MEDIA FORUM 
(June 23-27, 2001)
 in the frame of XXIII Moscow International Film Festival

F e s t i v a l & C o n f e r e n c e

In 1984 video workshop/HASLEV created THE DANISH VIDEO ART DATA BANK and - with support from the Danish Ministry of Culture - published the bilingual “Katalog over dansk videokunst / Catalogue of Danish Video Art” with descriptions of well over 100 video works by 30 artists.

There have been created quite a lot video art works since then but the problem is that it is not possible today to view and experience many of the works from the catalogue. Partly because they were produced at video standards which now are outdated and even not exist anymore and partly because we have had to discover that analogue video tapes do have a limited durability.

Most of the works though are produced on low band U-matic. This standard still exist but not for long. At the Data Bank I still keep the old well-worn low band and high band U-matic decks and edit suite in shape. But anyway we must realise that the lifetime of these perhaps more than 25 years old U-matic tapes are running out especially if the storage has not been the best and if they not have been “aired” in most of these years.

Well - perhaps many of these first Danish video art works are not “Big Art” (whatever that is?) but if for nothing else than historical and research reasons I feel they should be preserved. They are after all a part of our cultural heritage!

And of course this is not only a Danish problem but a problem also in most other countries.

In the light of this THE DANISH VIDEO ART DATA BANK prepared a report and proposal (published only in Danish) to secure, protect and restore Danish video art and creating an archive for this purpose.

To secure, protect and restore modern art, especially when it comes to a rather new kind as video art, is still a relatively “uncultivated” field with no clear definitions. Also because the electronic/digital media is a fast changing field with standards that do not last for very long. And also the electronic/digital media are “young” in the sense that we do not know too much about durability and the process of ageing and there is almost no expertise on this field.

I took contact with Montevideo/TBA, the Dutch Media Art Institute, because I knew that they are working with the same problem and had made some research and considerations, published in a report (partly mentioned in their Newsletter).

As a result of the research they had decided to transfer all analogue tapes to digital Betacam because they found that in this way you best preserved the “originality” of the original video art work. They found that other digital techniques like DV and DVD by more or less degree of compression “destroyed” the original analogue art work: You would not be able to “recreate” it in its original form.

Also to transfer the analogue art work to a more or less compressed digital media raises the moral and the copyright question: Could you at all take the liberty to “change” an art work, produced at an analogue form by transferring it to a digital carrier?

The question is: How far does digitisation change the meaning of the video work? By definition, digitisation of video art means changing the carrier and playback equipment of the work of art.

Well, I find that you could also argue that this is less important in view of the problem that the analogue video art works will be destroyed if nothing is done.

In the report from January 1999 Montevideo put forward a list of “Criteria for Archiving Formats” and I take the liberty to quote these criteria:

There should be no visible change of image compared to the original

There should be as much as possible compatibility with industrial standards

The system must be able to process Betacam SP, U-matic and VHS tapes, while preserving the best possible quality

Montage and editing must be possible

The stored material must have a long to very long life span

The stored material must be able to be copied onto any desired (tape) format without any appreciable loss of quality

The system must guarantee the possibility of transferring the preserved material to newly designed carriers, in the 21^{st century}

In view of these criteria and a test with different formats/carriers Montevideo came in 1999 to the conclusion that “Digital Betacam is the most suitable option for archive purposes”.

I also took contact with the Guggenheim Museum in New York and talked with Paul Kuranko, Media Arts Specialist. He told me that up until now they have every 10 years made a new “master” of the tapes in their collection. To further protect this master they also make a so-called “Protection Copy” + an “Exhibition copy”, a “Research Copy” and a “Transfer Copy”.

The new “Master” and the “Protection Copy” are always made - if technical possible - at the same format/carrier as the original video art work: analogue to analogue, digital to digital. At least they will never “go down” in quality but if possible upgrade to a better quality within the same type of format/carrier (e.g. VHS to Beta and so on). The “Exhibition Copy” though is copied on DVD and the “Research Copy” only on VHS.

