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

“The images merge, double project, disintegrate, reunite, dissolve, pulsate” (von Malmborg 1985a), claims the journalist Ingvar von Malmborg as he summarises his impressions of the exhibition Video/Art/Video that took place at Kulturhuset in Stockholm in 1985. The exhibition was one of the first larger attempts to introduce video art to a broader audience in Sweden and the article was published in the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet. In the article, von Malmborg further describes one of the video installations by comparing it to what “the surrealists once did in painting” (von Malmborg 1985a).

Video/Art/Video took place during what the art historian Malin Hedlin Hayden identifies as “the legitimizing period of video art”, referring to “the 1960s and into the 1990s especially” (Hedlin Hayden 2015, 2). During this period, video art was seeking its identity as an art form. Among other things, this suggests negotiations concerning issues such as the expectations of video as a medium, its relation to art history, as well as the formation of a canon of video art.

From the perspective of the media historians Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey B. Pingree (2003), the legitimizing period of video art identified by Hedlin Hayden bears similarities to the identity crisis that, they argue, each new medium experiences before it becomes established. Due to its uncertain status in relation to established media and their functions, the identity crisis of the new medium is thus characterised by negotiations. Actually, the relationship between the new medium and older media as well as the inherent properties of the new medium are particularly emphasised during this phase. Given that art-historical developments are claimed to challenge art criticism,¹ it is reasonable to assume that these negotiations are reflected by the art criticism concerned. Hence, in this article I argue that art criticism is challenged by having to deal with video art as a new art form.

From a historical perspective, the art historian Mary Warner Marien (1997) shows that this was very much the case regarding the reception of the advent of photography around the mid-nineteenth century. Although Marien does not use the term “identity crisis”, her argument aligns with Gitelman and Pingree’s understanding of the process of an identity crisis. Marien claims that “the idea of photography proved to be impressively elastic” during this period and shows how photography was negotiated in the contemporary sphere of art criticism as it was seeking its identity as a medium and as an art form (Marien 1997, xiii–xiv). Marien argues: “During the nineteenth century, photography was judged against painting, printmaking, and more subtly, literature and moral philosophy. Photographs were reckoned to be inferior to or better than engraved views of nature or of works of art” (Marien 1997, 101). Hence, in a similar way to Gitelman and Pingree’s argument, Marien shows that during these negotiations attention was paid to the relationship between photography and older printing techniques and art forms, as well as to the inherent properties of photography itself.

As several scholars have observed, the relationship with older media is both a method of emphasising the particularity of the new medium and a way of gaining authority. For example, the film historian Paul Young (2003, 230) argues that the use of older media, such as the telegraph and the telephone, in early cinema during the late 19th and early 20th centuries became a link between the new medium and the audience, as the new medium used familiar items. Marien (1997, 96) shows that this was, indeed, also the case concerning how various references to painting were paid attention to in art criticism covering the advent of photography. In a study on the introduction of scrapbooks, for instance, the cultural historian Ellen Gruber Garvey (2003, 225) shows that the scrapbook gained authority as a new medium by literally using material from older media such as periodicals and old books.² Furthermore, the relationship with older media is a way of emphasising the supersession of the new medium in relation to its predecessors (Gitelman and Pingree 2003, xiii) and, in order to do so, the inherent properties of the new medium are particularly emphasised. This is expressed in the above quotation by Marien, as well as being pointed out by Gitelman and Pingree. The advent of film is an illustrative example of this process. The film historian Tom Gunning ([1990] 1997) shows that early cinema, for which he has coined the term “cinema of attractions”, was characterised by a focus on using, and showing, the attractiveness of the new visual technology. Hence, the focus was on the image instead of the narrative of the film.³ Marien shows that this was, in fact, also the case concerning how the inherent properties of photography were discussed in the art criticism covering its advent.⁴

Photography, film and scrapbooks are examples of media that preceded video art. The media that follow video art do, moreover, show similar tendencies. For example, I have paid attention elsewhere to how art criticism deals with digital art as a new art form around the turn of the millennium (Orrghen 2007). In a similar way to how art criticism dealt with the identity crisis of photography, I claim that art criticism dealing with digital art as a new art form also makes use of historical references (Orrghen 2007, 141–146), as well as investigating the inherent properties of digital art (Orrghen 2007, 99–112). Furthermore, I acknowledge the importance of the illustrations used in the art criticism, arguing that the illustrations as well as the printed texts are used as a way to show the reader the inherent properties of digital art (Orrghen 2007, 78–81). Hence, the medium specificity of the printed press seems to be particularly salient in the negotiations concerning digital art.

