12 AFrERIMAGEIDecember 1983

NOTES TOWARD AHISTORY OF

IMAGE-PROCESSEDVIDEO

STEINA AND WOODYVASULKALUCINDA FURLONG

Ed .'s rw*r This is ft second inaseries ofarticfesonImage-processed video . The hrs7adide examined the contributionsof Eric Sisgel, Stephen Beck, Steve Ruff, den Sandin, and81MandLoutse Etra 10 thedevelopmw7tof elecfmrW irrnagirgdevices fsee Afterimage, Vol. 11, Nos. ! B2 (Summer 1993),up- 35-361 Future articles will discuss Me work of Ralphtioclrirxg and Sherry A?Alar al the Experimental T"yisicrrConfer, NamJune Palk, Shalom Gorewitz, Barbara BLckrrer,Sara Hombacher, Peer Bode, and offers . The prged rsfunded bY a video writing grant from the Mew York StateGovncll on the Arts Media Program

Despite the fact that many video artists whose work iscategorized as image-processed reject thus term. Ft can beuseful in describing work by people who not only use similarequipment but share an attitude which treats the video signalas a plastic rnediurn, Beyond such generalizations, however,the designation can be misleading since, as a genre, 'image-processed' conflates any and all tapes which contain man-ipulated andlor synthesized imagery . This acknowledges ob-vious technical similarities but doesn't account for the varietyof approaches which produce works that can be more pre-c4sely Interpreted . 01 course, one interpretation doesn'tnecessarily preclude another, but an attempt must bemadeto get beyond the all too familiar responses to this work-thatis . either total rejection or total embrace-The intent of this project, then, is twofold- The first is to

identity-without becoming dogmatic-some of the differentapproaches, some of the social and artistic contingencies,and howthese are manifested in the work. The second--butby no means secondary-goal is to contribute to a broaderhistory of video that emphasizes the parallel and overlappingactivities of artists-

Probably the most common way image-processed workhas

been described is as an exploration of the basic propertyof video-the electronic, signal . There are many examples ofthis fundamentally formalist characwrization which, I think,provides a way to tend modernist Credentials to an an formthat has had a difficult time gaining acceptance--Critical at-tention, funding, marketability-by traditional art institutions-

For example, in December 1971 the Whitney Museum'sfirst video exhibrbon, assembled by the late film curator DavidBlanstock . consisted almost entirely of image-processedtapes. In theprogram notes, Bienstock wrote,

II Was decided instead to iknh the program to tapes which lows on thesbiAty, of vndectope to create and generate ft own &tasc irnsgery,rather than its ability to record reality- This is done with special videosymbewzers, cokxizars . and by utilizing many of the wvque eluCLmrrlk mpwries orthe medium [emphasis addled).'

More recently, Sherry Miller, assistant director of the Earpen-mental Television Canter, wrote in Exposure,

Elecutrornc image prodessi rig uses as all-making material thoseprWerbes inher&M in the medium of video, Artists week at a fundamentallevai with varsaus parameters of the electronic "net. for example,frequency, amplitude, or phase, which actually define the resultingimage and sound.-

Yet another recent example is the catalogue introduction to`The Electronic Gallery," an exhibition that included tapes bya number of people who use the Experimental TelevisionCenter- In it Maureen Tunm writes,

The Center explores video as an artistic medium. To figure put, togive form to . to embody. to display the various properties that a videosystem can possess?

Such generalizations pose a number of problems, If ishighly questionable whether synthesized or manipulatedvideo can dorm to embody allthe medium's 'inhererl proper-ties .' Couldn't one easily argue that video's instantansity andpotential for interactivity are also inherent? More important, Ithink, is another point Turim makes, 'Uhimately, though, theworks gain their communicative impact in reference to otherconcepts arid issues.These quotes refer to any and all kinds of image--processed

work . However, of all the prominent artists associated withthis type of video . Sterna and Woody Vasufke have been ocn-sisteritty a5sociated with technological expenments5on andall the ensuing formalist implications. Their work has beendescribed as systemic . didactic, formal, and syntactic, andShe Vasuiitas-who are both very arboulate-have encour-aged such readings . Turim's comment may be worth consid-ering, Though, since the effects and meanings of their work

LUCINDA FURLONG. e video attic and vdsonWrer, is working on atittmry of Mays-pnopmeed video-

cannot be so neatly confined to these categories. AsShalomGorewitz has remarked about some of the Vasulkas' multi-pie-monitor pieces that he saw at The Kitchen in the early197ps,

They could talk about it being didactic and minimalist, but when yousaw it strearwng down a pyramid of monitors, a was so lush andexcit-ing visually. ft was an inured ibiy sensual experience to be presentedwith. . . . I wvuldn t Call Ihher work] minimal, and I wouldnl call it pureresearch, because there's a 61 01 pleasure on asensual revelwhenseeing it. I

Beyond being prolific and playing enthusiastic roles inpioneering electronic imaging, the VasuIkas-asfouriders ofThe Kitchen-were also major contributors to the develop-ment of an intelactual and institutional framework for video,and they have continued to nurture and promote video withina variety of contexts . I'll begin, then, with an account of theirinvolvement in the early years of video and a discussion ofhow their work reflected-or in some cases, didn't reflect-attiludes dominant in Ihe'605 about technology, art, and the- establishment . -

Barn in Iceland. Sterna Flemunn Bjamaddttir studied violin inReykjavi k and at the Music Conservatory in Prague from 1959to 1962- She also played in the Icelandic Symphony Orchestrain 1964 . in Prague shemetWoody Vasulka, whowas studyingat the Academy of Performing Arts, Faculty of Film and Tele-vision. Woody VasuIaa, following family tradition, had at firststudied industrial engineering in Bmo . Czechoslovakia, hisbirthplace- Privately, however, he was writing poetry and fic-tion and found that he had no use for engineering because ttinvolved too much mathematics . Feeling more affinity withliterary tradition, he stud fed documentary It Immaking . This in-terest developed out of his desire to work individually as hehad as a writer- rather than in a group ; documentaries couldbe produced by one or two people . whereas lealure work in-volved many more . However, documentaryhad its limits too,and Woody found that film in general was - absolutely aclued medium to me---- I was exposed to all the narrativestructures ol film, but they weren't real tome....I could neverexpress myself in what was called the narrative cinema .6The Vasulkas' decision to emigrate to the United Stales

was based on cultural rather than political considerations . AsWoody explained, 'I was never attracted to this kind of polltt-cal system, but "one cannot live in the twentieth century andnot deal with America directly ." When the Vasulkas arrivedinNew York City in 1965, they had much to deal with, not leastof all learning English . While they spent most of their timeduring their first two years in the U-S- getting oriented, therewere many avant-garde activities going on with which theywould later become involved . These acVvities-loosely labeled'intermedia"-grew out of intermingling music, dance, thea-ter, and film communities-

In November 1965 Village Voice film critic Jonas Makesproclaimed in his weekly column- "The medium of cinema isbreaking out and taking over and is going blindly and by rt-seff .'s In 1966, he wrote, "Suddenly, the interrnedia showsare all over town ."° Light shows, slide shows, multiple filmprojections, light-malign art, sensoria-these were the ac-tivities of people like Jackie Casson, Elaine Summers, JudYalkut Aldo Tambellini . Stan VanDerBeek, Ed Emshwilier,Gerd Stem, Nam June Park, and manyothers . Many, thoughcertainly not all, of these events were inspired by MarshallMcLuhan's intiuentiaI media theories- Because of the wide-spread impact and popularization of McLuhan's writing, itmay be helpful to briefly review his arguments .McLuhan begins with the assumption that modem human

experience is characterized by the simultaneous reception ofvast amounts of information in the form of sense stimuli : sight,smell . hearing, touch . and taste . Because the attempt to com-municate and process this variegated experience is subjectto distortion, some methods of communication are better thanothers- According to McLuhan, a medium which -extends onesingle sense in 'high definition'"-such as a photograph-isa hot medium, whereas a medium which provides only mini-mal extension of a sense-such as print-is cool- 1o In otherwords, cool media demand a high level of participation, orcompletion, by the receiving audience, while tot media donot-

In McLuhan's formulation, the electronic communications"explosion" of the . 1960s created a new form ol perceptionwhich makes these stimuli directly apprehendable throughthe senses- Since he views all media as 'extensions ofman .' television and radio act as cybernetic extensions ofthe human nervous system . As McLuhan wrote in 1964,

Today, after more than a century of e160ic teefxhology, we have ex-fended our central nervous system itself in a gkobalembrace. abolish .irg both space and time as far as our plane) is concealed Rapidly. weapproach the final phase o1 the extensions of man-the tedmptogh

Clockwise tom top left The Kilchen in 1971 . Frames from Evomrarr0 9701 . Frame from Parbapabon Ian undistrilxrtedcornposhetape, c .19701 . Frame from Spacas (1972) . The Vasulkas' sludho in Buffalo,N .Y ., 1973-79 Framefrom 1-2-3-4{19741 . Frametrorn GoAAen Voy,age (19731 . Some of the -Cooks - in The Kitchen . 1972 ; from WH toright. Dimimi Deryatkin, Shndhan B"t. Rhy5 Chatham, Steins Va .sulka. The Vazulkas' studio in New York City, 1967-73 . Inswlebonview of Marm 0

) . Alt video tapes by WoodyandSlama Vasulka .

AFTER IMAGEi December 19113

19

Cal &mulatlon o1 consciousness . when the creative process Of know-ing will be collectively and corporatey extended to the whole ofhuman society, much as we have already extended our senses andour nerves by the various media."

Thus, McLuhari s'gbbal village," a hamionious world 'tribe"Inked via a nefwlork of irubnbneouscommu s=w,wlxild evoue.Jonathan Miller has painted out that McLuhan's ov" op-timistic vision could only have been achieved by 'stressingthe immediate mental effect of the vanous media at the ex-pense of neglecting the messages they actually ccnvey .'' 2This emphasis on the effect of the medium itself-regardlessof its content-is the basis for the famous dictum, `Themedium is the message . - This aphorism fit quite neatly withformalist art discourse ; identifying those qualities specific tovideo as an art medium not only coincided with McLuhartsideas but Clement Greenberg's formalism .McLuhan s theory has since been discarded by some

scholars because his utopianism completely contradicts the

fact that electronic media have been used as instumards ofsocial control . Moreover, as Raymond Williams has shown,this analysis represents a technologically determinist ap-proach to history, which posits technology as a force in it-self-responsible for changes in society and the human con-dition-rather than something developed with specific pur-poses in mind, in Television : Technology and Cultural FormWilliams counters McLuhan: - Ail media operations are in el-fect desocialised ; they are simply physical events in anabstracted sensanum, and are distinguishable only by their

variable sense-ratios [emphasis added] ." 3Still, as I said, many artists were creating lNermedla sense

environments, openly embracing McLLIhan s ideas."Thoseevents-as well as others less explicitly, derived from McLu-han-were commonly known as "expanded cinema' (theterm was later used as the title fix Gene Ywrigblood's tutu69-tic survey of such work).

White the Vasulkas read Makes's column reguiarty andwere peripherally aware of underground filmmakers, they at-tended very few of these events to the first years theywere inNew York . Steins continued studying violin, while Woodystarted working on commercial and industrial films andexhibits in 1967 . In 1969 he started using video. His employ-

er, Harvey Lloyd, was using closed-circuit. multiple-monitorvideo displays as well as multi-screen projections and thisstructure eventually became themodel for much of the Vasul-kas' early work.

For Woody, video provided an alternative to film which hefell was an exhausted medium . In 1978 he recalled .

I was educated in film, which Iunderstood as an extension ofrverrallr-iyinto space. So atthat time, I was very concerned with hlerary formapresented in cinematic ways . whichI linked directly to the economicstructure of exwtIng productons-studios, laboratories, equipmentOnly much later, after I had worked in film productions in New YorkCity, did I achieve any independence, or manage to personanxa theprocess of image-making, and that came about asa result of workingwith electronic equi prnermt . "

Beyond the compromises entailed in working in the film In-dustry and the limitations of conventional cinematic nerrativ-ity, Woody also had an initial fascination with what might becalled the phenornenokx,7y of video : `When I first saw videofeedback, I knew I had seen the cave fire. It had nothing to dowith anything, just a perpetuation of score kind of energy." a

Like many other early video artists. Steina's involvementwas inspired by Howard Wise's exhibition, `rV as a CreativeMedium,' held in the spring of 1969 . "I went in there and sawEinstein [a tape by Eric Siegel utilizing the video oolorizer hedesigned and built], blasting out. and it quite blew mymind ."17 Soon, both the Vasulkas were using Lloyd's equip-ment after work, and eventually Woody began bringing ithone, At that point, they realized that the ontyway Mwcouldreally experimem was try living with the equipment . 'Whatstarted happening, Steina recalls, was that every dayWoody would come home from wok at Ova o'clock, and Iwouldhave another piece for him . He got so jealalts becausein the evening hewas tired . So he just camehome from workone day and said, 'I'm quitting I" Usingsomeborrowed equip-ment and some that they bought, in early 1974 the Vasulkasbegan to work more "systematically, making feedback loopsand using audio inputs to generate and after the video signalinside Mack and white monitors .Afthough many of these expenrrlents were not original

since others had done them before, the axcit~ of that

time was generated by the sense of being pioneers . Therewas a camaraderie among people who were making dfs-covenes about the potential of video-as an electronicphenomerron and as a tool for social change, As Steins de-scribes this animus,

our discovery was a discovery because we dlalovered It kite dlrtftknow a l ttgae people had discovered d before us . It was tusk likeNedback: pointing this camera at the TV set and seeingfeedback wasan invention that was i nvented over and over BW . As late ore 1972people were inventing feedback, thinking they had jug caught the"Ofmefloes.

Part of f excitement, too, had todo with the Warrrielily ofexchanges among people . Tapes were shown in lofts or atclubs, and information spread through word of mouth orsometimes via small ads in the Y11age Voice or the East V*lags Other. But, says Steins, 'It's different [now], it was a se-cret then . People would corns and say, 'If you go to that loftthere, there's a bt of (video] stuff' And Woody summarizedthe attitude in a 1972New York Times amide: 'What is specialabout video art at this frne is that it isn't yet trapped in rigidrules . There are not yet any clicMs, and the artists haven'thad time to devebp the maniacal egos one finds in the otherarts, AI the video artists are like one big family and thinking

about video's big future ^s

The video 'family" was riot homogenous. thot+gh . The Vasulkas were more interested in an and the countercuRl"

1 4

AFTERIMAGE.,December 1883

Lefl : frame from Vocabulary (1973) Right : frame from Grazing (1975)

than in politics- Consequently, they found themselvessituated somewhere between the established artists whowere doing conceptual pieces in mainstream galleries andpolitically active community access groups- Relemng to thepeople who formed such groups as Global Village, People'sVideo Theater, and Raindance Corporation, Steina de-fineates these distinctions :None of them were particularly interested in art, although aW of themhad art backgrounds . .This was their anti-ail stalemenl . . . so thatset us immediately on the fringe, because we were never realty interasled in polillcs . I saw rt as an American imemal affair thatwas veryinteresting for me to watch as a foreigner, nothing else .

