|
NON-CENTRAL DOMAINS: VIDEO
ART IN SLOVENIA IN THE 1980
Curators:
Igor Španjol, Alenka Gregorič
February 19 – March 13, 2009
You are
kindly invited to attend the opening of an exhibition
on Thursday, February 19 at 8 pm at Galerija Škuc.
Apart from
a few art projects made especially for television,
throughout the '80s the television medium primarily engaged
in the presentation of video art within the framework of
cultural presentations in general. The television broadcast
of video seems to represent self-evident and effective
solution to two principal problems of art video production.
These problems are a lack of adequate exhibition and
screening facilities for the presentation of video works on
the one hand, and the promotion of such presentations among
viewers on the other. Nevertheless, the affirmation of video
art on television has been hindered by the prejudice that
video is a matter of independent production and that video
aesthetics is not compatible with television, which has
become a reference point for aesthetic taste, social
engagement and mass entertainment. If video is envisioned as
a unique work of art requiring a museological context of
presentation, the video tape is in a worse situation than
the video installation, for instance, whose spectacular
character is more likely to »strike« the audience. Video
artists who allow their video works to be broadcast on
television are exploiting this potentials of the mass medium.
Although these potentials are not strange to video, video
never completely fuses with the television environment. A
situation thus develops in which video becomes a means of
expression, or an art form, without the aura suggested by
Walter Benjamin.
Besides
the fact that the context of a video inevitably changes when
broadcast on television, a video also becomes susceptible to
a wide variety of expressive and formal changes as a
consequence of the individual interventions of the viewer.
Here I have in mind different models of television sets, and
thus various screen dimensions, as well as optional settings
of intensity, brightness, colour, sharpness, contrast, and
volume. Variations in the incorporation of a television set
into living premises are also important; these often border
on sculptural or conceptual installations. The effects of
these interventions surpass the level of transformation,
which Benjamin defined as the mechanical process of
reproduction. Electronic reproduction therefore unavoidably
disrupts the original video image in its essence, while the
status of the broadcast video as an object still remains
within the limits of the humanistic dogma that prohibits a
machine from becoming an object of faith, and video remains
a tool of ideological interpellation. Rastko Močnik
recognizes the role of the permeations of mechanistic
humanism, which lies precisely in the fact that ideology,
substantiated in electronic apparatuses, evidently
transcends them. The progressiveness of electronic
technology comes into view precisely at the moment when it
becomes the technology of discourse itself, and its
ideological potential exceeds the requirements of (the
discourse of) the ruling ideology.
In the
case of the television »documentary« made by a video artist
in the role of creator of a programme about another video
artist or group, the question arises as to whether such a
programme should be regarded as a pure documentary video, or
whether we can speak of artistic pretensions and,
contextually, about the exploitation of the formal and
expressive similarities of both media. Similar problems are
encountered when differentiating between the »artistic« and
»non-artistic« use of a device in cinema. The artistic use
of a device could be set apart from its other uses with the
claim that the device in artistic use produces pure ideology,
while in other uses it also produces something else, says
Močnik. He continues with a warning that precisely because
it looks natural and self-evident, that »other« is actually
ideology in its purest form. In television programmes about
video we also come across different material potentials
which support ideology. The substantial component in the
form of a »video creation« iscomplemented by media-constructed
symbolic discourse and, certainly, the television station as
an institution. Thus, media technology itself »spontaneously«
creates relationships miost suited to it – that is, it
inherently produces its own ideology, while the artistic use
of the device enacts the problems of its prevalent,
historical use.
Generally
speaking, artists engaged in video followed two strategies
in their relationship with television. The first strategy,
which rejected the influence of television schemes, is
characterised by autonomous production. The disadvantages of
this kind of activity were difficult production conditions,
inaccessibility of equipment, an inadequate television crew,
and a limited circle of viewers. The advantage was the
freedom of personal expression. Those artists who opted for
the second strategy worked within the framework of
established, industrial television production; their
ambition was to change, slowly and tactfully, the rigid
production and programming practices. The price they had to
pay was a partial, or temporary, restriction of their
individual creativity. Their advantages were professional
production conditions (facilities), and a more or less
guaranteed wide audience.
We will
reflect on television programmes whose messages contain,
besides ordinary, narrative and informative elements (the
so-called reproductive elements of reality), also »creative«
elements. We will try to focus on those projects which
involve television as an autonomous means of expression
seeking the specifics of its own language within its
inherent technical properties. In this context we should
point to the difference between the televised reproduction
of the existing creative contents of the art forms (film,
painting, theatre), and the ability of television to
stimulate autonomous expressive potentials.
The
production and iclusion of media images in the »real« world
of television has always depended on the perceptiveness of
editors and programme managers. The historical credit for
paving the way for video on national television goes to Toni
Tršar, first chief editor of the cultural-artistic programme,
and later editor of the feature and video programme. Some 30
art videos were made during his tenure from the second half
of the eighties to the mid nineties. Television became the
main producer of art videos, and so the institutional
conditions were set for the continuation of video production
in the future. Prior to Tršar's arrival, the television
station already disposed with technical capacities that were
not fully utilized or articulated in more profound
explorations of the medium, or in visual concepts. Squeezed
between the system of established patterns of articulation
of television as a genre, and the rigidity of financial and
time schedules, Tršar saw this medium with aesthetically
short forms and workable production budgets as a good
possibility for authentic creativity and an individualistic
artistic approach: »Video art suddenly provided the
opportunity to uphold individual creativity, a certain type
of individual television, and to explore the medium in the
form of electronic pictures«.
As for the influence of video on the role of television as »visualized«
radio, and of a certain feedback of video art on current
television production, he pointed out that editing and music
had begun to play the main role in some cultural programmes,
which had long been based on a specific standardised
counterpoint of picture and offtext. The new form of work
was also stimulating for the stereotyped television
production process, and the support for video projects came
from both television studios and art programme boards. The
so-called »positive paradox« emerged at that time as a
special phenomenon of Slovene video production: within the
state institution one could see the emergence of socially
and politically very critical works in terms of both form
and content. The roots of this phenomenon can be found in
the socially-critical documentary films of the sixties as
the beginning of the »dark wave«, which strongly marked the
Yugoslav environment in the seventies.
Text is a part of the
text originally published in: Videodokument.
Video
Art in
Slovenia
1969-1998. Essays. OSI - Slovenia (SCCA-Ljubljana),
Ljubljana, 1999.
Accompanying programme:
A
guided tour with the curator Igor Španjol will take
place on Tuesday, March 3 and Friday, March 13
at 6pm at Galerija Škuc.
Dunja
Blažević: Presentation of TV Galerija, Tuesday, 10 March
at 7 pm at Galerija Škuc.
The event
is part of the action entitled “Hosting Moderna Galerija”.
Rastko Močnik, “0 položaju
kinematografije v zgodovini idej”, Ekran, št.
9/10, 1983, str. 61–65
Marina Gržinić, »Osvajanje svobode,
slovenska televizija v video unnetnosti. Intervju s
Tonijem Tršarjem«. M'zin 28/29, April-May 1994, pp.
56–57.
Project
is supported
by Ministry of
Culture of the Republic of Slovenia
and
Cultural Department of the City of
Ljubljana.
|