As I will elaborate on later on in this article, von Malmborg’s introductory quotations illustrate both how art criticism establishes a relationship with an older art form such as painting, and how art criticism seeks to characterise the inherent properties of video art during a period when video art was a new phenomenon. Thus, following Hedlin Hayden and Gitelman and Pingree, von Malmborg’s quotations are illustrative examples of how art criticism deals with the newness of video art.

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. Understanding video art as a new art form implies both a theoretical approach towards new media as a historical concept and a focus on the newness of new media.

From an international perspective, video art emerges during the mid 1960s. Several scholars have paid attention to video art as a time-based art form belonging to an art-historical as well as a technological background.⁵ Thus, the hybrid nature of video art has been emphasised further.⁶ This, in turn, implies that video art is an art form that builds on several art-historical traditions in general and, in particular, on art-historical traditions and artists during the 20th century. During the early years of video art, artists who used video were, to a considerable extent, exploring its inherent properties (Sturken 1990, 117).⁷ Thus, by paying particular attention to inherent properties of the video image such as flickering and graininess, early video art was concerned with distinguishing video from other art forms such as painting, sculpture, film and performance (Sturken 1990, 116).⁸ As the visual studies scholar Marita Sturken (1990, 117) argues, this implied a focus on the image instead of the narrative.⁹ The art historian Ina Blom refers to these kinds of artists as “painter-engineers” (Blom 2016, 46).

However, it has been pointed out that this focus might not only be the case for practitioners. Curators, historians and critics have also been claimed to emphasise the inherent properties of the video.¹⁰ And as Hedlin Hayden shows, the international reception of video art as a new art form was characterized by negotiations concerning what video art really was—and what it was not (Hedlin Hayden 2015, 25–37). “Video art was apparently—tentatively—defined in relation to traditional visual arts, but also, because of its shared technology, to television and various film practices”, Hedlin Hayden (2015, 36) argues. Whereas she continues to point out that, compared to later writings on video art, the reception during the legitimizing period of video art stands out as more diverse (Hedlin Hayden 2015, 36f). The art criticism related to early video art thus paid attention to the inherent properties of the video as well as its relation to older art forms and older technologies.

In Sweden, however, video art did not start to gain ground until the mid 1980s. The period between the mid 1980s and the mid 1990s has been described as a dynamic period in the history of video art and, by the mid 1990s, interest in video art in Sweden has been described as “exploding” (Pettersson and Wrange 2006, 140).¹¹ Thus, when video art was introduced in Sweden, it was, nonetheless, not until the final years of the wider legitimizing period of video art. From an international perspective, video art could thus be claimed to already have gone through the identity crisis as a new medium. Given that the newness of video art already seems to have been negotiated, at least from an international perspective, it is particularly interesting to examine how the newness of video art was interpreted and evaluated in the contemporary sphere of art criticism in Sweden.

Methodologically, I will conduct the study as follows: firstly, by paying attention to how the identity crisis of video art was represented in art criticism covering four exhibitions aiming to introduce video art to a broader audience in Sweden during the legitimizing period of video art: Video/Art/Video (1985), U-media (1987), Japan nu/Sverige nu (1988) and Interface (1991).¹² The art criticism covering these exhibitions was, therefore, written during a period while video art negotiated its role as a new art form in Sweden.¹³ Secondly, given my argument that the medium specificity of the printed press seems to be particularly salient in such a negotiation, I will describe and analyse how the inherent properties of the printed press are used in this negotiation. Thirdly, I will evaluate the specific Swedish situation by comparing it to the international context of both video art and the related art criticism. And, finally, I will briefly relate the reception of video art to earlier, and later, receptions of other new art forms by comparing it to how international, as well as Swedish, art criticism received photography and digital art when they were similarly considered new art forms. I thereby intend to contribute to a deeper understanding of the identity crisis of new media in general and the identity crisis of video art in particular.

Art criticism and new technological art forms

In this article, art criticism is understood in terms of what Michael Brenson terms “journalistic art criticism” and includes “art criticism that appears in daily or weekly large circulation national publications” (Brenson 1998, 104). The art historian Jan-Gunnar Sjölin distinguishes between, on the one hand, using art criticism as a source for research and, on the other, art criticism as the primary object of study (Sjölin 2003a, 12). In the former and most common case, the object of study is not art criticism in itself but, for example, the reception of a particular artist or genre, or a reflection of changes in society. Hence, in those studies, art criticism is used as secondary material. Art criticism as the primary object of study, however, implies an examination of art criticism itself. In this study, I concentrate on art criticism as the primary object of study. This means that video art is considered as a catalyst inciting challenges, thus forcing art criticism to react. The implication on this study is an explicit focus on art criticism dealing with the exhibitions, whereas the exhibitions are only mentioned briefly.¹⁴