They find it a problem with the digital formats that each one compresses in a different way and also they are not quite satisfied with the quality compared with the original video.

^{I think this could and should be the model for creating an index of Scandinavian video art works (and of course also for countries outsite Scandinavia). Also because you keep the already existing databases as such.}

^{How could it be done? I will try to sketch out how I think it should be done.}

^{1. We should agree upon what information should be given about a video work. As I said we will come back to that after finishing our resarch}

^{2. We should agree upon using ISAN as soon as it becomes ready for use.}

^{3. We should agree upon a common structure for the independent databases. At least you should be able to search on both "artist" and "title". If these independent data banks also should include streaming video clips should, I think, be up to each data bank, depending on both economical and man power resources.}

^{4. The existing (or coming) independent data banks and their web sites should still be the sole responsibility of the agency/organisation/museum, which has created it, and also be maintained by these agencies/organisations/museums.}

^{5. We should create a common meta search engine, which should be able to search for any information in each of the data bank web sites connected to the search engine. When somebody seeks information about Scandinavian video art you only have to go to one web site, the common meta search engine. This search engine functions a "web gate" or "portal" to the independent data bank web sites.}

^{6. If you then write the name of an artist or the title of a video the search engine will direct you to any of the independent web sites containing the wanted information. Not only to the web site but directly to the information.}

^{7. You might consider if the meta search engine also should have a list of artists from all the independent data bank sites to choose from.}

^{8. In any case anybody should still be able to go directly to each of the independent data bank web sites without having to go through the search engine.}

^{9. We have to create a common agency to take care of and maintain the meta search engine (it could of course be one of the already existing agencies, organisations and museums).}

^{10. We have to find economical resources for the meta search engine.}

^{11. ´9It should be possible for an artists not associated with one of the data banks but with a web site to have this web site connected to the search engine,}

^{12. … but I think that an artist could be associated with a data bank even if the artist want to be independent of the data bank and the way they usually distribute videos. THE DANISH VIDEO ART DATA BANK offers such an opportunity for individual artists to have information published on the catalogue site without any obligation to the Data Bank (NB: in any case the Data Bank has no agreement with any artist about exclusive rights to distribution. Any of the affiliated artists can also themselves distribute their own videos)}

^{[ DIAGRAM TO ILLUSTRATE THIS HERE from "VIDEO ARTmonitor 6" ]}

^{I hope my suggestions will be discussed between the Scandinavian agencies/organisations/museums concerned. Since I am an artist and not a computer specialist I do not know anything about the price of the suggested meta search engine or the work to be done to establish and maintain it. If accepted a work group should be established to look into the practical and economical aspects.}

^{Part 3: Archive of Danish video art}

^{As I said in the beginning we have also been working on the possibility of creating an archive of Danish video art (a "physical" archive). Up til now we have small collections at a few museums and at galleries or agencies, but especially the earlier video art works you might only find by the individual artists.}

^{As a starting point THE DANISH VIDEO ART DATA BANK has discussed the possible functions of such an archive:}

^{The archive could solely be a depot for the restored, preserved and transferred video art works with a registration/catalogue and a possibility to make simple copies. The restoration, preservation and transfer would be done by commercial companies}

^{The archive as a) but also with “in-house” technical possibilities for the restoration, preservation and transfer}

^{the archive as a) or b) but also with the possibility for public access to view the videos.}

^{We think that the best model would be the combination of b) and c).}

^{Next step would of course depend on financial support - and also in what framework and responsibility it is going to be organised. In this respect there seems to be a dawning interest among some museum curators in Denmark for doing something - and that is how far we have come by now.}

^{The problems around preservation and archiving video art from yesterday also raises questions about the work of video and media artists now and in the future.}

^{With the accelerating technological changes of formats and carriers what is then the possibilities of the access for media artists to express themselves artistically not just now but also in the future?}

