Recasting A Misfire: The Guggenheim’s YouTube Biennial

We have two threads going here but thanks to James Kalm for adding to what I said previously, which I’d like to repeat here. The question under consideration is whether YouTube is just a delivery system for “video art” of the established, Nam Jun Paik variety, or whether it’s a culture unto itself that curators should be learning about. By culture I don’t mean “digital culture” in the starry-eyed Nicholas Negroponte sense of an evolving hive mind but a culture in the Margaret Mead sense of a group with its own mores, which may or may not mature into a canon with critics, philosophers, checks, balances, etc. According to the New York Times, Hewlett Packard will be collaborating on the project “to teach skills like editing, animation and lighting to the video-naïve,” and as noted by NYC the Blog above, the YouTube platform has company rules and acts as a censor independent of the museum. All this suggests that YouTube will be thought of in its original, intended, non-vernacular sense as a place to find “new talent” for art and TV, even though, over the years, the YouTube “street has found its own uses for things,” in William Gibson’s phrase. James Kalm mentions several of those; I noted in the earlier thread that YouTube is becoming a substitute iTunes, with people posting their favorite obscure song with a single still image for the consideration of the site’s talkative commenters. (I’ve been calling the site “America’s Jukebox.”) Will that and other “pirate” uses of YT–-such as OAVs or “original anime videos” featuring anime clips recut with new music–-be reflected in the Guggenheim’s filtered call for entries? Doubtful–the YouTube competition will ultimately be WhateverWeSayTube.

We have two threads going here but thanks to James Kalm for adding to what I said previously, which I’d like to repeat here. The question under consideration is whether YouTube is just a delivery system for “video art” of the established, Nam Jun Paik variety, or whether it’s a culture unto itself that curators should be learning about. By culture I don’t mean “digital culture” in the starry-eyed Nicholas Negroponte sense of an evolving hive mind but a culture in the Margaret Mead sense of a group with its own mores, which may or may not mature into a canon with critics, philosophers, checks, balances, etc. According to the New York Times, Hewlett Packard will be collaborating on the project “to teach skills like editing, animation and lighting to the video-naïve,” and as noted by NYC the Blog above, the YouTube platform has company rules and acts as a censor independent of the museum. All this suggests that YouTube will be thought of in its original, intended, non-vernacular sense as a place to find “new talent” for art and TV, even though, over the years, the YouTube “street has found its own uses for things,” in William Gibson’s phrase. James Kalm mentions several of those; I noted in the earlier thread that YouTube is becoming a substitute iTunes, with people posting their favorite obscure song with a single still image for the consideration of the site’s talkative commenters. (I’ve been calling the site “America’s Jukebox.”) Will that and other “pirate” uses of YT–-such as OAVs or “original anime videos” featuring anime clips recut with new music–-be reflected in the Guggenheim’s filtered call for entries? Doubtful–the YouTube competition will ultimately be WhateverWeSayTube.

It’s a picky form of a Salon des Refuses, if you’ll pardon my French. That’s why it’s ‘overdue.’

I think the questions we need to be asking are 1. Why is the Guggenheim doing this? 2. Why now instead of 2-4 years ago? 3. What are they really looking for, based on the aesthetic they established in their videos?

I’m in agreement that this whole thing seems to be an ill-fated and ill-conceived marketing ploy. But the overall tone that the Gug is somehow a total n00b when it comes to the Internet misses some important historical context.

In 02 they commissioned two very good net artists to make new work. (http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/press-room/releases/press-release-archive/2002/668-february-18-internet-art-commissions)

…plus other pieces going back to ’96 (http://brandon.guggenheim.org).

Also, John Ipollito, Carol Stringari and Caitlin Jones organized an exhibition in 04, “Seeing Double: Emulation in Theory and Practice.” One of the best exhibitions of digital work I’ve seen. (http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/press-room/releases/press-release-archive/2004/643-march-3-seeing-double-emulation-in-theory-and-practice)

Unfortunately, most of the people responsible for these early forays are no longer there. But institutionally, the place has some cred.

I’m in agreement that this whole thing seems to be an ill-fated and ill-conceived marketing ploy. But the overall tone that the Gug is somehow a total n00b when it comes to the Internet misses some important historical context.

In 02 they commissioned two very good net artists to make new work. (http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/press-room/releases/press-release-archive/2002/668-february-18-internet-art-commissions)

…plus other pieces going back to ’96 (http://brandon.guggenheim.org).

Also, John Ipollito, Carol Stringari and Caitlin Jones organized an exhibition in 04, “Seeing Double: Emulation in Theory and Practice.” One of the best exhibitions of digital work I’ve seen. (http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/press-room/releases/press-release-archive/2004/643-march-3-seeing-double-emulation-in-theory-and-practice)

Unfortunately, most of the people responsible for these early forays are no longer there. But institutionally, the place has some cred.

@t.whid. I never saw that show — it looks great.

@Tom The more I think about this, the more I think it’s just sort of a convenient hook that youtube is known for finding talent. I mean, yes, that’s what they’ve set out to do, but the pairing seems not that much different than a collaboration with Coca-Cola and Adobe, in which the Guggenheim seeks out 20 great label designs. Adobe offers illustrator advice, and Coca-Cola, like almost any corporation, won’t use anything too riske.

Here are my YouTube faves (SS is not allowed to look): [ http://www.youtube.com/user/teleclysm#g/f ]. Paul Slocum has a good idea of encouraging producers we like to submit but after watching that Guggenheim call-for-submissions video again I wouldn’t wish that process on my worst enemies. Normal video pausing into pseudo-glitchy jitter, gratuitous sped-up city scenes, quasi-8 bit music, a groovy fake Yellow Submarine sequence, stop-motion graffiti oozing off the wall and strutting around: the full panoply of effects a 30-something high paid art director would create to conjure happenin’ youth. By contrast, the work in the above faves list is no-budget, sincere, incomprehensible, vague, “weak,” anti-YouTube, no-style, slight, non-corporate, etc (but also brilliant). Recall what happened when Guthrie Lonergan curated a group of touchingly inept MySpace intros on YouTube. The work got duller when it was linked to directly by Rhizome.org and even duller when shown on professional gear at the New Museum. The work I love most would shrivel in the institutional spotlight and I shudder to think of a techie explaining to Silicious how to make a more polished use of Poser software.

Here are my YouTube faves (SS is not allowed to look): [ http://www.youtube.com/user/teleclysm#g/f ]. Paul Slocum has a good idea of encouraging producers we like to submit but after watching that Guggenheim call-for-submissions video again I wouldn’t wish that process on my worst enemies. Normal video pausing into pseudo-glitchy jitter, gratuitous sped-up city scenes, quasi-8 bit music, a groovy fake Yellow Submarine sequence, stop-motion graffiti oozing off the wall and strutting around: the full panoply of effects a 30-something high paid art director would create to conjure happenin’ youth. By contrast, the work in the above faves list is no-budget, sincere, incomprehensible, vague, “weak,” anti-YouTube, no-style, slight, non-corporate, etc (but also brilliant). Recall what happened when Guthrie Lonergan curated a group of touchingly inept MySpace intros on YouTube. The work got duller when it was linked to directly by Rhizome.org and even duller when shown on professional gear at the New Museum. The work I love most would shrivel in the institutional spotlight and I shudder to think of a techie explaining to Silicious how to make a more polished use of Poser software.

There’s a whole bunch of talented and hard-working unknown videomakers/artists who have used Youtube (and/or Vimeo, etc) as a platform to present their works online, and have never had any kind of exposure/recognition outside of obscure/indie places AND the internet platform (Youtube/Vimeo/their own personal sites), because the “right” people (those that are in the art and media business – curators/decision makers/art specialists/galleries/foundations/museums/collectors/press/you name the powers that be) have never heard of them (for whatever reasons, e.g. the artists didn’t have the right network of buddies, didn’t have the right pedigree/CV, didn’t come from within the art business, didn’t have a PR rep, nor the marketing skills/younameit, to get the exposure they deserve // also probably because of conservatism/uniformity of vision/narrow-mindedness from the art powers that be). In an era when the art world and general public has become more and more attached to the “fame” of an artist’s name rather that the quality of an artist’s work, if the Youtube Play selection process is fair (obviously it probably won’t be since it only involves a few select jurors kept secretly secret and institutional friends’ to judge the probably tens of thousands of submissions – I really hope the institutional friends won’t be those that recommend their own artists – artists who are already recognized in the art world as having exhibited in these same institutions), the organizers could indeed allow unknown talents to have a voice out there in this ruthless world that is art and its business, and perhaps discover the Van Gogh’s and Darger’s of the Video art world before those artists die and remain forgotten in the after-life (Van Gogh was a lucky one despite his fame after his death after all since he at least got recognized – notwithstanding his talent obviously).
Anyways, it seems to me that Youtube is looking for artists in the medium of video and video-art, as after all, Guggenheim is an art museum…
But my hopes are too high probably and I wonder how the 200 videos are going to be selected, not even talking about the 20 remaining ones…
Still, I am just dreaming that they really look at all the submissions brought forth, and do go through a rigorous selection process with multiple kinds of judges from multiple backgrounds watching fully and “ranking” every single video submitted, and that they do select deserving unknown talents that do push the boundaries of what video and video art means as a protean medium that has a lot of history from the early days of portapak to the advent of HDSLR, and whatever comes next in the artist’s imagination to create new languages/forms of expressions/rebellion/younameit, and new means of communicating them through video.
I hope they do take into consideration elevating pieces of art works as opposed to what’s just hip or cool in terms of animation and effects or number of views, and also consider works that dare to dissent from what has already been shown in the 60s’, 70′s, 80′s or 90′s or 00′s… I really hope they do look for unusual, thoughtful, elevating, singular pieces… but my hopes are probably too high! I’m hopeful they do… it would be a big and bold statement… though I’m not optimistic about it.

