From: Yoel Meranda (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 18:40:24 PDT
Arturo wrote:
> One has already been mentioned: video art demands little to no
> attention span from the viewer. A person can enter a room where an
> installation is, watch 25 seconds, and "get it." Or, just as likely,
> they don't actually "get it" because they haven't seen the full
> 5-minute video loop, but they figure "oh, it's just more of this" and
> move on.
I don't disagree with this but this is not necessarily a problem
specific to video art. Paintings have the same problem. Most people in
the museums look at the paintings for a few moments before passing
them by, unless they know the artist, or think they are supposed to
appreciate it. And I'm not saying I'm much different in this case, I'm
sure there are still some paintings in the new MOMA (after being there
more than six times) that deserve more time than I spent on them.
It's true that the cases are not similar since the video is time-based
and need to be experienced in time, unlike painting. But I don't think
anyone on this list would claim that one can appreciate the great
things about a painting by just looking at it for a few seconds. And
if it's something truly revolutionary, it might not give itself away
in the first few minutes.
Hopefully, some people who truly care (and hopefully with some taste)
will realize that there is more to see in your video art piece and
watch it carefully. I know one person who appreaciated Frampton's
"Lemon" in MOMA (I know it's not video art, but in that setting it
"is") by paying attention to it despite all the disturbances and the
noise. Needless to say, she would have liked it even more if she saw
it on film.
Yoel Meranda
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.