Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Week 11
Here is documentation of Nauman's piece Live Taped Video Corridor (1970). Please incorporate into your response an answer to the following question: what would Michael Fried think of this piece in light of his criticism of theatricality? Additionally, please respond to the piece in regards to Kraynak's article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Nauman's "Live Taped Video Corridor," Nauman forces audience participation in order to understand or fully appreciate his piece. This is true for other works discussed in the article such as the "Going Around the Corner Piece" and the "Green Light Corridor." With these works, Nauman plays with ideas of surveillance, isolation, and claustrophobia. Janet Kraynak tells of how "participation in Nauman's environments emerges as an oppressive concept that is at the expense of the viewer: or at least, while his installations depend upon the viewer's interaction, [the viewers] are nonetheless ambivalent about the possibilities such involvement affords [creating] uncomfortable experiences.” (Kraynak, 229) When a participant enters Nauman's “Video Corridor,” he or she is confronted with an image of themselves from behind on a monitor in front of them. Their image shrinks in size the closer that they get to the monitor while the monitor beneath loops an image of an empty corridor. The slender walls only invite one viewer at a time, leading the viewer towards feelings of both claustrophobia and isolation.
ReplyDeleteBecause this piece is one that is experienced and then concluded, this may not fit in comfortably with Michael Fried's notions of literalist theatricality. Fried says that “the presentment of endless that... is central to literalist art and theory is essentially a presentment of endless, or indefinite, duration.” (Fried, 832) Additionally, Fried talks of how in Modernist art, the viewer “experiences … a kind of instantaneousness [where] a single infinitely brief instant would be long enough to see everything” and, by that virtue of instantaneousness, “modernist painting and sculpture defeat theatre.” (Fried 832) I believe that Nauman's “Video Corridor” could be viewed as both instantaneous and endless; it all depends on the audience's relation to the work. The video displayed on the monitors are both recording and looping video (respectively), constantly and consistently. It exists instantaneously in the way that it displays the subject (or empty space when vacant) as he or she walks back and forth down the corridor. It is endless in the way that it exists even without an audience or participant. The viewer interrupts the endlessness of the work and inserts themselves in a temporary situation with a beginning and an ending. It is uncertain how Fried would actually feel about this piece, but the piece does seem lie somewhere in between Fried's notions of theatricality and traditional, Modernist art.
In his 1967 article, “Art and Objecthood,” Michael Fried is opposed to the idea of audience participation in art. Fried analyzes a new movement of artists, who he calls the “Literalists” (Minimalists). As Kristine Stiles aptly points out in her essay, “Eye/Oculus: performance, installation and video,” that the shifts in, “…the nomenclature related to installation art reflect ideological, technological and aesthetic changes in the medium throughout the twentieth century.” (Stiles 198). In the 1950s and 1960s, minimalist artists were within this ideological “shift” and were creating works in oppositional response to traditional, Modernist art practices. Minimalists focus on the art object for exactly what it is: an object. These objects insinuate a kind of performativity, or what Fried calls “theatricality,” from the viewer or audience member. One is confronted with the object within the gallery space and becomes acutely aware of his/her relationship to that object within the space. This viewer is, then, engaged directly with the object and has an individual experience in relation to that object.
ReplyDeleteFried claims that relying on the viewer to add their individual experience of an artwork automatically creates different experiences for each viewer. This, in turn, makes the piece an unstable and private experience that cannot be shared between two or more people. Fried states that, “ ‘You just have to experience it’ – as it happens, as it merely is. (The experience alone is what matters.) There is no suggestion that this is problematic in any way. The experience is clearly regarded by Smith as wholly accessible to everyone, not just in principal but in fact, and the question of whether or not one has really had it does not arise.” (Fried 828). Here, Fried defines art by its ability to create a universal experience for multiple viewers, and its ability to surpass personal differences between individual people.
