Cecilia Pezzini
Understanding the Artwork:
A Hermeneutics Study of Media Art
University of Amsterdam
MA Preservation and Presentation of the Moving Image
Thesis Supervisor: Tina M. Bastajian
Acknowledgements
I would like to express the deepest gratitude to Stedelijk Museum’s curator, Leontine Coelewij, for her availability and help with my research on the Nam June Paik exhibition. Punctually answering my questions,
she has stimulated much of my analysis.
I would like to thank my supervisor, professor Tina Bastajian for her help and guidance throughout the writing of this thesis.
I also wish to thank my friends for their constant support: Maya Barenstein, for her consistent encouragement throughout this Master Degree and, particularly, for sharing sweat, tears and joy in the final months of research and writing; Anna Thornton, whose reassuring words have helped me when I was most worried or stressed; Leo Barton who has taken the time to read my work and who always gives the most precise and stimulating feedbacks; Bec Lobo Correia for being an overall source of comfort and perspective and for reminding me that, at times, it is okay to slow down.
Last but not least I would like to warmly thank my parents. They have given me the opportunity to pursuing this degree and have always supported my wishes and dreams in any humanly possible way.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...i
INTRODUCTION ...1
CHAPTER I: THE ARTWORK’S IDENTITY: UNDERSTANDING MEDIA ART AS CHANGEABLE AND PROCEDURAL ... 5
Challenging the “art object” ...6
Obsolescence and integrity ...7
Aesthetic and conceptual approaches ...9
Artistic intention and the allographic character of media art ...11
Nam June Paik: a procedural approach to media art ... 13
CHAPTER II: CONTEXT AND CONTEXTUALISATION: CANONIZATION, COUNTERCULTURE AND PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS ...18
TV Buddha: formalising the artwork ...18
Canonization ...19
Counterculture ...21
Nam June Paik: entering dominant culture ...23
Contextualization ...26
Captioning ...26
Positioning and juxtaposition ...28
Nam June Paik: interpretation, thematization and proposed connections ...29
CHAPTER III: BEYOND THE IDEAL BEHOLDER: REAL BEHOLDERS AND SUBJECTIVIST UNDRSTANDINGS ...33
From ideal spectator to ideal beholder ...33
Democratization of culture or hypodermic needle? ... 34
The real beholder ...36
Top-down processing and traditional art...36
Media art in a museum context: Paik’s interactive works ... 38
Memory and interpretation ... 39
Familiarity: resisting duration ... 40
Familiarity and Cultural Background ... 42
Nam June Paik: Between culturally specific and transcultural understandings ...43
CONCLUSION ...47
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...50
INTRODUCTION
Humans are unique beings capable of deep cognitive activity. Throughout the centuries, philosophy has developed a striking variety of branches focusing on the understanding of different subjects; among others: scientific theories, language, people and, also, art. Understanding art has been the endeavour of philosophy of art and aesthetics. Although the discussion of art can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers, the origin of aesthetic enquiry is usually placed in the eighteenth century. Its continued relevance has been proven by the consistent appearance of theoretical works reflecting on the nature of art and its expressions. The twentieth century, for instance, saw the publication of seminal works such as Nelson Goodman’s Languages of Art, George Dickie’s Art and the Aesthetic and Arthur Danto’s After the End of Art.1 The issues concerning the
definition and understanding of art are still compelling today as art practices continue to evolve and change, exploring new mediums and pushing the boundaries of the definition of art itself. Individual works like What is Contemporary Art? by Terry Smith, Peter Osborne’s Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art and anthologies such as Aesthetics and Contemporary Art are evidence of the pertinence and urgency of such discussion in the present day.2 Conversely, specific theorizing on the act of understanding has been rare
in philosophy of art and discussion of it can be found, rather, across anthologies focusing on epistemology and the philosophy of science.3 More so, understanding has been particularly discussed in social and human
sciences.4 At the intersection of these latter fields and art philosophy, this thesis spurs from a desire to
investigate and reflect on the understanding of art, particularly media art. In this regard, it should be clarified that I do not wish to propose a methodology for the scrutiny of media artworks; rather, my aim is to indicate and analyse the factors that play a role in the reception and understanding of such works. This naturally leads to the question: How do we understand a media work of art? I will here try to answer such query. Of course, a comprehensive study of the sort would exceed the scope of this thesis. Thus, I have decided to particularly focus on those factors that, while playing a pivotal part in the understanding of media art, also highlight its changeable nature and open up the work to multiple interpretations. Therefore, while rejecting any claim of exhaustivity, I hope to insert myself in the ongoing debate on media art and in the wider field of art philosophy and, in this way, to invite further reflection and research on the topic.
In questioning how a media work of art can be understood, I am going to adopt a hermeneutic approach. Hermeneutics, often referred to as ‘the art of interpretation’, was originally concerned with the
1 Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968); George
Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974); Arthur Danto, After the
End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
2 Terry Smith, What is Contemporary Art? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Peter Osborne, Anywhere or
Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (London: Verso Books, 2013); Armen Avanessian, Luke Skrebowski eds., Aesthetics and Contemporary Art (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2011).
3 See for instance: Linda Zagzebski, On Epistemology (Belmont: Wadsworth, 2009); Duncan Pitchard, Knowledge (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009); Henk W. de Regt, Sabrina Leonelli, Kai Eigner eds., Scientific Understanding:
Philosophical Perspectives (Pittsburgh: university of Pittsburgh Press, 2009).
4 See for instance: Fred R. Dallmayr, Thomas McCarthy eds., Understanding and Social Enquiry (Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1977); Hans Herbert Kögler, Karsten R. Stueber eds., Empathy and Agency: The Problem of
Understanding in the Human Science (Boulder: Westview, 2000); Gurpreet Mahajan, Explanation and Understanding in the Human Sciences (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1992).
