My friend, Rupert following the instructional video and trying not to be seen at the Tate. I think his pixels are too big.
Hito Steyerl’s instructional video shows the viewer how to avoid detection by various digital surveillance technology. The title references Monty Python’s spoof Government Public Service instructional that showcases the benefits of not being seen e.g. not being shot or blown up, which is particularly important if you are a whole country avoiding nuclear annihilation.
The narrator in Steyerl’s video explains that visibility is dependent on resolution, whatever is lost by resolution becomes invisible. The videos are shot against a green screen at an old US airforce ‘resolution target’ that was used to test the resolution of aerial cameras and the artist (plus assistants) attempt to not be seen by the camera by employing various techniques that are explained in detail to the viewer.
The use of the .mov file extension and the exploration of very particular technologies sets this work firmly in a specific time and place where ideas around surveillance and our images being captured and held as digital images, with or without our permission, has become a topic of political, cultural and artistic conversation.
I read Steyerl’s essay “In defence of the poor image” a couple of years ago and found this piece to be a great accompaniment. They both examine how digital image quality – and degradation of quality – can be used within contemporary art to explore issues such as comprehension, visibility, passage of information and the place of perceived visual quality in value judgements.
Last year I went to see Fiona Pardington’s ‘A Beautiful Hesitation’ show at the City Gallery in Wellington. I wrote then about how frustrated I was with the lighting and the layout of the show and was interested to see it in Auckland to find out whether any of those issues had changed. It seems like I wasn’t the only one to have problems with the lighting on the glass of the large, dark images, as Auckland Art Gallery has presented them in a darker room with much more subdued and less directional lighting. The difference in experience is phenomenal! The layout of the works also seemed more cohesive and natural with similar works and time-periods grouped together with some rather nice salon hangs where appropriate. Overall Auckland Art Gallery improved on the display of the works considerably, they also had the accompanying book which wasn’t yet available in Wellington.
Anita and I went along to the panel discussion with Natasha Conland, Christina Barton, Misal Adnan Yıldız and Allan Smith on the exhibiting of contemporary art (with quite a bit of emphasis on the current Necessary Distraction show). I enjoyed hearing their perspectives and experiences creating exhibitions of contemporary painting. A few points that particularly interested me:
- Christina brought up the questions around curators producing exhibition strategies that stand as artworks in their own right (she brought this up in relation to the Necessary Distraction show curated by Natasha that utilises unfinished walls and exposed construction). How does that impact on the work? What does the exhibition become?
- In discussing what makes painting ‘contemporary’ Adnan talked about painting needing to have an understanding of installation practice. Painting can no longer assume the position of being self-contained within it’s frame, unaffected and not interacting with the space around it.
- Anita and I noticed that each curator placed different values on art’s duty and seemed to curate accordingly.