they hit me with a truck

So, with the final pieces of our video art puzzle in place it is now my duty to make out just what these pieces seem to form. In most respects I don’t believe the division between video art and artful video can be clearly articulated in words, since many of the artists themselves often refused to classify their work by a strict guideline. Some artists, like Warhol, Barney and Nashat combine elements of cinema and video into particular forms that create art but are difficult to categorize. And then there are artists like Paul McCarthy who take a firm stance on the difference between their video art and the artful cinematic tradition.  For me, many of the characteristics we discussed in class, like shorter duration, looping, little to no editing and lack of plot do affect my definitions of video art, but I feel that these differentiations often are felt more intuitively than consciously.  While I would classify works by the like of Bill Viola, Paul McCarthy, and Chris Marker as video art without even really thinking about it, the works by artists like Nashat and Barney do not fit neatly into my categorization process.  Rather, these works become more than artful video through their symbolism (Barney) and impact without clearly defined boundaries of plot or narrative (Nashat); for me these artists produce art that has cinematic quality but video sensibility. 

While we have covered so much ground in this class, I don’t believe my “definition” of video art as opposed to artful video has fundamentally changed, but rather has taken on deeper demensions and, in some ways, simply become more complicated.  It is impossible for me to use a specific and limited set of criteria to determine the value of something; in many ways, as mentioned before, it is intuitive.  Some issues are still, well, issues for me.  For example, when we watched the works of Maya Deren it was made clear that her works were considered film and not video, and yet her work felt so much like that of Shirin Nashat in its lyricism and structure and yet (arguably) one is film and one is video.  So, the question for me becomes whether or not video is defined more by its method of production and the time in history in which it was produced than strictly content (or duration, etc.)  I know the limitations of earlier technology has something to do with it, and video is considered a form that can be picked up by anyone rather than an exclusive one like mainstream film.

If video art emerged from the cinematic tradition, sometimes as a rebellion against this tradition, then it seems fitting that much of the work is returning to film in many ways.  Also, technology is blurring distinctions; if stop animation can be video art, what about CG? When does it become art and not just special effects?  I think this is and will continue to be another aspect of the argument for video art and artful video.  I also think that as artists in the art community  it is importante that we break down some of the rigid barriers between what we consider art and artful; sometimes it feels as if only an artists name or the acceptance of a certain group makes something art and this limits the possibilities of art and art making.  Commercialization seems like a bigger issue than ever, and with this in mind the distinctions become even less…distinct.  Nashat made a point in her discussion that film is a format that appeals to the masses and this is an important aspect of her work, but the art world seems to view wide-reaching appeal as lower forms of art, or not art at all. 

No matter where we go in the class, whose videos we watch, I always return to Andy Warhol and his Factory circus. I watched Ciao! Manhattan over Thanksgiving break and it was one of the saddest things I think I’ve ever seen. (I know its technically not a Warhol film, but so many factory faces appear in it that it might as well be). Aside from being a terrible movie in general, the obvious deterioration of Edie Sedgwick was miserable; she could barely speak and she spent almost the entirety of the film topless to show off a very badly done boob job. I don’t think the sheer magnitude of her brain damage could have been any clearer and the fact that the filmmakers “dedicated” the film to her (she died shortly after it was completed) was pathetic, since they were just using her to anchor a god awful piece of crap film.

I’ve been reading Popism, the ghost written autobiography of Warhol’s sixites, and he even admits to his passive aggressive tendencies and I found it particularly compelling in the light of Edie’s deterioration. Warhol was not passive aggressive in the sense that he was passively aggressive, but rather that he was aggressively passive and it shows in his approach to video- just turn the camera on and see what it catches, no direction, no editing, no force. This becomes very interesting in light of the video we watched about Nashat; she was working in opposition to the passivity that was the trademark of Warhol’s work. If we consider Warhol’s work to be the beginning of video art, we really have come full circle in our explorations as Nashat’s work seeks to counteract the passive nature of early video.