By David Sterritt, writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Monitor
THE relationship between film and video has been a changeable and sometimes unfriendly one. Film loyalists have regarded video as an upstart, easy to abuse (videotape is cheap and recyclable, so less care may be taken when deciding what to put on it) and inferior in visual quality. In turn, video freaks have disdained film's lack of flexibility, and its connection with the outmoded past rather than the exciting future of visual art.
In the past, I have usually sided with the film contingent. Film does look better than video in most cases, and movies rerecorded on video cassettes invariably suffer from the translation.
Many a first-rate film artist, moreover, has done less interesting work after being seduced by the relative ease and cheapness of video production. I have often called video a medium for tinkerers - great for experimentation and fooling around with new effects, but not so great for serious image-making, except in the case of a few exceptional artists such as Bill Viola and Nam June Paik.
The times are changing where this rivalry is concerned, however. For the past dozen years, the Whitney Museum of American Art has included noncommercial film and video in its internationally watched Biennial exhibitions, and its latest batch of film and video selections - works made by 30 artists with widely varying interests and talents - is finally convincing proof that video has come into its own as a major artistic medium. Just as important, it indicates that artists in both the film and video fields are increasingly relaxed about the differences between the two technologies, and are happy to move from one to the other, and even to combine them within a single work.
This seems a healthy development, pointing toward a future in which film and video are seen to offer different but equally valid possibilities - operating side by side like oil and watercolor, orchestra and chamber ensemble, modern dance and classical ballet.
A fine example of video's new maturity is Steve Fagin's latest offering, "The Machine That Killed Bad People," a two-hour work of great ambition and accomplishment. Its ostensible subject is the rule and overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos's regime in the Philippines, and the difficulties faced by the Corazon Aquino government afterward. Its real concern, however, is with the ability of mass media - video and television in particular - to shape public perceptions of political events on a national and international level.
In one sense, the work is a fast and furious display of recent Philippines history, mingling fact and observation with myth, rumor, and ironic TV grandstanding. In a deeper sense, it's an astute work of media criticism, as if a canny observer of contemporary life had chosen to dissect the pitfalls of TV journalism not by writing a book, but by making a TV show with its own perceptive and aptly oppositional approach. Video is obviously the perfect medium for such an undertaking, and Mr. Fagin has managed his endeavor with an aplomb that could make any visual artist proud.
In addition to its other achievements, Fagin's work is a reminder that the interaction between media and audiences has received much study in recent years, and has prompted a lively debate between two camps: those who fear that mass-produced images result in mass-produced thinking and those who feel that spectators tend to have individual and often unpredictable responses to even the most regimented and manipulative material. …