|
Chapter
5 varying rates of variation In a way, it is maybe still up to the artist to decide in what respect, under which conditions, the installations can change their shape. For Bogers, it is very important to keep control over the situation as long as he is around. Simultaneously, he also acknowledges that in the future, after his death, his works might be changed and adapted for radically different settings, with new ways of presenting work and other technological possibilities. But even within a lifetime, there are differences between the works as to how much they change their form and in what situations. As Bogers has indicated, installations often vary frequently in what elements they include and how they are presented in the first years after they occur for the first time (which is actually not an absolute beginning, as the collecting of materials often starts long before concrete spatial presentations).27 These early years are an experimental period for the artist in which to try different configurations and settings. Later on, works gain a relative stability, as they are left as they are over longer periods of time and are less frequently exhibited; they basically undergo a process of sedimentation, in which certain elements become (temporarily) fixed and less interchangeable. However, it is important to note that there is no such thing as an installation that remains invariable in every respect. There are definitely varying rates of variation in a work, but in the end it is still the possibility of repetitive change that prevails. Even in a situation, in which an installation is site-specific to such a degree that transferring it to a different site would destroy the work, it would still change its form/mechanism/conceptual content over a course of time. That is, when encountered it would be considered as a different type of event. This has especially become evident in relation with Ritual regarding the consequences of technological nostalgia. Even if a work, like Sacrifice, is sold as a unicum and does not seem to undergo significant changes anymore, its development is not put to a definite hold. Changes in lighting, for instance, can emphasize different aspects of the installation. In the case of Sacrifice this can lead to changes in the way the work is perceived und understood. Whereas at the Netherlands Media Art Institute, the photographic document, which had the form of a scroll, was attached to a white wall, in a space with relatively neutral lighting, the presentation at the Württembergischer Kunstverein includes dramatic light and a photograph printed on canvas, which has rather different connotations. As mentioned before, the work becomes more “museal”, revealing the staged, theatrical character of the action performed by the artist. In contrast, the way it was displayed in Amsterdam, that is, in a style that could be described as rather “1970’s”, it seems to have more in common with historical performance art and its pretension to be direct, spontaneous and lo-fi. In that way, there is a particular ambivalence to the work, as there is a tension between the way it looks and what it actually shows, i.e. a staged action, technologically framed and carefully planned. Which does not imply that one presentation is necessarily better than the other – this is just to mention another example of how a relatively insignificant detail that might not even be considered part to the work, can change the viewer’s perspective and the hermeneutical context it is assigned to. |
|
ON THE PERFORMATIVITY OF DOCUMENTATION AND PRESERVATION
OF VIDEO INSTALLATIONS |