There’s a whole bunch of talented and hard-working unknown videomakers/artists who have used Youtube (and/or Vimeo, etc) as a platform to present their works online, and have never had any kind of exposure/recognition outside of obscure/indie places AND the internet platform (Youtube/Vimeo/their own personal sites), because the “right” people (those that are in the art and media business – curators/decision makers/art specialists/galleries/foundations/museums/collectors/press/you name the powers that be) have never heard of them (for whatever reasons, e.g. the artists didn’t have the right network of buddies, didn’t have the right pedigree/CV, didn’t come from within the art business, didn’t have a PR rep, nor the marketing skills/younameit, to get the exposure they deserve // also probably because of conservatism/uniformity of vision/narrow-mindedness from the art powers that be). In an era when the art world and general public has become more and more attached to the “fame” of an artist’s name rather that the quality of an artist’s work, if the Youtube Play selection process is fair (obviously it probably won’t be since it only involves a few select jurors kept secretly secret and institutional friends’ to judge the probably tens of thousands of submissions – I really hope the institutional friends won’t be those that recommend their own artists – artists who are already recognized in the art world as having exhibited in these same institutions), the organizers could indeed allow unknown talents to have a voice out there in this ruthless world that is art and its business, and perhaps discover the Van Gogh’s and Darger’s of the Video art world before those artists die and remain forgotten in the after-life (Van Gogh was a lucky one despite his fame after his death after all since he at least got recognized – notwithstanding his talent obviously).
Anyways, it seems to me that Youtube is looking for artists in the medium of video and video-art, as after all, Guggenheim is an art museum…
But my hopes are too high probably and I wonder how the 200 videos are going to be selected, not even talking about the 20 remaining ones…
Still, I am just dreaming that they really look at all the submissions brought forth, and do go through a rigorous selection process with multiple kinds of judges from multiple backgrounds watching fully and “ranking” every single video submitted, and that they do select deserving unknown talents that do push the boundaries of what video and video art means as a protean medium that has a lot of history from the early days of portapak to the advent of HDSLR, and whatever comes next in the artist’s imagination to create new languages/forms of expressions/rebellion/younameit, and new means of communicating them through video.
I hope they do take into consideration elevating pieces of art works as opposed to what’s just hip or cool in terms of animation and effects or number of views, and also consider works that dare to dissent from what has already been shown in the 60s’, 70′s, 80′s or 90′s or 00′s… I really hope they do look for unusual, thoughtful, elevating, singular pieces… but my hopes are probably too high! I’m hopeful they do… it would be a big and bold statement… though I’m not optimistic about it.

Hello everybody here at Art Fag and sorry for rushing in with interloping reasons but I know Art Fag from the time of the Guggenheim – YouTube announcement. My name is Jack and this past Saturday morning I had a 2-year old experimental video banned on YouTube – I’m hoping that a juror for the Guggenheim -YouTube partnership reads this message here on Art Fag and will bring this horror to YouTube management’s attention – Takashi – Ryan – Douglas – Marilyn – Shirin – Stefan – Laurie – Animal Collective – Darren – Apichatpong – and Nancy Spencer – (this is the link to the thread in YouTube’s help section where this played out on miserable Saturday morning (the Guggenheim/ YouTube partnership is talked about here).

As God is my witness – this video does not break community guidelines.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?fid=31c6588e991d7e6200048c3c113fb5c8&hl=en

Thank you very much for the space Art Fag – JackNightingale