understanding of sacred texts. As noted by American philosopher Charles Guigon, in the eighteenth century, a ‘general hermeneutics’ was developed, that was ‘applicable to all forms of human expression.’5 The focus
of hermeneutic enquiry was, at the time, on the “correct” or “objective” interpretation of texts, rather than on the different possible understandings that a work offered. However, this changed in the twentieth century, when German philosophers Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer shifted the focus of interpretation from the text itself to the interpreter, allowing for multiple interpretations to emerge. This turn in hermeneutics, corroborates researcher Elizabeth Anne Kinsella’s claim that the kind of qualitative research typical of social and cultural studies is ‘by its very nature informed by hermeneutic thought.’6 As she explains, the focus of
both qualitative research and hermeneutics is on understanding and interpretation rather than verifiable explanation.7 Sharing such a focus, I am going to base my investigation on case studies and previous literature,
as well as on interviews (published and my own) with art museum curators and artists. In this thesis, I will attempt to offer an insight of the factors that influence and shape the way we understand works of media art. In other words, I will question how the meaning of a media artwork is constructed. In light of the hermeneutic idea that, in the words of Thomas Schwandt, ‘there is no special evidence, method, experience or meaning that is independent of interpretation,’ I will focus particularly on how different understandings of a media artwork are possible.’8 This will allow me to point out that the meaning and significance of media artworks are hardly
fixed, and that their understanding is an ever-evolving process, depending on a range different factors. My focus will thus be in line with Gadamer’s renowned statement, exclaiming the goal of hermeneutics should be to ‘clarify the conditions in which understanding takes place.’ 9
Before diving into the discussion of works of art and their understanding, it is necessary to clarify what I will hereby mean by media art. The term lacks a clear definition and much ongoing debate has focused on its determination. According to works such as Kevin McCarthy and Elizabeth Ondaatje’s From Celluloid to Cyberspace, media art is ‘defined as art that is produced using or combining film, video, and computers.’10 As
clarified by the authors, they chose to discard musical/aural works from the definition of media art because they consider them as belonging to the performing arts instead. However, this can be problematic in consideration of the performative and multi-sensorial quality of many media works; this thesis will pay attention to this particular character of media art and will include the discussion of audio installations such as Nam June Paik’s Random Access (1963). This choice is in line with the National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture (NAMAC)’s 2001 definition of media art, which describes it as comprising film, video, audio, multimedia and intermedia. In trying to grasp what media art is, it has emerged that most studies and art
5 Charles Guigon, ‘Meaning in the Work of Art: A Hermeneutic Perspective’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 27.1 (2003),
pp.25-44 (p.26).
6 Elizabeth Anne Kinsella, ‘Hermeneutics and Critical Hermeneutics:
Exploring Possibilities Within the Art of Interpretation’, FQS Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7.3 (2006). http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/. Accessed 29/04/2020.
7 Idb.
8 Thomas Schwandt, Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, 2001), p.113. 9 Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), p.263.
10 Kevin F. McCarthy, Elizabeth Heneghan Ondaatje, From Celluloid to Cyberspace: The Media Arts and the Changing
institutions approach its definition from a medium-specific perspective, trying to produce taxonomies of what mediums and combinations thereof are to be defining of the genre. Such a choice can be better understood by considering The Netherlands Media Art Institute’s website. The institution openly addresses the issue of media art’s demarcation in the webpage ‘What is media art?’. 11 There, it is argued that a literal approach to the term
“media” is of little use in coming to an understanding of what media art actually is (every artwork has a vehicle, whether that is paper, marble or video tape). Consequently, it provides the following definition:
‘In general, the term media art is understood to apply to all forms of time-related art works which are created by recording sound or visual images. A time-related art work is a work that changes and “moves”, in contrast to older art forms that are static … Time-related art works include works in the field of sound, video and computer art, both installation and internet projects, and single channel works.’12
This is the definition that should be kept in mind when encountering the term “media art” throughout this thesis. However, it should be noted that I will also discuss works that have not been created by any kind of recording of sound and/or images, but that rather allow the temporary, ephemeral creation of audio-visual content by the audience, at the moment of their interaction with the work itself. Moreover, due to the limited scope of this thesis, I will not directly discuss new media art (such as computer or net art) and my focus will be instead on artworks using earlier mediums. In order to better illustrate my investigation, I will take as a case study the works of Nam June Paik and his 2019-2020 travelling retrospective, curated by Tate Modern London and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art in collaboration with the Stedelijk Musuem, Amsterdam.
The Nam June Paik case study will be discussed throughout the body of this thesis and will serve as an elucidative example supporting my argumentation. However, to avoid my discussion from lacking generalizability, artworks by other artists (e.g. Wolf Vostell and Bill Viola), will be discussed alongside the main case study. The body of my investigation will thus be structured in three chapters, each of them addressing a different factor in the understanding of media works of art. Chapter I will focus on the definition of a media artwork’s identity and on the different approaches taken by professionals in conservation and reinstallation practices. In discussing the ways in which media art problematizes the identification process of the work of art itself, I will take into account art history and conservation theory’s discussions of the definition of “artwork.” This will show how different understandings of a media artwork can be produced while trying to define its identity, and that a fixed definition is often impossible and, ultimately, not always desirable, due to the changeable and procedural character of media art itself. To clarify this idea, I will discuss two of the most famous installations by Nam June Paik, TV Buddha (1974) and TV Garden (1974-77). These exemplify how media artworks allow for multiple interpretations to emerge in their different installations. This leads to a differentiation between concrete interpretation of the artworks (i.e., the artworks are interpreted for
11http://www.nimk.nl/eng/education/what-is-media-art. Accessed 29/04/2020. 12Ibd.
reinstallation) and more “discursive” interpretation in the following chapters. In line with art historian Hanna Hölling, by discursive interpretations I mean those understandings that consider the meaning of a work of art in relation to the wider socio-cultural and art-historical fields.13 Thus, chapter II will consider how different
understandings of media artworks are dependent on the context of their exhibition and on the contextualization provided to the public. Departing from the idea that institutionalisation and canonization of media artworks tend to stabilise (to a certain extent) the way these are perceived, I will discuss how different exhibition contexts influence how the works are received by the visitors. As such, I will analyse different ways in which art institutions contextualise media works; in doing so, I will argue, they provide interpretive frameworks and promote certain understandings and connections over others, constructing what I call an “ideal beholder.” By comparing the aforementioned Nam June Paik retrospective to the context in which some of the artist’s works originally appeared, I will illustrate the pivotal role context plays into the understanding of media artworks. This will show how the contextualization strategies discussed can be put into practice. Finally, chapter III will develop the concept of the “ideal beholder” mentioned in chapter II and contrast it with the notion of the “real beholder.” In shifting my focus from the artworks’ identity and their institutional interpretations to the visitors’ own experience and cultural backgrounds, I follow the hermeneutic turn from objectivist to subjectivist interpretation. This stresses that individual experiences and cultural idea(l)s also play a pivotal role into the understanding of works of art in general. Proceeding from this, the transnational nature of Paik’s works will be examined so to question the extent to which cultural biases influence the interpretation of media artworks specifically.