Despite this . boundaries were fluid . Hence, in addition tomaking the kind of work for which they were best known, theVasulkas were shooting documentaries for the AlternateMedia Center as well as compiling their own informaldocumentaries of the downtown cultural scene, "We juststarted going everywhere and asking to tape people, - saysSteina- Subsequently, they edited some of these events to-gether in a tape called Participation (which is undistributed). Itis a kind of counlercultural happening circa 1969-71 . In il, Jim iHendrix performs a New Year's Eve concert at The FillmareEast ; a group of Andy Warfml's actors-among them On-dine. Taylor Mead . Candy Darling, and Holly Woodlawn-argue viciously on the DavidSuskindShow over whether ornot they'd been exploited ; there are scenes from a transves-tite musical by playwright Jackie Curlis ; Don Cherry playsimpromptu jazz in Washington Square-not to mention anassortment of other events that today elicit pure . undilutednostalgia .For the Vasulkas these varied activities typified American

culture . In an unpublished 1978 document, they stated,

We were interested in certain decadent aspects of America, thephariomana of the time--underground rock and rill, homosexualtheater, and the rest of that illegitimate culture- in the same way, wewere curious about more puritanical concepts bf art inspired byMcluhan and Buckmrnsler Fuller. 11 seemed a strange and unifiedfront-agairul the establishment

This thread-"against the establishment"-rart throughevery aspect of video activity then, whether it was electronicfeedback, media environments, or documentaries in whichthe subjects provided their ownverbal Yeadback ."it wasonlyattar video began to become more institutionalized thatpeople began to define their turf . In retrospect, i1 is very hardto see abstract or manipulated video-now divorced from itsoriginal context- as 'anti-establishment ."

In February 1971 the Vasulkas had their first public show-ing of tapes on three consecutive evenings at Max's KansasCity . A different program-electronic work, gay theater per-formances, and the FitImore concerts-was presented eachnight, and all were displayed on five monitors. A friend in theaudience . Andy Mannik, subsequently found a space thathad been the kitchen of the Broadway Central Hotel onMercer St ., and he asked the Vasulkas it they had anyuse forit. Using money they earned working at the Attemate MediaCenter, the Vasulkas and Mannik spent two months reno-vating ." The Electronic Kitchen opened on June 15 .1971, and the old hotel was converted into the Mercer ArtsCenterThe original idea behind what eventually became simply

TheKitchen was to establish an electronic lab in which artistscould experiment with sound and images . (Because elec-lronic sound and electronic imaging operate on many of thesame prindples, the Vasulkhswanted to explore this relation-ship .) In the evening . they had what they called a Live Audi-ence Test Laboratory-or LATL-during which the audienceresponse to their experiments would be tested- As Stein a re-calls, 'It wasn't supposed to be any kind of auditorium or'legitimate' space . It was just a place where people couldcome in and interact with the people making me video ." ForThe Vasulkas, it was difficult to think of their space as an 'es-tabllshment"instilutior They didn'twanttobscomeadminis-trators or even have an office or phone.What began as an informal laboratory, however, quickly

evolved into a full-time alternative space. Like many organi-zations founded in the late'60s and eariy'70s . the goalwas 1ocreate an open arid flexible situation arid, importantly, not tocurate . In the early days at The Kitchen no one was everturned away, and artists would bring their own crews andoften their own equipment . As for payment, artists receivedno fixed fee, but if moneywas collected, they cook] choose totake it . split it . or leave it to The Kitchen . Mast let The Kitchenkeep themoney,which paid for the monthly calendar and pro-vided a fund of petty cash .

Soon events at The Kttchen started 10 get regular coveragein She Village Voice and periodically in the New York Times .Describing The Kitchen during its 1972 video festival, David5hirey wrote in the Times, 'Visitors to The Kitchen should notexpect a well-appointed theater for the projections- They willbe confronted rather wiIh a loft-like room, honeycombed withwires, videotape tecorders and a roomwide battery of TVmonitors- - So much for the hardware ; commenting on thesoftware, he said . 'Although part of the work is tediously re-petitive, displaying little imagination, there is enough inspiredtalent to warrant a visit-' 2r`What kind of programming prompted this assessment? Al-

though the Vasulkas originally wanted to limit The Kitchen sprogram to electronic music and video . Iheyfound that therewas too much interesting work going on to justify such a puristattitude . Consequently, programming was actually more var-ied. Open video screenings . originally organized by ShirleyClarke . were held on Wednesdays . Rhys Chatham, an elec-tronic musician who had studied with Morton Subofnick . be-came music director . A -Monday Series"-kicked off wish aperformance by La Monte Young and MarianZaxeela-soonspilled over to Tuesday nights- 2 ' Thursdays and Fridayswere taken up. says Sleina, by other "general events that nowhave a name : performance art ." Rock concerts were oftenheld on Saturdays, and seminars and workshops on suchtimely topics as perception and cybernetics were held onSundays ."

In its entirety . The Kitchen provided a local point for a vari-ety of informal music, video, and other categorically elusive ac-livihes which would have otherwise remained invisible to alarge public- Although a few of the names, e .g ., LaMonteYoung, AMn Lucier, Nam June Pal k, are now known outsideof new music and video circles, most people involved re-mained part of a lesser-known downtown scene, but theircontributions were nonetheless crucial to The Kitchen's vital-tty-

In the fall of 1973 the Vasulkas moved to Buffalo, N .Y . toteach a video workshop at the Center for Media Study- In1974 Woody became a faculty member a1 the State Univer-sity of New York at Buffalo, where Steina also later taught-They remained in Buffalo until 1979 . The Vasulkas had al-ready begun their investigations into the phenomenology ofvideo, but they probably couldn't have had amore irdeliectu-ally compatible environment . In the same department werePaul Shades, Hollis Frampton, and Tony Conrad-allfilmmakers who were, in different ways. dealing with struc-tures of moving images.

Our work is a dialogue with the tool and the image, so we would notpreconceive an image separately. make a conscious model of it .andthen try to match it . We would rather make a loop and dialogue withit . . . But it is more complex, because we sometimes design the led s .and so do conceptual work as wen,'

The Vasulkas often speak of their work asadialogue with thetools they use . In fact, tools are so central to their work thatthey list each one, along with credit to its designeron theirvid-"raphy This information is useful in a consideration of theVasulkas work, but it might be construed asa characteriza-tion of the Vasulkas as 'tool cultists," worshipers of technol-ogy oblivious to the negative social uses to which varioustechnologies have been put. I don't think This assessment isvalid, for behind their development and use of imaging de-vices is a gel of concerns that is neither exclusively formal norpurely technc logicaI .As I discussed in my first article in this series, prior to the in-

troduction of consumer video products, the design of videoequipment was geared toward broadcasting and industry .Much of the equipment we now take for granted-colorcameras and lightweight portapaks, for example-wereeither unavailable or unatlordable for most people . It waseven more difficult to acquire the devices associated withimage-processing-keyers, colonizers, mixers, and synthe-sizers . What's more . thal equipment was usuallymore sulfa -ble for producing special effects Ihan for artists experiments .Consequently, artists found themselves seeking out equip-ment designers who, in one way or another, were maverickswithin the electronics industry . As Woody recalls,

I discovered that in the United Slales lheres an a lemalrve Induslnasubouhure whichis based on individuals . i n much the same way thatart is based on individuals . . These people. the electronic tool de-signers . have maintained their independence within the system And

they have become artists. and have used the electronic loots whichthey had created . . . . We ve always maimalred this very close, symbiotic relationship with creative people outside industry . butwhohavethe same purposeless urge to develop images or loops . which we allthan maybe call ail."

Here Woody is referring to people like Eric Siegel . StephenBeck, Bill Hearn, Steve Ruts, BiII Etra, George Brown, ShuyaAloe . Dan Sandin, Don MacArthur, and younger people likeDavid Jones, Richard Brewster, Jeffrey Schier, and Ed Tan-nenbaum-all ofwhom have destgnedand(orbuiItelect ronicdevices for artists .While a number of people in the late '60s and early '70s

were working with video colonzers, mixers, and synthesizers,the Vasulkas took a differenl approach . "Our idea right fromthe verybeginnlng was not to havea synthesizer We alwayswanted to have open-ended boxes," Sleina explains . Notonly did they take a modular approach, but they wanted tocontrol the tools by using another electronic input, not byusing their hands to move a control knob until an imagelooked right . Most devices that incorporated cc IonzPrig, mix-ing . and synthesizing lunclions could be controlled eitherthrough external inputs-known as voltage control-or bycontrol knobs- By opting for input-only control. the Vasulkaswere imposing an organizing structure That was derived notfrom their own preconceived ideas aboul what might make aninteresting image, but from the system itseff . This is not to ele-vate their approach over one That Sleina has called 'knobtwisting,' but to illustrate that arllsls had certain ct1pN'6s inhow their tools could be used.Behind the Vasulkas's particular derision was their desire

to understand the inner workings of electronic phenomena ."There is a certain behavior of the electronic image that isunique---- It's liquid, its shapeable . ft's clay, it's an art mate-rial . it exists independently," Woody has slated .~Video'splasticity was something that many artists explored, but theVasu[kas took a talriy rigorous, didactic, and conceptual ap-,proach . Theywere fascinated by the fact that the video imageis constructed from electrical energy organized as voltagesand frequencies- a temporal event .

Initially, they identified two properties peculiar to video .Both audio and video signals are composed of electronicwaveforms- Since soundcanbe used to generate video, andvice versa, one of the firs] pieces of equipment the Vasulkasbought was an audio synthesizer . Many of their Tapes illus .trate this relationship-one type of signal determines theform of the other . Their second interest entailed constructionof the video frame . Because timing pulses control the stabilityof the video raster to create the -normal" image we area=us-Corned to . viewers rarely realize-Unfass their TVset breaksdown-1hal me video signal is actually a frameless con-tinuum . This fact . discovered accidentally, fascinated theVasulkas, particularly Woody.

At that time. 1 was totally obsessed with this idea that there was nosingle frame anymore . l come from the movies, where the trams wasextremely rigid, and I understood that electronic material has no limi-tation within its existence . h only has limitation when rt reaches the

screen because the screen itself is a rigid lime structure .'

By altering the timing pulse of the video signal, the Vasul-kas could treat an image that continuously drifted horizon-tally . In the three-segment tape Evolution (1970) . they ani-mated a picture of the various stages of human evolutionusing horizontal drift. Eventually they were able 10 Control thespeed of the drill with an external timing source called theHorizontal Drift Variable Clock . This tool was built for them in1972 byGeorge Brown and allowed them to deviate from thestandard horizontal frequency .The Vasulkas then extended their experiments with eras-

ing the boundaries of the single frame in a series of muftipie-monitor works- Said Wood y' 'The electromagnetic spectrumexist~organizedorunorganizad, totally In space Corillning itto a single monitor is tike a view through a camera or a singleprotection frame."' Unlike other multiple-monitor displays(now known as installations) . which were often based onMcLuharfs notion of the simultaneous reception of sensedata . Those by the Vasulkas did not mimic'inlonnatlon over-load." Rather- Thel." early multiple-monitor works were in .landed to violate the single frame confined within a singlebox . In many of these early pieces, a very simple image wouldsweep across a band of monitors . Spaces i and Spaces 1111972), for instance. featured horizontal drift and video- actl-vatedsound In Spaces 7f. three layers of visible textures andshapes were keyed, and the image planes, visible on all mon-itors simuftaneously, swept horizontally .

While the Vasulkas initially focusedon two basic areas-horizontal drift and !he audio-visual relationship-theyoegan to expand their repertoire of effects by corn mmsioningvarious people to build specialized video equipment. AsSlema recalls,

In the spring of 1970, which was the first year we were working, wemet Eric Siegel. and we immedialely fell i n with film very well . Andhemade use of equipment we had gotten, and we got lo use his eol-Omer, and he helped Woody to build one He made the boards, and!hen Woody wired everything together, whichwas the firstwiring ax-cononce that Woody got into with video . As soon as we got the firstmoney from the Stale Arts Council [NYSCAI, we set a little aside for-poi development, and our tool personbecame George Brown.

In addition to the Horizontal Drift Variable Clock, Browncon sTUCted a switcher in 1971, He also made a cascading ormulti-keyer in 1973 . Unlike most keyers, which key two im-ages-one over another-the multi-keyer could key up to siximages . This allowed images to be manipulated to createforeground-background relationships . In 1974 Brown alsomade a programmer, a digital device which could store andreplay a sequence of operations such as a switching or key-ing order .Between 1971 and 1974 the Vasulkas made numerous

tapes utilizing these tools in increasingly complex combina-tions . Black Sunrise (1971), described by the Vasulkas as aperformance of energies organized into electronic imagesand sounds, - is a continuum of constantly permutatingabstract images which variously resemble a landscape or anaurora, Elements (1971) consists of variations on video feed-back that are processed through a keyer and colorizer. TheVasuikas called these tapes, as well as Key Snow [1971],Electronic Image and Sound Compositions. And in many ofthese works the video was a function of the audio . In the pro-gram notes to the 1971 Whitney show, they said of these!apes . "They resemble something you remember fromdreams or pieces of organic nature, but they never were realobjects, theyhave all been made artificially from various fre-quencies, from sounds, from inaudible pitches and theirbeats ."These were the kinds of tapes that-with their colorful

swirls of abstract imagery-were dismissed by many criticsbecause they looked like a moving version of modernabstract painting, which was Then becoming unfashionable .For the Vasulkas, however, their workwas based on variousmanifestations of electromagnetic energy rather thanabstract ail.

