The reading starts with a short background on the artist Steina. She was a co-founder of The Kitchen, a place for electronic art in New York, in the 1970s. In her work she often manipulated electronic signal. She used multi-screen installations, videotapes, and computer generated arrangements of machines to prove the difference between video art and other fields.
Then the reading turns to Steina describing her work from her point of view. She discusses how she got her start in the field and the original techniques they had to use to edit film. Steina talked about her and Vasulka's work and installations. She made her audio match up with the images shown on tape and change as the visual content did. She didn't care for teaching but when she did she liked to break the molds the school had instilled in her students. Her art is mostly about communication with oneself. Finally she tells a story of a specific performance where she assigned 5 strings to 5 MIDI channels in order to manipulate an electronic signal.
This reading was a nice change of pace. It seemed to focus more on the history of an artist with first hand experience at the time of video's beginnings. It didn't go into technical language that was difficult to follow and it didn't try to convince us that the accepted history is incorrect. It was interesting and allowed you to relate to her work. There were numerous images that helped me to visualize her style. The most interesting part was at the end where she described the performance she did playing her instrument to create the artwork live in front of an audience.
Q: How did combining the two fields of music and video art compliment each other as in the case of her performative piece? Did having the two elements in the same piece handicap the final outcome or was it a success?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought that the time was right for music and video to be combined when she did. So far, artists had broken down the television signal and then used video to make art not about the medium. I feel that performance was the logical next step when looking at historical art movements.
ReplyDeleteIt was funny how she was teaching her students to think differently. To hold on to their beliefs/mentality even if most others disagree, and to challenge traditional values and thoughts instilled by the institution.
ReplyDeleteIt was important that Steina was using a physical music making object (called in plain English, an instrument, or a violin) to alter the video signal, drawing attention to the Vasulkas' interest in exploring the link between the video and sound signal
ReplyDeleteShe made a music video, you have to like that. the ability to alter art visually and audibly by adapting a musical instrument is awesome. She didn't rely upon a machine, buttons, and controllers but rather used a more tactile editing manner. The combination of music and video only enhanced the end product.
ReplyDelete