deleted account13JS
°1964
en
John Sundholm is professor of film studies at Karlstad University, Sweden, and on the examination board of the PhD programme in Fine Arts at the Academy of Fine Arts, Helsinki. He is also a member of the committee for artistic research at the Swedish Research Council. He has written extensively on experimental film/moving image art and lectured and curated in various countries. In 2010 he published together with LG Andersson and A Söderberg Widding the first book length study on Swedish experimental film, A History of Swedish Experimental Film Culture: From Early Animation to Video Art (National Library of Sweden/John Libbey).
comments
Exposition: Expanded Architecture 01-06 (01/01/2011) by Sarah Breen Lovett
The subject as such is not novel, expanded cinema had its heyday during the 1960s and early 1970s with names such as Malcolm le Grice, Valie Export, Peter Weibel and Dan Graham, to name just some of them. Because of the rapid growth of video and installation art since the early 1990s there has been a renewed interest in the field. The exposition and works it describes approach installation and moving image work from the viewpoint of architecture, in this case meaning that ‘Expanded Architecture’ shifts the focus of the moving image installation, from the moving image content or screen installation, to the architecture present in the installation. This use of folding the architecture back on itself — extending the narrative, representative, image focused, screen based works that pervade the contemporary moving image landscape — is however not that common. So, although not altogether original, this contribution examines a good and intriguing topic.
The exposition consists of a short introductory text and six art works (or documentations). Each work is related to a specific theme, in which the projected moving image is used/installed in relation to a specific architectural surrounding and set of problems. There is quite a big difference between the different artwork whereas the texts are short and mostly suggestive. It is not always easy to judge the outcome; because we are dealing with architecture I would have liked to have proper drawings of the places in question and of the position of the projections. Having said this, the submission is interesting.
The basic strength in the exposition is the diversity of the work, I consider the second work, Loos Pleasure 01, to be the most original one, but it is not easy to have a full appreciation of it on the basis of the documentation since most of the work is so site-specific. 04 (Window Wound) and 06 (Dome Detail) are easier to engage with because the documentation covers the work well. Both these works are great to look at and witty, although I cannot see a real development of the subject that is being studied. Foremost the artworks represent intelligent demonstrations of various topics. Good subject and some very interesting work!
Strengths: Clearly written. Diversity makes it interesting. Good subject while there is so much installation around. Work 02 and 04 are interesting.
Weaknesses: The diversity is also a weakness. I would have liked to see a development of one or two particular subjects (interior/exterior or bodily orientation in space in relation to sight etc.) The introductory text is very short and merely suggestive, it could be longer and state more clearly what will follow. The seminal catalogue X-screen for the MUMOK-exhibition in 2003-2004 could be helpful reading.