Earlier research on art criticism has treated it as a journalistic genre with particular focus on its style, form, strategies of presentation, publication conditions, the audience, and the changing conditions of the art critic (Gee 1993; Sörbom 1993; Berger 1998b; Sjölin 2003b). A question that has consistently remained unexplored concerns the medium specific conditions of art criticism.¹⁵ Time and again, debates proclaiming a crisis in art criticism arise and it is accused of being uninterested, elitist, uncritical and insignificant.¹⁶ According to Brenson (1998, 103f), this is particularly evident where journalistic art criticism is concerned. A number of scholars have paid attention to these debates and argue that journalistic art criticism has undergone a change from an aesthetic to a journalistic paradigm.¹⁷ The change towards a journalistic paradigm entails a wider range of journalistic genres such as feature, reportage and interviews, compared to earlier times when the cultural pages in the daily press were dominated by aesthetically-oriented articles, principally reviews, mainly written by experts. Nevertheless, there are scholars arguing that this change is not as drastic as has been claimed (Heikkilä and Gronow 2018).

There is, however, another more articulated aspect of the crisis dealing specifically with new technological art forms. The major argument among these scholars concerns an ignorance regarding the new art among the critics. For instance, in an article strikingly entitled “What’s wrong with video criticism?”, Sean Cubitt (1993) pays attention to the lack of knowledge of video art among art critics. This absence of knowledge articulates itself as an absence of historical knowledge of the medium, a lack of economic analyses to be able to understand its modes of production, circulation and consumption, as well as a lack of knowledge of the technology (Cubitt 1993). Similar arguments are raised concerning other technological art forms such as photography and digital art.¹⁸ Cubitt argues that if the art critics, due to this lack of knowledge, use the old tools and theories as they approach the art works, they will not be able to understand them. There therefore arises an apprehension among these scholars that these new art forms become neglected.¹⁹ Hence, they argue, to acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the new art the critics need to attain more profound knowledge and alter their perspective.²⁰

Video art and art criticism in Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s

As mentioned above, the exhibitions Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface took place during a dynamic period in the history of video art in Sweden. Furthermore, these exhibitions gained attention in the daily press. This part of the article introduces the exhibitions and characterises the art criticism dealing with each, commenting on the number of articles, journalistic genres and the nature of the writers.

On 2nd November 1985, the exhibition Video/Art/Video opened at Kulturhuset in Stockholm, Sweden. The exhibition lasted until 6th January 1986 and was part of a larger venture on video art. In addition to the exhibition, Video/Art/Video also included a week-long video festival opening on the same day as the exhibition, as well as two practically-oriented events, Videoverkstan (March 1st, 1985 to 6th January 1986) and Videolek (2nd November 1985 to 26th January 1986). These two events were meant to offer the audience, primarily school children, the possibility of experimenting with and learning how to use video technology. The artists Måns Wrange and Gunnel Petterson described the exhibition as a wide survey of video art from an international perspective, including video installations from video art pioneers Nam June Paik, Wolf Vostell, Ulrike Rosenbach, Brian Eno, Shiego Kubota and Yann Nguyen Minh. Teresa Wennberg was the only Swedish participant with an installation created in collaboration with the French artist Pierre Lobstein. The exhibition was produced by Stockholms kulturförvaltning, konstavdelningen (the Art Department of Stockholm Management of Culture) (Kulturhuset 1985; Pettersson and Wrange 2006, 154).

All in all, Video/Art/Video gained attention in fourteen articles published in the four leading daily publications in Sweden: Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet. The most frequent genre was feature, but the exhibition also gained attention in reviews, debates, personal reflections and a lengthier essay. A few of the articles merge between different genres such as feature and interview, and personal reflection and review, which makes them difficult to categorize. The art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video was written by the art critics Leif Nylén (1985), Sören Engblom (1985) and Cecilia Stam (1985), the film critic Mårten Blomkvist (1985), the photo critic Ulf Hård af Segerstad (1985), and the journalists Ingvar von Malmborg (1985a, 1985b), Mats Hedberg (1985), Agneta Nordenankar (1985), Thore Soneson (1985), Stefan Malmqvist (1985), Anna Fredriksson (1985) and the actress and writer Margareta Metelius (1985). The wide range of the type of writers covering the exhibition is notable.