CHAPTER I
13 Hanna B. Holling, On Time, Changeability and Identity: In the Conservation of Nam June Paik’s Multimdia
THE ARTWORK’S IDENTITY: UNDERSTANDING MEDIA ART AS CHANGEABLE AND PROCEDURAL
To discuss an artwork, it is necessary to establish what the artwork we are referring to actually is and what it consists of. While, generally, this sounds like a straightforward and somewhat banal statement, it becomes pivotal in understanding a media work of art. Media art tends to problematize the idea of the “art object” that has been the centre of traditional conservation theory and practice, and more widely, of history of art as a discipline. As art academic Vivian Van Saaze notes, ‘the notion of art as a ‘fixed’ material object becomes problematic due to the use of ephemeral material or due to their conceptual, unstable, variable or process-like character.’14 Media art, as it will be clarified throughout this chapter, fits into such description and thus opens
up a space of discussion on where the meaning and identity of a work actually reside. By its very nature it pushes identification beyond the physical characterizations of the art object, to investigate the nature of the work as ingrained into a complex intertwining of materiality and abstraction. From this the question shifts onto how and to what extent the understanding of an artwork is dependant on the definition of its identity. American hermeneutic philosopher Charles Guigon’s consideration that meaning ‘must be conceived on the basis of an account that begins with the notion of signification or designation’ can be useful in understanding media art’s preoccupation with defining an artwork’s identity and appointing its significant properties. As discussed by art researcher and scholar Elena Biserna, when exhibiting a work of media art its ‘work-defining’ properties need to be designated and respected if one wants to maintain the work’s authenticity.15 Therefore,
comprehension of the artwork will depend and possibly start with the demarcation of the work’s defining properties and, consequently, of its identity. This can, once again, be better understood in light of the hermeneutic idea that ‘the meaning of the [artwork] is determined in some way by its relation to the item.’16
While this might seem to bring us back to the physical character of the art object, “item” can here be appointed a wider connotation: it can be understood as signifying the ensemble of elements and characteristics that compose the work. Considering this, the importance of investigating the defining properties of a media artwork becomes evident.
In this chapter, I will explore the factors that play into the identification of a media work for its conservation and reinstallation. To do so, I am going to make use of art history’s debates on the definition of “artwork” and, also, of conservation theory.17 In this way, I will present an overview of the different approaches
that can be taken towards the identification of a media work of art. This will show that the discerning of media
14 Vivian Van Saaze, Installation Art and the Museum: Presentation and Conservation of Changing Artworks
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013), p.23.
15 Elena Biserna, ‘Site-Specific Exhibition and Reexhibition Strategies: Max Neuhaus’s Times Square’, pp.370-5 (p.375). 16 Ibd.
17 Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Sheila Watson, Amy Jane Barnes and
Katy Bunning eds., A Museum Studies Approach to Heritage (London: Routledge, 2019), pp.226-24, Donald Preziosi ed.,
The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), Ariane Noël de Tilly, ‘Scripting
Artworks: Studying the Socialization of Editioned Video’ (Amsterdam: UvA-DARE, 2019); Pip Laurenson, ‘Emerging institutional models and notions of expertise for the conservation of time-based media works of art’, Technè 37 (2013), Pip Laurenson, ‘The Management of Display Equipment in Time-Based Media Installations’, in Tate Papers 49.2 (2004)
artworks’ identity is not a straightforward process but, instead, a complex endeavour, highly influenced by the approach adopted. Drawing from this, I intend to argue that a final or fixed definition of media works is often impossible due to their changeable and procedural character, and even counterproductive as it would limit the possibilities for future exhibition and access to the work. Conversely, I will show how adopting a procedural approach allows for media artworks to be continuously reinstalled in light of different interpretations and understandings.
Challenging the “art object”
Traditionally, in the fields of art history and criticism, the definition of “art object” has been closely related to the idea of an original item having unique, distinct and defining characteristics. Walter Benjamin famously referred to the physical art object as original and irreplaceable, impossible to substitute independently from the accuracy of the replacement. He expressed the idea that the ‘presence of an original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.’18 American art historian Donald Preziosi shares such a perspective, as he states
that an art object ‘is meaningful as a sign or mark of its difference from other objects: it signifies its (presumably unique) place relative to objects occupying other places or chronological positions.’19 Such a
statement is problematic if considered in relation to media art both in its spatial and its temporal considerations. Many conservation theorists and professionals have expressed the idea that a time-based media artwork is manifest in all its significant parts and relations only when (re)exhibited.20 Canadian art historian Ariane Noël
de Tilly affirms that such works ‘need to be reinstalled every time they are shown’ and that, for this reason, they ‘have a physical and material existence only when exhibited.’21 When presented, they are manifest in
their structural form, comprehensive of both material objects and ephemeral audio-visual components. In order to clarify this concept, we can take as an example Gary Hill’s Crossbow (1999). When exhibited, the piece presents three 13-inch LCD video displays placed as to form a triangle on the wall. The bottom-left and right monitors present colour video showing the hands of the artist, while the top-central screen shows his head and neck from behind. When not exhibited, the work does not have such a configuration, as the monitors, DVD players and DVDs are disconnected, and the data carriers carefully stored. Such absence between activations makes it troublesome to individuate the artwork’s defining characteristics as deriving exclusively from its material elements; 22 that is, the elements that are still sensorially perceivable while the piece is not being
shown. Indeed, while the artwork depends on them for display, they do not always have unequivocal
identity-18 Walter Benjamin, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Sheila Watson, Amy Jane Barnes and
Katy Bunning eds., A Museum Studies Approach to Heritage (London: Routledge, 2019), pp.226-24 (p.214).
19 Donald Preziosi, ‘Introduction’, in Donald Preziosi ed., The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), pp.151-154 (p.151). Emphasis in the original.
20See, for instance, Renate Buschmann and Tiziana Caianiello eds., Media Art Presentation and Preservation:
Materializing the Ephemeral (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 2013); Ariane Noël de Tilly, ‘Scripting Artworks: Studying
the Socialization of Editioned Video’ (Amsterdam: UvA-DARE, 2019); Vivian Van Saaze, Installation Art and the
Museum: Presentation and Conservation of Changing Artworks (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013).
21 de Tilly, p.16.
22 Pip Laurenson and Vivian Van Saaze, ‘Collecting Performance-Based Art: New Challenges and Shifting Perspectives’,
in Marika Leino, Laura MacCulloch, Outi Remes eds., Performativity in the Gallery (New York: Peter Lang, 2014), pp.27-41 (p.31).
defining value. This idea is strengthened by the possibility of the same artwork to undergo change in its material components over time. As de Tilly affirms, ‘a work can […] lead to changes, for instance, in the display … in the exhibition support … or in the technology used. During their “life cycle,” these artworks can go through varied configurations.’23 Thus, the same work of media art will most likely present some differences
in the way it is exhibited through time and space. The (moving) images of a media work appear as projections or pixels on a screen, relying on technical apparatuses for their manifestation. As previously discussed, the artworks need to be activated in order to “exist.” They lack uninterrupted presence; therefore, they are inherently ephemeral and highly reliant in their iterations on the dispositifs that shape them.24 This is why
understanding the identity-function of technology becomes a pivotal issue in the conservation and presentation of media art.
