Rumour and Radiation: Sound in Video Art
This is a book about video art, and about sound art.
The thesis is that sound first entered the gallery via the video art of the 1960s and in so doing, created an unexpected noise. The early part of the book looks at this formative period and the key figures within it - then jumps to the mid-1990s, when video art has become such a major part of contemporary art production, it no longer seems an autonomous form.
Paul Hegarty considers the work of a range of artists (including Steve McQueen, Christian Marclay, Ryan Trecartin, and Jane and Louise Wilson), proposing different theories according to the particular strategy of the artist under discussion. Connecting them all are the twinned ideas of intermedia and synaesthesia. Hegarty offers close readings of video works, as influenced by their sound, while also considering the institutional and material contexts. Applying contemporary sound theory to the world of video art, Paul Hegarty offers an entirely fresh perspective on the interactions between sound, sound art, and the visual.
What people are saying - Write a review
Same old academic video art cake served again in chronological order with all the British American PhD "Icons" and this time with "music" as a sweetener.
You did not even ask me for one single visual illustration to the purely visual innovations made long time before your idols or icons made it.
I might not be deaf for Noise & myths in this so called "Video Art History", however you seems to "read" a visual language with your ears.
Unfortunately since I became an Australian citizen making an Oath I my self coined and wrote seems not be helpful and being born in Sweden do not count either in your domination The Anglo Gangland of "culture".
It is a pleasure for me to challenge you on the "Steve Jobs" innovations, though, referring to the first "electronic morphing" - "electronic animation" leading to the now
obsolete term of "Video Art'
The whole story is totally based on visual language and simply "electronic painting".
That may very well include "facial Language and body language" perfectly well also demonstrated by your "gods" Steven Jobs and Bill Gates.
Sense Moral: "Video art" vs "sound art" do not fit together. ART is originally visual.
There is no artists in music. They are either, composers, musicians etc etc...Comedians are comedians
The "visual artist" at the space station may be an exclusion however, looking for millions of light years and trillions of cosmoses away.
Please do not compare my works like "TIME" 1966 and "Monument" 1967 with much later stuff of Beatles or even Paik.
You are looking at my visual art innovation with your ears.I can tell you that a sound track was more than less forced on us to have the very first electronic animation broad cast. That apply to the very first work too: "TIME".
If we could have get it broadcast without any sound, we should have done so.
First of all, my works was not "video art"!
That is a wrong term for the electronic paintings!
First electronic animation . First electronic morphing....etc etc
"Video Art" is simply a useless stupid academic term to hang up something else on it, par example a PhD.
Go to square One again Paul.
The whole history around mid 60's has nothing to do with "Video" at all!
Some clerks in museum etc did not know how to name this new aspects of visual art and changed name on it every year to pay some grants or similar things for this kinda electronic experiments. First they call it "Artists Video" - "Art on Video" and not until early 70;s the boring academics agree -for their own safety - to call it Video Art.
And that is a completely different ridicules story!!!
Personally I don't like any music anymore. It is too much!!!
1 Expanding Cinema
2 Bruce Nauman and the Audiospatial
3 Body as Screen
4 Gary Hill Seeing Language
5 Bill Viola Elemental Ambience
7 Christian Marclay The Medium as Multiple
8 Pipilotti Rist Immersing