Public museums
and cultural institutions in general hold the notion of civic responsibility as
being central to their operation and since the Nineteenth Century a key role of
the museum has been to educate and disseminate culture. Such commitment to civic
responsibility is a primary concern for FACT. Given FACT’s dedication to
disseminate contemporary culture through the application of creative
technologies and digital arts (which arguably are still in their infancy) it
seems to differ from a more traditional museum model where focus tends toward
the preservation of historical cultural artefacts. In this respect FACT is arguably
not a ‘museum’ in the strictest sense and although it houses galleries within
its building, neither is it an art gallery. Instead FACT (Foundation for Art
and Creative Technologies) appears as something of a unique cultural model
fusing the museum and art gallery’s role of disseminating culture with the
spirit of collaboration and engagement found in the arts centre. It is FACT’s
uniqueness as a cultural institution as well as its commitment to civic
responsibilities that is the impetus for this investigation. Of course one must
first qualify what FACT identifies as its civic responsibilities prior to an
assessment of The Art of Pop Video
(14 March – 26 May 2013) and the ability of this exhibition to successfully adhere
to FACT’s specific responsibilities. Although Carol Duncan’s thoughts of the
ritual of the art museum (1995) may provide valuable theoretical insight, given
that FACT is a unique cultural institution such thoughts may best serve as a
framework upon which to qualify its specific responsibilities. During this
examination the makeup of FACT’s audience; the apparent play with conventions
of high and low art; the justification for exploring the music video phenomenon;
the curatorial decision to import this exhibition; and an analysis of the
visitor experience shall be addressed.
In Civilizing Rituals (1995) Carol Duncan suggests
that art museums provide the public with an environment designed to educate,
inspire, delight and preserve. Despite the temptation to place FACT alongside
contemporary art museums such as Tate Liverpool, these institutions differ in
their purpose. Whilst FACT focuses on disseminating creative technologies and
digital arts Tate Liverpool is not bound by such commitment. Even with shows
such as Glam! The Performance of Style,
Tate Liverpool disseminates a more traditional art museum experience when
compared to FACT’s Winter Sparks
exhibition which hosted five active tesla coils as part of Alexandre Burton’s Impacts (2013). There are nevertheless numerous
similarities between the responsibilities of the ‘ritual museum’ and those
belonging to FACT. Just as art museums are “preservers of the community’s
official cultural memory”, (Duncan, 1995, p.8) it is through FACT’s field of
specialisation (i.e. creative technologies and digital art) that it can
preserve the cultural memory and identity of the early Twenty-first Century since
technology, telecommunications, digital content and media are ubiquitous within
this period. Just as art museums are “carefully marked off and culturally
designated as reserved for special quality of attention… for contemplation and
learning”. (p.10) FACT is duty-bound not just to preserve the cultural memory
of the early Twenty First Century; it must also provide an environment for their
contemplation given how they are synonymous with contemporary life. Such duty
is compounded since FACT is the only institution of its kind in Liverpool and
there are relatively few cultural institutions that share this field of
specialisation.
Duncan suggests that
whilst the Twentieth Century art museum model where aesthetic concerns are of
chief importance, the Nineteenth Century model held that the museum’s primary
responsibility was to “enlighten and improve its visitors morally, socially and
politically.” (1995, p.16) Despite its uniqueness as a cultural institution
FACT appears to have adopted principles from both the educational and aesthetic
museum models. The rationale behind The
Art of Pop (curated by film producer Michael P. Aust and film critic Daniel
Kothenschulte) is to showcase “the music video as an artistic medium in its own
right… Placing the music video in the context of the history of visual arts and
film, FACT’s exhibition celebrates the variety of the medium and invites
visitors to become acquainted with its filmic predecessors and take a peek at the
future”. (FACT, 2013) Through contextualizing the music video within the
history of visual arts one may assert that The
Art of Pop Video attempts to educate visitors, whilst simultaneously
providing objects of aesthetic contemplation by displaying a range of music
videos from Bob Dylan’s Subterranean
Homesick Blues (1967) to the controversial Smack my bitch up (1997) by The Prodigy. It would be unfair to
suggest that the almost Draconian notions of moral, social and political
‘improvement’ that Duncan identifies in the educational museum model are
amongst FACT’s core objectives. Indeed, with videos like Smack my bitch up or Pussy Riot’s Punk-Prayer Virgin Mother of God, put Putin away (2012), FACT makes
no such attempts of ‘improvement’, allowing instead for the visitor’s private,
personal engagement. Perhaps it is more suitable to suggest that whilst FACT
does identify education as a core responsibility, this Nineteenth Century
vision of education is abandoned. Instead, FACT intends to stimulate debate and
become “a true Twenty-first Century arts centre, the embodiment of contemporary
hybrid research and practice-based knowledge exchange”. (FACT, 2009, p.10) Such
notions of ‘participation’ and ‘practice-based knowledge exchange’ support the
claim that FACT does not impose an educational value system like the Nineteenth
Century museum model rather it suggests an equal partnership between FACT and
the public. Further qualification of its apparent community engagement can be
found in the free admission policy to all gallery areas, free Wi-Fi access and
online presence, collaboration programmes and its membership to LARC (Liverpool
Arts and Regeneration Consortium). Such devotion to community accessibility and
engagement may be ideological but it is also a necessity for the institution’s
survival if it is to “avoid becoming part of a wider cultural bankruptcy”.
