Boris Groys On the aesthetics of video installations ‘As video and film installations increasingly gain entry into traditional museums, the more both our relationship to the museum and our perception of moving images are changing. First and foremost, this development has implications for the typical light and time conditions prevailing in museums that determine our contemplation of art. Traditionally, the source of museum light has always been located ‘outside the exhibits - which is ultimately what allows them to be contemplated. Generally, museums fre cast in a constant state of perfect daylight, even if this happens to constitute an artificial day. In Video and film installations have now introduced deepest night or dusk into the museum, ‘the modern museum's evenly uniform and customer-friendly illumination to be extinguished. in a museum video installation no longer serves to provide the most favourable conditions #s appreciation of pictures — in other words, to offer a space in which the viewer can freely ‘ove around in his endeavour to gain the best vantage point. As a site for video installa- has ceased to be a place of absolute visibility. Here, the lack of visibility, darknessand the bewilderment induced by a nocturnal space are supplementary features of wha exhibited ~ even the way patches of light and dark are distributed will si particular viewing position. As Heidegger described it in his aesthetic philosophy, the viewer of a video installation is automatically drawn towards a clearing (“Lichtung”) the viewer toward: But most importantly, museum lighting no longer illuminates the works of art from the outside. Instead itis the pictures themselves — as video, TV and film images — that emit light. So one might ask whether is ight in fact belongs to the work of art. Does it represent a constituent element of the work? h museum light was the symbolic property of the viewer. It was in this light that he actually Now the light has become part of the work and is accordingly controlled and deter- ‘artist. The viewer's gaze is regulated by his light design. This amounts to a crucial shift ithe light conditions that affect the contemplation of art and, correspondingly, to a shift ‘represents a new form of control exerted by the artist over the viewer's gaze ~an issue attention. Itis almost as though the prophecies voiced in the legendary mysteryKhlebnikov hhad come true. The opera predicted the extinction of the Ki opera, Victory over the Sun (produced in 1913 by ichi un and the by an artificial, nocturnal light that is transferred into the symbolic pc More conspicuous stil, however, is the way video installations have conditions influencing our perception of art. In a traditional museum ideal terms — retains complete control over the time he devotes to cont examination ofa picture at any time and return to it later on — to rest at exactly the same point as he lett. For the entire period of the viewer will remain in an identical state and is thus constantly open to repeal even go $0 far as to claim that it is solely this self-identity of a pictu constitutes what our culture defines as “high art’. In “normal”, everyday for contemplation is quite evidently prescribed by life itself. When it come from real lfe we lack the autonomy and command to access or control therr and Matiushin) vatural” daylight tis. n the temporal cor ~ at least if interrupt his ion of the work mobile picture tion. One could > that in general at our disposal duration of images Il. All we can seeswhat we are shown of life ~ and even this only when life permits us to see it. Thi with the wish to pause for moment and to make this moment stand still ~ pre is only then that the viewer obtains the unlimited reserves of time he requ determine the time and rhythm he wishes to allocate for his contemplation. Hence ‘ in general, any exhibition space where inert images are displayed ~ acquire: rimarily through the fact that the viewer's autonomy (defined as his ability to maintain contr span he allocates for his attention) is guaranteed by the system of museum custodianship tation. imission of moving pictures into the museum the situation hi begun to dictate to the viewer how much time he should spend on contemplation, his accustomed autonomy. The museum visitor now suddenly finds himself back in al fe outside the museum, returned to that familar place we all know as somewhere iss out on anything of importance. In so-called real life one is forever haunted drastically altered. Movingby the feeling of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If during a museum v Contemplation of some video or film work in order to return to it at a later point, we ial and will no long filed with that very same feeling of having missed something is really happening in the installation. This sensation, incidentally, never arises in the « on the whole the fim-goer is entirely deprived of his freedom or autonomy. From the ve ‘no choice but to accept that for a certain period of time he will have to remain seated dark. The cinema system calls for the agitation of the images to be compensated for b of the viewer. Hence our culture offers us two different models for gaining control over time — the immobiliz the image in the museum and the immobilization ofthe viewer in the cinema. Yet both models fal pt our bly be what ause has the rtia of fence moving pictures are transferred into the museum. Here the pictures continue to move, but the viewers are in motion as wel Itis strikingly evident that this incurs a situation in which the contradic Yo expectations of going tothe cinema and visting a museum are bound to clash dramatically ~ andcast the viewer of an installation in a state of doubt and bewik , longer knows what to do: should he stay put and let the ima ‘a movie theatre, or should he continue to move about hope that, as time progresses, the images will not ch i lu quite clearly leave much to be desired. Yet in this new situation to admit t ‘ ‘ean be no adequate and satisfactory solution. Whateve" n, either to stay (oF to keep moving, his choice will always amount to a p< Ka repeatedly revised. Asaresult, the additional aesthetic value of a museum-based vides tion lies above all in explicitly issue of the lack of overall view, certainty and control on the part of the vie ‘his time and attention within museum surroundings that hitherto had created the illusion of rely graspable. Needless to say, what we are talking about here are not the notorious in a work of art, or in other words, the “intellectual” inadequacy er in terms of bound-of the viewer to conclusively fathom the significance of a work of art. Instead. in question are the sheerly physical, time-related constraints on gaining a general grasp of t al form of a work of art — long before interpretation of any kind can take place. This is why vic llations are er se beyond conclusive aesthetic judgement. Since the only criterion that imize such a conclusive aesthetic judgement is the viewer's overall grasp of the work of art, the video installation radically challenges such a judgement. One possibility of reflecting these new time-related ‘Circumstances is to produce video installations Ep itich a eerisin viieo image undergoes only the most gradual change —if at all- thereby echoing ibe Way msisetine rastionall present incivdual, motonloss pictures. One early example of such a strategy can be seen in Andy Warhol's Empire State Building. What we see is a si that barely changes for hours on end; if ths fim were shown as part of a film instal visitor (in contrast to the movie-goer) would not be in a position to know if the im the same throughout the entire course of its screening - for, ingle, stable image lation, the museum lage had remained #5 Previously noted, the museum visitoris both permitted and even supposed to move freely around the exhibition space return to it later on. As a result, by the end of Warhol's film the museum vi movie-goer) will not be able to say whether it involved a static or a moving image. B this uncertainty that places an explicit focus on the relationship between moving and within a museum context. Such stable video or film images as part of a museum instal thematize the antagonism between the expectations of museum visitors and the ine Another possibilty of displaying this uncertainty, one that is particularly well demonstrated in ‘of Stan Douglas, is to present in an art context relatively short video and film fragme broadly familiar aesthetics of typical mainstream cinema, of feature-length flims normally show jie theatres. Accordingly, a sense of absence, unfinishedness and unassessabiliy is generated ‘exhibition viewer is led to believe that the work is merely an excerpt from a much longer film ( ich he will not get to see. Stan Douglas's video works always have a beginning and an end sbe purely arbitrary — in the same way that every human life is set purely arbitrary limitsby birth and death and thus somehow always remains unconcluded. But ths i boy a simple (though remarkably uncompromising) transfer of modern trag traditional atstic media onto moving images. Rather, | would claim that it moving fim images in a museum context that liberates the film image a inarticulacy and opens it upto flm-theoretical discourse. Indeed, until recently fim seemed to be surrounded by a certain speechlessne There is no denying that fim commentary and fm theory have been practised su decades, nor that there exists a broad canon of literature about fm from which one deal of interesting and pertinent things. Yet closer inspection of this literature 5: inguistic instruments used to analyze fim have all boen derived from literary theory orf ‘And maybe —even ifto a much lesser degree ~also from music theory. One seldom gets the inipre that one is dealing with a language which has been born directly from the specific experienc film, that could be said to have come “from film’, rather than having originated somewhore else. Ftrapped within a zone of inarticulacy. But why such inarticulacy, why such a discursive 4o this question, so it seems to me, is provided by an analysis of the conditions under is generally viewed, in other words the conditions affecting a typical visit to the cinema, 1a cinema, the viewer is placed in a situation of absolute impotence, paralysis and immo- also to a state of impotence in terms of language and discursive practice. As language, logic and rhetoric represent a quasi-physical mode of movement, a fn general. It is no accident that Greek sophism and philosophy were jalking, in the free and fluid movement of conversation and as a result of subject, to distance oneself from it and then approach it later on from [descriptions of mental and linguistic agility are by no means. joy free physical movement is a prerequisite for the incep- tis to be articulated in speech{88 already mentioned, in a normal film screening it is the film image that moves and develops time, while the viewer remains passive. As a result the movement of the cinematic image 4 substitute for the mental and linguistic mobility of the viewer. The viewer is not just but also mentally immobilized - and in himself, so to speak, “captivated” by the film. ‘cite Deleuze, the viewer changes into an intellectual automaton. In this respect, however, visit is reminiscent above all of archaic ascetic practices of pure meditation. Of the ‘that appear to the immobilized ascetic some might become lodged in his memory as images and later be canonized as icons. Or perhaps odd words that will later serve as ‘cinema-goer is a twentieth-century ascetic who likewise pays for his visions with |@ certain sense we are never able to talk about film as such because for the duration silent. Instead, we speak about what we remember of the film ~ and interpret a dream in psychoanalytic therapy. It is always had, and continues to have, such a greatdiscourse - from Marx and Nietzsche through to the pre Igiven clear precedence over pure contemplation. in the modern era the truth of life philosophical enquiry but in the dynarnis in sport and in conflict (between tion in material and physical reality and not in the passive contemplation of an world. Accordingly, mainstream cinema in the modern world embodies a ative attitude that in former times might have represented the highest ic mind it is one which by now has degenerated into a mode of passive of illusions. ent day — empirical of reallfe, in political practice, in the 8 or genders). This truth a large extent when a film is shown on television as opposed to the viewer the freedom to move around his own livingBut, a already mentioned, in @ normal fim screening it isthe film image that moves and develops “over time, while the viewer remains passive. As a result the movement of the cinematic image a substitute for the mental and linguistic mobility of the viewer. The viewer is not jst p but also mentally immobiized ~ and in himself, s0 to speak, “captivated” by the fn pect, however, Visit is reminiscent above all of archaic ascetic practices of pure meditation, OF the ‘appear to the immobilized ascetic some might become lodged in his memory as ges and later be canonized as icons. Or perhaps odd words that wil lator serve is a twentieth-century ascetic who likewise pays for his visions with fo talk about flm as such because for the duration about what we remember of the film ~ dream in psychoanalytic therapy. It is Shad, and continues to have, such a greater, film emerged and evolved precisely at a time when vity and praxis began celebrating their fin triumphs. In the context discourse ~ from Marx and Nietzsche through to the present pirical ‘given clear precedence over pure contemplation. inthe mocierm era the truth of lfe ical enquiry but in the dynamism of real lf, in political practice, int cor genders). This truth that in former times might have represented the highest te which by now has degenerated into a mode of passi shown on television as opposed to the freedom to move around his own livingwhile the film is running. Nonetheless, the situation involving television is too private far too much part of everyday life to sustain any public analytical On the other am-based video installation creates ideal circumstances for an articulate analytical dis- image in video and film. The video installation secularizes the conditions under w' d by giving the viewer the possibility to move freely within the sp here the film ‘and to leave this space or return to it whenever he wishes. Mi r it allows him to to the entire technical apparatus that normally remains hidden from view. At the same jons wrest the video image from the context of everyday television and enshrine it ‘When video artists like Stan Douglas or Douglas Gordon cut up and her real or imaginary — and later insert these fragments into anew distributing the new material over a wide range of monitors, ‘Putting them in relation to particular objects within the artists are removing film from the pathos of other- film in a different, more cogent and ™r®