Page 39 - Studio International - June 1974
P. 39
VIDEOTAPE,& THE UNIVERSITY ART PROGRAMME
The introduction of television equipment and (Above left)
tele-recording apparatus into the critical frame Albert McNamara Smile 1971
in. black and white video tape
of reference of the art-context raises questions
(Above)
that are relevant to the whole of art. This is one Colin Campbell Smile 1972
of the factors that makes videotape of interest as in. black and white video tape
art; and this single factor alone gives it, at the (Left)
present time, an overwhelming advantage over Leonardo da Vinci Mona Lisa c. 1503
Oil on canvas
any other medium in relation to the university
art programme. information that the word 'art' in our sense of
Painting and sculpture are (a) still and (b) the visual arts does not appear in any English
silent; video-tape moves and has a sound-track. dictionary before 1880. Perhaps we should put
Does that in any way affect the question of its the question the other way round; by what right
designation as art ? or logic do we apply the term 'art' to Leonardo's
Two tapes from Canada's maritime provinces picture painted so many years before ?
each bear the title of Smile. One is by Albert In practice Albert McNamara's tape is not
McNamara, then a student at Nova Scotia absolutely still. Inevitably he blinks from time
College of Art and Design. In it the artist sits to time, and by the end his muscles twitch from
down, smiles at the camera and retains the same strain. On one level his expression signifies
fixed expression for half an hour. The work is pleasure, but beneath the conventionalized sign
virtually still and respects the code of silence. a reality of discomfort is revealed in minute
Is that then more reason to call it art ? — or does involuntary impulses.
the potentiality for movement implicit in the Colin Campbell's Smile was produced when
television image (regardless of actual stillness) he was a faculty member of Mount Allison
debar the possibility of reading it as 'picture' in University. On the tape I saw, the piece
the sense that most readily refers to art ? followed Sackville I'm Yours and it seems to
The piece has overtones of the standardized laughter, but may not the total immobilization belong in that position. Colin Campbell appears
amiability of television performers, but when of a transitory expression confound our in the role of Art Star, who discusses with an
we come to think of it, do we really regard capacities for interpretation at the levels of imagined interviewer the situation of an
their expression as a smile at all ? Might we not spontaneous organic response and reasoned artist of international standing living in
rather think of it as a 'grin' or 'grimace' ? criticism alike ? Sackville, New Brunswick. In Smile he retains
And might we not infer an attitude of calculated What when we return to the numerous the same role, and through the interview
ulterior motive rather than any genuinely comparable instances presented by painting and situation acknowledges that he is in fact posing
amicable disposition ? Confronted with such a sculpture ? The Mona Lisa has successfully for the camera. The sincerity of the fixed
person in real life might we not infer that he was retained the same unchanging facial composure expression is explicitly called into question, but
`bemused' rather than 'amused' ? But then are for the better part of five centuries, to the the answer remains uncertain. The artist is
our normal everyday responses the result of constant bemusement of romantic critics, the evidently acting a part, and quite self-
such rational considerations ? May not the bewilderment of unromantic analysts and the consciously over-acting it, but the part he is
symbol itself suffice at some unreasoning level ? — per sistent cynicism of popular cynicism — while playing may nonetheless be himself. In the
and do we find ourselves applauding the act or art itself has provided an even more irreverent Art Star pieces Colin Campbell appears in the
buying the product regardless ? This may be comment in the form of Duchamp's doctored nude — exposed in naked truth as the cliché
so in a context which, at least, cues us to the print with its ambiguously obscene caption. might have it — but his nakedness only
meaning of facial gesture within the subtle But is Duchamp's print really art ? The Oxford heightens the obtrusive artificiality of the
alternatives of grin, grimace or incipient Dictionary provides the interesting piece of situation; physical and psychological reality do
289