## Kate Mondloch (2010). *Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art*. : University of Minnesota Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[]] > Title:: Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art > Author(s): [[Kate Mondloch]] > Year:: 2010 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: mondloch_screens:_2010 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art](zotero://select/items/@mondloch_screens:_2010) > ReviewedDate:: [[2024-01-15]] ## Citation ```latex [@mondloch_screens:_2010] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@mondloch_screens:_2010]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation **xii** - Media installations’ early years were largely characterised by modest 16mm films displayed across one or more surfaces and ungainly video monitors featuring blurry black-and-white imagery. - Stanley Cavell (1971) “It screens me from the world it holds—that is, screens its existence from me.” [[@cavell_world_1979]], 1979.~ ➡︎ 그는 시네마에 대해서 말하고 있지만 contemporary art criticism 에도 적당하다. 특히 permeate galleries and museums. **xiii** - an important shift occurs in art spectatorship when *mass media* screens are incorporated into environmental artworks (or “installations”) in the mid-1960s, - Installation artworks are participatory sculptural environments in which **the viewer’s spatial and temporal experience with the exhibition space** and the various objects within it forms part of the work itself. ➡︎ 인스톨레이션 아트가 특별히 전례없던 것은 아니지만, 1960년대의 다다, [[Surrealism|초현실주의]] 특히나 미쉘 듀샴의 글과 작업들이 과거의 작업들과의 모델들과 전혀 다른self-reflexive interest를 가졌던 것은 사실이다. **xiv** - 필름과 미디어 스터디에서 spectatorship에 대해 이론화 시켰으며, 그들의 이론 안에서 spectatorship은 “how viewers are rendered and regulated by institutions, technological apparatuses, and their representations”. - It is worth emphasising that **spectatorial positions are not intended to describe the experience of any single individual** but to suggest that **all viewers are addressed and constructed by media forms**. **xv** - “all three metaphors relate directly to the screen rectangle and to the film as static *viewed object*, and only indirectly to the dynamic activity of viewing that is engaged in by both the film and the spectator, each as viewing subjects.” ~Vivian Sobchack, *The Address of the Eye: Film and Phenomenology*(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 14–15.~ - Screen is thus situated at the intersection between **art history** and **film** and **media studies**. ➡︎ Past forty years 1960-2000 - Scholars in art history and film and media studies recently have begun to assess the concerns particular to media installation art—including incisive critiques focused on film and video environments since the 1990s ➡︎ such figures as Daniel Birnbaum, Raymond Bellour, and Dominique païni ➡︎ expanded cinema, 60s artists’ film, 70s historians and critics, Erik de Bruyn, Branden Joseph, Liz Kotz. **xvi** - Even in the “age of (digital) convergence,” cinema, video and the computer maintain significant differences in audiences, economics, and ideological origins. - ~Elsaesser, Thomas, and Kay Hoffmann, eds. *Cinema Futures: Cain, Abel or Cable?: The Screen Arts in the Digital Age*. Film Culture in Transition. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998.~ ➡︎ 이 책에서 convergence (티비와 영화의 기술적 수렴에 대해서 자세하게 다루고 있다. 하지만 98년도 책이란 것을 감안해서 봐야할 것이다. ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@mondloch_screens__2010]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```