Obsolescence and integrity
Technology-based art is at risk not only of material decay – as it is the case with other forms of fine arts such as painting and sculpture – but also of obsolescence. This is one of the major issues encountered by conservators and curators dealing with media art. The problem of display technologies (e.g. Cathode Ray Tube, Liquid Crystal Display monitors) and carriers (video tapes, DVDs etc.) becoming quickly outdated makes it crucial to establish where the work’s identity resides, as choices concerning what to preserve and how to present it need to be continuously discussed. In some cases, defining the relationship of the artwork to the display and operative technology is quite straightforward. For instance, when a media installation is constructed around the formal and aesthetic function of the display material, it is clear that the hardware should be considered as relevant to the work’s identity. Pip Laurenson (conservator at Tate Modern London) points out that ‘where an artist has exploited the sculptural properties of particular forms of hardware, the significance of the hardware to the identity of the work is clear;’ if that is not the case, however, attributing identity-value to the display material can become a challenge.25 In her seminal essay, ‘The Management of Display
Equipment in Time-Based Media Installations’, Laurenson explains that in order to face such a crucial problem, the materials can be categorized in ‘equipment that has purely functional value’ and ‘equipment that is significant for reasons over and above its functional role.’26 When display material has purely functional
value, it can be substituted from installation to installation without this affecting the identity of the work. If this is the case, then, the work’s authentic nature should be understood as residing elsewhere. Conversely, if the equipment is recognized to be significant beyond its function, it follows that it has aesthetic, conceptual or historical value in the formation of the work’s identity. To better understand what this entails for the discernment of a media work’s defining properties, it is useful to consider the different kinds of integrity
23 De Tilly, p.16.
24Giovanna Fossati, From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press, 2018), p.171.
25 Pip Laurenson, ‘Emerging institutional models and notions of expertise for the conservation of time-based media works
of art’, Technè 37 (2013), pp.36-42 (p.39).
26 Pip Laurenson, ‘The Management of Display Equipment in Time-Based Media Installations’, in Tate Papers 49.2
proposed by scholar and conservator Salvador Muñoz-Vinas. In conservation theory and practice, in fact, it is understood that maintaining a work’s integrity is an ethical issue, closely linked to the possibility of preserving the piece’s authenticity and identity. Taking into account Muñoz-Vinas’ distinction of the three kinds of integrity of an artwork, then, will allow me to analyse the different values that can be attributed to media works’ use of technology.
The value technology can assume in relation to a media artwork’s identity reflects the kinds of integrity proposed by Muñoz-Vinas:
‘Physical integrity refers to the material components of the object, which cannot be altered without violating it. Aesthetic integrity describes the ability of the object to produce aesthetic sensations upon the observer; if this ability is modified or impaired, the aesthetic integrity of the object is thus altered. Historical integrity describes the evidence that history has imprinted upon the object – its own particular history.’27
Therefore, preserving historical integrity will be challenging when a media work is re-exhibited in different form (by different form I here mean different display equipment, migrated content to different carriers or, in the case of installation and sculptural works, different exhibition objects). As noted by media art scholars Richard Rinehart and Jon Ippolito, by varying its form, ‘the artwork would never accumulate historical patina…If the components of an artwork are constantly upgraded […] there will be no material clues about its origins, and this might lead to misreadings.’28 The solution to historical discrepancies is found through
contextualization and documentation and will be explored later. For now, let us focus instead on the physical and aesthetic integrity of the work and how this relates to its identity.
Like all art, the chance that a media artwork will maintain its physical integrity throughout the years is unlikely, if not impossible. However, the issue is particularly urgent in media art conservation: with rapid technological development also comes rapid technological obsolescence. For instance, particular display and replay apparatuses stop being produced, making it more difficult to maintain the “original” technology of an artwork. Changes in the artwork’s physical manifestations are thus inevitable. This does not necessarily designate its physical elements (display equipment or other) as insignificant to its identity. Nevertheless, the focus in identifying the artwork has shifted from its material and object-specific character to a stress on its aesthetic integrity. Additionally, I argue, the identification process has also been increasingly centered on determining, when relevant, the conceptual integrity of media works. That is, the aim of conservation and exhibition practice has drifted towards maintaining and making available to the public what Clive Bell has defined as ‘the essential quality of a work of art’; that is, its significant form.29 As Bell explains, this phrase
27 Salvador Muñoz-Vinas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005), p.66. 28 Richard Rinehart, Jon Ippolito, Re-collection: Art, New Media, and Social Memory (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014),
p.212.
signifies the ‘arrangements and combinations that [in an artwork] move us in a particular way.’30 On the one
hand then, such statement refers to the possible aesthetic responses that will be produced in the beholders when they are presented with the work. On the other, it can also be extended to include the more logico-cognitive reactions produced in the public; i.e., the visitors are moved to generate certain ideas and thus to understand the work conceptually. In this respect, the identity of a media artwork seems to be defined in relation to the responses it produces (both aesthetic and conceptual) and is therefore released from the constrained notions of an “original” or from the singular materiality of the “art object”.
Aesthetic and conceptual approaches
For this reason, the aforementioned ideas shared by Benjamin and Preziosi on the concept of an authentic, fixed original ‘art object’ should be reviewed. An aesthetic and formal approach to media art identifies authenticity in the artwork’s aesthetic possibilities, not in its material components. The presence of an “original” can be reinterpreted as referring to the primal production of a feeling or experience rather than to its physical properties. This shift of focus from physical to aesthetic integrity can be related to the ‘shift from pragmatic to formal perception’ individuated by scholar Per Aage Brandt.31 Undertaking a
cognitive-semiotic approach to art’s understanding, he affirms that the ‘meaning (of each work of art or performance) is conveyed by the formal structure of the source;’ it is ‘in [its] presence that we are touched and moved.’32
Brandt therefore advocates a link between the work’s formal configuration and its reception, stressing the artwork’s form as pivotal in its identification. This might create some confusion. In order to avoid a return to the identification of the artwork with the “art object”, the concept of “form” needs to be here clarified. By form of a media artwork, I do not exclusively refer to the tangible objects that constitute or compose its physical being; i.e. its physical form. Rather, I mean the organisation of the ensemble of material and ephemeral shapes, colours, sounds, images and physical objects that the artwork presents and through which it manifests. This denotation of “form” thus considers the relationship between the various elements and their production of a “significant whole”, capable of producing a response in the visitor.33 Such definition is explicative of the
aesthetic approach to media art and can be exemplified by considering media artworks that have been reinstalled or re-exposed by emulation or recreation.
