Yann - Thanks for your great post. I am not going to be the translator (sorry - someone with more time will come along). We are all making choices on both the larger scale (how to create data bases, and what formats) and on the individual level, and yes, in doing so we create a new work. Where is the line between documentation and interpretation? Perhaps, just as in any history, there is room for several interpretations.
Jumping in with my own experience, I would argue that artists should take responsibility for documentation. We have access to original files that viewers, and even curators, may not have, and that means that we can be "creative" with how At the risk of opening myself up to criticism, I am going to confess to faking much of the linear video which currently serves as the documentation of the interactive work "Layered Histories: the Wandering Bible of Marseilles". My collaborator Bob Gluck and I, as the artists, struggled with documentation. The video that you see on the website <http://cbrubin.net/layered_histories> is a combination of: 1. Real: a photograph of an installation in the Jewish Museum in Prague 2, Mostly Fake: still image of the real installation in the Jewish Museum in Prague, with faked projection for a clearer image (hint - the reflection on the floor does not move). The inserted video is of course the same video that is projected, but we imagined a combination of video shorts and length of time on the screen, both of which vary with every use. 3. Real but Deceptive: the video of the user with the interface (tablet/book) was shot nowhere near the installation. We shot it in good light, with the user sitting at a low coffee table so that I could shoot from above without a ladder. It was not attached to the computer (but the user had tried with the computer so she knew what she was faking). 4. Totally Real (except for the sound): Video of actual users in the actual installation. 5. Mostly Fake Sound: all of the sound was recombined later because I shot the video using a camera with poor sound quality. The clips are the real clips, but not necessarily in the order in which a user would hear them, or the length of the clip, as these vary with users. Even with all of these different ways of showing the work, during the installation for an upcoming show I found that the curators had no prior concept of the way that the piece functions (they asked why I showed up with a computer, and if I could share a monitor with a video artist). As Patrick says, in a few years this will all be different. But for now I go with artists faking parts of the documentation to tell the best story. Believe me, no curator would accept the piece for exhibitions based just on "real" video (poor color, poor sound). And for now, that is a primary consideration. Of course, what we document now will be the historical document of the future. . . Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
