Project Preservation Video Art

[beginpage: Introduction]

2000 - 2003

Preservation of modern art, but in particular of such a relatively new medium as video, is still almost virgin territory with no clear definitions. Forms of expression, formats and new systems with their (im)possibilities come and go at a great tempo. Standards simply do not exist. There is no insight into the ageing process, there are no preservation criteria, and useful expertise on the composition of the medium is scarcely accessible. This causes even more preservation problems.
On the one hand, at a museological level, the preservation of video art has some common ground with the preservation of, for example, installations. Indeed, the work of art can only be experienced in its entirety when the installation is “running”, that is, when both software and hardware are functioning. On the other hand, there are similarities with the highly topical preservation of film and of audiovisual (broadcasting) archives with a comparable carrier. Furthermore, there are parallels to be drawn with other reproducible media, such as, photography and graphic art. Material studies, projects on public accessibility, experiences with conversion to different carriers, etc., yield much that can be used for the preservation of video art. However, the differences are fundamental. Film, photography and graphic art are media with different components and different means of presentation and distribution. Art(ists') films are only a fraction of film as a whole. Audiovisual archives centre on the information stored on the tape. In video art, video is the carrier of the work of art.

Characteristic of video art is that there is a carrier of the signal (the software), which can only be made visible with the help of playback equipment (the hardware) in a manner of presentation that is either specific or not, depending on the artist. Time lapse and interactivity can play a role in this. The current preservation project centres on the preservation of the carrier of the video signal. The preservation of the other materials, such as video sculptures, video installations, and the playback equipment as such, are left out of consideration. The traditional codes for the visual arts, such as the uniqueness of the physical manifestation, are not applicable to video art. The work of art is certainly unique and authentic, but its tangible form as such is not. Video is a technically reproducible medium. As with negatives in photography, there is a master tape with video, which is used to make the necessary copies. This means that the participating institutes could not only have originals (masters or submasters), various generations of copies (copies of copies, or ‘used’ presentation copies), but for example also identical copies of the same work, which the artist produced as a limited edition, in their possession. The status of the material is essential for selection, preservation, and further treatment. Digitization should be implemented using material of the highest possible quality. This will have to be as close as possible to the first generation, to the master.

Within the project, the highest priority was given to works that are seven years old or older, and in which video is used as:
- primary medium of a visual-art expression;
- part of a sculpture or installation;
- medium of registration of a performance, or as
- registration medium by an artist.

The works to be preserved were selected by the participating institutes on the basis of their artistic and/or art-historical importance. The selection criteria allowed no discrimination between works of Dutch and foreign origin. All the works are (were) of importance to artistic and technological developments in the Netherlands. Documentary and film works were not given the highest priority, and neither were works whose rights of ownership were unclear.[endpage]

[beginpage: Contact with the artists]
As from the end of January 2001, more than 450 artists received a letter about the project, based on the information supplied by the participants in December 2000 and the proposed source for digitization. This letter included information about the proposed method of preservation, the works in question, and questions on the availability of the submaster. Without notice to the contrary, it had to be assumed that the artists agreed to the proposed procedure. The gathering of addresses and informing of the artists is an extremely time-consuming process. Artists whose addresses could not be found (approximately 20 %) still have not been informed. This problem has remained unsolved. In this connection, it has proved to be of vital importance that the institutes have information about the present whereabouts of the artists.
The project also generates questions from artists on how to preserve their other works, which are not part of the participating collections. There has also been response from artists who were not approached by letter. Reactions from artists to the preservation plans and method have come flooding in, and are particularly positive. Correspondence and reactions are still being dealt with centrally, by the project coordinator.

