There is usually no time to build a relationship with the image: if we are not in motion, then the image is designed to pass us by in an instant.



The above statement from two writers of visual culture seems to describe what is happening in our current world. How is it not to? Our ill-fated life is now flooded with a magnificent number of images: film, television, cellphone’s and blackberry’s screen, billboards, signboards, street signs, video game, anything. Images have gone overproduced.

Image culture revolution (or generally known as visual culture) is a distinct product of the 20^th century (and now, the 21^st), although visual materials have always been an integral part of the human life. Take film as an easy example. In the history of world film—an obligatory subject for students of film department—film, as technology, was first developed by Lumière brothers in 1895, in a show of moving pictures down at the Grand Café, Paris. Film, which in the beginning was an attraction¹, was then defined as an industry, an image-maker that carries in its various economic formations and political interests.

Another instance, computer and the internet. The technology which was initially designed for post-WW military monitorial purposes (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) is now an indivisible part of modern man behavior. These technologies: film, computer, and the internet revolutionized human comprehension of images. The change has ever since grown faster and in greater magnitude. What can be inferred from this, other than—yet again—the term simulacra and simulacrum?

I was reminded of this discourse as I attended OK. Video and also one or two lectures on New Media Studies that were held as part of the festival. OK. Video is a biennale video festival organized by ruangrupa. This year’s is their fourth run. I attended the event since 2007. To tell the truth, the term video carries a bad name among film practitioners. Video art is bad art by any other name. Each time I watch a videoart, for example, instead of feeling pleased, entertained, or enlightened, I, on the contrary, get confused. But this is highly understandable. It is uncustomary to expect entertainment from a video.

But aside from my cynical comments on video (masturbation, as some might say), I, in the end do think about it. How can’t I? I spent one whole semester to attend classes on Cultural Studies and New Media Arts but all the while received only definitions of ideology, hegemony, television, Arjun Appadurai², ISA (ideological state apparatus), and the sort. Those are undeniably necessary but I was left clueless, still, of what new media really is.



Then came the time when I blankly stare at the walls of the National Gallery on an extremely hot day with a dangerous, young curator who came to Jakarta specifically to attend OK. Video. Aminudin TH Siregar’s curatorial writing pasted on that wall seemed to serve as an encyclopedia on the types of Indonesian video. It read:

“There are two tendencies that are commonly practiced in a number of works in OK. Video Comedy. The first is for the artist to build a certain narrative, be it lengthy or brief, intentionally arrange it—either its plot, its sound, or its pattern of communication—to be recorded. The second is to wait for a moment in real life that coincidentally triggers laughter and is recorded unintentionally from behind the lenses.”

His introductory sounded like a cold taxonomy textbook but was indeed a precise description of how Indonesians treat the video. There are 95 video works exhibited in this year’s OK. Video, submitted by artists from various countries and of different types of work. Entering the gallery, one would firstly encounter a video by Anggun Priambodo entitled Electronic Cinema-Electronic Video. Moving forward, one would find a vast space at the center of the gallery where videos are played on flatscreen television sets attached on the walls and also on two big screens in the middle.

In a glance, the arrangement looked plain, clean-cut, without accent. All videos were played on a single channel. The sound, however, was incredibly noisy, louder than the sound of all TV sets playing simultaneously in an electronic appliances store or even than Carrefour’s TV set department. The sounds from the videos projected to the screens were left to bicker overlappingly, creating such noise that could either be interpreted as annoyance or as part of the installation.

I watched most of the videos thoroughly from opening title to end credit. Some videos are enjoyable, as far as being able to make one laugh, some others can really make one exclaim, “Man, this guy’s wicked,” yet there are also others that triggered my cynical remark, “What’s this supposed to mean? Total crap.”

Compared to the previous OK. Video, the number of videos exhibited this year is actually smaller. OK. Video Militia 2007 carried more video works (119 videos by 99 artists from 27 countries). This year, the Indonesian videos are majorly submitted by the already known video artists. Say, Anggun Priambodo, Muhammad Akbar, Ariani Darmawan, Henry Foundation, Maulana M. Pasha, and Wimo Ambala Bayang among others. However, in the competition, all winning videos are (coincidentally) European: a self-conscious, witty video entitled  Ivo Burokvic by Paul Wierbinski (Germany), a simple yet pleasant video entitled How To Make A Table by Lemeh42 (Italy), and a rather sensational video entitled The Door of The Law by Moten Dysgaard (Denmark).

How about Indonesian videos? Quantity wise, I am sure that the number of videos made by Indonesians is growing. Not only the videos which are intended for art such as the ones exhibited in OK. Video, but also video making in general (film, sinetron, wedding/birthday/event documentation, etc). Even in OK. Video Indonesian videos fulfilled a significant quota.

Several times before, I attended an exhibition organized by Forum Lenteng in Bentara Budaya. Entitled Videobase, this exhibition displayed the various video making majorly practiced in Indonesia. This includes the production of conventional narrative videos (full-length film, short film, television serial, etc), journalistic recording videos (TV news recording, special documentary reports), event recording videos (wedding, birthday, funeral, music performance, or any other event), mundane daily-life videos (such as cellphone video recordings), as well as other types of videos (pornographic video recording is excluded, however popular it is in this country).

This exhibition, as well as other events along the line, brought forward the intensity of video usage in our society, especially with the production of thousands—or even millions—of hours of footage. Video has become a promising new media to many people, be it for propaganda or merely for fun.

