Share Prize interview: Perry Bard
October 4, 2010 6:52 pm
Perry Bard has been selected for the Share Prize 2010 exhibition, that will be presented from the 2nd until the 7th of November at the Regional Museum of Natural Science of Turin.
In addition take part to this partecipative video! Read how to do here.
– Man with a Movie Camera traces out a process and then leaves it up to agents, in this case Internet users, to create developments. How does the concept of authorship change when there is collective participation in the creation of a work?
The essential difference is in the aesthetic which is no longer singular. In any given version of the remake shots from Bogotá collide with shots from Bangkok, shots from Tokyo with ones from Rio etc. People upload from a variety of devices so the aspect ratio of the uploads and the resolution are both in a constant state of flux. Because the remake streams in sync with the original Vertov film, database cinema is positioned in relation to film aesthetics. Vertov’s vision is singular; the uploads represent plurality. Continuity between shots 463 and 464 for example, exists in relation to the whole – the whole being the original on the left, the remake on the right, the space in an and around those windows, the website, the internet. The aesthetic reflects and depends on the context in which the work is being produced. From that point of view one might analyze the work in terms of which parts of the world are not represented and why not. In creating a global remake my question is who is the collective.
– This work is a clear example of the ease with which artists today, with the help of digital algorithms and the connectivity of the Internet, can kick-start autonomous processes, which once started develop independently of the artist. What are your thoughts on this close tie between media art and process art?
As a working method there’s a clear correlation. The process is generative, open=ended, it relies on its context to develop, to exist. The connectivity necessary to and resulting from this work elaborates the process. In terms of style it’s hard for me to separate the idea of process art from its place in art history and then from that of authorship. But it’s a logical and very interesting proposition.
– How different do you think the impact was of the original film by Vertov from the impact of your work in progress?
Vertov’s film opened to mixed reviews. I would say the reception of my work in progress is similar depending on the audience. The world of new media has responded positively and the world of film is more hesitant to accept this mashup of a masterpiece. The work has been presented in 40 venues to date including media art festivals, museums, galleries, biennials, conferences, public screens – only three of those were film festivals. Vertov was criticized for speeding up footage in a documentary in 1929 (amongst other things). Film enthusiasts find similar fault with the remake. The form is alien.