By Calum Marsh
By Michelle Orange
By Michael Atkinson
By Simon Abrams
By Zachary Wigon
By Aaron Hillis
By Casey Burchby
By Stephanie Zacharek
From The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari through the Andy Warhol factory to the various para-cinematic performances included in the current "Shadow Play" series at the American Museum of the Moving Image, film avant-gardists have traditionally advanced by returning to their medium's primitive origins. In this sense, it's an abandoned future that's been excavated on the fourth floor of the Whitney Museum as "Into the Light: The Projected Image in American Art 1964-1977."
Shadow Play: Avant-Garde Views of Early Cinema
American Museum of the Moving Image
Through November 18
Pop art is forever with us, but the machine-oriented installations that have been lovingly reassembled at the Whitney seem nearly as remote as the stone calendars the Mayans built to read the stars. Some 75 years after the Lumière brothers first demonstrated their cinematograph in a Paris café, a half-century after Soviet futurists began incorporating little films in their theater pieces, two decades after television transformed every living room in America into the equivalent of an old movie revival house, a number of vanguard visual artists brought 16mm film technology to Soho galleries. Most were not filmmakersalthough their taste for high concept and visceral effect linked them to the avant-garde tendency then known as structural film.
In some ways, such innocence is refreshing. The first piece most visitors to "Into the Light" will see is Dennis Oppenheim's 1973 Echoan empty room featuring the shamelessly and effectively decorative projection of four outsized hands, each slapping one of the gallery walls. Why not call it Poltergeist? Similarly, if to less splashy effect, Bruce Nauman's 1970 Spinning Spheresshowing in its original 16mmprojects four rotating ball-bearings on each side of the room. At times, it's almost possible to catch a reflection.
Echo and Spinning Spheres are proudly dematerialized. For "real" artists like Oppenheim and Nauman, presence is usually more important than perception. Doing away with static painting does not mean immersing yourself in the stuff of motion pictures. Paul Sharits's 1975 Shutter Interface, by contrast, is a rapt celebration of the motion picture apparatus. One of the few structural filmmakers to have any sort of art-world career, Sharits has achieved one of the most beautiful pieces in the showprojecting overlapping color fields to create a varying stroboscopic flicker.
The New York Times curtain-raiser that ran some Sundays back misleadingly heralded "Into the Light" under the headline "Video Prophets Who Foretold Innovations" and placed it under the sign of Marcel Duchamp in that "everything and anything can be turned into art." Prophetic or no, it's the camera that's the key technology hereas it was for Duchamp's objet trouvéand less the video monitor than the motion picture projector. The video pieces are largely devoted to the production of virtual reality: In ascending order of complexity, Yoko Ono's 1966 Sky TV is a sort of minimalist Weather Channel that telecasts the heavens outside, William Anastasi's 1968 Free Will blocks an actual corner with a monitor broadcasting its video representation, and Gary Hill's 1974 Hole in the Wall documents the creation of the niche where its monitor is presently wedged. (Robert Whitman's 1964 Shower, which projects a filmed nude behind a cascade of water in a real bath stall, has been transferred from its original 16mm to video.)
There are also several examples of "pure" video. Keith Sonnier's 1972 Channel Mix might be considered a new way to watch television, combining as it does four "live" broadcasts in split-screen projections. (The effect is the equivalent of a found Rosenquist "billboard.") Peter Campus's 1977 aen uses a surveillance camera to project an inverted image of anyone entering its room. The effect is deeply uninterestinga not dissimilar installation by Michael Snow (shown recently at the White Box gallery) at least allowed male visitors of a certain age to ponder the state of the hair atop their heads.
A few of the Whitney installations could be considered narrative pieces. The most complicated of these is Vito Acconci's 1974 Other Voices for a Second Sight, an audiovisual cacophony that suggests a cubist version of the old Jean Shepherd show, broadcast from a haunted radio station; the most classical is Beryl Korot's Dachau 1974, a four-channel "map" of the Nazi concentration camp site and present-day tourist attraction. There is also Andy Warhol's double-screen projection Lupe (1965). As a dazed Edie Sedgwick represents Latina movie star Lupe Velez, who committed suicide in the early 1940s, so this movie stands in for Warhol's far superior video-film "conversation," Outer and Inner Space.
In general, narrative seems misplaced here. Rather than sit still for any of the installations, it's far more satisfying to experience the show as a series of celestial eventsyou can drift through the rooms several times, checking on the progress of the most ingenious contraptions for measuring time and casting light. In Michael Snow's 1974 conundrum, Two Sides to Every Story, a young woman in an eye-catching white satin blouse walks back and forth between two camerasher two images are cast on opposite sides of a suspended metallic screen. A pair of corresponding images are projected on opposite walls in Dan Graham's 1973 Helix/Spiral, a less glamorous exploration of the same phenomenon. Graham's piece is a dance for two handheld camerasit's abstract Cassavetes with the respective operators flailing around as they film each other over their shoulders or behind their backs.
Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!