The Electric Mirror: Reflecting on Video Art in the 1970S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Robyn Farrell The Electric Mirror: Reflecting on Video Art in the 1970s In 1978, artist and filmmaker Lynn to say that television was the sole The desire to experiment with the Hershman Leeson wrote that, “Much antecedent of video art, but rather electronic and visual capabilities of the urgency and inspiration of art a critical relative to the developing of television dates back to 1963 video emanates from various types of medium. Representing the first with Nam June Paik’s first televisual commercial television broadcasting.”1 generation that grew up with television, manipulation in The Exposition of Included in Gregory Battock’s the artists included in this program Electronic Music-Electronic Television critical anthology, New Artists Video, were keenly aware of a viewer’s social at Galerie Parnass in Wuppertal, West Hershman Leeson’s essay “Reflections and psychological experience while Germany. Paik’s motivation to utilize on the Electric Mirror” identified TV watching TV. Their collective works the monitor and screen as a means genres that influenced video artists, encompass the interests of this “TV to assault the image provided the and declared video as “a manifestation generation,” and at the same time, the aesthetic framework for practitioners of contemporary art.”2 She went on post-war, post-pop proclivities of a in the following decade. Works in to describe video as “the extracted changing art landscape that ranged this program operate in this vein, film of television,” and pointed to the from minimal representation and illustrating how one could change a relations between the nascent medium captured action, to technophilic inquiry viewer’s perception through video and television as inextricably linked, and appropriation. Together these tricks or props, while others exploit citing former CBS news executive videos represent artistic efforts that TV technology as a means of social Sig Mickelson’s view that “television rechannelled a medium and its vapid critique. For example, Lynda Benglis mirrors reality” to illustrate video’s promise of normative reality or neutral explores the spatial ambiguity of video. simultaneous tie and revolt against viewing. Benglis’s On Screen shows the artist “the electric mirror.”3 If mid-Century manipulating her body as well as the American television mirrored reality, By the 1970s, television television screen. The video makes then American video artists obscured programming had an established code. use of monitor-as-mirror to expose and abstracted it. Taking inspiration Programs were linear, with a distinct the viewer to the apparatus of video from Hershman Leeson’s essay, this narrative structure lasting between and the underpinnings of the device. program concentrates on work from 15-120 minutes. Soap Operas, Keith Sonnier and Barbara Aronofsky the first decade of American video Melodramas, Sitcoms, and Newscasts Latham layer overly processed imagery art, and focuses on artists that were were joined by advertisements that to advance Paik’s efforts against influenced by and who pushed against followed a similar formula ranging television’s hardware and electronic the televisual impulse. The works in from 10-120 seconds. The works in flow of information. Sonnier’s TV In this program — by Lynda Benglis, this program subvert these traditional and TV Out focuses on computer- Keith Sonnier, Susan Mogul, William formats by inserting humorous or generated possibilities, while Latham’s Wegman, Nancy Holt, John Baldessari, political content, and by exploiting video essay centers on the fragmented Simone Forti, Paul and Marlene Kos, the medium itself. They do so in aspects of the medium to drive her and Barbara Aronofsky Latham —derive two primary forms. The first could personal and political agenda. from television both technologically be understood as a reflective and/ and culturally, and serve as a catalogue or reflexive impulse. This includes The remaining works in the program of early experimentation with and in manipulation of the action recorded, address Hershman Leeson’s assertion the closed circuit system. This is not or exploitation of TV technology. that video art “emanates” from varying 1 Lynn Hershman Leeson, Reflections on the Electric Mirror,” in Battcock, Gregory, (ed.), New Artists Video: A Critical Anthology, New York: Dut- ton, p. 36 2 Hershman Leeson, p. 38 3 Hershman Leeson, p. 37 02 Lightning, Paul Kos/Marlene Kos, 1976 TV In and TV Out, Keith Sonnier, 1972 types of television broadcasting. Because the Sony Portapak afforded system and providing an amazing A range of genres of television are the freedom to move outside the bubble or by offering to demonstrate reflected here, but in most cases studio, artists could observe as well how, with virtually no resources, artists emphasise the role of the as interact with the public. Works by they can do all the worthwhile things camera, and inject humor or notions Forti, Holt, and Kos