Random impressions of the second (hopefully) annual independent video/media show: http://www.currents2011.com. Catalog available from: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/2221946.
Including web and off site performances there were 71 pieces, some by multiple artists -- way more work than justice could be done in the show's ten day duration. The organizers, Parallel Studios, must be commended for their breadth, depth, and commitment.
All the pieces in the show had an {on,off}line video component, other areas of art-tech were not represented. The larger cohort was classed as single-channel -- good old video tapes for those of us who remember porta-paks -- but there were also a number of large-scale or multiple-head projections, and some few constructions. Many of the projected works reacted to viewer presence or motion. Some verged on the interactive -- I reserve this classification for machines which elicit and use viewer feedback rather than "merely" responding to their presence -- it's an arbitrary distinction and a slippery slope once made. I didn't explore the web and performance work and thus can't comment on them.
In the projected work one could make a distinction based on the screen. A number of pieces used unusual objects as an abstracting device: project video on/through stuff. As Art Experiences they were variously successful in a visceral -- read: "trippy dude" -- way. I think simply because it was simple, I liked the windmill generators projected onto a complicated corner of the building (Tiffany Carbonneau) -- but generally it's not my cup'o'tea. The responsive installation pieces were more interesting. Aside from web-based stuff all of these were large-scale projections -- Is this necessarily necessary? Do abstracted projections not lend themselves to user input? Maybe next year.
The unfortunate thing about reactive video projection installations is that they tend to bring out the inner-dancers in the audience. This distracted from the impact of the pieces in this show, especially during the opening with many a dancer in attendance. On a subsequent visit I was able to subtract the rest of humanity and see how things actually looked. Three of these pieces, all along the back wall, stood out.
Dandelion Clock (John Carpenter, Santa Monica) was quite beautiful, wisps of dandelion snow flying away from and around one's motion with a bit of a mind of their own.
I am the Light (Lenka Novakova, Ste-Marthe), perhaps the most subtle video feedback I've ever seen, made blips and circles when one passed and then fell back to a simple uninteresting spot of light awaiting the next unsuspecting victim -- this piece was conceived with dancers in mind so I guess I shouldn't complain too much.
Nervous Structure (Cristobal Mendoza and Annica Cuppetelli, Venezuela/Detroit [!??]), a set of well-lit horizontal stripes in the corner wiggled inexplicably when one passed -- a minimalist structural installation enhanced with reactive light. It also seemed to stymie the dancers.
After a number of attempts at avoiding one of the dancers I caught up with her in front of a single-channel display of abstract blobs. She made a few grand attempts to have an effect on it but moved on when it showed no apparent desire to cooperate. So at least some lines were blurred. Later I visited the Site show across the street. One video projection looked very much like the Dandelions but was disappointingly un-reactive to my inner-dancer.
One of the single channel projection pieces, Fold (Surabhi Saraf, San Francisco), was just mesmerizing. A young woman folding her laundry, repeated in 96 small frames each running at a slightly different speed. The simple motions and colors of women's-work-never-complete washed back and forth across the screen with a background of ambient sound. This might not work on a small screen so a large projection was necessary to the overall effect.
Some of the display only pieces were too didactic or narrative for me. Others just require too much time to absorb. Most of them would probably be rewarding if one could grasp the thread, either by sitting with them or having someone explain them -- back in my day we had young Red Jacketed Explainers for this exact purpose. Also a number of displays sequenced multiple short pieces and one had no way of knowing what one was looking at until one lasted through the credits for each. Perhaps a thumbnail of the significant imagery on the attribution tag would help?
And the music that is required to accompany any non-installation video -- because, well, you can add sound to video, right? It's almost always an electronic synthesis. Sometimes it is generated by a process related to the image and sometimes it is just altogether unmotivated. Most of the time it is superfluous. Son et Lumiere is so '60's, no?
But minus my niggling negativity it gives me faith that the future of Art and Technology is not so bleakly MTVish as I thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment