Video Art: Edward Winkleman: Nice Guy

Edward Winkleman, author of Edward_Winkleman, and proprietor of Winkleman/Plus Ultra gallery gave an informative lecture at my school. He offered many tasty factoids regarding the workings of a cutting edge, trend-setting, contemporary house of avant-garde art products.

Some interesting information regarding the commodification of Video Art was shared:

- Video artists make money by selling DVD's of specific pieces including signed certificates of authorship. These come in small editions, sometimes just one, sometimes up to five. Different artists present these DVDs in different ways. Some make elaborate cases for the DVDs, some make elaborate gel-pen drawings on the discs themselves. Its different each time, based on the wacky creative vision of each individual artist. Some artists include a master copy of this piece, to be placed in a lock-box by the owner to insure their investment. Also, people who buy these pieces have to sign legal documents that prevent the dissemination of these pieces on such sites as YouTube. This raises a fairly interesting issue that I feel should be discussed by the hundreds of viewers of this blog as well as the art world in general.

What is the deal with buying video art?

Why do I put my own videos on YouTube, if there is no chance of making money from those puppies?

Can video art be shared on a website similar to the iTunes store, where people like Leon and other collectors can purchase them for a small fee?

Video art continues the Minimalist Project on the Internet. Where minimalist art by artists like Donald Judd and Robert Irwin reference the metaphysics of perception (,architecture,) and proportion in the gallery setting, video art can evoke a similarly transcendent experience regarding the architecture of the Internet itself, its vastness, the potential for connection and interaction, and its infinitely regressive nature.

When artists make videos and publish them on the internet, what is their responsibility towards creating the appropriate "art context" needed by some to establish such works as Art and not just media? Is the distinction still valid in such an insanely democratic atmosphere? If this shit isn't being sold does it still need to be called art? Does YouTube need to create a subsection just for video artists, so people know when to watch the whole video if something totally absurd doesn't happen in the first few seconds? Is it for the consumer to know when they are looking at a Ryan Trecartin (sic?) or Angela Dufresne to put that shit up full screen and to cross their arms?

I think this protest video made by Joseph Beuys does a good job of illustrating some of the political peculiarities regarding Art on YouTube. It is also super funny.