Reception of Video Art in Galleries

Reception of Video machination in G entirelyeriescritically reckon the notion that the receipt of goggle box finesse is powerfully affected by being bring outn in an invention prowess gallery situationIntroductionVideo invention began as an avant-garde movement that challenged the real nature of stratagem in the 1960s and 1970s with the likes of Nam June Paik, Bruce Nauman and Stu guile Marshall. These artists crapd powerful tours in response to the mainstream explosion of flick and television, and as a challenge to the traditional artistic rows of painting and sculpture. The artists helped to bring art closer to the usual public and relieved artists of the need to create specific objects. However, as technology has grown and video art has become to a greater extent popular, it has moved from the fringes of art to the mainstream context of use of the art gallery.1 Before this the art gallery was a place for traditional creates of art such as painting and sculpture . One of the most interesting topics of intervention regarding video art is how this move into art galleries has changed the reception to video art. It is argued that the reception of video art is strongly affected by being seen in an art gallery situation. The aim of this essay is to critically examine this consider, and see how the conniption of video art affects the perception of such art. This will be d angiotensin converting enzyme by look at how cathode-ray oscilloscope influences artistic reception, looking at the reception of video art in gallery considerations and separate contexts, and excessively how the strong point of video art itself can influence the gallery picture. charm of setting on artThere are a number of studies and theories regarding the influence of setting on art and artistic reception in various mediums. It is clear that at bottom video art the step-up of a gallery setting would change the nature of the art itself. The earliest forms of video ar t were all on single screens outside of the art gallery setting, and the works were very much of a bad-tempered moment in time and had a fairly short lifespan as artistic compositions.2 However, as video art moved into a gallery setting it merged with opposite forms of art to create the video evocation. This meant the video art was straight off based in an environment embedded in a particular time and space. This gave a natural candidate to vide art that had not previously been seen, and has had a major(ip) influence on the genre. Installation art is now one of the most common forms of video art, oddly in a gallery setting as it allows video artists to experiment in more than panaches than ever before. 3This has meant that video art has merged into other genres, and become part of a larger multi-media, multi-form persona of art rather than being a type of visual art on its own. The nature of galleries actor that purely video art is being replaced with installation ar t as it has a more physical presence than traditional video art that was the antithesis of traditional physical art. 4Another factor worth considering is the psychological aspect of reception towards art in a certain setting. artistic production that is viewed within a gallery setting may well be seen as more respectable and valuable than art seen in other settings, but it may also be seen as more traditional and constrained than art outside of a gallery setting. There seems to be little research on this particular point, but the tec supposes that this sort of difference in reception could be possible.Another factor with video art is that the setting of the art might determine how the art is created in itself. Video artists see their projects almost as their children, and consequently want it shown in a particular substance as it was intended. If a video art piece was intended to be spontaneous and viewed in a casual setting, then a gallery regard of such a piece may limit its e ffectiveness, or even possibly change its moment altogether.5The reception of video art in a gallery settingVideo art in a gallery setting is often received differently to how it might be received in a non-gallery setting. Video art in a gallery and video art in another(prenominal) setting may be the separation between what is cognise as art and what is simply known as media or television. The move of video art into the gallery setting has supported its claim to be a mainstream art form. This validation of video art, tho by being seen in an art gallery setting has moved it away from the medium of television and towards the concept of philosophical aesthetics. This is a major shift in the reception of video art from simply a popular culture medium to a valid and critical artistic medium.6Another way to look at it is that perhaps the reception of video art is not changed within a gallery setting, but that the actual form of the video art is in fact changed within the gallery settin g. Rather than being video art in the form of tape, video art in a gallery setting is either in the form of a live video performance or as an art installation combined with other physical forms of art such as architecture, sculpture, or other interactive multi-media forms. The only way to authentically determine this is by viewing art exhibitions in both a gallery and non-gallery setting to see if the reception has indeed changed. However, at this point there is very little research on this demesne as most art pieces are created for one specific setting rather than multiple settings. Therefore, it seems more likely that in many cases the reception of the art is not influenced by setting, but the creation of the art itself is influenced by the setting it is to be placed in.7The biggest change perhaps is that video art has moved from the single-screen, non site-specific form to the site-specific installation form. In the original single screen form, which is close to the medium of t elevision, then the gallery setting is unlikely to alter the