made to hold a separate world. Acconci refers to the TV as "fishbowl space" - a place where your physical form is repelled by a thin sheet of glass. The television in art  acts as a portal - much like a painting, but instead is able to more accurately represent a place by involving movement, sounds, and action. The TV becomes an alternate reality where you - your mental self -  resides in it's plane. Much like Wile E. Coyote ( your physical self) and the Roadrunner (your mental self) you are at odds with constraints of our reality. The physical self tied to our world's physics - our mental self boundless and running - our bodies constantly yearning to achieve the freedom of our mind. Acconci refers to our  televisions as "science turned pet." We tend to the television as a companion. We fall in love with characters it portrays, we scorn the villains, and we place ourselves inside the sitcom as we laugh along with the studio audien...

Acconci first discusses the tangibility of TV and this leads to the tangibility of stories that are portrayed on these TVs. I believe that people like this because people like control and power, TV provides this for many people: "The viewer and the face on-screen are comfortable with each other; the news from that face, then, is assumed, taken as fact." Vito Acconci then begins to depict the idea of television becoming a "model person" where the person becomes the screen. Is the argument that TV and movies are hard to relate to? Are they too foreign? But isn't TV more accessible and portable than ever? Or maybe this does not matter. I also found it interesting that he pointed out how accessible film equipment and film is in the United States. Although I believe this to be true, I really have not thought about it...maybe that is part of the problem. Does this lead audiences in the U.S. versus other countries to view video art of film differently? And if so, h...

Vito Acconci Response             “Television, Furniture, and Sculpture: The Room with the American View” by Vito Acconci essentially discusses how the television moves between being decoration and art. It is a piece of work that holds the attention of the audience much longer than any sculpture piece could.  Television has the ability to allow people to live vicariously, to be something more or at least  other  than what they are. I have not fully processed Acconci’s discussion of economic and sexual power, though I believe he is saying that the television removes the opportunity for economic and sexual power to be exerted because the box embodies our illusions of it.              Acconci’s argument for video art appears to state that it is the attempt to remain relevant in an industry that is evolving because of the television. He says...

Notes: Horror movies no longer feel as scary because we can separate between tv and reality. VR has now replaced as something we still have a hard time deciphering with the added senses. things can now be behind you. having something projected vs. staring brightly back at you This almost pokes at the idea that the way men watch porn and how it sets expectations and how women watch romantic comedies and setting expectations for relationships. We seek what we want when we watch these things until they become engrained in our heads. raising exceptions for reality when we are watching something theatrical. Like when you hear two actors you loved on screen hated each other off screen. Even the difference between on screen and off screen is interesting, because they are never really "onscreen" until the piece has been edited. There might be footage of them disliking each other, but it isn't considered onscreen. The Tv becoming a sculpture is also interesting with the ne...

I really enjoyed how the opening of this article addressed the way in which we experienced TV screens as children. I remember being a kid and staring at a thick box like TV and trying to decipher how there could be this whole other universe living inside there. One that had no conscious awareness of the universe I was in. I remember knocking on it like I would a fish tank, which is something that is also brought up on the first page. I still feel that screens have this effect on people sometimes. They can have this hypnotic effect on viewers, especially if there is extra influence or when you allow your mind to just zone. This also made me think of the movie , a movie in which someone goes into their television and into a 1950’s rom com type show. I think that the idea of this movie relates in a way to how Vito is talking about the relationships between viewers and the television set, and the comfortability each has with the other. I think it's interesting ...