Other tapes from this period can be correlated with modernart, though . Horne and Golden Voyage (1973) are based onbizarre juxtapositions found in Rene Magritte's paintings,which, the Vasulkas felt, were similar to the effects they wereproducing . Using the colorize-, multi-]coyer, and switcher, aswell as horizontal drift, Horneconsists of three sequences inwhich still lifer are set in mmion-a . g . . an apple drifting past ateapot on a kitchen stove . Golden Voyage refers directly toMagritte . It i5 a sort of animation of his painting The GofdenLegend. "We were locking at this picture and we were jokingabout how manycameras wed need to reproduce iI," Stein aexplained . "Of course, three . One camera would be on theframe . one would beon the landscape. and then onecamerawould be on the bread .""' These images were combinedusing the muili-keyer and set in motion via horizontal drift .Loaves of French bread embark on a journey . They travelacross various backgrounds-a mesa, a beach, abuilding-as well as a reclining nude woman . Initially mere loaves, thebreads take on phallic connotations as they encircle thewoman-anattempt at absurd ist humor .Many of their other tapes made during this time are less

symbolic . For instance, in Vocabulary (1973), images of ahand and a sphere are manipulated with a keyer. colonizer,and the RutVEtfa Scan Processor in order to -convey in a di-dactic form the basic energy laws of electronic imaging .' Thetapes 1-0-3-4 (1974) and Solo for 3 (1974) are even more dj-dactic in that images of numbers are permutaled in variousforeground-background relationships determined by theprogrammer . In Solo for 3, three cameras focus on three dff-ferent-sized images of the number three . The image planesare layered with the fin uili-keyer, and sequenced by a digitalmusical instrument . The numbers drift, controlled by the vari-able clock . The result in both cases is a Sesame Street-styleinterplay of numbers. but with a synth alic soundtrack.

In 1974 the Vasulkas acquired a Rutt'Etra Scan Processor,a device which allows the video raster-as well as the im-ages displayed on it-to be reshaped through magnetic de-

fledion . To Woody the appeal Of the Butt;Elrawas its capac-ity to visually display in a precise manner the most bas lc ele-ments of the video signal-electronic waveforms . It was thisdevice that catalyzed his preoccupation with an aesthetic thatwas fundamentally didactic . For the next few years, the Vas-ulkas collaborated less . Woody described how the scan pro-cessar influenced hi5work :

Compared to my previous work on videotape.lhework with the scanprocessor indicates a whole dillerant Irend in my understanding ofthe electronic image. The rigidity and total confinement of time se-quences have tmprintW a didactic style on the product . Imprnvisa-tional modes become rear important man an exact mental script anda strong notion of the frame structure of the electronic image . Em-phasis has shifted towards a recognition of a ti ",energy object andits programmable building block-the wavelorm.'

The idea that video images were nothing more than siec-tromagnetic energy constructed in time was central forWoody, and he made numerous tapes and films from 1974 to1977 depicting the process. Many of these used audio andvideo noise as the image source . one of the clearest illustra-tions of what he called "timwenergy objects" is found m TheMatter (1974[, In it a generated dot pattern is displayed on theraster. The three primary waveforms-sine, square. andtriangle-are fed into the Rutt" Etra and used 1o shape theraster display so that the dot pattern assumes the shape ofeach waveform . Woody illustrated these . kinds of changesmore systematically in a set of grid-like displays consisting ofstill photographs that depict the various slates of the rasterwhen controlled by the primary waveforms in conjunction withalterations of the scanning process . While these pieces weredesigned as reductive exercises, other tapes and If I ms applysame of these principles to camera-generated images . Ellcause the Rutt'Eire processes the signal in such away thatlight energy-or brightness-can be converted to magneticenergy, the illusion o1 three-dime nsionality is created . This isaccomplished by con nectingthe incoming video signal to thevertical deflection system-or the magnet icforce that - pulls"the image vertically-so that the brightest portions of animage stand out. As Johanna Gill described the affect, 'whatone is seeing is a topographical map o1 the brightness of animage ; where the image is bright, it lifts the lines (of the ras-ter; where it is black, they fall .`Woody's tapes Reminiscence (1974) and C- Trend (1974),

She ti Im Grazing (1975), and the tape Tate (1974) by Woodyand Steina, all transform camera images~andsoapes . streetscenes, sheep grazing-into topographic renderings . Thesetapes and films all start with a referent that is "real," so thatone ran more easily see the process of magnetic deflectionthan with less specific imagery . These tapes possess aerie,web-like qualities . However, neither those qualifies in them-selves nor what they might symbolize interested Woody.Rather . this type of imaging challenged the dominance of thecamera, and this challenge had implications that extended tofundamental perceptual issues .The theory that Woody first articulated in the mid-70s and

has continually refined reevaluates not only cinematic formbut what we generally call 'reality ." 'Since we look at realitythrough ourayes, the reality has total dependence on percep-tion, on how images are formed in the eye .' 12 In other wards,because the camera lens has come to represent an exten-sion of human vision, it has been equated with a"fu I ren-dering of reality .According to Woody. electronically-generated, non-cant-

era images-based on neithertha fens nor the eye-indicatethe potential for a new visual code that would supplant thetraditional lens-boundmode of visual organization which hascometo be accepted as most "real .' He described his goal in1970 :

I can al least unleash some attack against the tradition of imaging,which I see mostly as camera-dbsdura bound, or as pinhole orgaNz-1ng-prindpte defined. This tradition has shaped our visual perception,not only through the camera obscure, but it's been reinforced, espe-cialiy through the cinema and Through television, it's a dictatorship ofthe pinhole effect, as ironic and stupid as it sounds to cal14 that ."

Woody's work with the Ruti)Eira, which he characterized as"the inevitable descent into the analysis of smaller and smal-[er time sequences," was a first step toward discovering anew code. The code was derived from nature, in that the de-vices hewas using-in particular, the RutuEtra-were capa-ble of revealing and displaying as waveforms the elec-tromagnetic forces that occur in nature . These become per-ceivable as sounds and images only when artificially proees-

Left : frame from The Matter 119741, by Woody vasulka. Right : installation view crl Madrine Vision (1975), by Stein a Vasulka. i n Cathedral Park, Buffalo, N . Y .

AFTERIMAGE'december 1983

1s

red by oscillators, and displayed on oscilloscopes or videomonitors, or processed through devices like the scan proces-sor . Hence Woody's pursuit was not so much the Investiga-tion of video's inherent properties as a formalist end in itself ;rather, it was more phenomenological, directed at chat lerx3-ing culturally determined notions of what constitutes reality.Meanwhile, Steina took a different, though related, tack in

Machine Vision. a series of tapes and installations begun in1975 . By utilizing a variety of mechanized modes of cameracontrol-originally built by Woody for film work-Steinabegan to set up apparatuses designed to disassociate thecamera from a human point of view .

Habitually, by looking, we keep selecting. subfoctively 'zooming,'and -framing' the space around us . I wanted to create a vision thatcan see he whoa space ail the time . . . And it too derived from mywatching so many videotapes, watching an individual 'dolivering"youspace. . . 11 was a challenge to me to create a space that would notdeal with me idiosyncrasies of human vision .'

Signifying Nothing (1975), Sound and Fury (1975), andSwifchf Monitor? Drift? (1976) are all documentations ofStein a interacting with studio set-ups in which two motorized-amaras monitor not only the surrounding space but themovement of the other camera . Themostcomplex of these isSwitch! Monitor? Orlff±, which consists of 13 scenes that vari-ously combine the two cameras' automated movements withassorted effects achieved by keyng, switching, horizordaldrift, andscan processing. The result is not merely technolog-ically impressive, but cerebral : the dislocation of the pictureplane forces the viewer to make sense of the surroundingfragmented space . In these tapes Sterna is observing thesystem observing her and rapositcning herself in the spacein response.