(FACT, 2009, p.10)
What then can be
surmised as FACT’s unique civic responsibilities? Recognizing that FACT
identifies itself as “a hub of innovation, a pioneer of interdisciplinary
international partnerships, and a centre of excellence developing new models of
local connectivity and collaboration” (FACT, 2009, p.11) will alert one to its
commitment to collaborate with artists, researchers and the public in order to
disseminate digital art and creative technologies. Furthermore, since 10% of
FACT’s audience in 2011 came from overseas (FACT, 2012) it undoubtedly has
responsibility to disseminate culture to this demographic. However, Eddie Berg
(the founding director of Moviola which later became FACT) stated that this
organisation should be “in Liverpool, for the people of Liverpool” (FACT, 2009,
p.11) therefore FACT’s responsibility to disseminate culture to the tourist
visitor cannot be at the expense of the local visitor.
The significance
of Liverpool’s Capital of Culture status in 2008 and the raising profile of
Liverpool Biennial suggest an increase in “non-specialist audiences for whom
looking at contemporary art is one of a range of available leisure activities”.
(Barker, 1999, p.110) In addition, with the plethora of arts related degrees
available at Liverpool’s Further and Higher education institutions and the fact
that “museum visiting increases strongly with increasing level of education”,
(Bourdieu, Darbel, 1991, p.14) arguably, FACT does not present the local
community with art that is too ‘exclusive’ and ‘highbrow’. (Although the
inclusion of The Art of Pop Video is
perhaps a conscious effort to bring in more populist material into the
institution, thereby widening the social spectrum of its audience.) FACT
attracts a significant ‘youth’ audience with 170% higher than average audience
aged 25 – 44 and 10% higher than average audience aged 16 – 24 in 2011, when
compared to other organisations in the VAiL group (Visual Arts in Liverpool).
(FACT, 2012) The prominence of the ‘youth’ demographic might further credit The Art of Pop Video with meeting the
needs of the visiting community since MTV was first broadcast in 1981. For the
majority of this ‘youth’ audience the availability of the music video has been
assimilated into society throughout their entire lives.
FACT has
previously commissioned some of the ‘big names’ of new media art such as Nam
June Paik and Bill Viola, yet these are not household names and are
recognisable only to those already well-versed in new media art. As a result
there may be a temptation to accuse FACT of prohibiting sections of the public
from entering its doors via intellectual exclusivity, yet to do so would ignore
the fact that these artists are iconic within their field of practice; in
disseminating the unfamiliar FACT is able to educate and introduce new names
and ideas into the visitor’s vocabulary. To assist in the dissemination of the
unfamiliar The Art of Pop Video
houses videos directed by familiar artists such as Andy Warhol, visitors
witness performances by popular culture icons like Michael Jackson which sit
alongside videos they may be unfamiliar with such as Lyapis Trubetskoy’s Capital (2007). This potentially creates
a more inviting atmosphere for the visitor, allowing for a sense of discovery
whilst still providing the security of the familiar.
 |
| The Art of Pop Video, FACT, Gallery One |
One may assert
that The Art of Pop Video is an
example of populist art since “Popular art is dominated by a need for familiar
forms… a tendency toward easiness and emotional indulgence” (Fisher in Gaut,
Lopez, 2005, p.531) and through this familiar form even the most avant-garde
music video can be approached and digested. Through examining the music video
phenomenon FACT not only challenges the visitor’s perception and evaluation of
what constitutes ‘high’ and ‘low’ art (for placing such material within the
walls of a cultural institution arguably alters one’s contemplation of it); the
familiarity and ‘emotional indulgence’ of the presence of these music videos
serves a valuable function, one of inclusivity. Should FACT only cater toward
the needs of educated visitors (i.e. those well-versed in art criticism and art
theory) the institution would fail the needs of much of the community. Bourdieu
and Darbel suggest that when “faced with a message which is too rich, or as
information theory says, ‘overwhelming’, the visitor feels ‘drowned’ and does
not linger. (1991, p.39) Given how FACT depends on visitor engagement for its
own survival, the need to present populist as well as high art is surely
imperative. Furthermore, the significance of The Art of Pop Video following the experientially and cognitively
challenging Winter Sparks exhibition
should not escape one’s notice. Perhaps the decision to include The Art of Pop Video directly after Winter Sparks was not only to provide
the returning visitor with the necessary salve to the experience of Winter Sparks, it was to provide an
environment that would disseminate art for varying tastes and cognitive
abilities.