In a number of cases, artists made various versions of one and the same video work, which ended up in different collections. In such cases, a collective procedure of artists’ interviews was followed. This proved to be more efficient for the participants in the preservation project, while preventing the artists from having to be contacted again and again about different problems with different collections. Video works of the same artist(s’ collective) were preserved simultaneously. In this connection, consultation with the artist on the role of the changing technology turned out to be essential.[endpage]

[beginpage: Artists’ interviews]
During the course of the project, the source, as starting point for the digitization, raised several questions about the form in which a work manifests itself. The starting point of the project is that digitization should be based on the earliest possible generation of the videotape. If there are different versions of a work, which one should be the source for the digitization:
- the oldest version
- the most complete (longest) version
- the technically best version of all existing versions, or
- the technically best version of the artist’s own versions?

In a number of cases, it proved to be necessary to view and compare the various versions side by side. On the basis of these viewings, it could be decided which version was closest to the source and should therefore be earmarked for digitization.

Works of the following artists were viewed in this way:
Abramovic / Ulay by Bart Rutten and Gaby Wijers; Miguel-Ángel Cárdenas by Jaqueline Rapmund; Dedo by Evert Rodrigo; David Garcia/Annie Wright by Saar Groeneveld; Nan Hoover by Bart Rutten; Hooykaas/Stansfield by Saar Groeneveld; Raul Marroquin by Bart Rutten; Sluik/Kurpershoek by Bart Rutten; the Vasulkas by Bart Rutten; Lawrence Weiner by Christiane Berndes.

In some cases, the viewings raised questions with regard to the preservation. For example, some older works by the artists Abramovic / Ulay were edited various times and in various ways, and moreover, were included into such compilations as Anthology and Collected Works. Both the original versions and the various later editions were put forward for preservation, and different versions again are in possession of the artists themselves. Abramovic / Ulay were the first in the series of artists’ interviews, and their case served as ‘pilot’ for the comparative studies that were still to follow.
Unfortunately, the artist Servaas died in March 2002, which rules out the possibility of an interview. However, his entire oeuvre was viewed by Marieke Hendrikse (trainee from the University of Utrecht) in order to identify similarities, differences and uncertainties. The works of Ben d’Armagnac and Gerrit Dekker were viewed for the same reason.

To give the reader an insight into the procedure followed for viewings and interviews, a brief summary of the Abramovic / Ulay pilot follows below.

Viewing pilot Abramovic / Ulay
In 1976, the artists Marina Abramovic and Ulay decided to start working together, after they had each already made a number of performances alone. The fruitful period in which Ulay en Marina lived and worked together lasted until 1988.

The starting point was the work (titles), then followed by the versions, then the tapes from the collections. In the editing room, the various versions of each work (in alphabetical order) were viewed one after another and, if necessary, side by side, so as to gain an overview of the differences. The version closest to the master recording was version 1, and that which was furthest removed from the master (reduced duration, from colour to black-and-white) was given the highest number. Where possible, the direct relationship between the versions was defined and noted. Where great differences between versions made this necessary, our observations were placed into a broader context by comparing our findings to existing inventorial publications, such as those of the Van Abbemuseum (Ulay /Abramovic, Performances 1976 - 1988; Van Abbemuseum 1997 pp. 125 - 127) and Openbaar Kunstbezit (Video Catalogue, Openbaar Kunstbezit 1984, pp. 1 - 4). Here, a distinction was made between performance (and the medium of registration) and video.

Questions
Both general and specific questions were asked about works, titles and status of the carrier, the significance of the chosen material, the whys and wherefores of the repeated re-editing, the preconditions for correct presentation, and questions of rights were discussed.

