A collection of video art ranging from the words of 'le charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne' (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) projected across the building to long videos including 'Étude de Danser' housed in Le Grand Palais.
The lights of le Grand Palais were off and the inside was as dark and cold as Les Champs Elysees outside. Except its the end of December. Les Champs Elysees is filled with strings of blue lights dancing in the trees and reflecting on the pavement. Le Grand Palais is similarly filled with the flickering light of more than a hundred projection screens.
The video art of various artists from all over the globe celebrates the end of French Presidency of the European.
But I'm not going to discuss the art- the art ranged from great to puzzling to bad- I wanted to talk about looking at art, how people do it and why, maybe, video art is a viewing experience more like the way art was viewed in the premodern world. Lets face it, visual art is cheap. No that doesn't mean everyone can now afford a Vermeer, nor does every street corner have a Rodin sculpture, but the work available in the world labelled as "original art" is so wildly available- even if it is crap- most people could say they have an original piece of crap. I do. Its a glittery fairy from the Venice Beach board walk and it looks amazing in my bedroom decorated by a 16 year old me.
So what's my point? Video art is different. Nowhere have I ever seen available DVD's of an artist's video installation - and Le Grand Palais is not the first video art installation I've seen.
The only place you can now see a video art installation is at a gallery, a museum or special event. Isn't this the way art used to be view?
Not to be unnecessarily pessimistic, but with the way the economy is going (and energy costs) entrance fees to video art projects are going to be incredibly high and possibly only affordable to the rich. Didn't art used to be only for the rich?
However in a more interesting vein of thought:
How people view art.
On my first trip to Paris almost four years ago now I saw La Jaconde (the Mona Lisa). It was August, peak tourist season and the gallery was jam packed with all the languages of the world bouncing off all four walls and the glass box of the painting. And the snapping of pictures. It was almost impossible to actually see the painting through the glare of flashes, my eyes could adjust as the light was constantly changing, and ultimately, I had a panic attack. My own personal problems aside - I was disappointed that viewing art had been reduced to taking photos of it. It doesn't make sense, you're better off buying a gallery print, the quality of better. I suppose though you can't "prove" you've "actually seen it" with a gallery print, anyone could order one online. But that's the point of interrogation; do you "actually see" a piece of art when only looking at it through the lens of a camera?
Maybe the photo lets the person feel that some how they too possess that piece of art. Maybe for them possession is more important than experience- maybe for everyone. Possession is nine tenth of the law. But I don't think art can be a matter of possession, and I find the term "public art" rather oxymoronic. I don't think you can ever possess art. It is the artist's no matter who buys it, or displays it. The artist doesn't "own" it then, but the art is still the artist's. And maybe that's why I like theatre - or performance art - so much, it is impossible to truly possess the complete realization of the art. It is only an experience, and it will only ever be experienced. But then the question of film and cinema arises, but we'll get to that soon.
The debate's been argued before and by better artistic thinkers than myself, and I will leave their thoughts uncommented on, but personally I don't think you can "see" art through a camera lens.
I finally got my time with La Jaconde, less than a year later. And it is possible to see why its amazing, something I never did see when looking at prints and photos. The same went for Michelangelo's David. The beauty of the actual statue is some thing a picture could never rival.
How does this relate to video art? At the exhibition at Le Grand Palais
I saw a man taking a photo of one of the video screens. I found this odd. How can you take a photograph of a video? A photograph of video art art represents the entire work of art even less than a photo of La Jaconde. There is absolutely no way to take the art with you. Yes, you can "prove" you "saw it" with a photo, but maybe you only saw that frame - or a blur of frames. The viewer of video art can never possess a piece of the art. They can only experience it. And in only being able to experience it the viewer returns to a time before photography even existed. Funny how technology turns the table on itself with each new invention.
Projected video on buildings gives the artistic experience to the people, whether they want it or not. The viewer can no longer possess the art any more than they have to chooce to go see it. Perhaps the 'le charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne' is the perfect piece to display in this way.
Scholars use the term 'mediation' to discuss how something is viewed. Before the camera everything was seen 'unmediated'. I find it ironic that with multimedia video art the viewer can once again "see" the art without mediation- that is, of course, when the video
is the art: video
of art is completely different.
