Tom Moody (we’ll be on Rhizome’s Blogging and the Arts panel together this Tuesday; be there or be square) posted a few comments on MTAA’s 1 YEAR PERFORMANCE VIDEO.

I’ll quote bits, then comment (read the entire post here, I can’t figure out if it’s positive or negative, but it’s thoughtful and honest so you can’t ask for more than that).

Tom Moody:
Pieces that refer so specifically to known, past artworks, satirically or otherwise, are problematic—more on this below—but there’s much to think about here. Unlike the Globe and Mail, I’d discuss the work in terms of voyeurism, and artist recuperation of the part-guileless, part-sleazy home webcam phenomenon. In real (Internet) life, the only reason a surfer would stay with a site like this for hours was in the hope that the subjects might do something kinky. I know there are people watching this for art, but why? Perhaps the presence of white plastic buckets in the rooms creates some morbid curiosity about how the artists handle basic elimination needs, but frankly I didn’t stick around to find out.

t.whid:
Buckets: one’s dirty, one’s clean; they both get used at some point.

Seriously, we have people who have been running the piece for (as of today) 36 days. Obviously they haven’t been watching the piece the entire time, they simply let it run on an unused computer in their lab or studio. But on the other hand, one can’t prove they haven’t been watching it either ;-)

When we created the piece we understood that not many people would view it for more than a few minutes. But that’s OK. One doesn’t need to view it for more than a few minutes. Once one gets the idea and also understands how digital media and computer networks function then it’s enough to know that it is there, ready to be viewed for an indefinite period of time, anytime you wish. To me it becomes sublime at that point.

Like Penn and Teller explaining a magic trick, the artists reveal—on a related web page—quite a bit about the scripting and webserving mechanics behind their simulation. This geeks-only backstory actually makes for fairly fascinating reading. [snip]

He’s referring to this page. It was important to include that material for three reasons: (1) We back open source software initiatives especially in relation to technical arts and artworks (the The Open Art Network is doing great work and we hope to add what we can from 1YPV to it soon), (2) we didn’t want anyone to mistake the webcam for something real; it’s important to the piece that the viewer knows they’re watching canned clips and (3) I had a secret private hope (that I’m first sharing now) that someone would re-mix/re-purpose/re-use the video clips.

For sure the technology changes the Hsieh piece quite a bit, which did allow observers, but only at specified times, like a prison visit. Ultimately the MTAA work’s relationship to current tech-shaped behavior patterns and pop culture tropes feels more compelling than its parody of the Hsieh performance, which is almost by definition an art world in-joke, with a singular interpretation: that when computer-age art revisits the physically demanding, emotionally wrenching work of yesteryear, an insincere, fast-food facsimile inevitably results. Sorry to leach the humor out of it, but there it is.

We received the same criticism from Kevin McCoy (discussions with Kevin during the building of the piece were invaluable). The crit being that by making it simply an ‘update’ (or parody or satire) of Hsieh didn’t do justice to the piece. That it ‘stands on its own’, why quote Hsieh at all?

It’s great that it seems many people are looking beyond the initial hook and finding other cultural resonances in the piece like Tom describes. But I would argue with Tom’s ‘singular interpretation.’ I don’t think the update has a singular interpretation, Tom’s is one interpretation, but there can be others. First, it’s not insincere, we are paying tribute to Hsieh. Second, it’s not a facsimile; it’s an *update*. We’ve taken parts of the original which work and used them unmodified (a cell, a year), we’ve take other parts and modified them (who’s commitment?), and we’ve added totally new parts (top 5, top 10 lists). So it becomes a new thing, not a facsimile. It’s new but it’s in dialogue with the original.

My own interpretation is that when we take a Hsieh’s piece, automate it and at the same time transfer the onus of the commitment from the artist to the viewer, the viewer invariably will reject the commitment *or* automate the commitment themselves. This rejection/automation is interesting.

Hsieh challenged himself, we challenge the viewer. That is the crux of the update. permanent link to this post