With all this said, Fried would most likely not appreciate Bruce Nauman’s “Live Taped Video Corridor” as he would a traditional, Modernist sculpture. Nauman’s piece requires a viewer to walk through a narrow corridor towards two monitors, which instantly necessitates an active participation/performativity/theatricality from the audience. In this piece, only one person may experience the work at a time, which perpetuates this notion of the private experience. Nauman’s piece can also be viewed from multiple angles, which creates a multiplicity of interpretations. The first person who walks down the corridor will have a different experience compared to the second person waiting to walk down the corridor. The first person watches their own, mediated image on the monitor as they walk down the corridor while the second person watches the real, first person as he/she walks away from them. Janet Kraynak states that the Technocratic society, “…is precisely built upon this dynamic: a dialectic of participation and control.” (Kraynak 235). Nauman’s work is dependent upon this participation of the viewer and while he is “controlling” the overall, constructed experience, the two viewers in this corridor situation are both participating and controlling a certain aspect of how this piece unfolds. The first person is controlling how the second person experiences the piece - the second person is forced, or controlled, to watch and wait for the first person before they can have their own experience.
-Kate Brandt
According to Michael Fried theater is the negation of art, and the very survival of art requires the defeat of theatricality. For these reasons Michael Fried would be appalled by Nauman’s theatrical piece Live Taped Video Corridor. I view this work as theatrical not only because of the use of viewer as performer, but also because of his treatment of temporality. Fried explains that a great advantage painting and sculpture have over theater is the illusion of continuous presentness. Theater, on the other hand, “…addresses a sense of temporality, of time both passing and to come, simultaneously approaching and receding, as if apprehended in an infinite perspective…” (p.182)
ReplyDeleteLive Taped Video Corridor is almost the visual manifestation of this quote. Nauman apprehends us in an infinite perspective by using two long walls, slowly getting closer to each other, as a way to mimic the illusion of two parallel lines extending into infinite space, as created by the use of perspective in traditional paintings. Then he makes us aware of time both passing and to come by confronting us with the live video feed of our own image getting further away, as we try to get closer.
Janet Kraynak’s article “Dependent Participation: Bruce Nauman’s Environments” destabilizes Fried’s argument that there is a war between theater and art by suggesting that the role of the viewer is not that different. She asks us to reconsider, in the context of a technocratic society, what it means to participate. Nauman treats the viewer like any other sculptural element in his work. And like other elements, viewers need to be carefully controlled and manipulated to render his desired outcome. This is what Kraynak refers to as the weak, or dependent, participant; participation that seems voluntary but is in fact a form of submission. This “dependent participation” is central to the concept of technocracy. According to Kraynak this is what gives Nauman’s work such power; “…I want to suggest that Nauman’s environmental sculptures share or are energized from one of the central principles of technocratic society-that of ‘dependent participation.’ ” (p. 199)
-Anna Helgeson
Michael Fried spoke a lot of the beholder in his essay “Art and Objecthood”. He would say the beholder of literalist art not only includes the audience (beholder) but depends on the beholder for the art to have meaning. As he wrote about incorporated the beholder he says, “They must be placed not in his space but in his way.” Bruce Naumans’ piece Live Taped Video Corridor certainly depends on the audiences’ participation. The video documentation took the piece out of context because I watched it before I read Janet Kraynak’s essay “Dependant Participation”. In her essay she wrote about the perceptual tricks Nauman would play during his performance based art exhibits. The substance of his art highly depends on its audience, which is why Fried would have disregarded Naumans’ art as art. The literalist art was highly disregarded in Fried’s mind because he thought the interaction of art and its viewer should not depend on any physical or psychological interaction, to the point where the art transforms or relies on the beholder.
ReplyDeleteIn Nuamans’ art that is exactly what he did. He constructed his exhibits to constrain the viewer and to, almost, control the viewer without any physical interaction. Kraynak wrote about Nauman as having mistrust of audience participation. In an interview covered in her essay between Nauman and Willoughby Sharp, Nauman was quoted saying, “I mistrust audience participation. That’s why I try to make these works as limiting as possible.”
I can only wonder why or what caused him to mistrust his audience-also why he turns to mind-bending or mind-numbing exhibits that clearly confuses and constrains the audience. His work seems interesting but something I would see at Discovery World, not Milwaukee Art Museum.
