VIDEO IN/VIDEO OUT

Iara Boubnova

The most common synonym of video art in Bulgaria is “new media” and it tends to cover all technology related art production, even photography, in spite of the fact that there is already a whole generation of artists using the video camera. The diversity of video works and digital photography, as well as web-based projects go under the general framing of “new media”. For good or bad, everything that has to do with the moving image in Bulgaria falls under the category of “video”, except the feature movies. Video is understood as an instrument that symbolizes the progress in technology, science, even economy. Another aspect of the way video art is understood in Bulgaria is that “video art” almost automatically means contemporary art regardless of either its content or the issues involved.

One of the most important things that happened in the 1990ies was the change in the visual public space through the energies of the advertisement and the fast changing language of the mass media based on the new digital technology. The strict state control over this kind of technology from before 1989 was discarded and the new kind of visual images appeared practically at the same time as the new technology used for their production. The static image of the visual public space was replaced almost overnight by a moving image. In general this shift was supporting the change in society and economy through the presence of commercials, political video clips for election campaigns, MTV and musical video clips, public video displays of sports events, etc. The dynamics of the totally new and moving visual space became associated with the new aesthetics of the time itself. The moving image became the incarnation of contemporaneity. Naturally, at the beginning this type of public visuality was imported and sponsored from outside. More importantly however, it brought immediate association/identification with the global, cosmopolitan scene (one of the pre-conditions for the existence of contemporary art) and made real for us the fact of being part of the same big world populated by the same kind of moving and dynamic visuality of the public space. For good or bad, we started going under the same McDonald’s arches and seeing the same Nike commercials as the whole global village. The shift was Western sponsored and Eastern desired…

Because the shift was based on a specific technology, the “new technology”, a certain transfer of qualifications took place - you are being innovative simply because you are using the new kind of technology. The “stable” substance of the traditional art media lost its visual and spiritual appeal within the public space, especially for the younger generation. Furthermore, the use of “static” media, such as painting and sculpture, by a younger artist immediately brought the qualification of not being contemporary. Consequently, traditional art forms stopped being a relevant option and art students trained in painting would often graduate with video works. The complicated relations between traditional and new media art were/are also measured by the basic attitudes to education and craft. On one side, to study painting only to graduate with a video work may look like an act of rebellion in search of alternatives. But on the other, this very act would then lead to accusations by “professors’ generation” that if one/anybody could do it without professional training, could it be art/profession at all? Video is often interpreted as an easy way out of the complex issues related to art or simply “bad art” for lazy young artists. Even now there is no video artist in Bulgaria who has received formal education in this media, or any other related field. The result of this contradiction is that these fields of art practice exist now in separated spaces that have little in common. May be for that reason and for quite long time, the art critics and theoreticians tended to mistrust strategies and achievements of video art while not subjecting it to serious expert analysis.

Because of the deficiencies of education and the still problematic access to equipment, the circle of our time-based art is limited to its producers, creators and editors, with only a handful of “consumers” of artworks. That’s why discussions about the conceptual relevance and aesthetic values of video art hardly take place on the scene. Conclusions of the type that the technologies of representation have changed are not in any particular rush to urn into debate over the very representation of the technologies. There is still a deficit of analytical context. It has neither the stimulus nor the inner motivation for the time-based art to be self-conscious and self-critical. New media art is encapsulated in the cozy cushion of its “guaranteed” contemporaneity and relevance as a straightforward reflective media.

It’s not surprising that when the analysis and the interpretation of the time-based visual production is not a real priority for the art critical practices, the artistic practice locates its own value orientation in other related domains. One of these is the domain of the TV, MTV and the advertisement video clip, as well as the billboard seen as a single frame from a clip. Video art reacted to this part of the new visual space by aesthetically converting the language of promotion of a single commodity into messages of whole new type of culture. The aggressive manipulation and transformation of the image, of some ironical or overblown characters and situations that are often subordinated to the musical score of the piece, form the basis of this kind of video language. Any topic seems to be worthy/open for interpretation because it could master the universal codes of publicity and the polar oppositions from the soaps. It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow the hierarchy of the linked mutual influences between art and advertisement, which are constantly feeding off and stimulating each other. These video artworks often appear surprisingly innovative as a formal use of the media as well as in the search of a wider audience in the nightclubs, for example.

