Video art is an art form that combines video technology and installation art. It takes form in different ways, and it mainly uses moving images that may sometimes be accompanied by sound. First introduced in the 1960’s where the technology was first available and affordable for artists. Video art is constantly evolving, always being at the forefront of technology. As technology advances despite the era, artists use this as an opportunity to produce a unique art form. There are different types of video installations such as non-narrative and experimental, which do not fit into the conventional normal narrative TV viewers are used to seeing. One could deem video art strange as it plays with the form of video and breaks conventional structures, however others see this as a work of art. The way it is exhibited is very different to your average cinema or TV; it is usually shown in art galleries which transform into video installations. It is often multi-channelled and experimented with or single channelled with non-narratives. As it is shown in galleries it mainly attracts a niche audience of those who are primarily interested in art. Video installation artist David Hall’s “Tap Piece” was originally exhibited on televisions in the UK, using a non-narrative technique to interrupt mainstream audience rather than at an art gallery. It was published at the end of summer and beginning of autumn, and was one out of a series of 9 pieces, which were all called “TV interruptions”. This form of exhibition and narrative would have disrupted the mainstream audience and left them ambiguous with the meaning behind the work, opposed to their expectations of a conventional TV show. The piece certainly did manage to amaze viewers at home when this mysterious tap came up through analogue television distracting home viewing as it was broadcasted appearing unannounced in 1971, untitled. This left people with various reactions, and proved wa success as it interrupted many of people in the local TV shop who were living their everyday life until this mysterious tap come on, allowing “newspapers” to be “dropped”. The whole piece is shot in real time of one continuous shot using no edits at all. The non-narrative consisted of a tap filling up the TV to the brim, followed by drainage when it reached the top. This received positive attention for its uniqueness ultimately leaving the audience to decide what was the purpose of the piece was, proving his intentions successful. His aim to distract mainstream TV worked as after the tap piece had finished “normal activity was resumed”. This was a revolutionary way to show video art at the time as nothing had been seen before. He has used analogue cameras to film it and has recorded it to videotape, which is then transmitted across airwaves into the peoples living rooms, which, is ultimately the exhibition of space. The positive reaction from this is that it completely catches everyone out, as this piece would not be mentioned in the TV structured times magazine. I think this piece is very successful as it achieved exactly what Hall intended to do, creating something eye catching disturbing mainstream audience in their everyday life. Ultimately, this leaves the mainstream audience to think it is somewhat ‘weird’ as they would not pay to view this at a gallery like a typical niche art audience. You will probably find class a/b SOC audience of professionals watching less TV due to lack of free time, than other categories such as E being students, and C1 being training supervisors. However Hall manages to hit a/b as well as it is on mainstream TV, allowing him to ‘interrupt’ any demographic inevitably resulting in more attention and viewings. Taking on inspiration from the tap piece from David Hall, I decided I wanted to create
something abstract for my own video installation. His ambition to create something unique to disturb mainstream audience inspired my choice to include morph suits and banana suits which mainstream would consider “weird”. This created positive surprised reactions along the high street on the way to the film set. The reactions I received was similar to Halls aim to disturb mainstream, as many children and their parents returning back from school just stopped and stared at my costume. Lots of different aged males and females actually approached me to question what my aim was, leaving them ambiguous. Although this somewhat slowed down the filming process due to constant disruption on the film set, I think the outcome was great and eye catching reflective of Halls work. This tap piece is similar to work he produces 3 years later, as it manages to interact the audience with the television even if they are simply watching TV in their bedroom. In his Progressive Recession piece in 1974 he was one of the first artists to work with video technology, as it was relatively new at the time he was working with it. First exhibited in 1974 and re exhibited in a retrospective in April 2012 we can understand why the practitioner exhibited again as the technology he used for his work is no longer as fascinating as it was in 1974. Usually artists make potential out of technology when they figure out what it can do, in this case Hall understood the potential for the ‘Live Feed’ element of the cameras and monitors, allowing him to make artwork based on this. The technology at the time in 1974 is very new for audiences as most of them would have never ever seen a reflection of themselves apart from a mirror, unlike today as we have access to better technology such as cameras and CCTV which did not exist in the 70s. This ultimately affects