Category Archives: Legacy Video

Assignment 2 – Review

Posted on by under Assignments, Legacy Photography, Legacy Video, Online Photography, Online Videography

James Bowman
s3603919

I Declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understand and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-and-facilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services=

Blog Reflections
Week 5: Legacy Photography (practice analysis)
Week 6: Legacy Video (practice analysis)
Week 7: Online Photography (practice analysis)
Week 8: Online Video (practice analysis)

Review

1. Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘photography’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog.

Photography, at it’s most basic level, is using a camera to capture an image of something using a light sensor to then make it permanent. Traditionally this image was stored onto something physical, such as film, and thus speaks to what we now consider legacy photography. Now online media and digital technology means that the vast majority of images are stored digitally, either on their phone or published on apps like Instagram. Legacy photography refers to when the average person did not have access to a camera. Rather, photography was something that only professionals could afford to do. Henri Cartier-Bresson is an example of this. His wealth afforded him the ability to devote the time into producing quality images, and more importantly his wealth allowed him to use and access the then very expensive equipment required to produce photographs. I discussed another example of a legacy photograph by Kevin Carter here. It’s an example of how legacy media was when “photojournalists [were] dispatched to the world’s remote corners that few of us could regularly access”, and “advertisers trying to sell us chunks of that world” (Zylinska 2016, p. 7).

This changed with the invention and utilisation of camera phones and wireless communication. These afforded anyone with a smart phone the ability to be a photographer, and even become “distributors, archivists and curators of the light traces immobilised on photo-sensitive surfaces” (Zylinska 2016, p. 7). This speaks to the idea that modern photography is not just a result of the camera phone, but perhaps more significantly the ability for camera phones to then publish and distribute to apps like Instagram for anyone else around the world to engage with.

2. Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘video practice’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog.

Like in photography, legacy video only allowed those who could afford the equipment needed to produce video, as well as the means (or knowing someone who did) to edit and publish the video, to actually do so. However the invention of portable video equipment (1965)”exploded in many directions simultaneously” (Horsfield 2006, p. 3), and allowed non-professionals to create video for the first time. Some of these legacy practices included video being used as political tools to decentralise communications systems and media outlets, as well as being used by media activists to “document a new type of direct-from-the-scene reportage that was not manipulated” (Horsfield 2006, p. 3), and was therefore seen as an unbiased medium. Another significant legacy video practice that emerged was video art, of which Nam June Paik was the pioneer (I talk about one of his installations here). Previous to the release of camcorders, video was very centralised. However Paik began the trend of using video for personal expression, particularly after new video equipment was released in the early 70s that “allowed more complex visualising effects” (Horsfield 2006, p. 5). However even during this time there was still relatively limited access to the everyday person due to the expensive costs associated the recording, storing and editing of video. This is where online media changed things again. Similarly to what happened with photography, online media allows anyone with a phone camera to record, edit, publish and distribute their video data, without the physical restrictions that were once associated with legacy video. As a result, video is even more decentralised, allowing for even more personal expression and becoming more intertwined with everyday life through apps like Instagram.

3. What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online photos are authored, published and distributed?

The authoring of legacy photography was very centralised. The equipment costs as well as time that needed to learn about the equipment meant that relatively few people could engage with authoring photos in the legacy era. This limitation meant that the authoring of photos emphasised professional quality, and the scarceness of the medium meant that more significance was attributed to the taking of each photo. Conversely, convenience plays a huge role in the way that online photos are authored.  Palmer states that “sensor size and megapixel count have become secondary to the basic convenience of  the networked mobile device” (2014, p. 246). Therefore quality and professionalism matters less and there is much less significance placed on a single photo. The increased prevalence of photo taking also means that there are more mundane photos taken, but also more intimate (Palmer, 2014). The authoring of online photos may even be influenced apps like Instagram, which may influence the tone or style of photos that people author if they want to publish them on that specific app (think size, filtering, colouring, captioning etc.).