Another group of video artists is not so fascinated by the advantages of technology and the freedom of manipulation. They are closer to the recognized tradition of Bulgarian documentary film and photography. Their works is linked to the old idealistic notion that the optical tool itself has the power to give true reproduction of reality. The straight visual approach in this case often involves minimal intervention from the artist. The question of who is representing what - the video representing the document or the document representing the video as a medium is the driving engine behind this aesthetic. In this trend manipulation is just as popular but it comes as an effect - whole new sets of invented reality are orchestrated and these do refer to actual life. However, they suggest different ways and conclusions, misleading or specific framing of information and reality faked for its own good. Often such video works are part of an installation, which is a necessary element of the system of mutual support and evidence for the credibility of the whole situation.

At this point one may claim that there are two basic “trends” in Bulgarian video art both offering very good examples of artistic accomplishment (even though a public debate is missing…). Both trends and their respective sources of inspiration and approach to observable reality are linked closely to the new and moving visual public space. Both are interested in telling stories and both are self-aware of the media they use although in a kind of intuitive rather then reflected way. Undoubtedly, the program “M.A.P: case study.02”, which is targeted exclusively towards the production of video and Internet art projects during the course of one year with guaranteed financial support, will provide a context for debate about video art in general and its specifics in the local art scene.

From my point of view, this project comes at a historically important moment, which is something like an anniversary for me for it’s been almost 10 years since the time when I, as an insider of the art scene, asked myself questions about video art in Bulgaria. It was at the end of 1993 when Geert Lovink, a well known media expert, decided to come to Sofia and take a look at what’s going on here. He was interested to see samples of new technology and video art. The only contemporary art video we could show him were tapes documenting performances. One of the things that interested him however, was the sound work that Georgi Rouzhev was doing at the time. Obviously for the last, less then ten years, the situation has changed a lot - there is a large body of work, exhibitions, history of workshops and informational presentations, even a level of international recognition. Still rarely such an ambitious project for encouraging production of new works has been initiated here. Of course, there have been numerous exhibitions, workshops and festivals marking the field. For instance, video artists have been dependent on workshops organized both here and abroad ("Crossing Over" since 1996, "Virtual Revolutions" since 1998, “Communication Front” between 1998-2000 are among the most important), with their offer of specific context, funding and equipment coming in a package with the conceptual framework of the workshop itself. These also offered a direct line of access to international video festivals and screenings, which is another reason why young artists are attracted to this kind of art practice. Even though there have been relatively few local exhibition initiatives dedicated exclusively to video art and presentation of moving images, it’s impossible not to mention the importance of “Video/Hart” in 1995 which was the first here exhibition ever to dedicate itself to video even though at the price of compromises (Hart=Paper part of the project and it’s location in the strongly historical context of the Archaeological Museum in Sofia.) This project became the decisive turning point after which video art and installation progressively occupied a central status in the contemporary art production in the country. The same with the festival “Video Archaeology” (since 1999) which is still the only exclusively video art international action here. Same with 1990ies international forums such as “Ostranenie” (1993, 1995, 1997), the international media art festival taking place in Dessau, Germany which focused not only on new media art but also on providing an outlet for the production of all these new contemporary art scenes from Eastern Europe.

So, it seems there has never been enough time until now to explore self-critically video art in this scene. But video art in Bulgaria does have intuitions about its so far a-historical existence and about its connection to the technical aspects of its language rather then to the conceptual or historical ones. The problem is felt strongly by the artists and the project “M.A.P: case study.02” is both a proof of that as well as a step in the direction of self-examination of video art. When the realization of the projects in the program “M.A.P: case study.02” becomes a reality it will offer a new opportunity for a serious reflection on the development and problematic of video art in Bulgaria.