pursue observation that television should do or could of the absurd to critique the common and performance, demonstrating the do in principle and have never yet categories of TV programming. Here, spontaneity available through video done and never will do.”5 With this informative and nonsensical address, that mimics a more experimental mode program, I place particular emphasis observed documentary, and absurd of documentary. on what artists felt should or could sales pitches poke at the fabric of be done when not beholden to broadcast communication. Works by What defined video art, and how industry constraints and commercial Susan Mogul and John Baldessari it differed from television, dominated standards. It was clear that video operate under a distinction I assign as critical discourse in the 1970s. artists had autonomy not available “direct address.” As seen in a typical Hershman Leeson’s take on video to commercial television, but at what news segment or TV interview, this artists and their relationship to cost? Independence provided artists direction of interest shows artists who television was just one of many views with the means for experimentation, make few changes to their surrounding on the subject during the early years but lacked in means of distributing or environment or technology, and speak of video. In 1974 John Baldessari said broadcasting reach. Efforts by artists directly to the viewer. Mogul — like her that, “For there to be progress in TV, and curators at WGBH Boston, the contemporary Vito Acconci — mastered the medium must be as neutral as a Experimental Television Center, Long this form of “face to face” action, pencil. Just one more tool in the artist’s Beach Art Museum, and collectives like while others push beyond typical TV toolbox, by which we can implement Videofreex and TVTV mostly began in time constraints. Baldessari provides our ideas, our visions, our concerns.”4 the 1970s and subsequent decades, a painstakingly detailed address The following year, David Antin wrote but the minimal funding and mercurial for nearly thirty minutes that would that video in the 1970s showed, public interest never provided a stable typically last less than a few minutes “What artists constantly revoke and option for disseminating art to the for a news segment, while Wegman’s engage with is television’s fundamental public. In selecting this group and short video includes a wry sales pitch equivocation and mannerism, which their related lens on the video vs. for a revolutionary massage chair, may really be the distinctive feature television question, my intent was not highlighting the ridiculous forms of of the medium.” He further explained only to reflect on Hershman Leeson’s television advertising and infomercials. that, “either by parodying the television view of the electric mirror, but also to 4 The statement was made at the Open Circuits conference at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. John Baldessari, “TV (1) Is Like a Pencil and (2) Won’t Bite Your Leg,” in The New Television: A Public/Private Art, ed. Douglas Davis and Allson Simmons (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977), 110. 5 David Antin, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium,” Video Art: An Anthology, eds. Ira Schneider and Beryl Korot (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: 1974), p. 70 03 On Screen, Lynda Benglis, 1972 Going Around in Circles, Tom Kalin, 1973 impress the importance of distribution in an infinite manner. The repetition of is best known for her autobiographical organizations like the Video Data Bank, image and sound creates a sequential and diaristic videos. Dressing Up also founded in the first decade of order of information, albeit confused is an early work by the artist, where the media arts movement. Indeed, this and muffled by the collaged feed of she directly addresses the camera/ compilation of work does not present Benglis in a multiple layers on screen. audience with a monologue about one, distinct definition of video in her shopping conquests, while eating the first decade; rather it is meant to corn nuts. As the tape records, Mogul introduce the percolating ideas and Keith Sonnier, TV In and TV Out completes a reverse striptease, with tendencies that, forty years on, became 1972 | 00:10:00 | United States | incredible deadpan humor. The artist a hybrid practice spanning from English | Color | Mono | 4:3 drew inspiration from her mother’s performance-for-video to webcam and penchant for bargain hunting, and smartphone, all now available online. “The measure of Sonnier’s color produced the video as a student in the video tapes is not the extent to which feminist art program at the California Program Notes he extends painterly values, though Institute of the Arts in 1973. In this there is some continuity there, but video, Mogul offers a wry alternative Lynda Benglis, On Screen the extent to which he defines the to growing trends in video art and 1972 | 00:07:45 | United States | surface, space, and color of the television.