 |
|
The Art of Pop
Video, Gallery One; Kylie Minogue (2002)
Come into my World, wall projection
|
Regardless of
their potential as high or populist art, these videos remain items of aesthetic
and cognitive stimulation, allowing the visitor to “move beyond the physical
restraint of mundane existence, step out of time, and attain new larger
perspectives”. (Duncan, 1995, p.12) This, Duncan asserts, is a primary function
of the ritual museum; and whilst FACT is not an art museum, Sir Drummond Bone
(FACT Chair) emphasises this institution’s intention “to reflect, to debate, to
educate, to contextualise the past, critically assess the present and imagine
the future.” (FACT, 2009, p.4) Duncan’s and Bone’s definitions of
responsibility are therefore met with The
Art of Pop Video since it not only encourages personal reflection (perhaps
most evident with the inclusion of headphones for the majority of videos on
display), it permits a different kind of reflection by placing these videos within
the context of the art world and potentially ignites debate as to what
constitutes as art and what constitutes as ‘high’ art. The inclusion of the
music video’s origins contextualise the past and although not displayed
chronologically (thus allowing for a more personal encounter since the
exhibition’s ‘story’ is not written by the curators per say but by the visitor)
the exhibition charts the progression of this phenomenon of contemporary
culture. The Art of Pop Video also
shows the evolution of technologies through which one bears witness to this phenomenon
– wall projections deliver videos such as Kylie Minogue’s ‘Come Into My World’ (2002); cathode-ray tube television sets can be
found in Gallery Two displaying videos such as the Andy Warhol directed Hello Again (1984) performed by The Cars;
flat-screen televisions display videos such as White Stripes’ Fell in Love With a Girl (2002); whilst
in the atrium booth one can view (with the aid of 3D glasses) Björk’s Wanderlust in 3D(2008).
 |
|
Cathode-ray tube television sets on display at Gallery
Two, The Art of Pop Video
|
Music videos are
embedded into the contemporary collective consciousness as their consumption
has moved out of the cinema, into the home via television channels such as MTV
and can now be accessed anywhere at any time thanks to mobile technology and
online video-sharing services such as YouTube. Such assimilation is addressed through contributions such as Fred
Astaire’s Top Hat (1935), Peter
Gabriel’s Sledgehammer (1986) and
‘Obama Girl’s I Got a Crush …On Obama
(2007) respectively. FACT is therefore justified in this curatorial decision to
explore the music video since “Art reflects the conditions of its time”. (Paul,
2008, p.15) One may also find evidence of FACT’s desire for international
partnership born out with the curatorial decision to import The Art of Pop Video from Germany. In
importing this exhibition rather than commissioning its own response to the
music video phenomenon, is FACT guilty of putting the cultural needs of the
tourist over those of the local? One should note if FACT had not imported this
exhibition the only way the local visitor could gain access to it would be by
travelling overseas. Thus, (in this instance) FACT not only disseminates
contemporary culture via the medium of digital art, it does so through a prism
of international perspective both curatorially and in terms of content. By
including videos from Liverpool bands and filmmakers in addition to the
original exhibition FACT is able to disseminate the culture and creativity of
others as well as the local region. This delivery of varying perspectives and
insights permits the suggestion that through this exhibition FACT successfully
carried out its civic duty toward the tourist and local visitor but at the
expense of neither. Furthermore, with the curatorial decision to host only
temporary exhibitions (which change hands four times a year) the possibility of
aesthetic fatigue is reduced as visitors do not repeatedly encounter the same
artworks. Instead they are presented with different ways in which FACT
disseminates contemporary culture and responds to ever changing technical
innovation. Whilst the provision of headphones enhance the notion of the gallery
as a ‘ritual site’ (Duncan, 1995) allowing for personal communion between
visitor and ‘artist’ (although, with the music video one may question who this
artist might be – director, performer, cameraman, etc.). By including
headphones the risk of sound bleed is reduced thereby improving the ability to
successfully disseminate numerous artworks at once. They also provide the
artist with a platform upon which to disseminate contentious material without subjecting
participation onto unwilling visitors. This may account for a lack of visitor
complaints over controversial music videos such as Aphex Twin’s Window Licker (1998) which was subject
to limited television broadcast due to its excessive use of profane language.