In the installations Afvision No . 1 (1970) and No. 2 (1978-79), set up respectively at theAlbright-Knox Gallery in Buffaloandat The Kitchen, thesecontraptions become a1 once kine-

tic sculptures and activators of the seeing process.

Two camerasare mounted on theends of aslowly revolvingaxis witha perfectly spharlcai mirror at thecomerof theaxis . On me monitors,viewerssee an artificially crested360-degree image. Whilethe view-ers are part of the -real' space, they can at the same time see them-selves in me - imaginary" dimension createdon the screens .m

AHVision fragments and reconstructs reality and, in so doing,challenges us to participate in the deciphering process.Robert Haller aptly summed up this series : '[These pieces}sunder the sense of Ihe'true' in favor of the acto1 perception,demanding active seeing rather than the passive look ."°

At this time Steina also began touseherviolin to control thevideo image. Violin Powar(1970-78) beginswith Sterna play-ing a classical piece and proceeds from that to electronicmusic. The violin-patched throughan audiosynthesizertoavideo switcher-then activatesswitching betweentwodiffer-ent camera views of Steina playing. (This scene constitutesone segment of SwirehlMonitorl Dr&n Similerty, in otherseg-ments the violin generates other image arid sound distor-tions. Violin Poweris anotherdemonstration of the Vasulkas'useof sound to create video. For Staina, both sound and irrraging devices are instruments. in this case, starting with atraditional musical instrument, the relationship is eloquentlymade obvious.Muchofhersubsequent work reiterates thesethemes. but

her methodsvary, as do the results. For example, for UrbanEpisodes (1980) Steina constructed yet another motorizedcontraption in downtown Minneapolis which could

perform

automatically the tour basic camera movements--pan,zoom, till, and rotation . Variousmirrors were mounted in frontof the lens and. combined with the camera'smovement, cornfound our senseof what's reflected and what's real. MGreWcently, in agroup of tapes called Summer Sall, she utilizes

the various mirrors and mechanjcal devices as well as pro-

programmed switching to present images of the southwest-ern U.S. Matonce again pose questions about vision . How-ever. these tapes seem to be less programmatic . less cere-bral thansome of her Machine Wsion pieces . Forinstance, inSomersault (1902), a mirrored sphere is fastenedashortdis-tance from the lens, creating a fish-eye effect . Steina be-comes a contortionist. jumping, bending, and twisting

her

body in a humorous mock-gymnastic performance.Until 1977, all of the machines the Vasulkas employed

with the exception of the programmer-operated accordingto the parameters of analog electronics, in which changes inthe signal-audio volume, video brightness-are interpo-

hated as voltage changes that vary continuously . An imageor

1 6

AFTERIMAGErDecember 1983

sound is produced through amplitude and frequency varia-tions that are subject to distortion . By contrast, in the digitalmode the parameters of a signal are sampled at discrete timeintervals, and these samples are translated-through ananalog-lo-digital converter-into a binary code. When dis-played, this code is transformed into discrete picture ele-ments, or pixels, each one controlled individually or sys-tematically by a computer . Pixel size varies according 1o theamount ofmemory available : morememory capacity allows asmaller pixel size, thus providing the greatest resolution .

1n the mid-'70s, the implications of digtal computers wereconsiderable : not only was digdaf imaging more precise, butfor Woody it offered a third model for imaging based not oneiecttomagnetic energy but on mathematical systems . But inthe mid-7Dscomputers were so complex and expensive thatan extensive programming background was essential foranyone who wanted to employ them . Moreover, getting animageonthe screen was not too difficult but manipulating it inreal timewas . Producingarecordable outputwas yet anotherstumbling block-a problem exacerbated by the fact Matcomputer designers and video designers hardly communi-cated .The Vasulkas began work on a digital system m 1976- Don

MacArthur fabricated a prototype and Wafter Wright wrote itsfirst programs : both man had experience with computers 37 Butit was Jeffrey Schier, thena student a1 the State University ofNew Yank at Buffalo . who designed and buit, with Woody, amore complex system talked the Digital Image Articulator orImager. Because of the enormous time and energy re-qulred-by Staina'scount, Woodysoldered over 20,000 con-nectior s-all of the Vasulkas' efforts in the late '70swere di-rected toward building the Imager- (The tape Canlaloupe,

completed in 1981, is Steins's documentation of the pro-cess-) In 1977 and 1978 the Vasulkas madeseveral tapes ti-tled Update, which are visual summaries of their work with theDigital Image Articulator .This system can take two video inputs, digitize these, and

then perform a series of operations on those two imagesbased on logic functions derived from the Arithmetic LogicUnit (a standard computer componenl) . Depending on whichlogic function is operating, the numerical codes-and hencethe images-are combined in different, but absolutely pre-dictable ways. Such combinations revealed the system'sinner structure to the Vasulkas . and also constituted whatWoody has called a syntax .

What was surprising to mewas to find that me table of logic functionscan be interpreted as a table of symaxes-syntactical relationshipswhich are not normally thought of as being related to abstract logicfunctions . Because the logic functions are abstract, they can be airplied to anything . That means they become a unified language, oul-slEe of any one dfiscipline .~

To illustrate his ideas, Woody organized a set of grids-justas he had in 1975 with analog images-which represent theprecise visual manifestations of this syntactic structure .

In video terms, however, an important property of the Im-ager was is capacity to perform these and other operations inreal time- This was substantial, since a video signal couldnow be digitally processed as t passed through the Imagef-practically instantaneously-contrasted to the kind of com-puter imaging in which a program is entered and one mustwart minutes or hours, depending on the program's complex-ity, for the computer to perform the operation .

Artifacts (1980) is a sort a1 demonstration tape that usesthe logic of the computer to combine real-time, digitized . cam-

Top: train@ from 1rioFn Power [1978), by Steins Vasuka . Middle left-. frame from Digital images (1978), try Woodyand Steins Vasulka . MiddlenghV . Bv-y lrnsg- - (in progress), an eodubi6on by Woody Vasulka . Bottom efl :lramefromArifactsf, 19601, by WoodyVasuka. Bottom right:frame from Sornemauh (1962), by Steins Vasulka .

era-generated images and texture so shat effects like keying,zooming . and multipficalion of the image are achievedWoody described the tape as a'oollection of images initiatedby basic algorithmical procedures. t o verily the ton 0lonal op-eration of a newly-created tool .' Artifacts reiterates the Vasul-kas' analogy of their work as dialogue with a tool- In the tape .Woody explains . - lay artifacts, I mean that I have to share thecreative process with the machine . It is responsible for loomany elements in this work . These images come to you asthey came to me-in a spirit of exploration '