In October 1987, the exhibition U-media took place at different public places in the town of Umeå in the north of Sweden. U-media was produced by the interdisciplinary group VAVD Editions, consisting of the designers Lars Svensson and Matz Borgström, the researcher Pål Wrange and the artists Måns Wrange and Peter Andersson. Approximately 40 international and Swedish artists participated in U-media including video art pioneers Gary Hill, Bill Viola, Dara Birnbaum, Marcel Odenbach, Antonie Frank, Jaques-Louis Nyst and Madelon Hooykaas/Elsa Stansfield. In addition to video art, the exhibition included other kinds of art characterised as “new media” such as electronic art (Pettersson and Wrange 2006, 151; Wrange 2000, 112f).

U-media was paid attention to in one feature and two reviews published in Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet. The art critic Birgitta Rubin (1987) wrote the feature article, and the art critics Lars O Ericsson (1987) and John Peter Nilsson (1987) wrote the reviews.

Japan nu/Sverige nu was arranged by the Swedish organization Video Nu in 1988 and was a survey of Japanese and Swedish video art. It was shown at Uppsala konstmuseum, Örebro konsthall, Konstcentrum Gävle, Malmö konsthall, Södertälje konsthall and Kulturhuset in Stockholm. Cecilia Parsberg, Fredrik Ceson, Kjartan Slettermark, Måns Wrange, Dan Dittmer/Birgitta Lorentzon, Antonie Frank and Pål Wrange were among the contributing Swedish artists (Pettersson and Wrange 2006, 147f).²¹

Japan nu/Sverige nu was paid attention to in one feature and one review in Dagens Nyheter and in three debate articles in Aftonbladet. The feature article was written by the art critic Birgitta Rubin (1988) and the review by the art critic Lars O Ericsson (1988). The debate took place between the artist, cultural journalist and film maker Carl Johan de Geer (1988a, 1988b) and Pål Wrange (1988).

The last one of the four exhibitions, Interface, took place at Moderna Museet and Kulturhuset in Stockholm from January 22nd until 6 February 1991 and was organized by Stiftelsen Nordisk Videokonst (The Nordic Video Art Foundation). Interface was a travelling exhibition showing Nordic video art. Before opening at Moderna Museet, it had been shown at The Nordic Arts Centre in Helsinki, Finland (13 November–9 December 1990), and would continue its tour to Frölunda Kulturhus in Gothenburg, Sweden, where it took place in April 1991. Participating artists were Peter Svedberg, Marika af Trolle, Kjell Bjørgesen, Finn Mickelborg, Marjatta Oja, Fredrik Ceson, Marikki Hakola and Mikael Lindgen (Wrange 1990).

The art criticism dealing with Interface contains one feature article and three reviews that were published in Dagens Nyheter, Aftonbladet, Upsala Nya Tidning and Arbetet. The feature article was written by the journalist Agneta Nordenankar (1991), and the reviews by Christina Karlstam (1991), Ingamaj Beck (1991), Lars O Ericsson (1991) and Jörgen Klinthage (1991).

Video/Art/Video and U-media included internationally well-known video art pioneers and only one or a few Swedish video artists whereas Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface introduced Swedish and Nordic video artists. Thus, the latter pair did not include any international video art pioneers belonging to what has been pointed out as the canon of video art.²²

All in all, the art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface contains reviews, feature articles, interviews, debates, personal reflections and one lengthier essay. The writers were art critics, a film critic, a photo critic, journalists, artists and actors. In the concluding part of this article, I will elaborate on the implications of the difference between the reception of the exhibitions. The following part of this article will examine how the art criticism dealt with the newness of video art.

Making art-historical references

In a 1985 review, the art critic Sören Engblom claims that the participation by the artist Brian Eno in the exhibition Video/Art/Video is “remotely related to early non-figurative art or Cubist plan buildings” (Engblom 1985). In another review, covering the same exhibition, the art critic Leif Nylén claims that the artists Nam June Paik and Wolf Vostell “have their background in the international and during the 60s influential Fluxus movement” (Nylén 1985), that the video pioneer Vostell was “one of the 60s most furious, rudest happening artists, like Germany’s Allan Kaprow—or Kjartan Slettemark” (Nylén 1985), and that Ulrike Rosenbach’s installation is an “example of video art that is close to the traditions of conceptual and performance art” (Nylén 1985).

Engblom’s and Nylén’s reviews illustrate a common feature in the articles, namely that the art critics make reference to art-historical traditions, genres and artists. And in these particular reviews, Engblom and Nylén characterise the history of video art in that they emphasise its distant relationship to non-figurative art and Cubism and its close relationship to conceptual and performance art. The latter is particularly stressed by referring to particular artists and movements belonging to this tradition, such as the video pioneer Vostell, the leading-edge artists Kaprow and Swedish-Norwegian Slettemark as well as the Fluxus movement.

