SMU Video Art 2019

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...