Download - Medienwissenschaft

somewhere. It is a sculpture signed by the artist. The situation is entirely different in the
case of a work by David Larcher that is currently in its eighth version. We have had the
fourth version on show in Berlin since 1983, i.e. over a period of 17 years. There we have
a particular state on day X. We have to make a contractual agreement with the artist setting
down what we wish to show and promising an adequate presentation. Here, the temporal
dimension is of great significance and we have to tackle it robustly. Or take an even
more complex example so we know what we are talking about, Yohero Kabaguchi's work
'Morpho Genesis' which we will show in Bonn. This work has been changing continually
since 1983. It is automatic and has no fixed state unless we stop it at a particular point.
We are interested in day X, and that is what we wish to put on show. The work is on-going,
it will keep developing year after year.
Reinhold Mißelbeck: I do not see any problem with video sculptures; it is the video
art films that are problematic. In my view, the U-matic tape that is converted into Betacam
and then exists in digitised form does raise the question of the original. Is the last
Betacam copy still an original, or was it the first? In the end, they are all copies even if
they are of a better quality. That is the issue that should be discussed, the point where
the problems of definition arise.
Axel Wirths: It is not the first time that videotapes were discussed. As far as I can
remember, we have come to the conclusion more than once that even the master tape is
no original. If you can speak of an original at all in this context, then it must be the raw
material that served in the production of the master tape. But even the master tape is
second generation. At any rate, I refuse to speak of an original in this context, and I
would suggest, therefore, that we should try to develop strategies as to how we might
come close to this original form. It seems legitimate to me to proceed quite radically and
to ask whether it makes sense at all to restore and preserve these works. Perhaps one
should simply allow them to disintegrate.
Miklos Peternäk: Here we are faced with the difficulties of terminology: original/originality.
I see two aspects, one, that the opposite of the original is not the copy, but the
fake, the non-original. Second, it is a question of quality, value and identity. In this context,
quality is what was accepted and intended by the artist. Identity denotes a particular
identity and not another, i.e. some sort of identification. Incidentally, we have heard
two very interesting terms today in this context: duplicate and original copy. I think they
are the same. Third, the value of the work of art is in turn to do with the market. With
video and time-based media, we are aware that they are transitory media. From the start,
video was such a medium in transition from black and white, open reel. Now it is digital,
and that means that the works have to be transferred to a different medium at least every
seven or ten years. Now we are in the kind of transition phase where stored data are
transferred onto servers and computers. As yet there are no standards, but it is already
clear that the analogue era of the videotape is about to end. That is completely normal,
we are able to analyse and develop strategies as to how we will survive those ten, fifteen
years until new standards have been established in the digital world. Just imagine
how this happened in film, think back to the black and white films of the twenties and
thirties, or films of 1910. Those works have completely disappeared because the film material
has disappeared. The speed has changed, we are no longer able to watch these
films the way they were shown in those days. Today, all we can find is reproductions of
-179-