In 2004, to study how media works can be preserved in the long-term, the Guggenheim Museum organized the exhibition ‘Seeing Double: Emulation in Theory and Practice’. There, selected media artworks were installed in their first physical instantiation with an emulated or recreated form. “To emulate” literally means to imitate or mimic and has been applied in art preservation and presentation as a means to maintain and reproduce the aesthetic characteristics of an artwork. To better understand what this means, it is useful to consider Rinehart and Ippolito’s discussion of the practice. They affirm that ‘Emulated culture looks the same,
30 Ibd.
31 Per Aage Brandt, ‘Form and Meaning in Art’, in Mark Turner ed., The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle
of Human Creativity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp.171- 188 (p.172).
32 Ibd. 33 Bell, p.228.
feels the same, behaves the same as the original, but in a different medium.’34 An emulated work appears
identical to the original, without actually being so: the medium/technology changes but such change is not straightforwardly apparent. In the 2004 exhibition – among works by artists such as Cory Arcangel, Mary Flanagan, Grahame Weinbren and Roberta Friedman – Nam June Paik’s TV Crown (1965) was presented. In its 1965 “original” instantiation, the work consists of an RCA television to which a second deflection yoke has been added. A deflection yoke is an assemblage of coils through which a current is passed to produce a magnetic field. The field created deflects the beam of electrons which are thus scanned both vertically and horizontally over the TV screen. In TV Crown, audio signals are fed into the yokes thus modulating and distorting the electron beam. In this way, colourful geometric oscillations appear onscreen. Next to this “original” work, was its 2000 recreation (executed by Paik’s collaborator Jung Sung Lee) where the manipulation was performed on a (at the time) contemporary television set. As it is noted on variablemedia’s website, the aesthetic result of this latter configuration was deemed ‘comparable to the original.’35 While the
original hardware was not emulated, and thus this was more a recreation of the artwork than an emulation of it in the strict sense of the term, the aesthetic integrity of the work was respected. The manipulation was maintained, and the shapes and colours appearing on screen were equivalent to the original ones. Recreation can thus be here read as a synonym for “reinterpretation,” which Rinehart and Ippolito define as the replacement of ‘obsolete mass-produced items or out-of-date products with their functional or metaphorical equivalent.’36 In light of this, it is evident that this kind of recreation will not be possible once flat screens
completely substitute CRT TVs, as the new technology will not allow to operate the same kind of manipulation.37 Conversely, the different hardware used in the 2000 recreation of TV Crown did not influence
the overall aesthetics of the work (i.e., its overall appearance and behaviour). As explained by Gaby Wijers, ‘emulation [and I add, recreation, have] proven quite effective at producing an aesthetically authentic iteration [of artworks] evoking the “look and feel” of the original.’38 “Original”, once again, should be here read as
“first instantiation” rather than final and finite object, since, as clarified above, the identity of the artwork should be seen as residing in its aesthetic and formal character and not in a physically unique instantiation.
Related to but at the same time independent from aesthetic integrity, is the artwork’s conceptual integrity. As explained by Guigon ‘“aesthetics” derives from the Greek word aesthesis, meaning “sense perception,” “sensation,” or “feeling.”’39 The etymology of “concept”, instead, is retraceable to the Medieval
Latin “conceptus”, which literally translates to “thought”. While the aesthetic approach pushes an investigation of the media work’s identity as residing in the immediate response that the artwork will arouse in the viewer, the conceptual approach locates the identity of the work on the “idea” it expresses. The aesthetic and
34 Rinehart, Ippolito, p.9.
35 https://www.variablemedia.net/e/seeingdouble/. Accessed 14/03/2020. 36 Rinehart, Ippolito, p.10.
37 Idb.
38 Gaby Wijers, ‘Obsolete Equipment: Ethics and Practices of Media Art Conservation’, in Julia Noordegraaf, Cosetta G.
Saba et al. eds., Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013), pp.235-252 (p.237).
conceptual approaches are related to one another through their dependence on the form of the artwork. Indeed, “conceptus” derives from the verb “concipere”, that is, “to take in.” This brings us once again to focus on the form of the artwork: the work’s core concept is still being expressed through the organization of its perceptible manifestations (material, aural, visible). It is through these that the viewer is encouraged to “take in” the idea conveyed by the artwork. Nevertheless, the conceptual approach allows for wider degrees of change in the artwork’s presentation compared to the aesthetic approach. As mentioned by Cat Hope and John Charles Ryan, ‘in conceptual art […] the emphasis is on the idea, rather than on the subject or any object created.’40 While
the conceptual approach will thus follow such an attitude, the medium and physical components of the artwork will acquire more or less value depending on their relation to the specific “idea” expressed by the work. This brings us back to Laurenson’s suggestion of differentiating equipment in the two categories: “functional” and “beyond-functional.” In identifying the work, then, the physical components will be weighed based on their conceptual and/or aesthetic value. However, as it has been shown thus far, identifying such value(s) is not a simple endeavor. One way to face such a challenge, is to rely on the artist’s own definition of the artwork.
Artistic intention and the allographic character of media art
As shown by the different approaches analysed thus far, in conservation practice there is ‘no [single] convention for specifying the work determinative features of a time-based media work.’41 For this reason, the
artist’s specifications are of pivotal importance in the identification of the work. Borrowing from Davies’ analysis of musical works, Laurenson explains that media artworks can be “thinly” or “thickly” specified.42
British philosopher Gilbert Ryle coined the concepts of thin and thick descriptions, and used them to differentiate between accounts that overlook the cause or significance of a certain behavior (thin descriptions) and those that, contrarily, specify it (thick description).43 Laurenson does not adopt these terms in relation to
causality or explicit significance. Rather, she explains how Davies uses them to establish the degree of detail given by the artist in defining their work ‘through work-determinative instructions:’ thin descriptions will appoint comparatively fewer determinative properties to the artworks, thus leaving a higher degree of freedom to the performer-curator. 44 It is through these descriptions that, just as a composer gives directions on the
performance of a musical score, the artist instructs conservators and curators on what should be given importance in preserving and re-exhibiting their work. The analogy between music and media art is dominant in conservation theory and art criticism due to the performative quality they both share.45 The very
reinstallation of a media artwork and even the exhibition of single or multi-channel video works certainly
40 Cat Hope, John Charles Ryan, Digital Arts: An Introduction to New Media (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), p.83. 41 Pip Laurenson, ‘Authenticity Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations’, Tate Papers,
6 (2006). https://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/06/authenticity-change-and-loss-conservation-of-time-based-media-installations. Accessed on 3/03/2020.
42 Ibd.
43 Gilbert Ryle, ‘The Thinking of Thoughts: What is ‘le Penseur’ doing?’, Collected Papers, Vol. II (London 1971). 44 Ibd.
45 See for instance, Mark J. P. Wolf, Abstracting Reality: Art, Communication, and Cognition in the Digital Age (Lanham:
University Press of America, 2000), de Tilly, Laurenson, ‘Vulnerabilities and Contingencies in the Conservation of Time-based Media Works of Art’.
includes a degree of performativity. In this respect, it is relevant to consider Nelson Goodman and Gérarde Genette’s differentiation between autographic and allographic arts.46 As summarized by Mauro Calcagno,
autographic arts ‘consist of unique and unrepeatable acts represented by material objects’ while allographic arts are characterized by ‘ideal objects for which it makes no sense to differentiate between an original and its copies, since both legitimately represent the work.’47 This distinction pertains to the aesthetic and conceptual
approaches adopted in defining a media artwork’s identity. In their reinstallations, media artworks are unlikely to be exactly identical to their previous instantiations (physically, aesthetically or, sometimes, even conceptually) as their “scores” will be performed by the curators every time anew. The absence of an “original art object” will thus allow for different interpretations to emerge, all being representative of one media artwork. The association of media art with music then derives both from their performative, allographic character and from the possibility of being left with different degrees of specification. An artist can give their own directions on what are to be considered the work-defining characteristics of their creations.
However, this does not necessarily mean that all media artists specify (either thinly or thickly) their works. While some contemporary artists are willing to give such specifications in the form of scores and instructions alongside the work or in conversation with the institution acquiring their creations, others hesitate to do so. In Glenn Wharton’s words, ‘collecting and archiving artists’ intent is tricky business. Some artists are readily approachable and easily express their thoughts on acceptable patterns [of change] … Others choose not to address the future of their work.’48 This latter stance could be due to a variety of different reasons. I will
here focus on two main possibilities: first, that the artist fails to see the importance that their involvement and instructions have on the long-term perpetuation of their work; second, that once the work is completed, the artist does not want to maintain control over it. Laurenson notes that ‘time-based media installations operate more like sculpture in that the artist rarely sees him or herself working within a context that allows for interpretation.’49 This attitude – which recalls the traditional idea of an original, definite and final art object
within the museum/archive space– is becoming less and less common as a conservation culture for time-based media art has been developing in the past few decades. Then, the most likely reason for a media artist to avoid discussing the future of their work is that they believe that, for it to be perpetuated, they need to ‘let go of it’.50
This vision is shared, for instance, by Bruce Nauman. In an interview with Tony Oursler, the artist stated that ‘once the work is out of the studio, it’s up to somebody else how it gets shown and where it gets shown.’51
While this latter attitude does not help curators or conservators to define a fixed and final identity of a media artwork, it is useful in formulating a further approach to media artworks’ understanding and determination.
46 See Nelson Goodman, Of Mind and Other Matters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), and Gérarde Genette,
The Work of Art: Immanence and Transcendence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).
47 Mauro Calcagno, From Madrigal to Opera: Monteverdi’s Staging of the Self (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2012), p.30.
48 Glenn Wharton, ‘The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art’, in Bruce Altshuler ed., Collecting the New:
Museums and Contemporary Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp.163-178 (p.174).
49 Laurenson, ‘Authenticity Change and Loss in the Conservation of Time-Based Media Installations.’
50 Tony Oursler, 'Ways of Seeing: An Interview with Bruce Nauman', in Bruce Nauman and Janet Kraynak, Please Pay
Attention Please: Bruce Nauman's Words: Writings and Interviews (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003), pp.379-384
(p.381).
Nam June Paik: a procedural approach to media art
Following Chris Wahl’s tracing of media art history, a “procedural approach” can be formulated.52 A
procedural attitude to media artworks suggests change is inevitable and inherent to the genre, thus reflecting de Tilly’s idea that ‘the procedural nature of time-based artworks implies that their identity is constantly being redefined.’53 Such an approach can coexist with the conceptual and/or aesthetic attitudes previously analysed
as it opens, rather than limits, the interpretive frameworks assumed by curators and conservators. In consideration of the inevitable change media artworks undergo throughout their life, such an approach allows for the works’ identity to be negotiated throughout their several reconfigurations. The way a same work is installed in different instantiations, depends on a wide range of factors. While material obsolescence is certainly a fundamental issue in a media work’s presentation, incomplete documentation and lack of artistic specification can also lead curators to actively and personally interpret an artwork and consequently reinstall it. This applies, for instance, when the artist is no longer alive (and therefore communication between the curator and the artist is impossible) and/or has not left any kind of thick description of their work. This is the case for many early media artists, who often conceived their works outside of dominant cultural institutions which might have been interested in preserving their pieces as part of “cultural heritage”. Nam June Paik was one of such artists. An analysis of his work can here be useful to further clarify the relevance of a procedural approach in the identification and understanding of media artworks. Then, rather than directing attention to Paik’s technological experimentations and innovative work with media itself, I will at this stage reflect specifically on his approach towards the identity of his artworks. While this might seem to suggest a return to artistic intention as reading key, Paik’s attitude itself will allow me to highlight the procedural and open nature of media works. Focusing on two of the artist’s most famous installations, TV Buddha and TV Garden, I will examine the allographic character of media art and its changeable nature, stressing the fundamental function of interpretation in their reinstallation. As it will emerge, the curators’ understanding of the individual artwork’s identity will be subdued to their own judgement and interpretation of the score/instructions available.
