Art criticism and the newness of video art: the reception of video art in the Swedish daily press, 1985–1991

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to present and examine how art criticism in the Swedish daily press has dealt with video art as a new art form. The article argues that art criticism is challenged by having to deal with video art as a new art form. By paying attention to how the “identity crisis” of video art is represented in art criticism covering the four exhibitions Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface, as well as how the inherent properties of the printed press are used in this negotiation, this article shows that the art criticism contains a range of journalistic genres, makes use of art-historical and technological references and investigates the inherent properties of video art. The article further shows that the art criticism is primarily concerned with formal aspects of video art and that the medium specificity of the printed press is particularly salient. By comparing the specific Swedish situation with the international reception of video art as a new art form, I show that, in spite of the difference in date, they are indeed similar. Finally, by relating the reception of video art as a new art form to that of photography during the mid 19th century and digital art at beginning of the 21st century, I further show that the identity crisis of video art is similar to earlier as well as later identity crises of new technological art forms.

KEYWORDS:

• Art criticism
• video art
• new media
• medium specificity
• Sweden the 1980s and 1990s

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. See, for example, Brenson (1999, 118).

2. See also Garvey (2013).

3. See Gunning ([1990] 1997, [1974] 1999).

4. See particularly Chapter 3 in Marien (1997, 84–111).

5. On the double history of video art, see, for example, Liljefors (2005), Armes (1988), Meigh-Andrews (2014), Ross (1990) and Blom (2016).

6. The hybrid character of video art has been paid attention to by e.g. Pettersson and Wrange (2006, 133), Meigh-Andrews (2014, 2). For a thorough discussion on the complex origins of video art, see Meigh-Andrews (2014) and Hall and Fifer (1990).

7. See also Meigh-Andrews (2014, 7).

8. On flickering, see Blom (2016, 61). On graininess, see Meigh-Andrews (2014, 3) and Sturken (1990, 103).

9. See also Meigh-Andrews (2014, 7).

10. On curators and historians, see Meigh-Andrews (2014, 9). On video curators and critics, see Sturken (1990, 104).

11. For a thorough review of the history of video art in Sweden, see Andersson, Sundholm, and Söderbergh Widding (2010, 179–196), and Pettersson and Wrange (2006).

12. The selection is based on a search through The Cuttings archive at the Art Library, the joint library for Moderna Museet and the Nationalmuseum in Sweden, on the keyword “video art”, conducted in 2010. In addition, I have used the database “Svenska dagstidningar” at the National Library of Sweden.

13. On the introduction of video art in Sweden, see Rynell Åhlén (2011).

14. For a more thorough discussion on the debate surrounding the introduction of video art in Sweden, see Rynell Åhlén (2011). Although paying attention to a similar period in the history of video art in Sweden, the main difference between Rynell Åhlén’s investigation and this study is that Rynell Åhlén uses art criticism as a source for research, whereas in this study, art criticism is the primary object of study.

15. But see Orrghen (2007).

16. See, for example, Berger (1998a), Rubinstein (2006), Elkins (2003), Elkins and Newman (2008) and Baker, Krauss, Buchloh, Joselit, Fraser, Meyer, Storr, Foster, Miller and Molesworth (2002).

17. See Hellman and Jaakkola (2011), Jaakkola (2012, 2015a, 2015b) and Sarrimo (2017).

18. On photography, see Holmes Smith (2005) who pays attention to the idea that the critic is seldom familiar with an artwork while it is new as one reason as to why there is a lack of knowledge.

19. For example, Offshore (2006) argues that new media art often is neglected in art criticism because it is based on different values, and creates other concepts of time and space.

20. Attempts have been made to tackle the situation. The contributors in Penny (1995) make a call for a different art criticism in order to analyse the new art. The lack of knowledge within photo criticism is articulated in Coleman (2002). See also Holmes Smith (2005), who argues for creating a canon as one way to increase the knowledge.

21. When Japan nu/Sverige nu was shown at Kulturhuset in Stockholm it was part of a wider context also including French and German video art, referred to as “Videokonst från Japan—Sverige—Västtyskland—Frankrike.” Kulturhuset (1988). In this article, Japan nu/Sverige nu is used when referring to the exhibition.

22. See, for example, Hedlin Hayden (2015).

23. See, for example, Ericsson (1991), Nilsson (1987), Soneson (1985) and Malmqvist (1985).

24. See, for example, Blom (2016), Liljefors (2005), Armes (1988) and Meigh-Andrews (2014).

25. See, for example, Liljefors (2005), particularly Chapter 2 “Videokonsten och mediets särart,” 43–67; Armes (1988), especially Chapter 7 “Aesthetics of Video Sound,” 160–185, and Chapter 8 “Aesthetics of Video Image,” 186–210; Meigh-Andrews (2014, 6).

26. Elsewhere, I have paid attention to a similar way of using the printed text in relation to art criticism dealing with digital art as new. Orrghen (2007, 78–83).

27. The art historian Martin Biehl calls attention to this tendency in a survey of art critics. See Biehl (2003, 18).

28. See Nylén (1985), Engblom (1985), Nordenankar (1985), Hedberg (1985), Stam (1985), Rubin (1987), Ericsson (1987) and Nordenankar (1991).

29. See, for example, Nilsson (1987), Karlstam (1991).

30. On the double history of video art, see, for example, Liljefors (2005), Armes (1988), Meigh-Andrews (2014), Ross (1990), and Blom (2016).

31. For a thorough discussion on the complex origins of video art, see Meigh-Andrews (2014) and Hall and Fifer (1990).

32. On video curators and critics, see Sturken (1990, 104).

33. On the role of particular art critics, see Sjölin (2003b, 140), Gee (1999, 9), Orrghen (2003) and Arvidsson (2008, 126–132).

34. Sjölin (2003b, 132) argues that the illustrations could replace the descriptive function of art criticism.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Ridderstads stiftelse för historisk grafisk forskning and Wahlgrenska stiftelsen.

Notes on contributors

Anna Orrghen

Anna Orrghen is a researcher and senior lecturer at the Department of Art History at Uppsala University, Sweden. She holds a PhD in media and communication studies from Stockholm university and has published on art, science and technology collaborations, art and media, art criticism, the history of computer art, digital art.