darko fritz on 2 Mar 2001 11:55:07 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]




The Videonale 9 [Bonn, D] selection jury consisting of five members announce
that they made selection of more than 1500 entries of video and internet
artworks in six days, working in two groups.
I found that is physically impossible.
This is demand that Videonale 9 make selection again, with respect to
artworks and effort that artists invest in their works and application for

my e-mail address is my signature



PS: A small discussion was held at Syndicate mailing list, showing that few
colleagues share opinion on unreliably Videonale 9 selection.

Syndicate network for media culture and media art
information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate

correspondence of D.F. and Videonale 9, published at Syndicate list

1. D.F. -> videonale 9
Subject: selection of time-based works
Date: Fri, Feb 23, 2001, 18:05

2. sören grammel [videonale 9] -> D.F.
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001, 15:45

3. D.F. -> sören grammel [videonale 9]
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001, 17:41

1. D.F. -> videonale 9 + syndicate
Subject: selection of time-based works
Date: Fri, Feb 23, 2001, 18:05

from http://www.videonale.org/selectjury.htm

>the videonale 9 selection jury, consisting of georg elben, sören grammel, maria
Lind, silke otto-knapp and nicolaus schafhausen chose 31 productions by
altogether 36 artists (some working in teams) from over 1500 entries

>the selection jury took six full days for the viewing and discussion of the
tapes. an additional weekıs time was taken for making the final decisions.

my question is: how jury consists of 5 members can look 1500 + videos in 6
[and 14 urls, if belived fwd-re nn mail @ syndicate; urls are not mentioned
at videonale public reports]
jury suppose to work together, is't it?

my point is that video and net art are time-based works ... fast-forwarding
or fragmented look of the video works or urls misses that point ...

first round:
6 days = 144 hours = 8640 minutes !!! with no sleep !!!
8640 minutes : 1500 entries = less than 6 minutes

theoretically !!! with no sleep !!! ... what about practically?

in contrary, second round 'additional weekıs time was taken for making the
final decisions' sounds ok for me ...

so, i put under question first round of selection.
can we belive that jury took a look at works and not at names?

2. sören grammel [videonale 9] -> D.F.
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001, 15:45

> dear Darko Fritz:
> you wrote:"so, i put under question first round of selection.
> can we believe that jury took a look at works and not at names?"
> yes, i think - and hope - you believe this. if you don't, i am afraid that i
> can not change it.
> but i try to explain you the jury-process a bit:
> first of all, a jury never views eveything together, but in little groups .
> as for the videonale, it
> was quite important to split up in two groups and to consider then what was
> chosen
> by the little groups. in this case, 6 minutes are 12 already.
> however, it makes no sense to calculate this.
> the point is, if you watch media-art - which is time-based, i agree - if you
> have
> to watch everything? and i don't think so!
> for example if you see a loop that goes for 60 minutes but repeats after 2
> minutes, then its ok
> to look some time more at it, to get the feeling of what happens throughout
> the repetition. but
> you don't have to look 60 minutes. don't you?
> Another example: did you ever discuss with somebody about a work that you
> have not seen at whole length ...
> maybe because after a few minutes you recognized that you did not think that
> it was a good piece for any reason?
> i think it is normal to do this, because you develop - and you have to
> develop - criteria to choose, to select and deselect.
> otherwise you end up like Sartres Autodidact, who - i forgot which book by
> Sartre it was - sits and reads in the library every day. the system in which
> he chooses what he reads next is the alphabet: he reads the books from "A"
> to "Z". he has no other idea. he does not stop because he does not know what
> he is looking for.
> I don't know whether this is an appropriate metaphor - i hope you get the
> point of it.
> let me just add one more think: to me, a lot of the names on the list are
> not popular or even known enough, to indicate a jury-process which looked at
> names. we found a lot of works that were surprising for us. for us - maybe
> not for you.
> best regards
> sören grammel

3. D.F. -> sören grammel [videonale 9] + syndicate
Date: Tue, Feb 27, 2001, 17:41

dear sören grammel

thanks for your answer. you made your statement about videonalle 9 selection
process and thank you for making it transparent and public.
i partly agree and partly disagree with your approach of selecting
time-based works. specially i think of unpredictable and nonlinear
narrations and using of different aesthetics in a single work .
also, there is wide range of different aesthetic which can't be perceived
without time participation - if you for example listen fragments only of
steve reich music, there is no way about getting an idea on variations, but
only having an idea of repetition - which is just a part of the work! or
like willingly [or not caring of] being 'boring' or making use of errors -
as expressed in new austrian video scene, or more in the past in warhol or
1960's structuralistic films]
who knows does after 3 minutes video-loop something else happened if not
seeing whole work?
i think that selecting the works is not an easy job and that is necessary
time-consuming - because of necessary patients and calmness and approaching
each work individually. -> and that was my point in first letter: i still
think that videonalle 9 selection was not possible in that sense: seeing
1500 + works in 6 days in two jury groups, even with no strict criterium of
seeing every single second of applied works. sorry about my calculations!
it doesn't make a sense that i comment further on that or discuss it because
it was not my intention to make public my personal preferences approaching
such a work, i.e. to superimpose my working criteria to others, but only to
pointing the work's physical frame. [aesthetic criterium i'll keep it in the
frame of myown work, when i am busy with other authors works].
as i address my question to both you and syndicate list, i felt free to
forwarded it to the list, incl. my comment.


darko fritz

* Verspreid via nettime-nl. Commercieel gebruik niet
* toegestaan zonder toestemming. <nettime-nl> is een
* open en ongemodereerde mailinglist over net-kritiek.
* Meer info, archief & anderstalige edities:
* http://www.nettime.org/.
* Contact: Menno Grootveld (rabotnik@xs4all.nl).