In addition to the performance artists Slettemark and Kaprow mentioned above, other artists appear in the articles, such as the modernist painters Wassily Kandinsky (Hedberg 1985; Malmqvist 1985) and Piet Mondrian (Malmqvist 1985), the avant-garde artist Marcel Duchamp (Karlstam 1991) and the Swedish concretist Karl Axel Pehrson (Ericsson 1988). The references are used to characterise video art. Furthermore, the art-historical references are presented as links to other art-historical traditions, genres and artists. Hence, the art-historical references are used to confirm—rather than elaborate on—similarities with art history. The art-historical references could be said to position video art within an art-historical context. Thus, when the art critic Christina Karlstam, in a 1991 review on Interface, uses Duchamp in order to describe the tradition the artist Marika af Trolle is working within, she does not elaborate on or discuss any differences between Duchamp and video art, merely clearly affirming that: “Following Duchamp, Marika af Trolle exhibits an authentic cement mixer on the floor at the Moderna Museet, with a video image of a cement mixer in the opening and thus formulates the question of what is most real, the cement mixer or the image of it” (Karlstam 1991).

Other examples of art criticism relating to video art include references to existing art forms and include various ways of referring to sculpture and painting. “Video painting” and “video sculpture” are among the most common ones.²³ But the examples also include expressions like “light sculpture” (Nordenankar 1985), and “video portrait” (Nordenankar 1985). Furthermore, video is combined with art-historical concepts while presenting the artists participating in the exhibitions. For instance, Teresa Wennberg is introduced as a “painter and video artist” (Ericsson 1988), and Peter Svedberg is introduced as “the painter who picks up the TV as well as stone, bronze or neon in his artworks” (Nordenankar 1991). Compared to the art-historical references discussed above, these references contain at least a tendency towards a more elaborated approach on art history. By combining the new—video—with the old—sculpture and painting—these examples imply that there is something particular about the new art form. Although it is claimed to share some common features with sculpture, it is not merely what is commonly referred to as a sculpture, but a video sculpture, and that is something new, partly different from, but relating to, the old. In these examples, the combined words thus indicate the perceived hybrid nature of video art as it contains both the older art form and the new one.

The art-historical references emphasize the formal aspects of video art. Moreover, the art-historical references are made in such a way that they confirm the similarities between the new art form and the older art forms with which it is compared.

Making technological references

In a similar way to art-historical references, technological references are also made in the articles, such as, for example, references to television and different film genres. On one hand, in art criticism, television is used as a prerequisite to understanding video art. For example, in a 1991 feature on Interface, Agneta Nordenankar claims that much “in the video art probably requires that you are raised with TV, that you have learned to read and interpret the TV image” (Nordenankar 1991). She suggests that people under thirty who have watched a lot of TV are probably more tolerant of video art and inclined to like it. On the other hand, video art is, nonetheless, claimed to be different from television. In a 1988 review on Japan nu/Sverige nu the art critic Lars O Ericsson claims that despite “the fact that video art originates from the TV medium, it is mostly far from television’s conventional dramaturgy. Instead, it often uses structures similar to those found in, for example, music or poetry” (Ericsson 1988). And in a 1991 review on Interface, Ericsson makes a similar argument when he claims that “video art sought to refine its identity by becoming as diverse as possible. If TV wanted to be quick, narrative and entertaining, then the video art wanted to be the opposite: slow, non-telling and quite often monotonously repetitive” (Ericsson 1991). Ericsson observes that the relationship between video and television illustrates a complex contradiction, which a number of scholars have claimed, namely that video bears similarities to television as a medium whilst at the same time turning itself against the characteristics of television as a medium.²⁴ Sturken (1990, 103) points out the difference between television and video, arguing that whereas television is characterised by liveness, video is considered as more archival.

Besides television, the art criticism also includes references to different film genres. In a 1985 review on Video/Art/Video, the art critic Sören Engblom implies that video art “acts in the borderland between moving visual arts and formally released short films” (Engblom 1985), while the film critic Mårten Blomqvist argues that “many—very many—of the grips are recognized from old experimental films” (Blomqvist 1985). The art critic Nylén pays attention to the perceived hybrid character of video art, claiming that “much of what is good is actually referencing other art forms: dance, theatre, documentary, music—and utilizing aesthetic ideas and attitudes originally developed in other traditions” (Nylén 1985), whilst the art critic Cecilia Stam claims that the video artists seem to “strive for a kind of old experimental film style” (Stam 1985). Further examples of description include “short film”, “B film” and “8 mm film” (De Geer 1988a).

Akin to how the art-historical references are used, the technological references in art criticism also focus on the formal aspects of video art. However, compared to the art-historical references made, more or less, to confirm the similarities between video art and art history, the technological references are to a greater extent used in a way that distinguishes video art from the older technology.