Monographies and studies never fail to note that Paik’s approach to visual art was greatly influenced by his previous education and training in music. After fleeting the Korean War in 1950, and moving for a time to Hong Kong, Paik studied musicology at the University of Tokyo. In 1956 he moved to Germany, where he proceeded in his training in music, philosophy and art history in Munich, Freiberg and Cologne. There, his approach to music and musical performance was greatly influenced by encounters with avant-garde artists and New Music composers such as John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen. His previous formal training clearly contrasted with such avant-gardist movement. This divergence allowed Paik to dialogically reflect on the relevance and function of notation in performance and to mediate those notions from music to media art. On the one hand, media art can be appointed as an allographic art through being continuously reinstalled anew,
52 Chris Wahl, ‘Between Art History and Media History: A Brief Introduction to Media Art’, in Julia Noordegraaf, Cosetta
G. Saba et al. eds., Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013) pp.25-59 (p.28).
potentially following the artist’s instructions or specifications. On the other hand, the specification of media works always and inevitably comprises a level of indeterminacy that is revealed as the score is performed. That is, the artist’s specifications are translated from one medium (e.g. language, diagrams, pictures) to another by the curators reinstalling the artwork itself in its (multi)media form and perceivable manifestation.54
Throughout such a transformational operation, curators are able and, indeed, required to interpret the artwork: based on the context and space of exhibition, on the degree of documentation available, on the curators’ personal experience, as well as on the economic resources available, the instructions are continuously adapted anew. This space for interpretation is greatly connected to the idea of indeterminacy fundamental to New Music. New Music embraced indeterminacy as a ‘root principle’ which ‘proclaims a personal detachment [of the composer] from what will happen.’55 The idea of detaching oneself from the artwork’s interpretation in its
performance and, in the case of media art, reinstallation, reflects the aforementioned approach of ‘letting go’ of the artworks proposed by Nauman. This approach perfectly complies with Paik’s attitude towards his artworks’ presentation. Moreover, it stresses both the importance and inevitability of interpretation in their identification and reinstallation while also highlighting their procedural character.
Paik’s works reflect media art’s characteristic rejection of an original and finally defined art object as they actively allow for change in their reinstallation and development in their identity. This is evident when taking into account TV Buddha. The piece was initially produced in 1974 as a fill-in, last-minute work for the Galeria Bonino in New York. The artist placed an antique Buddha statue in front of a camera connected to a TV. The closed-circuit installation was subsequently part of different monographic and collective exhibitions worldwide, where it was reinstalled in different forms following the technical and economical availability of the institutions and the sensibilities of the curators. For instance, the Buddha statue featured in following instantiations was not bound to the one particular sculpture used by Paik in New York. Stephen Vitiello (one of Paik’s collaborators) recalls how, in discussing the installation of the piece in his first major exhibition in Brazil, Paik stated that ‘the curators could get …their own Brazilian Buddha.’ Vitiello continues, ‘When I started trying to pin [Paik] down on how to construct these pieces [referring also to TV Garden and TV Fish], his favourite thing to say was, ‘Use your judgement.’56 This perfectly mirrors Paik’s adherence to and
recognition of the procedural nature of his works. By inviting independent judgement on what is important to maintain in the exhibition of a work – that is, where its identity resides – he clearly pushed for the changeable nature of media artworks. This, again, connects with the idea of indeterminacy central to New Music. Paik himself stated: ‘I don’t like to have control … what I learned from John Cage is to enjoy every second by decontrol.’57 This was reflected in the lack of thickly specified scores left by the artist. As it will be clarified
in the next chapter, TV Buddha has recently evolved into a more stabilised piece, specified by the artist’s estate; however, as we have seen thus far, Paik himself understood the artwork’s identity as open to interpretation in
54 Marchiori, ‘The Analysis of the Artwork’, p.131.
55 George Rochberg, The Aesthetics of Survival: A Composer’s View of Twentieth-Century Music (Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 2004), p.4.
56http://thoughtmesh.net/publish/271.php. Accessed 20/04/2020. 57http://thoughtmesh.net/publish/271.php. Accessed 20/04/2020.
its material and conceptual acceptation. Its instructions have been continuously compiled not by the artist himself but by curators and conservators on the basis of previous installations and accounts supplied by the artist’s collaborators. Documentation thus becomes a crucial element in the understanding and interpretation of a media work of art as it allows to retrace its exhibition history and, through it, negotiate its identity. Philosophy and ethics scholar Henry David Aiken’s proposes that access to artistic intention can be gained not only ‘from explicit, although by no means infallible, statements of intentions’ but also ‘from titles, stage directions, and other such paraphernalia.’58 Transposing this from artistic intention to the artwork’s
identification allows to highlight the importance of documentation in tracing and thus recognizing the procedural and changeable nature of media artworks. Rinehart and Ippolito, suggest that documentation acting as a “recipe” for the reinstallation of media works, is rarer than documentation which acts as “recordings.” According to the scholars, the latter does not provide ‘specific instructions’ on how to perpetuate an artwork; rather it functions as ‘snap-shots of how the work appeared at a fixed moment in history.’59 Nevertheless, I
argue, this kind of “recording” documentation provides justification for the formulation of “variable scores”. Art historian and conservator Hanna Hölling clarifies that not only ‘the idea of an instruction entails the potential of various interpretations of the artwork that it refers to,’ but the work itself may also ‘trigger the changeability of the very instruction.’60 In light of this, a procedural approach seems particularly suitable when
discussing the identity of media artworks as it welcomes their changeable nature not only in their physical manifestations but also in their conceptualisation as scores. Works like TV Garden, for instance, continue to appear in different iterations depending on the curators’ interpretation of what Vitiello has defined as the conceptual score of the work. During the conference ‘Preserving the Immaterial’, hosted by the Guggenheim Museum, he stated ‘I really see TV Garden as a conceptual work. And I don’t know that he [Paik] ever wrote it down, but there’s basically an implied score, which is: Place Global Groove on Multiple monitors in a room; monitors are facing up and there’s plants surrounding, and there’s sound … Beyond that, I would say that he would be fairly flexible.’61 Paik’s flexibility towards his works’ identity sets a precedent for the changeable
nature of media artworks and installations, which is particularly manifest in TV Garden. Hölling gives a detailed account of the work’s installation history, highlighting the very different manifestations in which it materialised. Not only the type of plants and the number of TVs have changed (i.e. its physical components), but also the way the viewers are allowed to receive it. Visitors have been able to view the work from above, as in the exhibitions at the Whitney Musuem in 1982 and in the 1983 curated version by Laurent Busin;62 or
to experience it from ‘all angles’ through a slightly elevated path at the Nam June Paik Art Center in Seoul in 2008.63 Today the piece continues its mutations as it is differently installed and presented around the world.
58 Henry David Aiken, ‘The Relevance of Artists’ Intentions’, The Journal of Philosophy, 52.24 (1955), pp.742-753
(p.752).
59 Rinehart, Ippolito, p.63.
60 Hanna B. Holling, On Time, Changeability and Identity: In the Conservation of Nam June Paik’s Multimdia
Installations ('s-Hertogenboschp: Boxpress, 2013), p.70.
61https://variablemedia.net/e/preserving/html/var_pre_session_one.html. Accessed 20/04/2020. 62 Hölling, p.59.