Interviews
Version: Before 1988, the works were still treated as topical works of art, which as such could be brought out in new versions. Both Ulay and Marina now express their preference for a historical approach. Therefore, the most original, authentic version is given the highest priority. The artists are in favour of preservation of the most complete and longest version possible.
Medium: The specific use of a medium, in other words, film or video, had no intentional significance. Especially before 1980, they preferred film to video, because the image quality of film was basically better. Now they prefer video because it makes distribution easier. Only the work That Self should perhaps be preserved on film. During the viewings, some colour material was found which had so far remained unnoticed. The participating institutes were offered the possibility of acquiring the preserved original material. Nevertheless, they retain the right to preserve their own – often condensed – versions.
System: As with the medium, the system was never assigned a specific significance. The artists chose the system that was available at that time. This also applies to the work that was recorded on NTSC. Preservation from NTSC is, practically speaking, very difficult within the context of the project, because the NTSC apparatus is not available. However, Ulay has no objection to preservation on PAL of work that was originally recorded on NTSC, but was later converted to PAL, because such a conversion does not detract from the content of the work, and is permanently easier to copy.
Colour / black-and-white: Some works that were originally recorded in colour were later converted to black-and-white, because, at that time, the contrast / quality could be improved more easily in this way. When Ulay is asked on which version we should base the preservation, he answers, very consistently, that we should use the most authentic work; the colour version in this case.
Tapes as installation: Ulay does not object to individual tapes being mounted one after another, or to large beam projections of tapes, like a kind of installation art. However, the works should not be perceived as installations. Only the versions from the Van Abbemuseum should be treated as installations, because their presentation requires combination with other objects. Ulay agrees to expansion of the sequence of these works by adding the 1996 version.[endpage]

[beginpage: Documentation]
One of the problems with which the museums and collection-managing institutes participating in the Project Preservation Video Art are confronted is the lack of information about the significance of the technology used. This problem is caused by the changing of technology. A production format or system that differs from the distribution format, analog versus digital, obsolete playback equipment and, for example, a video work that was made for a small, convex monitor screen, but more recently has also been projected onto a large flat screen. Moreover, the use of copies, preservation and/or digitization and restoration of archive copies are usually not regulated by contract.
A responsible approach to preservation requires gaining an insight into he significance of the technology used. Here, consultation with the artist is essential. To prevent the recurrence of such problems in the future, the SBMK has developed model contracts.

Development of the model contract
A study group under the chairmanship of Christiane Berndes and consisting of Bart Rutten, Annette Mullink and Gaby Wijers, entered into issues of copyright. International experiences were collected and analysed, and a contract for the purchase of video art was developed. This contract was turned into a number of model agreements on the purchase/sale of video art, by Willemien Diekman (solicitor at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague).

These model contracts regulate the purchase of video art (video works and video installations) by institutes such as museums. The agreements are standards, based on the most commonly occurring situations. There are four model contracts. Their contents are virtually identical, but the capacity of the undersigning contract partner differs. Of essential importance in these contracts is the appendix with technical specifications and statements concerning the replaceability of the equipment. Models and appendices are also available in English versions. Moreover, an explanation of copyrights was developed.

The study group based itself on the responsibility of the institute. In the model contracts, the institute guarantees that the technical equipment, the preservation copy and the viewing copy will be kept in good condition. Taking into account the wishes of both parties, the model purchasing contracts stipulate the rights that the institute needs to present the video art work to the public and to conserve/preserve the work. Depending on the specific arrangement, the institute can reproduce the work in any desired way, for the sake of preservation or presentation. This includes analog-digital conversion. In the appendix, the technical specifications include minimum and maximum system requirements, projection surface and the question of whether the equipment includes components that are irreplaceable for the correct representation of the work. The appendix anticipates any technical questions that could arise in the future. The appendix is preferably completed rather abstractly, together with the artist, on the basis of ‘timeless’ output indicators, rather than very concretely on the basis of the current technology. Furthermore, the contracts stipulate that the institute is free to select, reproduce and publicize any fragments and/or stills from the video work, for the purposes of promotion and education. Moreover, the right to exhibit the work in and outside the institute is regulated.
The contracts and appendix are being used for new acquisitions by the participants. In individual cases, the appendices are completed retrospectively.

Development of the documentation model
Within the research project Conservation Modern Art, two registration models were developed especially for the registration of data and condition of (three-dimensional) contemporary works of art. A theoretical model was developed for data registration and for the registration of the condition. Within the context of the Project Preservation Video Art, these models have been supplemented with a number of new items that are necessary for the registration of video art.
The data-registration model, which gives access to a great many different kinds of information on a work of art, is intended for various groups of users within a museum. This is a theoretical model that can be used as a guideline, and can be adjusted to each museum’s individual computer system. The new model is based on a few existing museological data-registration models.
The starting point of the description is the video work, as acquired on the primary carrier and as in possession of an institute, with possibly the secondary carriers. For example, there could be various copies of a work, in different formats, on various locations, different carriers, with a different status and for different kinds of use. Moreover, video works are often issued in various editions. A work has a number of unique characteristics, a number of which are inextricably connected with the carrier.