the audience a lot more as they would have to face something entirely new in technological terms. Hall uses another non-narrative technique, involving 9 TV screens which are connected to 9 digital hidden cameras. He has done it in this arrangement of a straight line placed around the perimeter of a long narrow room. This will intrigue the audience more as it will confuse them leaving them disconcerted that they are not physically on the screen they are looking at, as one hidden camera was connected to one TV screen; with no chronological order. If it was to be in chronological order, almost like a narrative of a journey I do not think this piece would be as interesting, however Hall utilises the effect a nonnarrative piece creates, leaving his audience to explore how the art form works. A typical audience response involves figuring out how the video installation art works at first, as the non-sequential placement of the cameras in comparison to TV’s will confuse the audience. Once found, all the camera locations to what screen it will enable to audience to start ‘performing’ in front of the screens, ultimately making the audience the subject of the artwork allowing them to interact with the piece. It could be argued that it is an experiment involving video technology and human nature to see the results. I have noticed a pattern in David Halls audience and think that his main aim is to publish work that catches his audience out, bring the unexpected to reality similar to what his “tap piece” and unique camera placement in the “progressive recession” achieved. The audience feeling the need to move around and experiment with the exhibit to locate each other on screens ultimately catches them out, as the movement from one TV to the other allows them to catch a glimpse of their self in an alternative screen allowing more discovery of the installation. The use of the cameras being
installed directly below the TV monitor creates a sense of curiosity within the audience through their peripheral vision. I naturally felt the instinct to look around this particular installation when I experienced this exhibition, allowing me to try and figure out what is going on as the pressure of being under surveillance immediately struck us. It could be argued the purpose of this piece reveals a nation under CCTV surveillance, and brings our attentions to the hidden cameras around us constantly watching us. It made me think how the public would react if they saw the recorded footage of themselves in their everyday life. I found my colleagues and I started performing as well as soon as we realized we were on TV to other people in the exhibition, however this allowed some people to appear more reserved as not being used to this type of attention. This gave me insight on to what the audience in the 70’s would have experienced but even more intensified because I am a media student, being used to being behind and in front of the camera. However, society at that time would not be used to this type of technology ultimately leaving them astonished by this piece. This video installation was held within a university gallery, which specialized in media and arts ultimately making the audience a specialist interest, considering most with soc b/a to attend the gallery. I was particularly interested in the use of multiple screens from this installation as I realized it is more to look at, allowing audience to re watch what is actually going on ultimately leaving them to spend more time appreciating the art work. I used David Hall’s idea of multiple screens in my piece without it being interactive, but more pre-recorded footage on a loop in multiple different channels. Another one of David Hall’s pieces marks the end of the analogue TV revolution. His “1001 TV SETS (END PIECE)” involved a massive room filled with 1001 TV sets which were all transmitting the analogue terrestrial TV channels. He was specifically looking at what we have lost as a population, conveying a feeling of nostalgia with analogue television. Instead of interacting, this artwork is more of an observation of another non narrative piece as typical with Hall’s work, however it does involve the audience to walk around this huge space it is installed in which is still some form of interaction. This again is unusual and eye opening, which is expected from the work of David Hall. This particular piece makes the audience think about how these 5 free channels contain an immense power when put together, which ultimately makes you think about the millions of people in the UK at any moment who are all watching TV at the same time for a popular television programme. Having experienced the end piece of this set at an art exhibition gallery named ‘Ambikap3’ at the University of Westminster, I found it very hard to generate conversation with my colleagues due to the overpowering noise of the TV’s, it could be argued that this experience which specialist art gallery spectators would feel is used to show the power that the media contains through television, as it can reach out to over 13 million people watching the same programme such as Eastenders. As expected from Hall, this piece is certainly eye catching and marks the beginning of the expanding digital revolution. It could be said that Hall is interested in viewer’s reaction to TV capturing what we thinking and what we are not thinking. When the analogue signal was turned off, the only thing to see was white and black noise as there was nothing being transmitted over the analogue signal. Technology has improved significantly by 2012 that they do not need to use analogue when