TV Garden is currently part of one of the major Nam June Paik’s retrospectives to date; the exhibition has been organized by Tate Modern London and the San Francisco Musuem of Modern Art in collaboration with the Stedelijk Museum and comprises of more than 200 works by the artist, produced over the course of his career. Beginning at the Tate Modern on October 17 2019, the exhibition will tour to other four international venues: the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the National Gallery, Singapore. I viewed the show at Tate and Stedelijk and discussed the reinstallation at the Dutch institution with Ms. Leontine Coelewij, curator of contemporary art, who was in charge of the Nam June Paik retrospective. Ms. Coelewij explained that at the Tate Modern the visitors were able to view TV Garden from outside the designated room. However, when reinstalling it at Stedelijk the preferred method of exhibition was to give visitors the chance to enter the space of installation and to walk around the work, in order to experience it from different perspectives. She explained this curatorial decision in aesthetic terms, stating: ‘you can walk around it, you can go in the space, you get a feel into the garden’.64 Conversely to Tate’s presentation of the piece, by allowing access to the installation space, the
Stedelijk installation of TV Garden grants visitors to enter and personally relate to the micro-eco-system created by the artwork. The Stedelijk installation thus vastly differs with the Tate Modern’s presentation. The different installations show that even within similar contexts (the same travelling retrospective) a media work is constantly being reinterpreted in its installation. This allows the piece to create unstable, multiple meanings, providing visitors with variable experiences.
Paik himself stated that‘video installation will become like Opera … in which only the score will be ueberliefert to the next generation and the video curators in the next and subsequent generations will re-interpretate and install them every time new.’65 This clearly reflects the indeterminacy proper of allographic
arts and media works’ procedural and changeable nature. As I have shown throughout this chapter, media art challenges the fixed “original art-object” central to traditional art history and conservation practice, prompting new attitudes towards the artworks’ exhibition and conservation. While the aesthetic and conceptual approaches allow for physical components to change in the work’s reinstallation, they do not fully embrace the changeable nature of media art, per se. Therefore, I have suggested that a procedural approach better suits the identification and exhibition of media works of art. Without being exclusive, such an approach allows media works to be understood as changeable and procedural both in their physical and aesthetic-conceptual acceptations. This enables new interpretations and configurations to continuously emerge as the works are reinstalled for posterity. This inclination towards change is particularly evident through a media artwork’s documentation. By tracking the artwork’s installation history, documentation permits us to retrace the development of a media work through different times and spaces thus allowing the curators to sensibly reinstall the artworks. However, documentation does not only allow curators to knowledgeably interpret and redefine the work in its material re-execution, but is also useful in producing what Hölling defines as ‘discursive
64 Leontine Coelewij in conversation with the author.
65 Nam June Paik, “Artificial Intelligence vs Artificial Metabolism,” in Nam June Paik Fluxus/Video, ed. Wulf
interpretations.’66 These do not concern the physical re-installation of the artworks, but are instead directed
towards an art-historical and socio-cultural understanding of the works. It should be here noted that, independently from the purpose of its use, documentation will inevitably present some “gaps.” An artwork’s documentation will never be so complete as to leave no space for interpretation. These gaps in information, which are present in any retrospective reading of a text or event, resemble what reception theorist Wolfgang Iser defined as ‘blanks’ or ‘places of indeterminacy;’ in literary theory, these allow the reader to personally fill in the gaps in order to complete the reading process.67 This can be applied to the presentation of media artworks
as curators “read” (i.e. interpret) the artwork and its documentation. In the next chapter, I will discuss how museums and cultural institutions produce specific discursive interpretations in their presentation of media artworks. To do so, I will discuss how the context of exhibition changes an artwork’s predominant understanding. I will thus focus on what it means for an artwork to enter major institutions and, consequently, the canon. From there, I will explore how cultural institutions such as museums are able to promote and push forward specific interpretations through contextualization, prioritising certain understandings over others.
CHAPTER II
CONTEXT AND CONTEXTUALISATION: CANONIZATION, COUNTERCULTURE AND PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS
66 Hölling, p.104.
67 Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978),
As we have seen, media artworks go through various configurations throughout their life. They are continuously re-installed and re-exhibited and, as demonstrated by Paik’s case, their exhibition history informs understandings of their identity and meaning. Documentation, ‘both of the artwork’s concept and material-technical components as well as the cultural context in which it was conceived and first experienced’ informs but does not utterly determine readings of the pieces.68 Media works have necessitated curators to produce
individual interpretations, while taking into account a wide collection of records. These range from the artists’ documentation of the production process (when available) and their specifications and instructions, to the pictures, videos, reports and exhibition designs produced by art institutions throughout the installation and conservation of the works. To these, critics’ reviews and wider cultural dissemination should be added, as they contribute to give a more complete picture of how different discursive interpretations can be produced at different moments in an artwork’s life cycle. In this chapter, I am going to discuss how the institutionalisation of a media work contributes to its formalisation and, subsequently, to develop a popular or, in other words, “dominant” perception of it as becoming a part of cultural heritage. The configuration that a media work takes when entering an institution and its further exhibition in such an official environment will be particularly important to its understanding. It is often in such contexts that the artwork is “formalised” and “canonised.” By discussing canonisation, I will point out the legitimizing role of dominant cultural institutions. These latter sites will be opposed to the countercultural spaces in which media art was presented in the 1960s; particularly, I will pay attention to Fluxus as the context within which some of Paik’s works initially appeared. Departing from this differentiation, I will specify how, by providing context and a framework for the understanding of the artworks, major museums are able to push forward certain readings and interpretations over others. In this respect, I intend to suggest that cultural institutions often try to conceive an “ideal beholder” who will receive the works in a specific, established way.
TV Buddha: formalising the artwork
Firstly, in order to discuss what is meant by “formalisation” and “canonisation” of a media artwork, it is important and indeed necessary to clarify the role museums play in the preservation and promulgation of cultural identity and cultural memory. Archives and museums in the West have traditionally been understood as repositories of truth. As explained by Tiffany Jenkins, ‘Museums hold a cultural authority that frames and affirms the pursuit of truth and defines what is historically and culturally significant.’69 In the second half of
the twentieth century, however, scholarship started to criticize the truth-value assigning function of cultural institutions. Jacques Derrida famously challenged the archive’s objective character and stated that a repository ‘is not simply a mass of facts, of true facts, to be gathered and delivered and made available’: what it collects
68 Julia Noordegraaf, ‘Introduction’, in Julia Noordegraaf, Cosetta G. Saba et al. eds., Preserving and Exhibiting Media
Art: Challenges and Perspectives (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013), pp.11-20 (p.15).
69 Tiffany Jenkins, ‘The crisis of cultural identity’, in A Museum Studies Approach to Heritage (London: Routledge,
