|
Boris
Groys
The
Time Closure
(translation
from russian
into english)
Olga
Chernysheva
is one of a
very few contemporary
artists, who
not only began
to work in the
medium of video
installation,
but have precisely
grasped and
practically
implemented
the specific
aesthetics of
this medium.
The specific
characteristics
of the video
installation
as art medium
are only beginning
to be discovered,
and this exploration
is likely to
be a slow inchmeal
process. Yet,
even now it
is possible
to say with
certainty that
bringing the
film from the
movie theater
to the art exhibition
space has essentially
changed its
perception by
the spectator.
The movie theater
is a place where
people come
to watch a film
from beginning
to end. During
the whole cinema
show a spectator
sits motionless
and in darkness
- only the film
moves. With
it move people
and things in
the film. This
is why the audience
expects, and
even demands
that the movement
in the film
be as fast as
possible. For
all one can
say, a cinema
movie may be
really interesting
and thrilling
only inasmuch
as it moves
fast - together
with everything
inside, whether
it be cars,
bullets or people.
A movie, in
which things
move slowly
or - Heaven
forbid! - stand
still, is simply
boring.
Beholders
of the video
installation
find themselves
in a quite different
situation. The
video installation
places a film
into an exhibition
space, which
is usually filled
with pictures
or sculptures.
They are motionless,
but their immobility
does not provoke
the feeling
of an unbearable
boredom in a
visitor of the
exhibition space,
which would
undoubtedly
chase such visitor,
if he or she
were watching
the same works
of art in a
movie theater.
The point is:
the works of
art may be still
and motionless,
but the spectator
is in motion
himself or herself.
An ordinary
visitor of an
exhibition space
continually
moves around
it, passing
from an item
to an item to
get back to
those objects
that are attractive
and worth seeing
again. However,
coming back
to an already
seen work of
art would be
impossible,
if it were incessantly
undergoing changes.
For this reason,
ordinary movies
shot for cinema
shows only frustrate
the audience
if they are
projected in
the context
of an art exhibition.
The images in
such movies
quickly come
and go one after
another all
the time and,
therefore, fail
to ascertain
their identity
in time, which
is a precondition
for an adequate
perception of
any work of
art displayed
in the exhibition
space. It follows
from the above
that a film,
to become perceivable
in the context
of an art exhibition,
has to undergo
important transformation
in terms of
its aesthetics.
Such transformation
needs to be
so profound,
that only very
few of modern
artists appear
to be able to
make it. It
consists, above
all, in the
immobilization
both of the
film itself
and of everything
that goes on
inside it.
With
that, under
the conditions
of an art exhibition
a film gets
immobilized
automatically,
just as a result
of being shown
in an incessant
clockwise manner,
or in loop.
As a consequence,
the film forms
a circle and
loses the sense
of its motion,
which becomes
endless gyration,
or eternal repetition
of the same.
As a rule, any
film proceeds
in one direction
- from the past
to the future.
That is why
it is optimistic
by nature, whatever
be the contents.
The film as
an art form
emerged in the
epoch, when
European humanity
believed in
progress, when
action was valued
more than passive
contemplation,
when any movement
forward was
recognized as
multiple times
more important
than quiet contemplation
or repetition.
A video installation
is a location
in which the
film as such
loses its historic
perspective
and is relieved
of the dynamics
of progress,
replaced by
the post-historical
ritual of self-repetition.
Within the framework
of a video installation
the film stops
to be narrative.
Instead of demonstrating
life in all
its variations
and dynamic
developments,
as it has always
been before,
it unexpectedly
becomes an ideal
medium for revealing
the repetitive
rituality and
regularity of
life subsisting
beneath all
the claims for
alteration and
advance.
In
his time Marshall
McLuhan wrote
that the medium
is the message.
The success
of any artistic
project depends,
first and most,
on the extent
to which the
individual message
of an artist
coincides with
the message
of the medium
used by artist
in his or her
work. The video
projections
by Olga Chernysheva
are spontaneously
convincing and
truly artistic
inasmuch as
they rest on
such congruity.
To begin with,
she approaches,
to the maximum
extent possible,
the conditions
for perception
of her video
projections
to the conditions
for perception
of a traditional
unmoving picture.
The projected
image is usually
stable during
the whole film.
For example,
each of her
two works titled
"Anonymous"
represent a
figure in a
landscape -
a topic that
is quite common
for a typical
museum picture.
The exposure
lay-out remains
practically
the same till
the end of the
film. As a consequence,
the spectator
is able to react
to these video
projections
in a way, which
is similar to
the way he/she
responds to
the traditional
pictures. If
an exhibition
visitor retreats
from a particular
work for some
time, and then
comes back,
he/she will
find the characters
approximately
in the same
places and doing
the same things,
as when they
were left. Even
in the projections
featuring movement
or replacement
of characters,
as, for example,
in the video
installations
called "The
Train"
or "Steamboat
Dionysius",
the scene of
action remains
stationary and
easily recognizable.
A video installation
operates effectively
only if and
when it offers
a compromise
between the
expectations
of a moviegoer
and those of
an exhibition
visitor. In
all of her works
Olga Chernysheva
finds and displays
a fragile balance
between the
motion of a
film and the
motionlessness
of a picture,
a balance, which
best agrees
with the nature
of video installation
as a medium.
