In the NYT, Edward Lewine talks to some collectors of video- and projection-based art to find out what it's like to actually live with work that demands both attention and extra hardware.
I know collectors who have flatscreens propped all around the house and long shelvesful of viewing copies of their work; whatever they have playing when you visit, you still read and assess the spines of their VHS's the way you would their book collection.
And although we have some TV's that we've archived because the artist considers them integral, sculptural elements of the piece, there are other multi-channel pieces where we've gotten rid of all but one or two flatscreens (which now double as our TV's) until we need to exhibit it again as per the artist's original schematics.
But then there's the projected piece, where I've duped 100 slides off of the dupe of the master that the artists provided [the slides burn out after a few weeks of constant projection]. And then I still have to scour ebay for good old slide projectors, because they sure don't make'em like they used to.
PS what's up with the Kramlich's built-for-video Herzog & deMeuron house in Napa? Haven't heard much of that lately.
Art That Has to Sleep In The Garage [nyt]
Watch an excerpt of Robert Smithson & Nancy Holt's 1969 film, Swamp, which gets mentioned in the piece. [robertsmithson.com]