^{To put it very simple: If the artists created an art work on a video cassette yesterday, then he or she should have done it on CD-ROM today which tomorrow will be outdated in favour of DVD which in return the day after tomorrow will be replaced by … you take a guess.}

^{The acceleration of development in digital media has also increased their ephemerality. This becomes a fundamental creative problem for artists. By the time you have mastered a particular technology, it has gone away.}

^{You might well ask: Do we have to reject the statement by Nam June Paiks that "Once on video tape you are not allowed to die" ?}

^{What can the video and media artist do to be sure to create works that you may experience "in all future times" regardless of seemingly inevitable transient quality of the new electronic / digital media?}

^{Should we as artists - and can we do that? - think different about how to create an art work and how to look at an art work?}

^{Away from the traditional view as something definitive, well-defined, present? Should we imagine all art-making with media as having the ephemerality of performance?}

^{Would it, for example, as the American artist Ron Kuivila has suggested, be possible if the art work is looked upon as an open source notation? - If we look upon the creation of a media art work from the relationships that grow out of notation and realisation?}

^{And by notation he means notation in a "prescriptive" sense that sets ground rules for a complementary activity - realisation - and not in a "descriptive" sense that specifies a work fixed in every detail.}

^{He points out, that to some extent, new media are themselves notations. Let us say you work with a tool like html. It constitutes a meta-score of some sort, because it creates a field of play. And the artist might stress that it is just an enabling technology - and we can distinguish this technology clearly from the art work.}

^{Bu perhaps we should just not do that! Perhaps we should rather imagine the passage between a particular set of technical possibilities to a particular piece of art as a more fluid situation. Or we could imagine works as problems of specification.}

^{If we think in this way, the making of an art work becomes a matter of making a prescriptive notation that exists independent of any specific technical possibility and that can be re-constituted by adding "the water" of a current or future technology.}

^{The problem for the artist in a traditional sense is that other people than the artist also will be able to "add the water" - and then will you as an artist loose your individual mark on the work as its creator?}

^{If you talk about a descriptive notation then the artwork will be entirely encoded in the instructions. But the risk is that the technological development will make it impossible to realise the work in the future. Ron Kuivila therefore suggests using the prescriptive notation not as a replacement for current work, but as a useful supplement.}

^{How do we describe a work based on the prescriptive notation? Do we just keep describing the notation, or will we describe the realisation? And: do we still mention the artist that initiated the notation - Or do we only mention those that that later realise the specific notation. Those that made it "famous" with their actions?}

^{Well - you already have that problem. Take for example Nam June Paik's "Zen for Head".}

^{Karlheinz Stockhausen's "Originale" was performed the first time at Theater am Dom in cologne in October 1961. Paik had - as the only one of the participating artists - been granted free hands by Stockhausen. He performed "Zen for Head" by painting a line on a roll of paper with his head.}

^{In later descriptions (both in books and magazines) it is only a very few times mentioned that this was a realisation of Lamonte Young's "Composition No. 10 for Robert Morris", and that Paik and Young at that time worked together. In most cases only Paik is mentioned.}

^{That is to say: you mention only Paik that made the notation - the prescriptive notation - famous because he realized it by performing it, and not Lamonte Young, the artist that created the notation, the "author" of the prescriptive notation.}

^{Kuivila suggests that instead of maintaining a strict "author model" you should operate with a more flexible sense of "shared authorship" to create many possibilities where before there were only a few imagined. We should actively embrace the variety of models of "authorship" that are possible and incorporate them into our conception of art making.}

^{Well - if these thoughts about "prescriptive notations" and "shared authorship" as the future AND the rescue of media art is the way to go, I can't say. But they are in any case a proposal to discussion and debate. I think artists working with media art should do that, because the problems around the ephemerality of the digital media are there already now. We should as artists take this challenge serious.}

^{Torben Soeborg.}