Fried would believe that Nauman's piece "Live Taped Video Corridor" would be a play on theatricality and not a formal art piece. He writes in his criticism that "the presence of literalist art... is basically a theatrical effect or quality - a kind of stage presence. It is a function, not just of the obtrusiveness and, often, even aggressiveness of literalist work, but of the special complicity that that work extorts from the beholder." I believe that from this statement Fried is saying that the theatricality of literalist work intrudes on the viewer's experience of the art work in which they must take seriously and fulfill the demand of being aware of that piece. I am not sure if I fully agree with this criticism of theatricality, I think that if used in the right way teatricality does not take away from the art piece but can help the viewer to understand the work better by having them interact with the piece.
ReplyDeleteIn Kraynak's article she writes that "Nauman's environments merges as an oppressive concpet that is at the expense of the viewer:or,at least, while his installation depend upon the viewer's interation, they are nontheless ambivalent about the possibilities such involvement affords and, as such, create uncomfortable experiences." This statement I think relates to Fried's criticism of the theatrical but at the same time makes me believe that these uncomfortable experiances are what the artist is going for. In this instance I think that the theatrical aspect of his work in which the viewer must interact with the piece to understand it helps his work.
alex ninneman
In Kraynak's article, she describes the experiences to Nauman's works as " a strange, even enlightening encounter ... assaulted with sound, frightened with foreboding narrow spaces and cornered by video cameras." I would say this was pretty close to my initial reaction to this video. The idea is straightforward enough, by creating these elaborate, exaggerated spaces, the artists has already created a space that is inherently tense. The cool color palette of this piece and the echoey soundtrack to it give it an almost holy feel to it, but the experience is tightened by the narrow walls and heightened ceiling. Nauman stays true to Kraynak's assessment in terms of interaction with the participant, the whole experience has an uneasy feel, that much we already, know. But only until after we see an individual awkwardly navigate it's narrow passages and reflect upon their cinematically captured progress is the piece fulfilling it's intended desire. The tv camera's are positioned at the end of the hallway, filming from above the participant, there is no doubt that feeling's of uneasiness are conjured from within.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though his work is not completed until a spectator has participated, he is still in control of the piece. In this particular installation, the viewer is not able to fully make out what is on the television monitors until they are up close and can see that they were the ones being filmed, this is a take on his ability to control when the participant is able to interact with the installation and can sequence their realizations about the piece. As he stated in the article, he has placed camera's around corners so that the viewer gets a last glimpse of themselves in the monitor before they fully turn the corner. He also has more tools at his disposal for creating a sense of discomfort, playing back video of the participants body moving through the space, though turned at 90 degrees, narrowing the space so that it may not be entered, changing lighting effects and contorting ambient sounds, all multiply the complexities of his rather simple spaces.
As I have stated before, conceptual art is a field that I have yet to fully feel comfortable in. I am usually most comfortable looking at a painting or sculpture and either admiring it's physical qualities or it's implied metaphors, stories, etc. I found Michael Fried's piece a little enlightening in showcasing how modern modes of thinking are trying to escape that contained, reigned in way of projecting a though. I am a painter and can attest to his assumption that painting is based on "how to organize the surface of the picture" in regards to shape placed on a canvas. Through classes here at the university as well as outside of school, I have personally been trying to step back from the conditional methods of painting and trying to wander other avenues of thought projection. All too often, I have finished a piece and have considered it a mild success based on it's ability to convey my thoughts through the painted shapes on the canvas and their relationship to each other. I am beginning to see how an artist, like Nauman perhaps, might walk completely away from a static mode of though provocation and would find ways to directly engage the viewer and conjure emotions. He could paint a piece about war, large and vivid on a wall, but would that best convey the feelings of war? Constantly looking behind one's back, mortality for oneself as well as the enemy, uncertainty, confused feelings of love and hate for one's self as wells as the enemy. These ideas of war, the emotions of battle and the uneasiness that is created could also be expressed quite well in his theatrical installations. The size, color, and shapes of the walls, the soundtrack playing as the participant navigates the space, views of the participant on monitors from cameras they cannot see. These are just a few tricks that might be better ways to reach a broader range of people and create a more lasting theatrical experience of war rather than trying to capture an image on canvas.