Secondly, in general, all Indonesian videos use local visual reference. For instance, the aforementioned video by Anggun, Electronic Cinema-Electronic Video. My curator friend—who understands only English—could not laugh as happily as I did while watching it. As we all know, Anggun took shots, frames, and acting style which in summary is the Indonesian sinetron—understood only by fellow Indonesians—as his visual reference. Another example, a video by Muhammad Akbar and Yusuf Ismail which also took Indonesian television shows as visual reference. Hence, people who are not familiar with Indonesian television could not fully comprehend the artist’s intention.

What do these two things signify? Firstly, that we did produce many videos, making OK. Video continue to be one of the most prominent video festivals in Southeast Asia (Indonesia may well be the only country who held video festival regularly). Secondly, that video is apparently more flexible in its function, be it artistic function (like videoart), historical function (documentary, counter-history)³, or social-political function (either for fun or propaganda). Several functions are naturally an inherent part of the medium (especially artistic function), while other functions are genuinely Indonesian. It is not surprising that in Indonesia, as OK. Video’s curator and my English-speaking curator friend said, video can be taken seriously (with full technical, artistic, and financial considerations) but can also be treated as a more flexible medium due to its nature in capturing spontaneity, something that is instantaneous, simultaneous, and interactive.

According to Thomas Elsaesser, spontaneity, instantaneity, simultaneity, and interactivity are the capitalistic values of the Victorian era (during the 19^th century) that emerged in the form of television and the internet. To him, Cinema (with a capital C) is not a dream, it is what was expected in the 19^th century. They expected an interactive, instantaneous, and simultaneous technology, in accordance to the new values that industrial capitalism brings. And that is what’s happening in this country.

Cinema, as pure by-product of capitalism, requires a more massive literacy process than video. Filmmakers need to build a narrative, to invent a production system which accommodates economic and political interests. In many things, it is proven that cinema, in Indonesia, is not treated as a modern medium (in its true sense: a product of Renaissance and mature capitalism, with individuals as the central character).⁴ It’s not surprising that cinema in Indonesia mainly focuses in delivering a story or narrative, not as a visual language which allows further exploration. Cinema is treated as video: a medium expected to capture fast-moving images, instantly and simultaneously, without depth.⁵

That is why, in a conversation, my curator friend stated that video might as well be more suitable for Indonesia due to its adaptability with local situation and tradition.⁶ With local references and its non-dependency to closed structure narrating process such as in film⁷, video might be a strategic attempt for those who do not fully control dominant visual production process, without having to follow strict standards.

 

- - - - - - - - - -

¹Cinema as attraction is first theorized by Tom Gunning and André Gaudreault to coin the birth of early cinema. In its early emergence, film is considered more of a visual attraction, a spectacle, not as a certain form of art (this form is in itself explains to us one of cinema’s characteristics, i.e. narration). Thomas Elsaesser & Adam Barker (ed.), Early Cinema: Space Frame Narrative, London: BFI, 2008 and Wanda Strauven (ed.), Cinema of Attractions Reloaded, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006.

²Arjun Appadurai is Senior Advisor for Global Initiatives in The New York School, New York City. He is a Professor in Social Sciences.

³Counter-history features different facts from the previously known historical descriptions. For instance, testimonial videos of victims of the 1965 coup in Indonesia.

⁴Major Hollywood cinema and European art films put individuals as central characters in its narration. In quite different ways, these two cinema show how capitalistic ideology works in image-making practice. As for Indonesia, for instance horror movies, narration does not necessarily moved by the individual, with tight Hollywood-like narration. Reception process in Indonesia is very much different from the reception process in a ‘modern society’ where film is perceived as a spectacle, attraction, and collective celebration. See David Bordwell, Janet Steiger and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960, London & New York: Routledge, 1988.

⁵How Indonesian filmmakers stammer in dealing with narrative film medium is clearly seen from the films they produce, for example, their inability to meet decent standard narration and well-executed aesthetical exploration.

⁶Gridthitiya Gaweewong and David Teh, “Unreal Asia” programme introduction, Oberhausen Film Festival, 2009.

⁷Video decodes electronic signal to generate image and therefore is more unstable in nature. It allows artists and/or video makers to produce work with various approaches. Compared to film or other art medium, video has a more open structure about it. This open structure is made possible easily by transforming, distorting, impairing, or superimposing the images in video presentation, changing it into a completely different object. Video may function as a recording device, it can also copy, or be set as an installation. Video may also be connected to another device to acquire yet another function. It does not require cinematic apparatus, unlike film does (dark room, projector, and screen), or even television with its own laws and conventions of seriality. Video is non-dependent. Video signal can be generated from a camera, or created by its own. Video allows technical playfulness as a process to create image (such as superimposition, multiple reproduction of an image). Film requires separate time and space to record and display image, video on the other hand has the ability to do both simultaneously: to record while displaying, and also putting together visual and audio (in celluloid usage, these two things are recorded separately in tapes). This open structure also allows reformulation, transformation, distortion, or even impairment to the video’s visual or audio. See Yvonne Speilmann, “Copy, Remake and Remix: The Open Structure of Video”, Videonale 11 catalog, Herausgegeben von Georg Elben, 2007.

«Translated into english by Efiya Nur Fadila»

Share this Twitter Digg Del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Slashdot Yahoo Blogmarks Technorati Googlize this Facebook

Comments

Add New Search

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."