錄像雜誌第二期
非凡超(極)真實
「超真實」源自犯罪學的典範,對鑒証的至高要求建基於事實和小節,以至物料的內部結構的斟酌。引伸到影像的操作和創作,我們一方面再次正視我們肉眼的不足,回顧這是為何我們需要科技的延展;另一方面,以18世紀誕生的攝影為理念基礎的活動影像,奉持影像指涉的透明度,到了21世紀,這定理必須拉闊。這個回合的徵集,看到了相信肉眼所見的生活見證人,也有更多的玩弄著拍攝的記錄以至表演、虛構的弧度,在鏡頭前實在而認真的故弄玄虛。作為觀者,可「看」得見的、進入我們意識範圍的事物的領域擴大了。作為錄像文章的寫作人,她-他們給我們展開了一個豐富的世界,有人回顧,有人認真整合生活中細碎的記錄,也試著把消失於過去的實存挽回,更有用肉眼和一般拍攝不能呈現的現實、現實的結構,又或呼之欲出的潛在的現實變成具體的,一轉眼,他們或把未必明顯的事物之間的點線面連上。於是,我們忽然穿牆破幕回到幾十年前的洛杉磯,進到電影世界中的越戰,伊朗房子的核心,孩童觀察自然的現場,艱辛撿合回來的罪證,又驀地裡被捲入一本平凡的歌詞本子裡,或鑽進一個女子的大布袋裡,竟卻遇見了這個世界,極度不平凡。對評審員來說,這絕對是再一次的學習,學習如何刷新我們看錄像文章的觀點與角度,以至期許。
Like in “Ocular Oracular,” Dn/Ve #1, the theme of this issue emerges as we watched and discussed the submitted works one by one, from and/or on Hong Kong, Taiwan, the US, Romania, Slovakia, Iran, Baghdad, UK and France, and by artists from Portugal, Asians residing in Germany, and authors who highlight their transnational presence.
William Kentridge, Intermedia artist known for his animated installation, says in an interview, “How We Make Sense of the World,” on his charcoal-based creation on South African realities, “The films don’t have a meaning which then gets drawn, the films came out to make an image, an impulse to make a film, and the meaning emerges over the months of making the film. So the only meaning that have in advance is the need for the film to exist.”
Many of the works in this round invoke this question, and many dwell in between: what were the meanings in advance of a work and, as the work grows, and the process unfolds, to become the final image, has the “work” evolved by leaps and bounds? Is the emergent process more meaningful than the final image? How do we – viewers and jurors – make sense of the folded and unfolded realities in these short video essays?
The Ultra-realist, the Extra-ordinary
Ultra-realism, according to Steve Hall and Simon Winlow, comes out of the paradigm of criminology. It speaks of an utmost desire to discriminate details, forensically. By extension, I ask: what is the most basic unit to image-making, for evidence of our material existence, as imaging tools evolve?
Many works, especially the final listing in this issue, confront us with how reliable our naked eyes are in a world of visual artifacts that question the authority of indexical transparency of the photographic image. The camera pushes in and out – often it is a familiar full view and acceptable change of distance between the recording agent and the recorded object, rooted in cinematic illusionism, and yet pushing in a little more with the augmentation of a special lens or image effect tools, lens-based or not, we may suddenly feel disconnected with the world we see.
Is photographic illusionism no longer valid? Once Upon a Screen: Explosive Paradox (Kevin B. Lee), one of our two Best Works, heightens videography’s temporal dimension literally, that is, the present continuous tense of recording, whereby editing and narrating are an on-going, unfolding performance, and the story emerging fully only towards the end of that on-the-spot performance. Rodrigo Gomes’ Ultraviolet Garden, also Best Work, teases out one aspect that defends the indexical realism of the video image, but challenges it within established power structure. Video footage may well preserve what actually has happened in front of the camera and does not lie, but it is who owns the image and for what untold reasons they are concealed that matters.