everything is now available in digital. Bill Viola uses his exhibition space effectively in ‘The Crossing’ in 1996 by using a digital large-scale projection with audio. According to Viola himself this piece evolved within his unconscious mind, and had been “tugging” on his “sleeve”. Subconsciously, he managed to make use of this digital projection in a way that it ultimately engulfed the viewers in the installation, making the viewers physically feel like what is going on in the screen action. In the late 1990’s projectors in price were becoming a lot cheaper and affordable; the sizes were not as large and the quality had improved significantly. This allowed Viola to challenge the audience as the exhibition was held in a huge pitch-black room, potentially symbolizing the darkness of the unconscious mind. The shot type of a silhouette helps convey this idea of the unconscious. One side of the room had this huge projection of this man being engulfed in flames, with the sound of these harsh sounds of crackling flames that the viewer would of seen and almost felt in isolation, as once in the room it was hard to hear any noises outside. On the other side was the exact same man but being drowned by water, which is constantly falling on top of his head. Due to the pitch-black room it would seem as if the sound was surround sound making the viewers feel as if they are being engulfed into this projection, ultimately making it quite consuming. Thematically the narrative does not have a story however it is beyond a story, reflective of the subconscious mind; ultimately leaving the audience thinking. He has explored two elements of life, which the human species could not live without. To some extent it is comparable to cinema however conceptually it is very different and disturbing to standard cinema viewing, ultimately making the audience not a populists mainstreamers type. Instead it is aimed more at class S.O.C E for students and C1 teachers who share an interest in galleries making it a specialized audience for art, culture and education. It could be said one motivation for using the man drowning, links to an early drowning experience Viola had to face, and up until now it has been “tugging” at his unconscious literally telling him to “make me” as he quotes. I think this idea of crossing over from its subconscious to his conscious may be the motivation for this piece, as it has no structure or narrative reflective of the unorganised subconscious mind. It could also be argued that Viola has used the method of the ‘sonorous envelop’ in order to attach the audience to this installation piece as it is reflective of a child being in a womb, surrounded by darkness and sounds which also mirrors a cinema experience which can explain why experiences like this installation is more susceptible because it takes the audience back to the earliest memory emotionally. In comparison, Viola’s ‘Quintet of the astonished’ in 2000 yet again leaves the audience thinking as the screen action is of this almost painting like image which is moving at almost 20,000 frames per second, ultimately allowing you to see every single change in emotion; from muscle to every wrinkle. Viola made very good use of the technology in 2000 as this was the time where you was able to place digital plasma screen TV’s on a wall, exactly like a hanging painting, instead of having to use large monitors on plinths or old TV sets. One could argue this use of exhibition space will attract more attention to the painting, as it gives the illusion of a painting if quickly glanced at which would be expected of a non niche audience, until they realise its moves. I think Viola may even be conveying the inability to express and identify certain emotions we as humans have, as a mainstream niche audience may
just walk past assuming it is just a picture without judging properly. Although there is no clear narrative to this piece, the slow frame rate allows an intensifying moment between the audience attending at the exhibition watching 5 individuals deconstruct every tiny molecule of ‘astonished’ human emotion. This would inevitably allow the audience to look for an explanation for what is going on to these people justifying the two extremes of emotions, conveying it’s power amongst humans. I seem to see a pattern with his specific targeted audience as this installation piece would also attract class S.O.C E for students and c1 for teachers who share interest in art galleries making it yet again another specialized audience for art, culture and education. Whereas if someone who did not share interest in these particular things would most probably walk right past the installation due to boredom not understanding the power of this moving image. The use of no audio definitely allows more suspense and tension psychologically to the audience. Viola has intentionally lit the faces of the quintet, which ultimately leaves the audience constantly thinking deeply concentrating on their face, making them wonder about the power of human emotion. David Hall and Bill Viola both use a non-narrative technique to their video installations to convey a meaning. I think Hall uses big gallery spaces in a creative way, which attracts attention a lot more than Viola, however Viola uses a small space in a very effective way for its size. I think a bigger gallery space instantly draws attention of different spectators in therefore much prefer the work of Halls. Sam Taylor Wood’s “Still Life” which was exhibited in 2001 uses a single channel and is in complete silence. Some could say this will limit target audience however it was presented