Sterna also utilized the digital system, but within much lesstheoretical constraints In several tapes, among themSWscfed Ti eecuts (1980 y, she juxtaposes variations of treesthrough programmed switching-digtlzed and non-digitized .This -rhythmic collage ." as she describes it, is paradoxical inthat it not only mesmerizes . but directs the viewers anent icnto two different representations-analog and digital-of thesame reality-Woody s project o1 using a linguistic model for imaging is

hardly novel . rather, much of his thinking proceeds from hisfilm background. A number of film semicticians haveexamined, in Christian MetE- s words, 'the ordering and f unc-tioning of the main signifying units used in the film mes-sage.~ Similariy, Woody has attempted to discover whatsome o1 the signifying units might be for elechonically-gener-ated and manipulated images. Some important qualificationsshould be interjected, however . He did not want to remain Iim-iced 1o images generated by the camera, nor did he want torely on tradilional narrative structures . But. a s Metz haspointed out, 'The cinema was not a specific'tanguage'hornits inoephen, but onlybecame so in the'wake of the narrativeendeavor .'" He continues - 'The pioneers of'cinematographiclanguage'--Melies, Porter, Griffith-could care loss about'formal' research conducted for isown sake . . . men of deno-tation rather than Connotation, they wanted above all to tell astory . -40

In 1978, after the Vasulkas made some of the first of theirdigital experiments . Woodyexpressed an interest in applyingelectronic imaging codes to a narrative : 'The process of un-derstanding these structure became aesthetic to me . But Ialso suspect that I feel again some kind of need to expresslit-erature . . . . Beyond dealing with these minimal image struc-tures, I can foresee a larger structure of syntactic or narrativeconic Iusionscoming out of this Work."' Woolly's most recenttape, The Commission (1983), sets out to do just that . The d5-minute tape is narrative : Woody calls it an opera, but it is moreakin to modem fiction, relying heavily on the spoken word .This apparent irony, however, is countered by his strategicuse of both audio and video effects as narrative devices- Ini-tially, the extreme slow pace of some sections of The Com-mission is completely mystifying and frustrating . At the sametime . the work is so carefully structured and the texts socom-pelling that upon repeated viewing the viewer can discernvarious themes unfolding. building, and resonating .The Commission is a metaphor for art-making as realized

in the story of two eccentrics--the violinist Niocolb Pagan iniand the composer Hector Berlioz . Both are set-indulgent,theatrical, and ultimately tragic . As such, they represent ar-chetypal artist-characters . Paganini, played by video artistErnest Gusella, is a sickly, agonized, romantic figure, neardeath, who describes his grotesque. fantastic visions . Ber-hoz . played by composer and performer Robert Ashley, is acerebral and rather fussy character who speaks in abstrac-tions . A male narrator is never seen, but his Sale of Paganini'sIffe-interspersed between scenes-provides continuity aswell as a context for the otherwise opaque texts .The script was written by the respective players, whoseem

physically and fern peramental Iy wall-suited to their roles . InAshley's case. his Berlioz is much like his other perfor-mances : he adopts the same elliptical ruminating with thesame sing-song delivery . However, in The CommissionAshley's opacity is appropriate to the depiction of a seff-airsorbed and sell-interested man . Similarly . Gusella's Christ-like appearance suggests a tortured artist, who is abusedeven in death . If it's Paganini who actually dies in the end, it'sclear that Berlioz-lost in his own wodd of lea and toast-isnot much more lively .

Without embarking on a textual analysis of The Comrrrssiorr,I would like to suggest a few of the ways that Woody-andSleiria, who did the camerawork for the tape-have appliedsome o1 the techniques developed in their previous work . Ineach of the 11 segments, a different effect is employedand then exercised through a series of variations . This ena-bles correlations to be made between that particular deviceand the scripted text- And since action is minimal, the text isthus underscored, rather than diffused .

Perhaps most important . though . Is the almost obsessiverepetition in every segment: interweaving of nuances andvariations of sound . image. and, in the process-meaning- Atthe opening of the tape, we are told that toward the end 01 hislife, Peg anini 1091 his voice and had to speak through his'be-Ioved ilegitimate son. - The exactmentof this relationshipbe-comes a metaphor for inlerprelation but is also a devicewhich aids the audience in apprehending the story . In thenext scene, a gaunt Paganini whispers-through theuse of asound processor-into the ear of his son- Thesonrepeats-not always accurately-what his father has lust said- In sub-sequent scenes, sections of the texts are also repeated, andthe voices are all processed in a variety ofways that reinforcethe actors- speeches . For instance, In one segment, the nar-rator describes the intense reeling of expectation that a fol-lower of Pagan ini experienced when he lhought he woukf getan opportunity to hear the virtuoso play . The pitch of the pro-eessed voice rises and falls as he tells of his anticipation andeventual disappointment .

The video, too, is carefully conceived . In one scene Paga-nini hands Berlioz an envelope containing a commission for a

4 is is is isa n it ie is~ I" 'It la IdA IA l~ I~ !A

"" aMesfrdm The Conrrnrss~ 119931, by Woody Vasulka .

musical scare, acting as an intermediary for an anonymouspatron . Here images of the two men are rapidly switched . Thisdevice-first used in Steina's Saundand Fury---emphasizesthe gesture of giving ; however, the stiff jerky movement whichresults also provides a visual counterpart to Paganini s falsepretenses . Woody also uses the potential of the RutvEtravery effectively in the scene of Paganini's embalming ; theweb4ike effect used earlier in Woody's'timelenergyobjects-1s

used here in conjunction with Bradford Smith's set to vividlycreate a death chamber space-

Suchinstances demonstrate how the Vasuikas' electronicdevices may be used as narrative devices in the future-Woodyhasmade a difficult tape that attempts m rethink oom-piex problems of characterization, plot, andeven representa-lion .

In trying to dislinguish between various videomakers' workwith imaging devices, my first impulse was to invoke an olddichotomy within modernist art discourse--that is, to make adistinction between two basic approaches that can be kfen-lified as formalist and expressionist- According to thisframework, the first approach would be represented in thefirst generation" of video artists by the Vasulkas, while thelatter would descend from Nam June Paik . Having eslab-llshed these two points, one could chart an axis along whichother artists could be placed- However . as closer scrutiny ofthe Vasuikas' work clearly demonstrates, such a dichotomydoes not hold- In spite of the formalist implications of whatthey have done, they have also suggested haw some of theimaging practices might be used to challenge representa-tional conventions- In the next article, t will discuss other art-ists' work in relation to the flip side of the modernist coin-ex-pressionism .

NOTES

1 . David Bienstock,program notes for'ASped alVideotape Show .Whitney Museum of American Art. 1971 .

2 . Sherry Miller- - Electronic Video Image Processing : Notestowarda Definition' Expesura, Vd . 21 , No- T {1983J, R22 .

3 . Maureen Turim . 'Process Video-' in The Ereclronc Gallery,

exhibition catalogue jBingharm0n. N. Y . : University Art Gallery,$r ate University of New York, 1993 J .

4- 16id. . n .p .5- Interview with the autr, June 22, 1983 .6 . Johanna Gill, Video: State of the Art (New York- Rockefeller

Foundation . 19761, p. 46 .7 . Except where otherwise noted. all quotes from Woody Vasutka

are from interviews with the author, March 18, 1983 .6- Jonas Mekas, 'On New Directions, On Aril On the Old and

the New in Art, - The Voltage Voice, Nov . 11, 1965 . reprinted inMovie Jouma? INew York : Macmillan Ca . . 1972), p- 208-

9- Jones Mekas, 'On the Plastic Inevitables and the Strobe Ught, -fbid., p. 242 .

10 . Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions ofMan (New York : Signet Books, 1964), p . 36.

