Video Art Preservation
by Gaby Wijers

Since the 1970s, media art has become a category in itself, with a growing number of artists experimenting with technology. Video art is the most well known example here.  Started as an experiment, today video art is integrated in main contemporary art exhibitions and collections.

But video art is one of these media art forms with specific preservation needs because of

- short life,
- technical, or otherwise variable nature,
- and rapid obsolescence of the formats.

When the ability to play a tape in the future depends on the existence of functional playback equipment, the main questions become - how to take care of the different vulnerable parts and how to maintain the video signal, carriers, computers, monitors, software and projectors (deze zin lijkt niet af).  As new recording technologies and tape formats emerge on the market and gain popularity among consumers, the equipment manufacturers discontinue the production and support of older, superseded equipment.  On the other hand, the video artist makes use of a ‘reproducible’ medium, with survival of the work of art ensured simply by the possibility of copying the tape.  Video art, installations and live installation performances developed out of a multidisciplinary practice: conceptual art and performance. Sometimes the technology used is simply the vehicle, which makes it all technically possible. The technology used is always part of a larger (social) context and is subdued to the artist’s intention thatthat can be conceptual or materialistic. These are the starting points in thinking about the preservation of video art and electronic art in general. Without strategies for preservation many of these art works will be lost to future generations. The early works are already threatened.

Since the early 1990s we have mapped out various aspects and formulated guidelines to find our way in these changing technical environment where it seems that tape has no future and distribution patterns are changing (streaming, e-cinema).

Project Preservation Video Art 2000-2003 a.f.

The digitization of video art inevitably entails a modification of the work of art (whether visible or not). It can change the characteristics of the work and/or affect the artist’s intention. But without digitization, the work will soon deteriorate to such an extent that presentation in its original state becomes impossible. In 1998, during the Pilot Preservation Video Art, the need for clear-cut decisions on preservation and restoration of video art against the background of this dilemma resulted in guidelines that not only focused on preservation content, but also on more ethical aspects and copyright, in conformity with the ‘Model for Decision Making Model for in the Conservation and Restoration of Modern Art’.

Since the invention of the video recorder, a great many formats and systems have come onto (and were taken off) the market.  A videotape can only be played back with a similar system to that which was used for recording. The preservation of both tape and apparatus is virtually impossible in the long term. Therefore, within the ‘Project Preservation Video Art’, launched in July 2000 and ending in February 2003, under the auspices of the Foundation for the Conservation of Modern Art (SBMK), a preservation trajectory was followed in which tapes of seven years old and older were converted to a digital format. Not the specific technique, but rather, the original character of the work of art, the artist’s intention, the message and its effect were guaranteed in this way. Within this project, a methodology for the preservation of video art was developed, implemented and evaluated, eventually resulting in the preservation of circa 1700 analogue video works aged seven years or over. Moreover, a model acquisition contract and a registration model for the preservation of video art were developed.

The project was carrier out by Montevideo coordinated by Gaby Wijers.  The participants were: Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven; De Appel, Amsterdam; Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam; Groninger Museum, Groningen; Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage, Rijswijk/Amsterdam; Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo; the Netherlands Media Art Institute, Montevideo/TBA, Amsterdam; Rijksakademie van beeldende kunsten, Amsterdam (all of these first-phase participants); the Mickery Collection, Amsterdam, and the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Moreover, De Pont Foundation for Contemporary Art, Tilburg, participates in the development of methodology and models.

Prior to the preservation project, the ‘ideal’ carrier was investigated through technical research into the best practise in video preservation; technique, starting points and logistics.  We started by defining video art and preservation priorities and then selected and catalogued the works, contacted the artists, held artists' interviews and cleaned and transferred over 1700 video artworks.

We define video art as expressions of visual art in which video is used as a medium, both in the production process and in presentation, 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. All the works were al least 10 years old. 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.

Whether or not the carrier, playback equipment and manner of presentation are essential to the meaning and perception of the video work is, in many cases, unknown. Whether changing the format, replacement of the current equipment will affect the authenticity of the work of art is questionable. The traditional codes for the visual arts, such as the uniqueness of the physical manifestation, do not apply to video art. The work of art can certainly be unique and authentic, but its tangible form as such is not.

Video art and other media art forms are in need of a different approach to the classical objects oriented storage.  The proper storage of videotapes and equipment is needed but that’s only one part of the story.

In contrast to the archiving approach of the information and communication technology, authenticity and artistical intention can be very important, and

- context,
- user interaction and
- distributed authorship

should  be taken into account too.

One of the characteristics of video art is that there is a carrier of the signal (content), which can only be made visible with the help of playback equipment in a manner of presentation that is either specific or not (context), depending on the artist. The precise medium of storing this data or signal is variable and at the discretion of the artist.

One of the main question here is if it is possible to separate the content from the soft- and hardware is here one of the main questions.  Next to the content, the context (look & feel) should remain. A responsible approach to preservation requires gaining an insight into he artist’s intention and the significance of the technology used. Here, consultation with the artist is essential.

The transfer from the analogue (sub)master to a copy leads to loss of quality. This stands in contrast to the transfer from a digital master to an analogue viewing copy, which only causes negligible loss of quality. Not one of the existing carriers is durable, which is why the solution for definitive preservation has been sought in the sphere of encoded storage where it is possible to transfer the information to a different material environment without loss of quality.

Preservation of video art is 50% technique and 50% information. Here is a huge lack of information. We seldom know if the technology used is a part of the intention behind the work and should be preserved as well.  But for a proper preservation we do have to research this to know how to handle it in the long term.

To prevent such problems in the future, we developed, together with the SBMK and INCCA, description models and model contracts. 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.  Of essential importance in these contracts is the appendix with technical specifications and statements concerning the replace ability of the equipment.

The importance of the collective approach
During the course of the project, the importance of the collective approach adopted by institutes with substantial public collections of video art, aimed at the preservation of these collections, was discussed and confirmed time and again (…).. 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, Montevideo/TBA, 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.