But we have Phantom Muyu Part 1 《幻電木魚(上)》(Juror’s Special Mention) which turns this into a paradox. Supposed “this is a house, this is a tree” is the basic indicative value of a frame, the most basic epistemological starting point of (moving) images. we then have Rene Magritte, way back in 1929, joking, “ceci n’est pas une pipe” (this is not a pipe), for a painting that shows the image of a pipe. Phantom has this kind of meta-message and paralanguage enquiry, forcing us to constantly revise what it is that we see within the framed image. And thanks to Foucault, of course, who resolves that what confronts us is not contradiction of different statements that we make about the image. Whereas a statement could have many illustrations, in Phantom, an image is a multiple phenomenon, an objectile generative of transformative statements.
Vanessa Tsai’s keep going 《繼續向前》 (Juror’s Special Mention) seems an ordinary teacher’s diary, but certain images are in fact views of the microscopic world, quietly sitting among other documentary shots of the quotidian, invoking a strange yet naturalized touch of surrealism. What was in the mind of the author? Glory of Kaohsiung《高雄之光》implies the need of texts and thought discourses to complete the enunciative power of images, speaking from the role of a researcher, whose main task is to “read” images and to make sense of them.
The fact is, what is most life-like is often the result of calculated fabrication. Certain “realities” are not obvious to us unless we take an aerial or satellite view, as in the case of Ultraviolet Garden, or, Michael Snow has taught us so, from a non-human haptic perspective possible only with machines. Some realities are structural and necessarily machine-dependent for a better look. That is how I understand Signals from the rooftop! (Juror’s Special Mention). Between indexical transparency and fabrication, we have live-action pieces adopting animation methods. Through temporal condensation, the author of Jesa (제사, 祭祀)
offers us a big splash of visual magic onto a potentially solemn confrontation with traditional culture. Tomorrow sounds familiar plays a similar game of condensation plus fabrication.
A basic video diary, a basic mode of video essay, could still be quietly moving. The charm of <7 months> lies in the material texture of food shared in photos and apartment-hunting, which embed the relationship of two migrant-travelers in separate locations.
Stepping down from anthropocentrism remains a prominent and welcomed feature in the submissions for this issue. The shift could be tentative but major -- from thinking about humans as “I’s” and “we’s” taken for granted to imagining ourselves as bodies in space, bodies in history, the “you” and “they” to the world of matter and non-human.
D-Normal/V-Essay’s work selection panel discussion is as fresh a learning spot to jury members as to the many submitters who also seek to ask how (else) video essays could be innovated. For this issue, in moderating a jury meeting, I found ourselves caught up here and there with a dilemma: how to honor artist excellence and craftsmanship without losing hold of those self-taught videographers, the right to speak and their inventiveness of an audio-visual language beyond long-standing conventions?
Many works require basic knowledge of new imaging technologies, which has invoked a lot of disagreement. And yet there is a common sense approach we could easily slight because the jurors are, after all, trained sight-and-sound writers. Elitism is easy whereas it may not be as easy as we think to just realize someone saying to us, “I’ve got something to tell you and I’m looking for the signs and the words.” The humanistic purpose of D-Normal/V-Essay, that is, its commitment to refresh a space for free expression, with a stretched view of the video essay, remains our challenge.