At
the same time,
the video installation
is obviously
not limited
to a simple
adjustment of
cinema motion
to the quiescence
of a traditional
picture. A traditional
picture shows
an "arrested
moment",
leaving its
viewer under
the impression
that movement
still goes on
beyond the frame,
but telling
nothing of the
nature of such
movement. A
video installation,
by contrast,
displays the
movement itself,
though rather
in the form
of a circular
movement, or
rotation. At
this point the
aesthetics of
video installation
begin to impose
on an artist
not only certain
formal, but
also specific
thematic choices.
Characters in
Olga Chernysheva's
works are not
just shot in
a manner making
them look good
in the space
of a video installation.
They behave
in exactly the
same way even
prior to shooting,
being involved
into a continuous,
reiterative,
monotonous motion.
Whatever such
characters do
- open a bottle
of vodka, change
clothes at a
beach, swim
along a river
or move along
a train from
head to tail
and backwards
- it soon becomes
clear, that
in fact they
never move from
a dead point.
Because of this,
they can serve
as allegories
of an extra-historical,
extra-social
existence. Even
their appearances
indicate that
they have once
and forever
fell out of
the dynamics
of historical
life and are
doomed to eternally
substitute each
other in an
endless go-round
in a way, which
is hardly noticeable
neither by others,
nor by themselves.
Such characters
not only cannot
- they do not
want to keep
pace with the
time of their
epoch. They
do not need
anything latest
or up-to-date,
being quite
satisfied with
their participation
in the circular
time of eternal
return.
Chernysheva's
characters are
far from being
invented. They
are true-life
people. Chernysheva
is very consistent
in avoiding
any elements
of theatrical
staging, as
well as any
claims for non-conventionalism,
exoticism of
the material
she makes use
of, or for a
special originality,
exceptional
"artistry"
of her style.
For her video
installations
she uses documentary
footages, which
look quite normal,
trivial, even
commonplace.
The artist shoots
them herself
with her own
camera, as she
walks and observes
simple people's
behavior in
everyday life.
For all that,
such documentaries
refer us to
the aesthetics
of readymade.
Interesting
for the spectator
is not how the
artist designed
this or that
image, but the
image itself,
and, certainly,
the criteria
by which the
image material
is selected.
Such refocusing
of attention
from the artistic
processing to
selection, which
is so typical
for all contemporary,
present-day-oriented
art, with the
lessons of Duchamp
still fresh
on its mind,
is attained
by Chernysheva
through her
emphatically
neutral, observational,
documentary
style of filming.
The resulting
materials, judging
in terms of
their stylistics,
are such that
at a first glance
appear to very
well suit into
a TV actuality
program devoted
to the labor
and leisure
of our contemporaries.
However, there
is a great difference
between a TV
documentary
and a documentary
shown by Chernysheva
in her video
installations,
which most clearly
reveals itself
in the aesthetic
neutrality of
the latter.
A TV report
features, or
at least is
expected to
feature, only
urgent, red-hot
news, that would
be interesting
to the present-day
general public
and reflect
current political
or cultural
situation. Contemporary
mass media care
solely for what
is new and extraordinary.
Alternatively,
Chernyshova's
works demonstrate
characters,
who live most
trivial lives
and, therefore,
never appear
in the TV news.
Today the context
of contemporary
art is the sole
one, which enables
to document
extra-historical,
extra-temporal
people's lives.
Only contemporary
art makes it
possible to
represent things
going on in
the everyday
routine, which
otherwise would
have never raised
up to the level
of news, let
alone sensation,
- things that
are just ignored
by the media.
It is noteworthy,
that Olga Chernysheva
belongs to the
number of a
very few contemporary
Russian artists,
who adequately
respond to this
aesthetical,
social and political
role of contemporary
art in the currently
existing cultural
and media context.
For
all that, it
is remarkable
that role described
above was not
just imposed
on the contemporary
art by the mass
media that have
occupied the
whole domain
of historically
relevant information.
A present-day
artist or intellectual,
living under
a constant pressure
on the part
of the media
pushing him
towards the
role of a fashion-
and newsmaker,
has every reason
to envy all
those people
who are not
subject to such
treatment by
definition.
The envy to
extra-historical
forms of human
existence, which
is often naively
interpreted
as sympathy
to common people,
was insistently
introduced into
the public agenda
by Leo Tolstoi
and many other
Russian writers
of the 19th
century. It
is not accidental
that such envy
intensifies
during those
historical periods,
when the urge
for artists
as fashion-
and newsmakers
becomes especially
importunate.
In such periods
it seems as
if the real
freedom is not
the ability
to make history,
though rather
the ability
to be free from
history, or,
in other words,
freedom to repeat
the past, to
move around
a circle. In
this way, we
have, as it
may appear on
the surface,
only two models
of freedom:
freedom of linear
movement forward,
as it is realized
in a movie shown
in a cinema
theater, and
freedom of eternal
return, as it
is realized
in a film exhibited
in a video installation.
But, as a matter
of fact, there
is a third and
much more thrilling
freedom, which
is actualized
by Olga Chernysheva
in her video
installations.
It is the freedom
of artistic
choice and practical
installation
of a mode of
motion as such.
Translated
by Galina Chernakova
|