Round Table: The Projected Image in Contemporary Art
Author(s): Malcolm Turvey, Hal Foster, Chrissie Iles, George Baker, Matthew Buckingham,Anthony McCallSource: October, Vol. 104 (Spring, 2003), pp. 71-96Published by: The MIT Press
이 라운드 테이블은 전반적으로 reductionism적 입장이기는 하다. ethnographic, anthropology, psychoanalysis 등으로 자꾸 연결하는 경향이 있다. 이러한 주제의식 때문에 Minimalism을 단순 계승하는 것이 아니고, postMinimal하다고 보기는 하는데, 동시에 socio-political frame으로 자꾸 묶어내려는 Reductionism이다.
Iles: parallels between film and painting began to emerge-abstract painting and abstract film emerge at the same moment, both in reaction to pictorialist conventions.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, narrative began to reassert itself in the work of both experimental filmmakers and artists. In both experimental film and video, and among artists working with film, a shift occurred toward increasingly complex narratives and away from structural ideas.(72)
Anthony McCall : But I think we tend to talk interchangeably, and not very usefully, about film and cinema, as if they were the same thing. Cinema is a social institution, while film is a medium. (74)
Iles : It’s film as a physical medium, and it’s also commercial movies. But I think the relationship between film and art is a one-way love affair. Artists love film, but the film world is largely indifferent to the fact…. Anthony, when you wrote, in October1 03 [p. 48] about the art and film worlds as a “double helix, spiraling closely around one another without ever quite meeting,” (74)
McCall : Most of them had studied painting or sculpture. I think it is fair to say-because there are a lot of different people we are talking about here-that most of us were self-taught, as far as the medium of film is concerned. And we approached it as material, much like one would approach the use of any sculptural material. We discovered it as we went along. –> 결국 background를 cinema보다는 art에서 찾는다.
Iles : in the early ’70s, artists were focusing our attention on the space of the gallery, whereas in contemporary installations, the space is not part of the conceptual structure of the piece.
Foster : This speaks to a modernist formation: treating film reflexively, as a material; thinking about process; working with the apparatus; being concerned with the embodiment of the viewer, the parameters of the space. That’s the difference for me. When you say that film now is related to painting, I wouldn’t say painting so much as “pictorialism.” There’s a rampant pictorialism, which is also a rampant virtualism, that the sculptural and spatial interests of your generation, Anthony, wanted to challenge, or at least to probe. The pictorialism of projected images today often doesn’t seem to care much about the actual space. Sometimes it doesn’t matter when you walk in, or even whether you do. It’s as if the work doesn’t care whether you’re there or not. This is beyond disembodiment: It’s habituating us to a kind of condition of post-subjectivity. (75)
McCall: I’m often struck by how, in these installations with projected film and video, the gallery visitors are motionless. Of course, what’s happening is that, in fact, they’re not installations. … The problem is that one does not look at video screens and sculpture in the same way. (76) -> cinema와 video installation과 sculpture는 관람 방식이 아예 다르다.
Baker : as I consider the use of projected images in contemporary art, is how such work smuggles in authorial control over the final project in a way that’s almost ironclad. We’re dealing with technologically reproducible
media that are individualized in such a way that you can only see them in the mode of installation. They often cannot be reproduced for study purposes or print venues in any way. They are these unreproducible, singularized experiences. It seems intensely necessary for artists such as Steve McQueen and James Coleman to exert complete control over the manner in which their work is seen. And that singularizes the experience of this otherwise technological form. : 비디오 작업이 설치라는 형태를 통해서 singularize된다고 주장한다.
Buckingham: I think that distinction is really key. Giving up control over the duration of the audience’s experience can create the opportunity to work totally differently with cause and effect. Doing so gives you, as an artist, all
this material to work with-who’s seen how much, the disruption of other people entering, and so on, although a lot of work doesn’t consider this. (90)
McCall은 indeterminate spectator라고 이야기한다. (90)
Turvey : I would argue that the possibility of seeing something again, several times, really opens up film spectatorship in a way that’s not possible in a theatrical venue, and that this is a really good thing about the current use of the projected image in contemporary art.(90)
Baker: I’ve never seen a public projection in a public space of exhibition where people were not lying on the ground, or making automatically a cinematic arrangement for themselves before the image, which then becomes just
another kind of cinematic theatrical product. Yet the critical reception of much projection work, including my own, clings to and insists upon the work’s opening onto a phenomenological or sculptural space of transition and movement. This perhaps connects to Hal’s earlier worries over art’s “virtualization” under the hegemony of projection. (92)
Iles: It will only do that if you make very specific physical alterations to the space, to bring people in and get them to move around the space. The moment people see a moving image, as Anthony pointed out, their immediate
reaction is to stand still and watch it. (93)