A common registration format for all video art works that can be used by all participants is not practicable, and in fact not desirable either. Indeed, the video works are usually part of an even larger collection. These overall collections are described in individual Collection Information Systems. However, it would certainly be desirable if:
- on the basis of the theoretical model, the institutes could make a choice from the recommended registration elements
- the works of an artist could be found under the same name within the various collections
- the titles of the same works were the same within different collections
- works of the same genre, etc., could be found under the same headword within the various collections.

Gaby Wijers, Bart Rutten and Yuri van der Linden together form the study group registration, and have developed the registration model for video art. There has been consultation with the NAA, the Netherlands Filmmuseum and the Netherlands Institute for Art History. Bart Rutten and Dorine Mignot have compiled a tentative list of genres and headwords. Not completely unexpectedly, it turned out that the drawing up of such a list is beyond the capacity (in hours) of the study group. What is the best - in the sense of most accessible - registration format depends on the requirements of future use. Further study in this context lies beyond the scope of this preservation project. Besides digital storage, follow-up plans are being made for the eventual realization of digital access to the collections.

On September 27th, 2002, the Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art and the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/TBA, organized a workshop on management and conservation of video art. This workshop focused on documentation and registration of video art, and the model developed was discussed. It also included an introduction to media art, and the issue of practical care for video works came to the fore. The primary target group of the workshop consisted of those responsible for registration at the participating institutes.[endpage]

[beginpage: Exchange of information]
Ever since the project was launched, existing and new information and knowledge on the preservation of video art have been accumulated and made accessible to professionals, such as restorers and conservators in this sphere of work. Factsheets were made in Dutch and English, with a brief description of the project. Each issue of the SBMK newsletter reported on the progress. At the annual general meetings of the SBMK, the project is always on the agenda.
Moreover, the information accumulated within the Project Preservation Video Art served as pilot for the INCCA website. INCCA is short for International Network for Conservation of Contemporary Art, and was launched in 1999. This is an initiative of the Institute for Cultural Heritage, the Tate Gallery London is co-organizer. INCCA now comprises eleven partners, including the New York Guggenheim Museum. When the project is completed, the results and products will also be published and made available via the video section of the INCCA website.
The Netherlands Media Art Institute paid ample attention to the project, so that the information on the preservation of video art has also spread beyond the museum world.
CR (spring 2002) published an article on the Project Preservation Video Art and the conservation of videotapes in practice. An extract from this article was entered into the preservation syllabus of the Landelijk Contact Museumconsulenten (national contact museum consultants), winter 2002.[endpage]

[beginpage: The importance of the collective approach]
During the course of the project, during the meetings of the study groups, the steering committee, the board and the mini-convention, the importance of the project was discussed and confirmed time and again: the collective approach adopted by institutes with substantial public collections of video art, aimed at the preservation of these collections. On the one hand, this collective approach has resulted in a uniform method of preservation for a representative public collection of video art in the Netherlands. On the other, this approach has enhanced the efficiency and intensified the exchange of knowledge and information. The development of contract and registration models would not have been possible without this collective approach. The same applies to the collective contacting of artists, and the artists’ interviews. Thanks to the exceptional collaboration between so many different institutes with collections to manage, this project has yielded broad support, efficiency and worthwhile results. In the future, the Netherlands Media Art Institute, will continue to provide the service of carrying out preservation work. Future collective research will centre on the preservation of multimedia installations. In the year to come, the Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art, the Netherlands Media Art Institute and the Institute for Cultural Heritage will join forces to stimulate research and exchange of knowledge in this field. [endpage]