The last of my formal conversations on video and performance was with artist and curator Cinzia Cremona. She was in Sydney and sadly my a-n grant didn’t stretch so far as to fly me there for the meeting. This was clearly for the best in terms of carbon footprint and it was actually very appropriate to talk over Skype as we had previously had a conversation in a similar way as part of a video art project of hers involving virtual dining.
She has a very particular interest in video art and performance this being the major thrust of her PhD and the direction of her program when she was co-curating Visions at The Nunnery in London. We started with some historical figures who have staked out the territory of video performance. Vito Acconci was the first we covered and while I was well aware of his performances I was not so aware of his video work that incorporates this and which looks incredibly prescient given the directions things have evolved in.
Abramovic and Ulay came up naturally enough within the discussion of the position of the camera in the live performance. They set up many of their performances for the camera then invited a live audience to watch. This combines some of the precision of the film-maker with that of the performance artist and is one way to straddle the two media. I have seen this go too far in terms of events being documented to death and it seems to me that the presence of the camera and focus of the performer is an issue here. I have in mind here a Herman Nitsch performance but now I think about it that was as much a problem of the spectators all wanting a piece of the action and crowding round with their gadgets. This staged for camera approach can work with certain types of work, I guess. Where I will not forgive Abramovic is the dreadful video of hers where she is reunited with Ulay after all those years at her MOMA show, complete with violin background music. This was recorded at the same time they were fighting in the courts over unpaid royalties on their shared artworks, a case she finally lost.
We got onto the question of at what point does an artist become a video artist and cease being a performance artist working with video. Sometimes this line is blurred and the liminal space between the two media is a very productive one. John Smith’s films are a case in point. In many of them, such as Hotel Diaries, he plays a significant presence as the narrator and his camera often adopts a POV focus. While he never, as far as I am aware, gives live performances, his films are infused with a performance for the camera sensibility.
Joan Jonas was a further point of reference and following up on her work and some of the other artists we talked about I am struck by the final form in which this work reaches its public. These are works that are consumed within the gallery. John Smith in a conversation at The Barbican makes the valid point that his screenings are usually one-offs and the people who come are usually in the know whereas gallery exhibitions continue for some time and new people can discover the work. When putting this alongside online video, which I talked about during my last meeting, the distinctions become clearer and these are manifest too in the type of work that fits best with these different formats. It seems I will have some experimenting to do.