field lehmann
Bruce Nauman’s piece Live Taped Corridor is designed as a structure in a way that may lend itself to not being theatrical but his choice to show the viewer themselves on a monitor causes the viewer to become aware of their presence in the space and consequently their act of viewing. I believe this fact, of the viewer recognizing themselves as a viewer, to be what Fried means by “theatricality.” Nauman’s piece is first present to the viewer as something in which they are given an individualized space to view it, so as to allow for a comfort in which the viewer can approach the piece without their active acknowledgement of viewing it, which could occur alongside consciousness of others in the space. The corridor is only big enough for one person, and assuming that there is no line of people waiting to take their turn to enter, the viewer does not regard others in the gallery unless they have previous knowledge of people behind them, at the entrance. Nauman’s piece becomes explicitly theatrical once the viewer can distinguish what is being played on the monitor, and realizes that it is an image of themselves in the corridor, and from behind. The viewer automatically becomes conscious of themselves in the space and of their act of viewing the monitors, because they can watch themselves do so. Nauman is deliberately making their act of viewing the content of the piece. Kraynak writes, “In the process the viewer becomes almost an object – a sculptural element” (229).
ReplyDeleteAnother way in which Nauman’s piece seems to fulfill theatricality is through its dependence on duration, or time. Fried writes, “…theatre addresses a sense of temporality, of time both passing and to come, simultaneously approaching and receding” (832). This statement applies quite literally to Nauman’s piece. The piece seems to exist only with the involved presence of a viewer as a visible addition, and the viewers come and go, giving the piece a sense of duration based on the viewer’s choices.
Stiles writes, “Fried argued that ‘literalist’ or ‘situational’ art threatened the status of static objects, and he rejected the politics implicit in art that reached beyond autonomous objects into the social and cultural conditions of the viewer’s everyday life” (201). This statement comes across as saying that art should not include the everyday but should remain as consisting of objects with status (although I don’t feel as if I entirely grasp Fried’s idea of theatricality). Nauman’s piece would then even moreso be categorized as theatrical in that it is mainly the presentation of a situation which does not exist with a status on its own; meaning it is made specifically for an audience and cannot exist without one. Consequently I then wonder what Fried would say about the documentation of the piece, since it no longer requires a viewer to be present.
Laura Bennett
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Fried would scrutinize Naumans “Live Taped Video Corridor” due to its theatrical and performative nature. The entire work itself is a ‘situation;’ it has to be experienced to be complete. It lacks any specific art object (much like Smith’s New Jersey Turnpike experience) – the viewers themselves become both the Subject and the Object of the work; therefore embodying the ‘objecthood’ of the experience. The audience is entirely aware of their relationship with the work, since audience participation is necessary to complete the work. Much of Naumans work seemingly exists for the audience – a condition of Theatre, not Art. Naumans work lacks the important ‘present-ness’ of Literalist work; due it its lack of a specified Object.
ReplyDeleteThis piece, “Live Taped Video Corridor” is not only the perfect example of dependent participation; “…the beholders role is no longer one of passive witness. Instead, the viewer is directly, physically engaged – ‘performing’ rather than ‘viewing’….” Nauman depends on the viewers to interact with camera in order to complete the work, but hated the idea of his work being turned into a game. The viewer is engaged, quite often in an attempt to ‘beat the system’ so to speak, and figure out how the piece works/deconstruct it.
kari borchert
Bruce Nauman’s piece Live Taped Video Corridor is just that; a live taped video of a corridor. It is nothing more, nothing less. It is not a simple sculpture that the viewer can walk around so is it considered a piece of art? Michael Fried would not consider this theatrical piece to be artwork because Nauman has not created a solid structure that can stand on it’s own. Nauman’s piece is completed through the participation and interactions between the structure, the video, and the crowd.
ReplyDeleteNauman’s structures are set up in a way that the viewer almost has no choice but to engage in the work. “I don’t like the idea of free manipulation … A lot of people had taken a lot of trouble educating the public to participate – If I put this stuff out here you were supposed to participate” (Nauman 228). With this thought, Nauman does not force to viewer to do anything, he merely encourages them and shows them what they are supposed to do so they do not create their own artwork out of it. However, the interaction that the viewer has with the structure is what creates the piece, so in the end the viewer does have some say in what happens even though it is very little.
Janat Kraynak suggests that participation is something that is either obligatory or voluntary. As the world continues to emerge with new ideas and new ways in this technocratic society, audience involvement has become more prevalent. People have become more interested in what is going on around them, so therefore they have become more inclined to participate and find out.
.........the above comment is by Amanda White
ReplyDelete