Dear Sarah,

Thank you for posting this. Those of us who have 
worked with historical electronic media objects for purposes of  
exhibition have encountered similar issues. First, the observations 
regarding the artist's absence were interesting and brought to mind 
Sarah Resnick's paper at the 2008 DOCAM Summit, which can be found here:
 
http://www.docam.ca/en/annual-summits/2008-summit/27-case-studies.html
Resnick
 remarked on the relationship between Paik and his "TV Repair Man," 
whose name escapes me. In my research on Canadian electronic media 
artists I found similar dependencies, which fall well outside of the 
curator/conservator box. One could extend this to the sites of 
production, and sources of parts. Anyone familiar with the history in 
Toronto understands one of the primary sources for electronic art work 
was (and is!) Active Surplus. In fact, many a work was generated from 
perusing the aisles and finding an obscure, but useful, artifact. I have
 long been meaning to explore this sort of site-dependence further.

Regarding
 the methods of exhibition - Has there ever been a film re- creation of 
this work, and if not, why not? - I recently experienced a frustration 
which is somewhat linked to your observation. One of the works in my 
exhibition at the Ottawa Art Gallery - thelivingeffect: 
http://www.ottawaartgallery.ca/exhibits/2010/thelivingeffect/index-en.php
 - is Norman White's "First Tighten up on the Drums" (1969). The work is
 part of the National Gallery of Canada's collection, and is literally 
down the street from the OAG. Norman was concerned about the programming
 and general functioning of the work, and asked that it be released to 
him for a month, or even longer, to re-program the piece by replacing 
parts, etc. The gallery would not agree to this stating the work was out
 for repair (the plexiglass on the piece had broken), and instead 
allowed him to work on the piece on-site at the NGC for five days prior 
to the exhibition. This resulted in Norman having to transport enough 
materials to the gallery to fix the work, which would not necessarily be
 a problem if the parts were not historical and the normill (norman's 
studio) was not such a massive repository for the electronics needed 
repair his various robotic and electronic media works. I understand 
their reluctance, but it was a unique opportunity for the artwork to be 
wholly and properly upgraded 40 years after its production. For Norman, 
it wasn't nearly enough time and he was only able to bring the piece 
back to a certain extent, and agreed it was 'good enough' to include in 
the exhibition. So the question of how the artwork becomes degraded - 
shown on video, not on film; programming not really intact and therefore
 a diminished viewing experience - to the point where it is just not 
meaningful to exhibit the work is raised. Or do we, as an audience, just
 ignore the slow slippage of the original conditions of exhibition in 
favour of any experience of it at all?

