The art of the pause
When historians look back at the history of video, I predict they'll regard the evolution of the "pause" button as a weird, aesthetically important moment.
It used to be that freeze-framing a piece of live action was only possible for high-end sportscasters or artistic stop-action photographers. But when the VCR emerged, it gave everyone that ability. Back in the late 80s, the satirical Canadian magazine Frank used to run cartoon strips composed of paused moments from the nightly news. Invariably, they'd capture the newscaster -- or a political guest -- making one of the incredibly ungainly expressions that flicker across one's face in the course of normal speech. They'd put sardonic captions beneath it, and presto: A form of political-remix comedy was born. (Well, maybe not "born"; I'm sure someone had done this before.) These days, the freeze-frame-with-witty-caption is de rigeur on comedy web sites and TV shows. Tivo has amped freeze-frame culture up into the stratosphere.
This is why I was intrigued to learn about PAUSE, a recent art exhibit by Chris Larson. Larson created a wood replica of the car from The Dukes of Hazzard -- the General Lee -- crashing through the cabin of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. It neatly evokes the gorgeous riot a Tivo user sees every day: The kinetic insanity of pop culture striking a sudden pose. As Larson puts it in his accompanying text:
Forcing together two illogically relevant worlds, Chris Larson creates a monument to duality. Crashing the General E. Lee, the 1969 Dodge Charger from TV's The Dukes of Hazzard, into a wooden shack, representing Ted Kaczynski's Montana cabin, brings into the same space similar ideologies expressed with both childhood recklessness and premeditated social disregard.
Heh. Larson seems like a brilliant dude, but ... man alive, that piece of prose is a good example of why artists should avoid writing their own accompanying texts; the pomo lit-crit jargon is precision-engineered to piss off the average viewing public. Nonetheless, check out the site -- I'm just sad I missed this exhibit, since it closed two weeks ago here in New York. Sigh.
(Thanks to Sensory Impact for this one!)
Posted by Clive Thompson at February 18, 2005 04:52 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1135
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The art of the pause:
My university's art museum currently has a lot of big-name artists on display--Picasso, Pollock, Lichtenstein, all those sorts--but the part of the exhibit I enjoyed the most was the large placard that introduces the exhibit. Apparently in the rush to spit out enough art critic high speech to beat the viewers into the right mindset to view the much-hyped collection, the author neglected to proofread to make sure that Jackson Pollock's name had been spelled correctly. Amazing!
Posted by: Metaly at February 19, 2005 10:58 PM
Agree with you on the jargon-larded copy but tend to take it a step further.
If an artwork (aka a monument to duality) needs to be accompanied by a text statement (ie wanky justification hinting at a much deeper social commentary) maybe it should be semantically repositioned (eg accepted as an elaborate sight gag).
OK, will now step away from the keyboard after brief rant.
Posted by: J at February 19, 2005 11:04 PM
J, I certainly agree that many types of visual art ought to be able to stand on their own! And of course, most do. The convention of the panel text, as I understand it, was originallly intended to be a mini-critical essay about the artwork written by someone other than the artist ... though I might be getting my art history wrong here.
Metaly, that's a great story!
Posted by: Clive at February 21, 2005 2:18 PM
I think the key words there are "orginally intended".
PS Stumbled onto your blog and enjoy it, so thanks.
Posted by: J at February 22, 2005 3:46 AM
Post a comment
My university's art museum currently has a lot of big-name artists on display--Picasso, Pollock, Lichtenstein, all those sorts--but the part of the exhibit I enjoyed the most was the large placard that introduces the exhibit. Apparently in the rush to spit out enough art critic high speech to beat the viewers into the right mindset to view the much-hyped collection, the author neglected to proofread to make sure that Jackson Pollock's name had been spelled correctly. Amazing!
Posted by: Metaly at February 19, 2005 10:58 PM
Agree with you on the jargon-larded copy but tend to take it a step further.
If an artwork (aka a monument to duality) needs to be accompanied by a text statement (ie wanky justification hinting at a much deeper social commentary) maybe it should be semantically repositioned (eg accepted as an elaborate sight gag).
OK, will now step away from the keyboard after brief rant.
Posted by: J at February 19, 2005 11:04 PM
J, I certainly agree that many types of visual art ought to be able to stand on their own! And of course, most do. The convention of the panel text, as I understand it, was originallly intended to be a mini-critical essay about the artwork written by someone other than the artist ... though I might be getting my art history wrong here.
Metaly, that's a great story!
Posted by: Clive at February 21, 2005 2:18 PM
I think the key words there are "orginally intended".
PS Stumbled onto your blog and enjoy it, so thanks.
Posted by: J at February 22, 2005 3:46 AM