Investigating the inherent properties of video art

The two proceeding sections dealt with how the art criticism initially sought to understand the nature of video art by focusing on its formal aspects and their relation to art-historical and technological traditions. In this section I will take a closer look at how the art criticism dealt with the specific qualities of video art as a time-based medium. For instance, how were the spatial, audio visual and kinaesthetic experiences of video art represented in the art criticism? How were the moving images or courses of events depicted in the illustrations?

In a 1991 review on the exhibition Interface, the art critic Lars O Ericsson claims that a “dominant feature of these works is that the transient video image is integrated with various material structures” (Ericsson 1991). Ericsson’s description of the video image as “transient” corresponds to what several art historians emphasize as one of the main features characterising video as a time-based medium.²⁵ The example illustrates a recurring tendency in the articles, namely that the art critics seek to investigate the inherent properties of video art. In the main, this is achieved by an effort to identify the characteristics and specific qualities of video as a medium in general and the video image in particular.

Other attempts are constructed in a similar way, in order to pin down the nature of this transient video image. In a 1991 feature article on Interface, Nordenankar describes the exhibition by stating that it contains a “bluish shimmer, rhythmically throbbing, and enveloping images” (Nordenankar 1991). Christina Karlstam pays attention to “the flickering from the TV-box” (Karlstam 1991), Beck to “moving images, images that flicker, pictures repeating themselves, images that lose themselves in graininess, disturbances, etc. etc.” (Beck 1991), Nylén writes that in Video/Art/Video they show “flicker, test images, fragments” (Nylén 1985), and in the introductory example of this article, von Malmborg claims that the images “merge, double project, disintegrate, reunite, dissolve, pulsate” (von Malmborg 1985a).

Put together, these examples give an idea of how the transient video image is perceived to manifest itself in the exhibitions. The examples above contain several of the features that have been observed as inherent properties of the video image, such as flickering and graininess. Moreover, they also reveal how the experience of the exhibitions is represented in the art criticism and how the characteristic style of the daily printed press is used to mediate that experience. Hence, in these examples, the perceived features of video art are expressed and illustrated by how the sentences are constructed. The use of single words, lined up in rows, separated by commas, emphasises the video image as transient, as if the reader could almost feel and see what it is like to be in the exhibition. The images are everywhere, surrounding, and almost attacking the viewer. When the art critic Sören Engblom summarises his impression of Video/Art/Video in a 1985 review, he actually gives the impression that he literally needs to duck to avoid being hit by the new medium: “People were crowded, shimmering, and gloomy images came rushing towards each other out of every corner of the installations” (Engblom 1985).

The short, suggestive, and repetitious way in which the sentences are constructed thus becomes a means to use the printed text to really show the reader the characteristics of video art, and the experience it generates. These examples further illustrate what the film and video scholar Margaret Morse (1990, 154) terms “the space-in-between” and refer to an inherent property of video installations. According to Morse, the space-in-between calls attention to how the audience experiences the video installation and it “exploits the capacities of the body itself and its senses to grasp the world visually, aurally and kinaesthetically” (Morse 1990, 165). In particular, Morse (1990, 161) pays attention to the light from the screens and argues that the apparatus in the exhibition creates a virtual room. According to Morse (1990, 154), it is not possible to document the space-in-between by photography, video or by the use of language. Nevertheless, I argue that the space-in-between is made visible in the art criticism investigated in this article. This is, however, not done by describing the space-in-between in words, but by how the words and the printed texts are used. Morse claims that the kinaesthetic experience is an intrinsic part of the properties of video installations and thus it becomes visible not by what but by how the art criticism is written.²⁶ This might be a way to address and hold the reader of the art criticism in a similar way that Gunning ([1974] 1999, 825) argues that the cinema of attractions addressed and held the spectator.

Elaborating using the inherent properties of the printed press

The inherent properties of video as a medium focused on in the art criticism appear to influence how the art critics use the inherent properties of the printed press. Through the use of the language, the art criticism illustrates video as a time-based medium. Hence, when neither the contents of the words nor the illustrations used in the newspaper seem to be enough to describe the space-in-between, Ericsson, Beck and their fellow art critics not only use, but elaborate using the inherent properties of the printed press.

The examples above also reveal another tendency in the art criticism dealing with the exhibitions Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface, namely that the art criticism seems to attach greater importance to the experience of the exhibition than to describe or interpret the art works.²⁷ Put together, these examples give an idea of how video as a time-based medium manifests itself in the exhibitions. It also emphasises that art criticism focuses on the images rather than the narrative. This became clear in the previous paragraphs where I argued that the references to art-historical and technological references were made concerning formal aspects of the art works.