Caroline

> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:41:16 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] December/January theme on CRUMB: Nam June Paik
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Dear CRUMB list
> 
> I am back from Liverpool and recovered from the long night opening of  
> the Nam June Paik show - it is very good and I recommend anyone in  
> the UK between now and March to detour to see it. Peter Appleton's  
> laser beam between FACT and Tate is especially impressive in the  
> sparkly cold night air.
> 
> Below I have pasted a few notes from the breakfast with the curators  
> session on Friday morning. I hope that Sook and Susanne will forgive  
> any errors in my hasty transcription of their answers, and feel free  
> to add their notes.
> 
> ----
> 
> Question from Laura Sillars: how is this show different from other  
> shows of Paik's work, in what way is it retrospective?
> 
> Susanne's answer: the exhibitions in Liverpool and Dusseldorf are  
> quite different (from one another). In Dusseldorf we put the early  
> phase in strict choronological order. We had more space. I like the  
> show here, it is more collage, more like Paik's way of thinking.  
> There you could see how things led from one to another. We found lots  
> of sources which were never shown before from sites such as the Rene  
> Block archive. We tried to put together the US and European research.  
> We didn't have as much time to focus on Korean research - the  
> philosophical aspect of Paik's work (research centre in seoul) which  
> could be a lead for another future exhibition.
> 
> Sook: Fact is a commissioning agency, who can work with younger  
> artists, and thus gives the exhibition a living legacy....
> 
> Question from the floor: How was curatorial practice affected by  
> absence of the artist?
> 
> Susanne: In the future we will have problems when those who worked  
> with Paik - the technical assistants - who worked with us, when they  
> are dead we have to discuss again. We had the help of a lot of people  
> who knew him well. We are art historians we could not have done it  
> alone.
> 
> Sook: Paik said, "without electricity there is no art." That is the  
> case. In Tate Liverpool we had to install more power to make it work.  
> The amount of leads, transformers, sockets, plugs -- that will all be  
> staying there for other media art shows. Without the artist sometimes  
> we have more freedom, without fear of upsetting the artist. But  
> having people who knew how works were intended, or originally  
> presented, was important. A great thing was meeting people who were  
> very fond of him. Everyone thought they were his best friend. We  
> looked back and respected his spirit and worked in that sense.
> 
> ----
> 
> A few other observations from me which I would invite any comments on:
> 
> A few artists I spoke with found it strange that the work Zen for  
> Film from 1964 was presented as a video, 8mins (see http:// 
> www.eai.org/title.htm?id=14206). Has there ever been a film re- 
> creation of this work, and if not, why not? After all, many people  
> have recreated John Cage's 4:33 (sadly it didn't win this year's  
> Christmas single here in the UK), on which this work was based.
> 
> For all the concern about the ongoing maintenance of the technology  
> driving the works, when I visited the exhibition the morning after  
> the opening what I witnessed were the Tate's technical staff and  
> curatorial staff measuring the candles to ensure their burning times  
> for replacement, and fishing a dead fish from the tanks used in  
> 'Video Fish' from 1975, and counting the ones left to ensure the  
> right number in each tank. So, a nice lesson for us in the  
> variability of media yet again.
> 
> best from the freezing fog in Newcastle,
> Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Dec 2010, at 10:35, Sarah Cook wrote:
> 
> > Dear CRUMB list,
> >
> > This week sees the opening of the Nam June Paik exhibitions at Tate  
> > Liverpool and FACT (http://www.fact.co.uk/about/exhibitions/2010/ 
> > nam-june-paik) and we've decided to host an impromtu discussion on  
> > the curatorial considerations behind this joint venture. We've  
> > invited both Laura Sillars, outgoing programmes director at FACT,  
> > and Sook-Kyung Lee, Curator at Tate, to lead the discussion. Do  
> > chime in with your thoughts and hope to see you at the opening on  
> > Thursday!
> >
> > * About the show:
> >
> > It is the first major UK retrospective of the work of Nam June Paik  
> > curated by Sook-Kyung Lee and Susanne Rennert, and is accompanied  
> > by a fully illustrated catalogue. The exhibition is initiated and  
> > developed by Tate Liverpool and museum kunst palast, Düsseldorf who  
> > presented the exhibition from 11 September – 21 November 2010.
> >
> > Tate Liverpool is providing "a definitive look at Paik’s body of  
> > work, from the scores of early music performances and TV works, to  
> > robot sculptures and large-scale video installations" while FACT is  
> > showing Laser Cone and a number of single-channel video works in an  
> > archive provided by EAI. The press release states that "FACT’s  
> > display concludes the retrospective both in terms of its chronology  
> > and its conceptual genealogy."
> >
> > In addition, FACT is also producing a new work with a local artist  
> > and over 15 young people called 'The Television will be  
> > Revolutionised' which sees them create a CCTV driven installation,  
> > as well as presenting Peter Appleton's laser link which connects  
> > FACT and Tate Liverpool with a laser beam across the city, and  
> > supporting a series of young producers to make work that responds  
> > to Nam June Paik in the Kazimir night club.
> >
> > * Questions for this discussion:
> >
> > It seems to us on CRUMB that this pairing between a large  
> > collecting museum and a smaller commissioning gallery raises a few  
> > curatorial questions which we invite you all to comment on:
> >
> > 1. Innovation versus Institutionalization or, "Museums: where good  
> > artists go to die"?
> > It is suggested that Tate brings the historical rigor, research and  
> > museum standards which give this exhibition weight and substance.  
> > The vibrancy and creative currency of Paik's legacy is then brought  
> > to life through the exhibition at FACT which both completes the  
> > retrospective but also teases out the utopian ideas of  
> > connectivity, communication and copy-left thinking that have so  
> > inspired contemporary artists working today. It could be argued  
> > that FACT is actually a living legacy to Nam June Paik as it tries,  
> > through its programming year-round, to embody some of his  
> > aspirations around participation TV (such as their Tenantspin  
> > programme) and interactivity with media. So, perhaps this is a  
> > question of legacies?
> >
> > 2. Completion versus creative communities.
> > In a sense, the function of a museum is to collect and present  
> > material that has a broad cultural value, but the risk is that  
> > through that presentation format emerges a drive for the generic. A  
> > smaller venue which is actively engaged in making art as well as  
> > presenting has the possibility to create alternative exhibition  
> > formats but at the risk of losing the message around the importance  
> > of its activities over the long term. So, this might also be a  
> > question of how histories are made and who makes them?
> >
> > So, in the interests of impartiality, is this a curatorial match  
> > made in heaven for media art (it was Tate Liverpool who in 1989  
> > hosted the first Videopositive festival which later turned into  
> > what FACT is now)? Does this exhibition represent an instance of  
> > 'modularity' in curating (the Liverpool biennial model where venues  
> > all are a part of a single city-wide exhibition?) or is it  
> > 'distributed curatorial practice' in the sharing of roles  
> > (collecting/scholarship/commissioning) between the two venues?
> >
> > ----
> > best,
> > Sarah
> >
> > www.crumbweb.org