on a 10ft by 5 screen which is presented in a dark cinema style, which is isolated by heavy black curtains ultimately isolating the viewers leaving them to engulf at this huge time lapse, which lasted 3 minutes long. She has used a digital camera to capture fruit decaying in slow motion, presenting it as traditional art like a painting on the wall, similar to Viola’s quintet piece. It is inspired by traditional still life paintings as one could easily mistake this for a hand painted image as it gives an appearance to the viewers as one long duration shot. The art piece has been aimed at a specialized, intelligent audience who is informed and will have an awareness of how this has been achieved. This allows them to admire what Sam Taylor has done with the access to new improved technology, ultimately making its target audience a niche specifically aimed at SOC A+B, mainly aiming at art gallery attendees. Thematically the narrative covers life and death, the fruit decaying implies life is short and everything will inevitably decay. Paintings capture a moment and hold them forever, however the access to new technology in the 20th century allow artists to explore more than just an isolated movement. Woods has used video as a concept, playing with technology similar to the way that artists would play with texture and colour in a painting. However it is not credited the same as taking a photograph can take a second, and a painting can takes days. Woods proves this wrong as a piece like this can take days even weeks, she hints at all those ideas about traditional art forms vs. contemporary as it is presented on a huge screen but hung traditionally like a painting proving that new technology gives more of a scope to artists than traditionally. This big scale ultimately lets the audience perceive the piece more, ultimately making it more disturbing to look at as the fruit decays at a really slow frame rate. Woods creates meaning from this piece by focusing our attention on the idea of life decaying slowly under our eyes just like the fruit does, exhibiting the
realisation of reality if documented. Her second piece named “Wood pieta” also published at galleries in 2001 is shown in the same circumstances as “Still life,” using a 10ft 5 cinema like dark gallery with chairs in front of the single channel video. Again Woods uses the idea of cinema crossing over with traditional art, covering another similar theme of death. The narrative involves a woman, holding onto dear life of this man who seems to be dying which again thematically symbolizes that life is too short, mirroring the decaying atmosphere of “still life”. I think this is why Woods uses no audio in many of her pieces, as the idea of no audio could reflect what one is to hear during death, giving a sense of foreboding to the audience which will put them on the edge of their seats. It could be said that this piece is also non-narrative based as it is very similar to the FPS of “still life”, making it seem like an allusion of a traditional painting. A common theme of life not lasting is depicted a lot by Woods, making the audience think about what fate has for us. It could even be interpreted as the death of traditional art, as we move towards new innovations of technology, hence the constant use of cinema as her exhibition and not traditional paintings. If this is the case I think she has expressed this well as it triggers the audience to think why the piece resembles a painting, but why it actually is not due to our advancement in technology creating a revolutionary way of producing video installation art. Originally the idea of hanging up contemporary art has inspired my video installation piece to be hung as well, the original plan was to set up four screens on Ipads so our gallery space had more of a traditional art layout, however we did not get the opportunity to have it on separate screens hung up due to funding issues with the school. This is why my piece is somewhat similar to Wood’s single channel, but with multiple screens within that one channel. David Hall, Bill Viola and Sam Taylor Woods use exhibition space effectively to create unique meanings on its audience, however each individual artist takes a different approach to convey meaning. David Hall tends to distract the audience in revolutionary ways capturing their attention, as evident with his ‘Tap Piece’ and ‘Progressive Recession’, as well as using loud sound to also achieve this effect as evident in the distracting decibels of his ‘1001 TV sets’. Whereas Bill Viola and Sam Taylor Woods mixes conventions of traditional painting art, with new technology therefore giving the option to typical niche audience’s to analyse the meaning, which would be dismissed by mainstream audience. All artists utilise new technology to help convey meaning, however I think David Hall’s work is most effective in conveying a message. This is particularly because of the effect his installations produce on the time of the installation, where the technology is not as available to household audiences, which would intrigue audiences. His style of distracting audiences in a loud disruptive way, or unique observation way I think is the most effective way to convey messages, as mainstream audience are too busy to analyse or even visit video installations today. Overall, I think the best way to make a video installation interesting is to really enhance the gallery space in innovative, creative ways. Therefore, I personally think David Hall makes the best video installations through his ability to fascinate an average human being, not just a niche audience.