When attending
to other aspects of the visitor experience, particularly that of cognitive accessibility
(despite the relative familiarity of The
Art of Pop Video there will undoubtedly be areas of interest or inquiry
that the visitor may wish to further investigate) one cannot overlook the significance
of FACT’s visitor assistants. Whilst FACT employs ‘Visitor Assistants’, Emma
Barker (1999) identifies the equivalent role at Tate Liverpool as ‘Information
Assistants’. Such semantic significance illuminates FACT’s ethos of placing
emphasis on the visitor experience when disseminating culture. The importance
of FACT’s visitor assistants and its other means of conveying contextual
information is further compounded by the assertion that information pertaining
to the exhibition (be it in the form of leaflets located at the gallery
entrances, interpretation located next to individual installations or verbal
information disseminated by the visitor assistants) would “proclaim, simply by
existing, the right to be uninformed, the right to be there and to be uninformed,
the right for uninformed people to be there… help to minimize the apparent
inaccessibility of the works and of the visitor’s feelings of unworthiness”.
(Bourdieu, Darbel, 1991, p.49) Through these multiple forms in which exhibition
information is distributed (either on site or online) FACT does not simply
attempt to enhance the visitor experience; it strengthens its ability to
achieve two of its core responsibilities – that of education and the provision
of a culturally stimulating environment that is welcoming to all members of the
community regardless of education, aesthetic literacy or knowledge of critical
theory.
In identifying
the primary civic responsibilities of FACT are to provide an environment for
the contemplation of new technologies and digital art for all members of the
community; as well as responsibilities of community engagement and education, The Art of Pop Video surely meets such criteria.
Though an exploration of the music video phenomenon FACT is able to present the
familiar with the unfamiliar from Michael Jackson’s Thriller (1983) to Cornelius’ Drop
(Do It Again) (2003) directed by Koichio Tsujikawa. The decision to exhibit
a variety of videos appealing to a wide range of tastes for visual, aural and
cognitive contemplation suggests that FACT does not discriminate against the
aesthetic tastes or educational background of the prospective visitor. Through
its variety of displayed works, FACT’s determination to encourage engagement
with all members of the community is indeed apparent. Furthermore, the absence
of ‘guidance’ from FACT concerning what may constitute as ‘high’ or ‘low’ art,
as well as the inclusion of contentious and political videos; FACT demonstrates
its ability to stimulate debate and may therefore be regarded as successful in
its responsibility toward community engagement. Educational duties are
addressed through the provision of contextual information in the form of
leaflets, signage and visitor assistants. Yet, (much like with the inclusion of
headphones throughout the exhibition) such information is not forced upon the
visitor rather it is acquired only if the visitor wishes to engage with it. But
does the institution as a whole (not just The
Art of Pop Video) successfully meet its criteria of civic responsibilities?
Certainly, with its free admission policy one assumes that FACT attempts to
attract all members of the community. However, given that “the cost of a visit
involves other expenses, at least as large [as admission fees], such as
expenditure on travel or the costs incurred in every family outing”, (Bourdieu,
Darbel, 1991, p.19) there are wider social considerations that can impede
FACT’s delivery of its civic responsibilities. It is through active
participation with wider social policy that FACT may work toward strengthening
such delivery. Since FACT sits alongside other organisations on the Liverpool
Arts and Regeneration Consortium (FACT, 2013) this is perhaps indicative of the
institution’s future plans.
Bibliography:
Barker, E. 1999. Contemporary cultures of
display. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bourdieu, P. Darbel, A. & Schnapper, D.
1991. The love of art: European art museums and their public, translated by Caroline Beattie and Nick
Merriman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Duncan, C. 1995. Civilizing rituals: inside
public art museums. London; Routledge.
FACT. 2009. We are the real-time experiment [Sir Drummond Bone, preface]. Liverpool:
FACT.
FACT. 2013. FACT: Programme of Activities 2010 – 2012 [hand-out]. Workshop at
FACT, 21 March 2013.
[Accessed 20 May 2013]
Fisher, J.A. High Art Versus Low Art in Gaut, B.N. & Lopes, D. 2005. The
Routledge companion to aesthetics [electronic
resource]. London; Routledge. 2nd ed. pp. 527.
Paul, C. 2008. New media in the white cube
and beyond: curatorial models for digital art. Berkeley; University of
California Press.
