Commercial Entertainment or Art: A Look at Two Forms of Video
Should it make logical sense to compare professionally made music videos to artistic video pieces? The medium of video exists in several different sects besides just music video and video art. A few of these other categories are films, short films, documentary, Internet content, etc. Knowing that video sprouted from advances in photography it is fair to assume that all the sub categories of video production in use today are cousins of the same family. It is also logical to assume that their heritages are not their only commonality. Conversely, as observers we are preconditioned to view a certain genre of video in a particular way, depending on what the type of video is being consumed. The cause of this phenomenon is related to the video’s attributes, venue, and use of technological advances. The similarities and differences that exist between the music video and the video art piece is what will be further investigated.
The history of video and its evolution leads me to believe a strong correlation exists between the music video and the video art piece. The origins of video date back to early advances in photography and new developments in technology that allowed for content to be displayed. Such was the cases in Edward Muybridge’s photo sequences of a horse galloping that eventually lead to the early short films of the Lumiere brothers. As the medium advanced over the years film production improved, and with the advent of television the medium became more accessible to viewers. Michael Rush, the author of the book “Video Art” explains that in 1965 video technology became available to the public through Sony Corporations Portapak video camera and that people outside the industry now were able to start utilizing the media in new ways spurring a new revolution in art. (Rush 7). During this time the Fluxus and Pop Art movements were in full swing and were quick to take advantage of the new technology. From this time on a significant divide in video production appeared: commercial intent verse creative intent.
Music videos and video artworks are key examples of this new divide. Although they are created for different reasons they each share a lot in common. Each style aims at engaging a viewer in a visual experience. Each of these styles can exist in a multitude of genres, especially each other’s. A music video can resemble a piece of video art and a video artwork can resemble a music video, but in either case each video piece would still remain true to their individual sects. An example of this relationship can be seen in the work of David Hall’s 1971 Tap Piece [Fig. 1] and in Michel Gondry’s 2003 music video Star Guitar [Fig. 2]. Each video is short in length and each video utilizes a still shot. In Tap Piece the viewer sees a faucet filling a clear plastic container with water. Once the water fills to the top the video ends. In Star Guitar, The shot is also still but appears to be shot from the window of a moving train. Each video is also absent of a plot and narrative. This quality is important because it is one that makes the relationship between music videos and video art pieces exclusive from the rest of the video family.
The two genres both encompass very similar styles when it comes to the rules and goals of the content. Both videos in the examples listed are very mundane and each one zooms in on typically boring scenery. By closing in on simplicity the directors are asking the viewers to look further into them, and past the obviousness of the visuals. Each of the genres aims is to provoke thought and emotion through the use of aesthetics. They also obtain the ability to exist in any manner the director or artist wants them to. This freedom of creative control gives each style the ability to be as avant-garde or experimental as they like and they often overlap in editing styles, and obscurity. In most cases, when viewing these genres, the stranger they are the better.
Putting visual aesthetics aside leaves the two genres at odds. Marsha Kinder, a professor of film at the University of Southern California states that music videos adopted the conventions of the TV commercial by copying its visual style, utilizing background music, short-format, and fast montage (Kinder 5).” Noting that music videos were a birth child of advertising is key. Commercial interest normally causes the viewer to be cautious, knowing that the production group wants to sell you something. This changes the way the viewer will ingest what they are viewing and how they will feel about it. MTV was clever and managed to disguise this aspect, and by doing so, became the media giants that they are. According to Kinder everything on MTV is a commercial including their advertising spots, news section, station ID’s, interviews, and most importantly the music video clips (Kinder 5). MTV has been able to charge record companies money to air music videos that would promote bands on their labels. Essentially MTV has been playing advertisements and cutting away only to play more advertisements.
It is ironic to note that many early adopters of the Sony Portapak were using the newly available format to react against television’s commercial interest with the medium and wanted to see other aspects of video culture represented on the platform. Television’s response to the art movement was to incorporate the aesthetic values of the video art world in order to create fast, compelling content that sold a product. With the exception of a few public access channels this is the closest television comes to airing video art. Fine video art does not exist on television, but instead within actual art spaces.
