I was looking at some random video art pieces when I stumbled upon this. The video uses time-lapse to document this particular painting. Although I am not particularly interested in the painting itself, I am interested in the way the piece is presented. Showing the painting this way presents an interesting argument. Which is the art itself, the painting or the video?
I personally would not be interested in the painting, but by creating a video out of the work the artist makes the painting much more interesting for me. I am not able to see the actual painting so this limits my ability to judge for myself and the artist gives no real indication in his statement as to what his intentions are. Seeing the piece as is, I would have to say that it is a video over a painting.
The problem with that is that one could say that of any documentation. Once you take a photograph of a painting, it immediately becomes a photograph over a painting for someone only seeing the copy. Although the artist's intentions may be different, the experience itself is none the less altered. This has happened to me many times where I have seen the photograph of a work of art many times and then when I finally see the piece itself, it is completely different than what I thought it was through the photo.
Many works of art function as art merely through the process or action. Performance based work is this way, where the performance itself is more important than the finished product. Many artists make work the is meant to self-destruct and this act is the art rather than the finished product. It is difficult to say with something like a painting when it is already considered art by itself, but this idea of process is interesting to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment