Artists’s Cinema

Artists’ Cinema: Projected Images
Malcolm Le Grice – Threshold (1972) – YouTube

In Fall 1974, Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman in 8 rounds in The Rumble in the Jungle, Roman Polanski’s Chinatown was playing in theatres, and a brand new Walker film/video department opened their first gallery exhibition. This year’s Artists’ Cinema series, Artists’ Cinema 2011: Projected Images is named in honour of the seminal 1974 exhibition, an exhibition which is still influential as one of the first attempts to blend the “Black Box” of the cinema space with the “White Cube” of the gallery.

1973 was an exciting year for film and video at the Walker. In one fell swoop, the Walker Film/Video department was created—led by its first full-time coordinator, John G. Hanhardt—and the Edmond R. Ruben Film and Video Study Collection was established. In the early 1970’s a new moving image art form was becoming increasingly affordable for young artists. That format was, of course, video, an almost entirely D.I.Y. medium where anyone who could afford a portapak (about $1000) could shoot their own artists’ video. At the same time there was a resurgence of 8mm and 16mm experimental and art film, as Hollis Frampton put it, “In the late 50’s, as I was 19 or 20 years old, I imagined, as did a lot of young people at that time, I imagined myself to be a poet, it was a good thing to be. A few years later it was a good thing to imagine oneself to be a painter, and now I think everyone wants to be a filmmaker.” Since the Ruben Collection started at this essential “filmmaker” moment, the Walker was able to get in on the ground floor, collecting video work by Joan Jonas, Dennis Oppenheim, Peter Campus, Andy Mann, Ina Schneider, Nam June Paik, Joan Downey and William Wegman and film work from Hollis Frampton, Kenneth Anger, Marcel Broodthaers, Stan Brakhage, George Landow, Paul Sharits, Derek Jarman, Bruce Conner, and Yvonne Rainer.

Leading off with the work of this cavalcade of film/video stars, chief curator Dean Swanson and Walker director Martin Friedman organized the first Projected Images exhibition at the Walker. In this groundbreaking exhibition, filmmakers who had traditionally worked in a cinema screening space took a step into the white cube, adapting their work and their style to a more painterly experience. This exhibit not only reformed and reimagined the separation between art and cinema, but it set the groundwork for the artist filmmakers who are active today. From the catalogue of the original exhibition:

The term, “projected images,” describes a group of environmental works that depend upon specific light sources for their existence. The perception of these transitory images in darkened spaces is affected by the character and scale of such spaces. Many artists who work with projections have come to this hybrid form through dissatisfaction with traditional painting and sculpture techniques. While filmmaking and video production attract an increasing number of artists, most of these converts observe the technical conventions of the new media; their films are intended for viewing under standard projection conditions and their videotapes are made to be seen on television monitors. By contrast, the artists represented in this exhibition conceive of film and video images essentially in environmental terms—as dominant elements of interior spaces—and they are as much concerned with the changing spatial and psychological relationships between observer and image as with the character of the image itself.

A Michael Snow piece commissioned for the ’74 exhibition called Two Sides of Every Story, installed on two sides of a metal screen hung in the centre of the gallery. Two films are projected in continuous loops from opposite ends of the room. Both films show a woman making a series of movements as she walks between two cameramen positioned opposite each other. The films projected on opposite sides of the screen re-present the two differing perspectives of the cameramen. The metal screen represents an explorable space (the double-sided screen world) in an explorable space (the gallery), and throws the viewer/participant into dialogue between two opposite points of view constructing the same idea.

Like the exhibition itself, Snow’s piece absorbed Eisenstein’s concept of dialectical montage, combining two conflicting points of view into a more complicated synthesis. The collision of opposite viewpoints, in Two Sides of Every Story, is what creates the space between the cameras.

The different viewpoints that 1974’s Projected Images collides are slightly more complicated. In 2003, avant garde filmmaker Anthony McCall described the differing viewpoints as “The dichotomy between avant-garde film- (and video-) makers, and artists ‘working in film/video,’ still seems to be with us. The two worlds sometimes seem like Crick and Watson’s double helix, spiraling closely around one another without ever quite meeting.” But when Projected Images exhibition brought those two worlds into proximity, the collision was positively nuclear. The gallery’s white cube and the artists therein smashed into the filmmakers from the theater’s black box, and the resulting synthesis gave way to the next generation of film and video art and the ubiquitous nature of moving images in galleries today.

This year’s Artists’ Cinema: Projected Images is a restaging of that collision, but on different home turf. Here artists and filmmakers are stepping into the black box to do their dirty work. Installation artists, conceptual artists, visual artists and filmmakers will meet in the theater in a series highlighting the interconnections and dialogues inherent in their work. Artist’s Cinema will be another step toward the dialectical combination of art and cinema.

Diagram of Peter Campus’ Shadow Projection Rockne Krebs

Rockne Krebs’ The Lock

Rockne Krebs’ Anonymous Paul Sharits

Paul Sharits’ Specimen Michael Snow

*Two Sides to Every Story*, Michael Snow, 16 mm double projection.

Ted Victoria’s Light Bulb Projections Robert Whitman

Robert Whitman’s Room 1


Talking about how my childhood was or my experience was, now I feel that is just additional information about me. Many texts need a context to understand, but people don’t want to understand someone with context. It seems people think “Present” shows everything about that person. Maybe that is what they believe. At least, that was how I felt. Well, sometimes there is someone who can understand me without any explanation. When I across that person I feel free from any language. One hand, I doubt that will never happen, on the other my mind, I believe there could be someone I can be there without any language. And that is the one I should stay keep.

I have a reason why I obsess about the communication, why I crazy about the image. But I’ll skip that part. Because I don’t think someone cares about the reasons that much as much I did and I do to you.

There was and is one thing I keep saying about. “Neutral Design” or “Neutral Image”. I know it is not trendy in this era. Many people believe that we need to fight for our concept, for our ideology, for our belief. Without fighting for your possession, you are letting the other to take it. This is the one I never understand. First of all, I ideology is my soul, you can have yours but you will never change mine, even if you are dominating the whole world. It is not like possession or property that you can buy or change. You can influence it, but it is not because of you. I am the one who made a change.

When I was just started my MA course, and when I spoke out that I want to be neutral, people asked me that if I spoke out something that will never be neutral. I agree. I am a stubborn person. I will try to keep mine because it is “me”. But when I was saying I want to be “neutral”, I meant that I am prepared to accept there is another ideology. That is my “Neutral”. Neutral is not means whatever it is, you keep it gray, but it means you bear in your mind there is another way to see. As much you believe something, there should be someone equally believes the other thing.

Someone told me I am Utopianist. I don’t think so. I am not Utopianist, but I am actualist. I still don’t understand why some people don’t understand differences that two things. I believe we all different. If someone believes that we all can be united by something, I want to call s/he Utopianist.

Of course, I can’t deny that I met someone or sometimes I never can understand. If you know me, you will know when I say “thinking” means literally think fully. I still don’t get it. I want to get a clear answer. As much I desire of communication, I have a hunger about the clearness. It is contradictional speech, I know. Because I believe the diversity of the meaning of communication, then I am telling you I desire of definitiveness. One hand, I promoting “Neutral”, then the other hand, I am claiming the importance of determination. I think it is coming together. As I said above, to be neutral, you should be clear what position you are sitting. Individually, we should be clear about what is individual is, who I am. Only then, it is possible who are they, and who you are.

I am trying. Of course, I am not SAINT. I have a lot of drawbacks as you have. Quantity is not the matter, but the quality is positioning us. I don’t believe any of human-decided standard. I don’t believe any of standard. It is not standard but it is culture. Depend on time, it is changing.

Fuck. I have a lot of things wanted to say. I forgot. I forgot how to put here. Maybe it is time to say nothing.

I know it is a boring theme to talk. I am a boring person. Or my interest is boring. If it is boring it is not because of this topic, nothing wrong with this topic. It could I am talking in a very boring way.

What I wanted to say, that songs talked instead of me.

Fucking messy

Future Cinema

Future Cinema (2002) on Vimeo


One aspect of globalisation is the development of a worldwide network of technological standards and production. This production costs encouraged investment in new digital technologies, in general, the price of globalisation is standardisation: optimise existing formulas and freezes the process of technological and expressive experiments.

Three phases of the Transformation of classical cinema on the basis of apparatus

  • Expanded cinema movement in the 1960s, with analogous means.
  • The video revolution in the 1970s, electromagnetic basis allowed intensive manipulation and artificial construction of the image in a post production stage.
  • Digital apparatus in1980s and 1990s

“The machine is always social before it is technical”

#De Lauretis, T. and Heath, S. (1985). The Cinematic apparatus. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

This book argues that function of the ideology is not so much to reproduce social structures or classes as primarily to reproduce subjects who mistake themselves and are therefore willing to reproduce the values and social order necessary for the survival of capitalism. The apparatus theory of film shows that the cinema is an ensemble of discursive, material, formal elements that construct not only a reality, but also a subject. Not aim for total reality but deconstruct the total apparatus of the cinema, to transform the cinematic apparatus, and create new technologies that allow different psychic mechanisms, that subjugate subjects in the cinema, that allow different relations between spectator and screen, different representations/constructions of reality and subjects, a critical relation to representation. The cinematic imaginary beyond film is the imaginary signifier in the digital field.


The history of cinema is a history of technological experiment, of spectator-spectacle relations, and of production, distribution and presentation mechanisms that yoke the cinema to economic, political, social and ideological conditions. Above all it is a history of creative exploration into the uniquely variegated expressive capabilities of this remarkable contemporary medium.

#Flusser understood that it was, therefore, necessary to “hold the apparatus and its products in contempt,” and that creative freedom “equals playing against the apparatus.” This approach underlies the achievements of last century’s “experimental” filmmakers.

#Flusser, V., 2000. Towards a Philosophy of Photography, Reaktion Books.

Eyes and Camera

In both instruments a lens projects and inverted image of the surroundings upon a light-sensitive surface: the film in the camera and the retina in the eye. In both the opening of the lens is regulated by an iris. In both the inside of the chamber is lined with a coating of black material which absorbs start light that would otherwise be reflected black and forth and obscure the image.

#George Ward, “Eye and Camera,” in Scientific American Offprints, no. 46, 1950, p. 2.

R. L. Gregory calls the “internal logic” of the brain’s visual system, a system based on collecting, comparing, and drawing conclusions from data that is both “stored” in the brain and constantly arriving for the first time via the retinal image.

#Richard. L. Gregory, The Intelligent Eye, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1970, pp. 24=25.


Shape, size, depth, movement, colour, texture — all the components of the visual world are really millisecond-by-millisecond configurations of electrical activity in the brain.

p60 #Timothy Druckrey, Fugnitive Realities, Situated Realities, “Situational Realities,” or Future Cinema(s) Past

The artificial image would have passed through three different modes of being in the Western brain — Presence (the saint present through his effigy); representation; and simulation (in the scientific sense), while the figure perceived exercised its intermediary function from three successive, inclusive perspectives — the supernatural, the natural, and the virtual.”

#Debray, R. & Rauth, E., 1995. The three ages of looking. Critical Inquiry, 21(3), pp.529–555.

Panorama & Diorama

PolyVision Theatricalized playing space

[Napoléon (1927 film) – Wikipedia](

It transform the established spectator-screen relationship, filling the spectator’s field of vision and refiguring passive distractions as engrossing attractions, the heterogeneous tradition of multi-event presentations in the theatre continued to entertain audiences in pre-wide-film ways, and ‘distraction’ remained the dominant form of spectatorial engagement.

John Belton, Widescreen Cinema, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p. 51.

Photographer Breathes Life Into Natural History Dioramas

The volume of the time

“To die will be an awfully big adventure.”

-Peter pan-

From Chrismas, I worked very hard and trying to do my best. First thing I want to make clear is “I was not that kind of person who only works and only works”. I love to drink, I love to dance and I love to love. Without thinking and just go straight until I can’t go anymore. I still remember all the night hang out with friends singing at the Karaoke until dawn. I miss that moment with my friend talking about the life and love with lots of alcohols. Yeah, maybe the key word is “alcohol” here. HA

Drink until die.

It sounds stupid, but it was the time we all just wanted to be together. All night All day.

I have that fantasy with me. A fantasy that someday I can never worry about all my flaw and inferiority complex, and drink with my person until both die in same bed. Talking about each other, from deep inside of monsters and high dreams of unicorns. That is only my romance. Conquer the humanity together.

It is easy to find someone physically attractive. Few elements, few parts of the attraction and magic of the dumb water then BOOM. However, it is not easy to find someone who can share a total of me. Totality, exposure of the inside monsters. The bravery for the Admission only can show the life relationship. Admit the monsters inside of me and show as it is. Tell him I am not the perfect person and I am not even trying to be perfect but be myself. This is the most difficult part of the relationship. Because the ego will not let you do it. Ego, the existence of mind continuously trying to hold the reason why am I in this world and why I should be here. As soon as you are not wanting to be perfect and not want to good person for society, ego would lose its firm foundation. This is the error of the “Future”. Ego’s reasoning towards the future not for now.

I am not the exception. But when I doing a project I really try hard to ask myself what I want to show “NOW” rather than what I want to make in the future. I am not living in possibilities. I don’t want to become a “Possibility”. I am who I am now. I can be changed but that is “I will” choose to be.

But, So many excuses distracting me. I have no longer clear judgement about my decisions. Is it just excuse or my decision? Are my ego and myself still struggling? Who was it when I decide not to/to do it?

Life is short. I started realising that the word “life is short” is not literal means of the shortness. The real meaning is the time of “Present” is passing by. The volume of the life. The volume is conclusive as each moment is. Each of “Present moment” is completely fixed and closed, which will never be getting back again. Maybe our life is amassed moment. The volume of the life is not experienced by systematic “Time”, which is defined by certain rules of the others.

I am not satisfied by only tackling the future. I want the total death of the Time. Distortion and destruction of the time. That’s, I believe, the only way to make myself forward, without any configurations.

Just suddenly, I wanted to spend a time with deep conversation. The conversation that can make me forget the volume of the time.

Sweet death of Present.

Gordon Matta-Clark

Gordon Matta-Clark, Conical Intersect , 1975. Gelatin silver prints, triptych. Left photo: 49.2 x 49.8 cm, center photo: 58.7 x 40.6 cm, right photo: 49.8 x 33.7 cm. Courtesy The Estate of Gordon Matta-Clark and Marian Goodman Gallery


No more posts.