This leads to how the publishing and distribution of legacy and online photos is again, extremely different. Legacy photo predominately paid for  marketed, published and distributed by professional organisations. Again this relates to the coupling of terms like ‘professional’ and ‘quality’ with legacy photography. In comparison, the huge volume of online photos is now just an endless data flow rather than an individual image (Zylinska, 2016).  Online media apps like Instagram can also affect the way photos are authored and published, as they have the affordances of publishing to your followers but constraints on things such as the dimensions of photos being published.

4. What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online videos are authored, published and distributed?

Like legacy photography, legacy video wasn’t easy to access for the everyday person. Perhaps it was even more so than photography it could be argued, particular in relation to the time, knowledge and equipment required to edit video. While Nam June Paik was able to create video art, he still needed the income of the Rockefeller Foundation to actually fund his projects, something not available to anyone. As such the authoring or legacy video, other than video art, is typically pretty linear and straightforward as editing was not as easy as it is with online videos. Authoring and editing online videos is much easier, whether it be on the phone camera itself or in apps like Instagram. Instagram in particular allows for both artistic expression in video, like Rachel Ryle, who operates within the time constraints (she creates 30 second clips) of video publishing on the app, but it also allows for the publishing of again more intimate and mundane videos due to the ease of use and ability of virtually anyone to author them. Online video “can be networked, shared, downloaded and re-used with ease” (Berry 2018, p.8), which can not be said about legacy video.

Like photos, legacy video was still tied to the idea of professional. Contrastingly, an example of more personal and decentralised online video, is how vloggers author and publish their content. Particular in the formative years of the form, many videobloggers self-identified as amateur (Berry, 2018), directly going against the traditional notion of professionals only producing video as was the case in the legacy era.

References:
– Kuc K, Zylinska J, 2016 Photomediations: A Reader, Open Humanities Press, London, UK.
– Horsfield K, 2006, Busting the Tube: A Brief History of Video Art, Video Data Bank, School of Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, US.
– Palmer D, 2014, Mobile Media Photography, The Routledge Companion to Mobile Media, London, UK.
– Berry T, 2018, Video Blogging Before YouTube, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

 

Legacy Video – TV Garden by Nam June Paik

Posted on by under Legacy Video, Reflections

After looking at legacy video this week, I was inspired to look into one of Nam June Paiks signature art installations – TV Garden, which now lives in the Guggenheim Museum, New York.

On the link below there is a picture of the installation that Guggenheim have put up, however there are many more photos to be found on Google.

Who is the practitioner (what is their name?) and when were they practicing?
Nam June Paik. He rose to prominence in the early 1960s, but remained so until the 90s as he produced a great number of works. He’s widely considered to be the father of TV art, or at the very least a highly influential pioneer of it.

With the photo or video you are examining when was it produced (date)?
It was originally produced in 1974, before being moved or recreated many times around the world.

How was the photo or video authored and published?
TV Garden is an arrangement of live plants with video monitors of all different sizes scattered throughout. Every TV is playing Paik’s Global Groove (1973) on repeat. Global Groove features montages of performers dancing to musically funky and visually eye-catching mix. The installation allows viewers to immerse themselves in the piece by walking around and alongside the plants and TV screens. The original was featured at Documenta 6, an art exhibition in Kassel, Germany.

How was the photo or video distributed?
While the instalment was originally published to the public at an art exhibition in Germany, it has been shown and recreated at many different museums and galleries around the world since. Each of these times Paik’s estate would have received royalties from those showcasing the piece and would have required in the past either himself (he is now deceased so he is no longer able to) or a representative to ensure the recreation was in line with his original vision. For example, Tate Modern Museum in London is already advertising their exhibition in October 2019 that will feature TV Garden (see here). Interestingly, the photo shown on the advertising page is of TV garden when it was featured in a museum in Dusseldorf, Germany in 2002. TV Garden sure has bounced around.

I like the installation because of its ambiguity, and whether it’s commenting on how nature and technology are now forming some sort of symbiosis, or whether technology is as chaotic and structureless as ‘the jungle’ or nature can be.

See you next week!

Skip to toolbar