There remains many works I find worth a good discussion, which we have not included in this published issue: Beatrice Wong’s Goodbye Note to Self 2019 《2019年,給自己的告別通知》, performed narcissism is daring and may have overclouded the potentially acute social dimensions of the work. A work by Yu Shuk-pui, Vase Piece《「我的志願是做一個花瓶。」》, aroused disagreement on its ambiguous tone and obscure genuineness, which perhaps has room to be perfected. The luscious visual quality of The Most Satisfying Video in the World, another work submitted by Jade Wong, invoke the questioning of a playful take on new technology, and whether a work must be evaluated based on necessary cult knowledge as a supplement. I am also intrigued by another of Chang’s video on mandarin ducks Fabricating Mandarin Duck《作鴛鴦》 – the work’s somewhat tiresome yet self-conscious challenge of linear thinking results in a mind map of varied tropes with tentacular rigor. I also took pleasure in Joshua McGregor’s Opera of the Kettle and, like other jurors, found the use of Vivaldi in its second too much of an easy way out, and yet to me forgivable. Kingson Chan’s Bell’s may not be audio-visually all that inviting and yet the work stays in my mind – someone wants to share a physiologically situation we may not comprehend. I feel the piece could have been more impactful with more thoughtful audio-visual strategy beyond a singular-point pitch.
Video content
錄像目錄
- Ultraviolet Garden | Rodrigo Gomes | 2000
- Once Upon a Screen: Explosive Paradox | KEVIN B LEE | 2020
- Light Years | Ivana Durkáčová | 2020
- One World , One Dream | Yinglin Zhou 周莹林 | 2018
- Signal from the rooftop! | Milad Forouzandeh | 2020 **
- < 7 months > | DING Cheuk-laam 丁卓藍 | 2020
- Glory of Kaosiung《高雄之光》 | CHANG Chih-chung 張致中 | 2019
- Ultraviolet Garden | Rodrigo Gomes | 2000 **
- Jesa | Kyungwon Song | 2019
- Once Upon a Screen: Explosive Paradox | KEVIN B LEE | 2020 **
- aromatics of longing《爆香》 | Jade Wong 黃品蓉 | 2018
- Anthropology of dead body | Hana Yoo | 2019
- keep going《繼續向前》 | Vanessa Tsai 蔡季妙 | 2021 **
- Tomorrow sounds familiar | Andriana Oborocean | 2020
- Phantom Muyu Part 1《幻電木魚 (上)》 | Peace Wong / WONG Chun-hoi / YUNG Tsz-hong 王和平 / 王鎮海 / 翁子康 | 2000 **
- les mystères de paris | konstantinos-antonios goutos / the[video]Flâneu® | 2010
- Unclear Proof | Max Hattler | 2013
- Fading Stone《退色的石頭》 | CHU Yiu-wai 朱耀煒 | 2020
- Trigger the Lost Past Pass | 張國樑 Ittiteerarak Weera It | 2021
BEST WORK 最佳作品
1. Look for the Signs 聽風。望月。超聲波。
2. Grand narratives, Minor /Local Histories 大敘事微焦點
3 . A Pocketful of Rye: Ficto-Documentaries 虛實無縫
.One, Two, Buckle My Shoe 點蟲蟲,蟲蟲飛
5. L’automatique: hickory dickory dock 自動波:滴答滴答滴答滴
** Juror’s SPECIAL MENTION 評審特别表揚
PRESENTED BY 主辦:
Floating Projects Collective 句點藝術群體
EDITOR 主編: Linda C.H. LAI | 黎肖嫻
EDITORIAL 網上錄像誌編輯:
WONG Chun-hoi | 王鎮海
CHOW Ho-fung John | 周皓風
YEUNG Ming-him Hugo | 楊鳴謙
LAU Ching-wa Jess | 劉清華
COVER DESIGN 封面設計: LAU Ching-wa Jess | 劉清華
PUBLICIST 推廣:
CHOW Ho-fung John | 周皓風
LI San-kit Andy | 李新傑
LOK Man-chung Kel | 駱敏聰
WEB DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT 網頁設計及開發: http://www.xcept.hk/http://www.xcept.hk/
ZINE #2 JURY 第二期評審會:
Linda C.H. LAI | 黎肖嫻
Tamás WALICZKY
WONG Chun-hoi | 王鎮海
YAN Wai-yin Winnie | 忻慧妍
CHOW Ho-fung John | 周皓風
LAU Ching-wa Jess | 劉清華
YEUNG Ming-him Hugo | 楊鳴謙