The focus of art criticism on the images instead of the narrative means that it is the “act of looking” rather than the narrative that is central (Gunning [1974] 1999, 825). The act of looking becomes present through the art criticism investigated in this article. As shown above, sweepingly paying attention to the video images rather than giving an account of the narrative, as well as how the language in the art criticism is used, illustrates “the act of looking” and further emphasises “the act of display”, to use another phrase of Gunning ([1974] 1999, 825)

Given that several articles are illustrated, Morse’s claim that it is not possible to document the space-in-between raises questions concerning the role of the illustrations in the art criticism. As shown above, the text seizes the space-in-between by the way it makes use of the medium specificity of the printed press. The illustrations, on the other hand, most typically depict one video screen or installation.²⁸ There are a few exceptions depicting two installations,²⁹ and in one case three (Beck 1991). The art criticism thus reveals a tension between how the exhibitions are depicted in the illustrations on one hand and their written representation on the other.

Art criticism in Sweden and the newness of video art

In the following and concluding parts of this article, I intend to evaluate the specific Swedish situation by comparing it to the international context of both video art and the related art criticism. Finally, I briefly relate the reception of video art to earlier and later receptions of other new art forms by comparing it to how international as well as Swedish art criticism received photography and digital art when they were considered as new.

The art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface contains a wide range of journalistic genres including reviews, feature articles, interviews, debates, personal reflections and a lengthier essay. It is written by various kinds of writers such as art critics, journalists, artists and a film critic. This wide range of journalistic genres and type of writers might be understood in accordance with what Heikki Hellman and Maarit Jaakkola (2011) refer to as a change from an aesthetic to a journalistic paradigm taking place within art criticism.

Viewed separately, the wide range of genres as well as the number of articles published in relation to each exhibition might, nonetheless, be interpreted in yet another way. Video/Art/Video was by far the most acclaimed exhibition in the daily press. It was also paid attention to within the widest range of genres and it attracted the broadest range of writers. Given that Video/Art/Video was the most comprehensive and the longest running of the four exhibitions in terms of international well-known video art pioneers participating, this might not be too remarkable.

Since Video/Art/Video took place as the first of the four exhibitions it is, however, interesting to compare the art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video to the art criticism dealing with Interface, the last of the four. The art criticism dealing with Interface contained a fewer number of articles, predominately reviews, written by art critics. Video/Art/Video took place six years before Interface, and it took place during the very first years when video art started to gain ground in Sweden. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Swedish art critics were more used to video art in 1991 than in 1985. In a 1983 debate on art criticism and video art, the Swedish art critic Crispin Ahlström actually points out that one of the reasons that made it difficult to write about video art as an art critic in Sweden during the early 1980s was that “the range is so small that the critics cannot get to know the video. Then they cannot assess the quality either” (Heske, Pálsson, Nilsson, Ahlström, Mallander and Wulff 1983, 50). The difference between the art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video and Interface might thus be understood employing Jaakkola’s argument that art criticism dealing with art that breaks aesthetical traditions might benefit from being written from a more journalistic approach. According to Jaakkola (2012, 488), other journalistic genres such as feature or interviews might contribute to a greater understanding of the new art since aspects such as the production process and other underlying causes might be put to the fore.

From the perspective of video art as a new medium, the extent of the attention Video/Art/Video gained might thus further be related to the matter of when the exhibition took place. Hence, the varying journalistic genres and the different number of articles dealing with Video/Art/Video and Interface respectively, might not only be understood as a change from an aesthetic to a journalistic paradigm, but in relation to the different phases in the identity crisis video art experienced before it became established. Hedlin Hayden’s (2015, 36f) conclusion that the reception of international video art stands out as more diverse during the early years further emphasises this interpretation.

By examining how the identity crisis is represented in the art criticism dealing with Video/Art/Video, U-media, Japan nu/Sverige nu and Interface, the analysis reveals that, in a similar way to art criticism dealing with video art as a new art form internationally, the art criticism dealing with video art as a new art form in Sweden relates to older art forms, as well as investigating the inherent properties of video art. Hence, the art criticism dealing with the four exhibitions makes art-historical and technological references to existing art forms and technologies such as film and television. These references contribute to the characteristics of video art as it receives qualities from the already familiar art-historical traditions and technologies. The double history of video art that has been pointed out by several scholars is thus emphasised in the art criticism.³⁰ The art-historical and technological references further illustrate the perceived hybrid character of video art.³¹ The art-historical references made in the art criticism thus contribute to place video art in an art-historical tradition. In accordance with how video art was received in an international context, the formal aspects of video art are particularly emphasised.