11 . ?bid ., P. 19 .12. Jonathan Miller, Marsha# McLuhan (New York : Viking Press,

1971) . p . 6 .13 Raymond Williams . Television: Technokigy and CuMwal Form

(New York .schocken Books, 1974),p,127-14 . See, for example . Mekas's description of a piece by Gard Slam

with Jud Yalk.ut and Wan Peterson At the FilmmakersCinemalhaque . Move Journal, p . 215: also his description of amulti-monitor display al Global Village, Movie Joumai, p- 360 .

15

Charles Hagen, 'A Syntax of &nary Images: An interview withWoody Vasulka,' Afterimage- Vol. 6 . Nos. 162 (Summer 1978),p .20

16- Gill, p . 46.17 . Except where otherwise noted, art quotas from Steina Vasulks

are from interviews with the author . February 1982 ; March 19,1983: and Aug . 28, 1963.

18. David L . Shirey, -Video Art Turns 10Absrract Imagery,' New YorkTrines. July 4, 1972, p . 6 .

19. Rent for the first year was covered by Wool) the Vasulkas re-ceived from the New York State Council on the Arls- Because bylaw NYSCA cannot fund artists directly, all projects are fundedthrough non-prohl organizations . According to NYSCA records,the Vasuikas-as a part of the group Perception-were fundedm 197172 through Howard Wises Intermix {later called Elec-tronic Ans Intermix). Besides the V asulkas, Perception originallyincluded Eric Siegel and Vlnce Novak- The following year, stillunder the Intermix umbrella . they lormed Vasulka Video as away of getting funding for their tool development . Perception ex-panded to include Juan Downey, Frank Gillette, Beiyl Korol,Andy Mann, Ira Schneider . as well as Gillette and Siege .

20 . Shirey, op. Cir.21 . Among the new music composers and perfdnnars were Laurie

Spiegel, Jacob Druckman, Emmanual Ghent . Phiii Nibkuck, Fre-derick Rzewskl, Cordon Mumma . Alvin Lucier, Tom Johnson,Charles Madden, and Charles Dodge,

AFTERIMAGE-December 1983

17

22- In addition to the Vasulkas and Chatham, other "cooks in TheKitchen'-as they were initiallry called-were DimM Davyelkin,a video artist who . with George Chaiken, organized a computervideo festival ; Shridhar Bapat, a video artlel who organized avideo festival with Stoma in July 1972 ; Michael Tschucdln, rockmusician . composer, and founder of the MktmgM Opera Com-pany, a rock band that played on weekends- Also invoNed inmusic programming were Jim Burton and Bob Steams . who be-came director of The Kitchen in the summer of 1973-

23 . Gill, p- 48.24- Hagen,p .20 .25 . "The Vasuikas,' Canrnfis F#rrinoW . No. 13. (April 1973) ; quoted

in the program nores Ior'Video Art Review, a series of 18 pro-grams presented by Anthology Firm Archives, March 1961 .

26 . Gill, p . 47,27 . 1bid .28. An example of this influence is lound in a NYSCAgrent Proposal

by Perception after the Vasulkas fonrlad Vasulka Video- Des-cribing the group's mulfi-channal projects. it said: `Through areapplication of sybernetic jsic] principim, mull-channel systemsdemonstrate in microcosm, the future posture of global com-munication--

29 . From a talk given at the Museum of Modern Art in the -Videoviewpoints' series, 1978 .

30- Woody Vasulka and Scott Nygren. 'Didactic Video: Orgaruza-lional Models of the Electronic image,' Afterimage, Vol- 3, No . 4(0clober 1975). p- 9 .

31 . Gill, p-49-32 . ibid. . p. 50.33. Hagen, p- 23.34, Quoted in program notes for 'Video Art Review .' Anthology Film

Archives . March 1981,35- From program notes for exhibition at The ~dkclen, 1976-79-36, Unpublished paper by Robert Holler .37- At the Experimental Television Center, then in Birghamron.

N .Y., Ralph Hocking and Sherry Miller began to discuss the pos-sibility with MacArthur and Wright in 1975. The original plan wasfor the Center and the Vasulka4 to get the same oomptAer anddevelop compatible software . This proved to be less realisticthan originally thought- and the Center opted far a 1080 software-deperxient system .

38- Hagen . p- 21 .39 . Christian Metz, -Some Points on the Semioeca of Ire Cinema,'

from Firm LargUage: repnmad in Film Thawy and Gnficlsnr.edited by Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen (New York : OxlordUniversity Press. 1974), p . 103.

40. rood . . p. 106 .41 . Hagen . p . 21 .

SELECTED VIDEOGRAPHY

Stelna and Woody VasulkaSketches (1970) 27 min ., black and white-Calligrarris (1970) 12 min ., black and white.Sexmachirne (1970) 5 min-, black and white-Tissues (1970) 6 min ., black and white .Jackle Curtis' First Television Special (1970) 45 min ., black

and white-Don Cherry 11970) 12 min-, 001or- CO-prod uced with Elaine

Milosh .Decay # 1 (1970) 7 min ., color.Decay #2(1970) 7 min ., colorEvolution (1970) 16 min � black and white .Discs (1971 ) 6 min ., black and white .Shapes (1971) 13 min ., black and while-Black Sunrise (1971) 21 min-, color .Keysnow (1971) 12 min ., color .Cements (1971) 9 min ., color,Spaces i (1972) 15 min ., black and white.Dislant Activities (1972) 6 min . . color .Spaces2 (1972) 15 min-, black and whlte-Soundprints (1972) endless loops-color-Home (1973) 17 min ., color-Golden voyage (1973) 29 min ., color-

Vocabuary (1973) 6 mm ., oclor-Moisetields (1974) 13 min ., coksr .1-2-3-4 (1974) 8 min- . color-Solo for 3 (1974) 5 min . . color .Heraldic View (1974) 5 min ., color .Talc (1974) 5 min-, color .Sounpgated Images I19741 10 min ., color-Soundsize (1974) 5 min ., color .Update (1977) 30 min ., color.Update (1978) 30 min ., color .Six Programs for Television (1979) : Matrix, Vocabulary,

Transformations, Objects, Stains. Digital Images, a1129min ., all color .

in Search of true Castle (1981) 12 min ., color-Progeny (1981), with Bradford Smith . 19 min ., color.

Staina VasulkaFrom Cheektowaga to Tonawanda (1975) 36 min ., color .Signifying Nothing (1975) 15 min-, black arid white,Sound and Fury (1975) 15 min ., black and white .switch! Monitor! Drift! (1976) 50 min ., black and white.Snowed Tapes (1977) 15 min-, black and while .Land of Timotaus (1975) 15 min-, color.Flux (1977) 15 min . . color .Violin Power (1978) 10 min- . color-

Cantaloupe 11980) 28 min-, color .

Urban Episodes (19130) 9 min ., coke.Selected Traecuts {1980} 10 min., color.Exor(1980) 4 min ., color,Summer Salt (1982) 18 min-, oolor.

Woody VasulkaExplanation {1974) 12 min ., color.Remirriscene (1974) 5 min ., color,C- Trend [1974) 10 min-, color .The Matter (1974) 4 min . . color-Artifacts (1980) 22 min-, cola .The Commission (1983) 45min., color.

SELECTED INSTALLATIONS

Stelna and Woody VasulkaTissues (1970) two channels. black and white-Sourldprints (1971) two channels, black and white .

Ths West # f (1972) three channels, black and white-The West #2 (1983) two channels, color.

Stelna VasulkaMachine Vision (variations, 1975-83) .Switch! Monitor! Drift! (19761-