Does video art have a future? This is the question I am posing, and you must be thinking, “What, are you crazy, of course it does?” You must be thinking why am I asking a question like this in a technologically advanced time in the 21st century. I mean after all look where we are in history. Video is bigger than ever, with the birth of digital video cameras, video capability on our cell phones, and online powerhouses like YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, HULU, and Netflix’s instant watch - and lets not forget our online video news networks such as CNN.com, NYTime.com, and MSNBC.com. We are texting, emailing, sending pictures, videos, watching podcasts, uploading, downloading, oh my!
So why in 2010, do I pose the question, “Does video art have a future?” We are at a point in history where we are at the peak of a bell curve on its way straight down. We are at the end of a decade of greed and wasteful energy use, and at the birth of a green revolution and a shift towards energy conservation, sustainability, and independence.
In the 1960s and 70s during the birth of video introduced into the art world – did anyone question that this could only last about 50 years? Probably not, technology will inevitably progress.
Sure, we have gone wireless, sure we are using less “physical material’ right? I mean we download songs, videos, movies; it’s all electronic data. We are wasting less, right? Less plastic CDs, DVDs, less plastic cases. It’s all a digital network of data now, so we are totally on our way to green technology.
Not necessarily the case. We are at point where we may very well run out of oil in our lifetime due to its versatile nature. All of our digital cameras, computers, servers, any of our electronic gizmos that make many of the music and videos we listen to, watch and enjoy are all primarily plastic petroleum based products, such as the computer I type this text on. We are creating more and more physical servers and networks that are made of many petroleum based materials, and with the oil supply on its decent down the bell curve – so goes with it our future use of technology production.
Energy use is at an all time high. Much electricity is produced and stored from natural gas, even coal, what happens when we use that up as well? We have been producing so much ‘disposable short-term use’ stuff that the long-term energy use is astronomical. I mean how man carcinogenic plastic products do we import from China on a daily basis? Cell phones are out of date after two years. Computers and cameras are the same. We are a consumer culture that wants more and more. We are going to use up our fossil fuels that produce energy and will at some point halt production of new technological devices.
The Sony plant in Youngwood, PA had major layoffs and has since closed at the end of 2009. Is the machine dying? We are producing less and less barrels of oil year after year. So sure we will certainly find a way to survive for years to come after the shortage of production and the decline of energy. The last several years have lead us into a terrifying ‘age of anxiety’.
However, there is a ray of hope for the future, if we allow the paradigm shift to move towards a conscious choice to use less of what we don’t need. We are making smaller and smaller products. A majority of our information is now data on the Internet. The days of gigantic bulky equipment is no longer needed to present video work. I will site the notice of the art world using more projections rather than televisions or monitors to present video work. Or if monitors are used they are low energy LCD flat screens.
Since 2007, the development of ‘mini pocket projectors’ has become more and more reliable and exciting. We are nearing the point to install these devices into iPhones, iPods, mobile phones, and other small hand held devices. This is a step in the right direction, less and less physical ‘stuff’ and more and more data exchange.
In fearing of being a hypocrite, I will not that I am predominately a sculptor, a maker of large useless stuff to add the problems of the world and environment. I have not made any ‘video art’ for about 3 years, however tend to use video and audio with my objects and installations for conceptual reasons. Having said that, my only concern and struggle as an artist for the past few years has been my consumption of electricity to power my absurd experiential creations.
This year, I have made peace with that. For one, I am only one person using an extremely small percentage of energy to temporarily run an artwork for the duration of an exhibition. I am not a giant corporate office building running lights 24/7, constantly sucking up the juice from the grid. Although according the government that corporation has the same rights as an individual human being such as my self. (That is an issue for another time.)
Second, I have learned the energy draw from many recent devices is so low the energy impact is minimal. It is cheaper to run fluorescent lights non-stop rather than to turn them on and off, because once they are running they draw so little energy. Mini pocket projectors contain small LED light bulbs, creating to heat, drawing extremely low amounts energy, not to mention the fact that the LED bulb lasts about 70 years, so I’ll probably die before the bulb in my mini pocket projector.
So let me get back on point. Does video art have a future? Yes. Not only do I think video art will have a future, it is the future. As we move away from physical stuff, towards information exchange via the Internet and wireless networks, the use of video will become the dominant art medium. We may have to re-title “new media” very soon. Video is here to stay, but those of use who still make physical objects may be in jeopardy. As everything becomes a virtual space on the Internet, why still have physical libraries, museums, and art exhibits? My answer to that is we still need the physical experience to enjoy and understand the world. And we need to realize that film, video, and photography are still just documentation mediums. If we deny reality, we are nothing but electrical impulses of thought and information.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So this is fine and all Ron, but I'm wondering what qualifies as "video art" to you. I mean, hasn't it been all over the Internet for years in the form of people's mashups and weird little YouTube vids? Doesn't that count? Are you participating in that aspect too? Or is your approach limited to the white cube of the gallery of to speak?
I'm not condemning anything here, I'm just asking questions and I think "video art is the future" is quite a bold statement worth some more discussion.
This projection of a drain is interesting to me in that I'm imagining digital space as a functional object. Sort of like the mats in malls where kids jump in the projected water and see splashes underneath them. Or more recently the Vancouver Opening Ceremony had an awesome sequence where projected whales in water swam across the stage floor and periodically came up to surface to shoot mist from their blowholes in the form of actual physical pipes with mist/air in them.
Thanks for the response.
To answer your question, I absolutely count YouTube vids, the internet and all of that as valid art. I am amazed that culture is going in the direct of textual and visual information exchange rather that physical stuff. This is happening in the art world as well. Less is more and post-conceptualism of internet data based art is all the rage the past decade.
I do agree that 'video art' is a bit of a dated phrase, I was trying to place these current trends into the context of the birth of video art up to the present. I have the same problem with the term 'sculpture' or 'sculptor', seeing as I technically have my degree in that is a bit dated. I'd rather be label i suppose an artist or 'a stuff maker'. I am interested in the dialogue of 'stuff' or 'things' versus virtual.
I think the underlying theme is that we are trained as a culture to understand things virtually before we learn and understand physically. Say watching something on the internet or TV rather than experiencing a live show.
I'd be interested in what you think, about that dialogue as a 'painter.' By the way what kinda of work are you making these days?
I remember reading about Bill Gates installing large video flat screens in every room of his house that had programming to exhibit artwork that had been reproduced from museum collections. For him that experience was as valid as seeing the original. I personally think that we are hardwired to react to physical creations. That could possibly explain why Avatar's 3D experience has been so popular-(even though it is rather pedestrian storytelling) because it somehow seems more "real".
Post a Comment