From the perspective of video art as a new medium, the art-historical and technological references made in the art criticism thus contribute to characterise video art. By referring to older art forms such as painting, sculpture and performance art, the new art form, video art, receives qualities from the older ones. For, as Gitelman and Pingree (2003, xx) argue, the newness of a new medium is often emphasised by its relation to older media. And, in accordance with how Marien (1997, 96) and Young (2003, 230) argue that the use of older items or techniques in early photography and cinema became a link between the new medium and the audience, the art-historical references made in the art criticism examined in this article actually could be said to work in a similar way: the use of older and familiar media also makes it easier for the new medium to position itself in relation to the old (Young 2003, 230f). And, as the art historian Kristoffer Arvidsson (2008, 125) argues, it also makes it easier for the art critic to relate the new art to existing art-historical traditions.

Apart from relating video art to older art forms and technologies, the art criticism further investigates the inherent properties of video art. Thus, in accordance with what several international scholars have argued (Blom 2016, 46; Meigh-Andrews 2014, 9),³² by paying attention to the video image and how it effects the audience, the inherent properties of the new medium are particularly investigated and emphasised in the art criticism during the legitimizing period of video art in Sweden.

The hybrid nature of video art, the spatial, audio-visual and kinaesthetic dimensions of video art, and its double origin belonging to an art-historical as well as a technological background, are recurrently brought to the fore in the art criticism. It further becomes clear how this really brings challenges for art criticism. The art critics need to be aware of the characteristics, history and conditions of the new art form, and, additionally, how they could use the inherent properties of the printed press. Albeit this might occur as a statement too obvious to be noted, this is none the less crucial considering the argument of this article. Thus, what challenges did art criticism face during the legitimizing period of video art, and how were these challenges handled? By the use of quotations from the printed press, I have shown that the medium specificity of the printed press is used in order to handle the challenges art criticism faced during the legitimizing period of video art in Sweden.

Put together, the art-historical and technological references, the investigation of the inherent properties of video art, and the investigation of the inherent properties of the printed press are primarily used in such a way that art criticism acknowledges the formal aspects of video art. In conclusion, in a very similar way to international art criticism, the Swedish art criticism seems to attach greater importance to the experience of video art than to describe or interpret particular art works. Due to this focus on formal aspects in the art criticism, I have identified a gap between how the exhibitions are interpreted and how the art works are described in the art criticism. Whereas the interpretations are related to overarching questions concerning, for example, the role of media in contemporary society, these interpretations are seldom anchored in particular art works. Hence, there is a tendency towards a somewhat generalising approach in the art criticism.

This could be understood as a result of the exhibitions being joint exhibitions since art criticism covering exhibitions with several contributing artists has a tendency to have a more general approach towards an overarching theme than analysing singular art works (Sjölin 2003b, 140). The specific art critics could also be of relevance,³³ as well as a change towards a more theoretical approach art criticism adopted during the 1980s (Arvidsson 2008, 126). Yet another way of understanding this gap might be the change from an aesthetic to a journalistic paradigm as discussed above.

From the perspective of video art as a new medium, this gap might, nevertheless, illustrate the lack of appropriate vocabulary among critics characterising the advent of new technological art forms identified by Cubitt (1993). To try to capture the inherent properties of video art by elaborating with the medium specificity of the printed press, for instance by way of using short, repetitive sentences in order to illustrate the feelings the exhibitions generate, as in the introductory example of this article, might thus be a way for art criticism to deal with the newness of video art.

As pointed out above, although taking place on different occasions, the similarities between the international and Swedish reception of video art are striking. This is primarily also the case when it comes to how the reception of video art as a new art form is related to the reception of photography and digital art as new art forms. Elsewhere, I have demonstrated that an important task of the illustrations in the art criticism dealing with digital art is to illustrate the inherent properties of digital art. For example, this can be achieved by showing people interacting with the art works (Orrghen 2007, 78–80). This is, however, not the case with art criticism dealing with video art as new. Thus, contrary to what has been claimed, the illustrations in the art criticism dealing with video art as new art do not replace the descriptive function of art criticism.³⁴

Conclusion

In this article, I have presented and examined how art criticism in the Swedish daily press has dealt with video art as a new art form. Following, among others, Gitelman and Pingree’s understanding of new media as a historical concept, particular attention has been paid to the identity crisis video art was experiencing before it was a fully established art form. My focus has been on art criticism during the legitimizing period of video art in general, and on art criticism in Sweden in particular. 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 time, they are indeed similar. By relating the reception of video art to photography and digital art as new art forms, I further show that, from the perspective of video art as a new medium, the identity crisis of video art as a new art form is similar to earlier as well as later identity crises of new technological art forms. Thus, the newness of video art did indeed challenge art criticism in Sweden.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

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.

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.