reception of the art piece. This is because the piece is setting-neutral and will be interpreted individually by each person regardless of setting. However, the form of video art in galleries today is generally installation art, which is site-specific. The art has been created with a specific setting in mind, surrounded by other art forms. In this case the reception of the art would be changed in different settings, but it is unlikely that a site-specific piece would be viewed outside of a gallery or its specific setting.8Influence of video art on the gallery experienceVideo art has been influenced by the gallery setting in its creation more than its specific reception, but video art and other multi-media art has also influenced the gallery experience and changed the way in which art can be perceived. The placement of video art and other multi-media art forms within galleries has challenged the nature of what art is and ha s changed the nature of a gallery. Before this, art in galleries was limited to paintings and sculptures, and therefore the explanation of art was concerned with things that hung on walls or sat on pedestals. Video art added a totally new element to the gallery space and changed the gallery experience itself. The previous empty space in the gallery was now utilized as a part of the artistic framework rather than merely somewhere to display objects. The empty gallery becomes a place for performance and ideas in itself, and space became meet as important as the objects within the gallery.9Art shifted from the premise of art as object to one of art as idea and action. This not only changed the way in which galleries were seen, but also changed the nature of video art by putting it firmly in the realm of acceptable art rather than merely a part of popular culture. It helped to separate video art from the medium of television, pull a distinct line between the two. It also helped vide o art to merge into other art forms, and for other forms of art to embrace the influence of video.10Furthermore, the borrowing of video art influence the gallery experience by letting other newer formats over the last few years to infiltrate the once set apart gallery space. Computer visuals, Internet exhibits and even live musical and dramatic performance are now part of the gallery experience in many places something that would have been almost unheard of 30 or 40 years ago.11Finally, the acceptance of video art in a gallery setting has influenced the way in which new galleries are designed and laid out. Rather than simply having traditional spaces for paintings and sculptures, new gallery designs incorporate larger areas for performance, installation art and other multi-media art forms. The influence of video art on the gallery experience is perhaps just as strong as the influence of the gallery setting on video art.12ConclusionThe notion that the reception of video art is str ongly influenced by the gallery setting is somewhat misleading. Whilst there is clear evidence that the genre of video art has been massively influenced by the gallery reception, this is more to do with the creation of art rather than its reception. Of course, its reception in terms of its acceptance and standing within the artistic community and amongst the general public has been heightened by its introduction into the gallery setting. However, the major change has been in the move from site-neutral, single screen video art to larger, multi-media installations that incorporate video art and are often site-specific within the gallery setting.Conversely, video art has a significant effect on the gallery experience. It has changed the nature of what constitutes art and what a gallery should look like, as well as coat the way for other newer forms of art to be accepted within the gallery setting. Over the last cardinal or forty years, the acceptance of video art into the gallery set ting has changed both the way in which video art is commonly created, as well as change the way the gallery setting as a whole is viewed and used.BibliographyBalagopal, R., 2005. Installation Art. (Online). Available at http//infopedia.nlb.gov.sg/Research/articles/PFInstallationArt.pdf (Accessed 11th August 2008).Bruce, B.C., 2000. The wreak of Art in the Age of digital Reproduction. Journal of Adolescent Adult Literacy, 44(1), p. 66.Carter, C.L., 1979. Aesthetics, Video Art and Television. Leonardo, 12(4), pp. 289-293.Elwes, C., Neshat, S., and University of the arts London., 2005. Video Art A Guided Tour. London I.B. Tauris.Hanhardt, J.G., Villasenor, M.C., 1995. Video/Media Culture of the Late Twentieth Century. Art Journal, 54(4), pp. 20-25.Lisus, N.A., and Ericson, R.V., 1999. Authorizing Art The Effect of Multimedia Formats on the Museum Experience. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36(2), p. 199+.London, B., 1996. Video Spaces. Performing Arts Journal, 18 (3), pp. 14-19.Lovejoy, M., 2004. Digital Currents Art in the Electronic Age. New York Routledge.McCarthy, K.F., and Ondaatje, E.H., 2002. From Celluloid to Cyberspace The Media Arts and the Changing Arts World. Santa Monica, CA Rand.Millard, R., 2005. Notebook Buying Video Art Is Not at All Simple. Artists Sell to Who They like, and Dictate How the pass water Is Shown. New Statesman, 134(4730), p. 41.Phelan, A., 1984. The Impact of Technology and Post Modern Art on Studio Art Education. Art Education, 37(2), pp. 30-36.Suderburg, E., 2000. Space, Site, Intervention Situating Installation Art. Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press.Footnotes1 Elwes, C., Neshat, S., and University of the Arts London., 2005, pp. ix-x2 London, B., 1996, p. 14.3 Hanhardt, J.G., Villasenor, M.C., 1995, pp. 20-214 Balagopal, R., 2005.5 Millard, R., 2005.6 Carter, C.L., 1979, p 289.7 Carter, C.L., 1979, p. 2908 Suderburg, E., 2000, pp. 2-149 Phelan, A., 1984, pp. 30-3310 Lovejoy, M., 2004, pp. 101-10311 McCarthy, K.F., and Ondaatje, E.H., 2002, pp. 53-5412 Lisus, N.A., and Ericson, R.V., 1999, pp. 199-201