The space in which a viewer consumes media is as important as the media itself. The location determines a targeted audience and will attract a particular audience depending on the venue. This represents another main difference between music videos and video artworks. As already determined, music videos air on television and thus
“…Producers presume a television viewer, a domestic, rather than a public being. Even when shown in public venues (typically in clubs and bars), it forms part of the fabric of activity including socializing, dancing, and conversation, and does not command sustained and exclusive attention (Allan 8).”
A public space therefore is not the most suitable place to air a video if sales are the main objective. Commonly a viewer would see a music video while at home and would most likely not conjure up any deep thoughts of meaning or analysis due to the passive nature of the television experience. Consider though that the same video viewed from home was being presented on the wall of a gallery in the context that it is a piece of art. Immediately, without thinking, the viewer’s reaction to viewing the content would be different because the venue suggests there is a deeper message.
David Hall’s Tap Piece managed to mimic this effect but with the situation slightly altered. His video Tap Piece was part of a series entitled TV Interruptions and was created to interrupt a broadcasted television show at some random point during the programming. Hall had the good fortune of being in public during one of the airings and described his experience. “The TV was permanently on but the occupants were oblivious to it, reading newspapers or dozing. When the TV began to fill with water newspapers dropped, the dozing stopped (Hartney).” Since people shifted their attention to the television at the point Hall’s video aired made him view it as a success. Since the video art was being aired in an unlikely venue, that alone caused interest from the patrons as they noticed the foreignness of the content.
As technology has advanced over the years these locations and outlets are becoming less important in respect to the content they showcase. According to Charles Moffat the new capabilities of digital reproduction places the advertising of original works by amateur artists on the same ground as professional artists because the technology has leveled the playing field (Moffat).” This quality is important because it changes the experience of the media consumer. A person can look up fine art videos, and begin to perceive them as if they would in a physical gallery. Similarly music videos could be looked up for personal enjoyment as well as if they were airing on television. Conversely though the viewer will not always be sure that a video’s intent is for artistic expression or for commercial entertainment. This knew convergence of media is crucial and has brought the two genres much closer. Star Guitar represented the beginning of this convergence where a very experimental director chose to make music videos because of the creativity they allow. This same idea has carried forward but more so on this new platform. An example of this evolution in video can be seen in the 2009 music video Ready, Able. Allison Schulnik, a graduate of fine arts in experimental animation, directed the video for the band Grizzly Bear. Each entity of this collaboration were not entirely well known, but the coupling of talented persons gave each party more exposure and access to a larger fan base. The Internet has become a do-it-yourself locale and with the lack of music videos being aired on the television, small bands such as Grizzly Bear are able to do by pass gatekeepers and create works that do not necessarily have to focus on artistic or commercial gains, but simply to create art in general.
Before the growth of technology content of this type was only available on television to generate money or within public galleries to promote thought, culture and new ideas. With new media these obvious signifiers of intent have now meshed into one place and it has become harder and harder to understand what separates videos like Star Guitar and Ready, Able from Tap Piece. Investigating formal qualities, locales of viewing, and technological advances of music videos and video artworks has made it clearer why the genres are so drastically different while at the same time very similar. After examining theses two styles closer and considering the present state of each one, it still makes sense to differentiate the two as separate sects of the video world. Although technology continues to advance and artworks continue to push towards new ideas and styles the differences between the two genres will become less significant and our ability to see these differences will become less important when it comes to our overall understanding of them.
Works Cited
Allan, Blain. "Musical Cinema, Music Video, Music Television." Film Quarterly 43.3 (1990): 2-14. JSTOR. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.
Fig 1. David Hall, Tap Piece, Video, 1971Youtube.com 2010.
Fig 2. Michele Gondry, Star Guitar, Video, 2005Youtube.com 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment