Ty Curatorshi . and the BIPALel MAT la ccs Edited by Paolo Cherchi Usai, David Francis, Alexander Horwath, Michael LoebensteinTable of Contents Chapters The Work Print chapter 2 Prologue: The Vienna Sessions. December 31, 2005 chapter 3 ‘What's the Problem? chapter 4 Film as Artefact and Museum Object. chapter 5 Presentation and Performance Chapter 6 Curatorial Values: Two Case Studies Chapter 7 Archival Control... Chapter & Content, Platforms, and the User Chapter 9 Film Curatorship: The Making of a Definition Chapter 10 Film Curatorship; A Definition Glossary of Terms... About the Authors... 5 83 107 30 - 161 195 an 233 238‘Chapter 4 Film as Artefact and Museum Object —_F: In “The Market vs. The Museum” you ‘made a powerful argument that by using the word “content” to describe their collections, _achivists are failing to recognize the importance of the artefacts they are charged with safe- guarding. Art galleries and museums, however, seem to ‘Eave overcome this problem. The “content” of a ‘painting can also be separated from its canvas, and like a film reproduced faithfully in other ‘media, yet art galleries and museums seem to have convinced their constituencies and funding, ‘agencies that there is no substitute for seeing the ‘actual work of artin a gallery or museum setting. Photographic galleries and museums, which ‘have much more similarity with film archives, ‘ave convinced their constituencies that a pho- sographic print can only be considered an orig- inal if it is made from the camera negative by, or ‘under the direct supervision of, the photogra- pher. This gives such prints artefact status, and ‘means thatno new artefacts can be created afier the photographer's death. If film archives considered original prints — those made with the approval of the creative seam that produced the film —as their artefacts, could they then convince their constituencies that the art of the cinema could only be experi- enced by attending the screenings of original prints on an archive’s own premises, in a tech- nical environment specifically designed to repli cate, as far as possible, the first public presenta- tions? One would then have to respond to the in evitable criticism that one was restricting “ac- cess” to an art form that, unlike most others, was conceived as a group experience and di- rected towards @ mass audience. One possible response might be to establish different levels of viewing experience. The first would be to attend a screening of the original artefact on the archive's premises. The second might be to attend the screening of a print ap- proved by the archive in the country where the film was produced. The third, rather than be a screening of any film copy, as it would be today, could be the screening of an archivally approved digital copy If we are honest, good digital copies are a better representation of the art of the cin- ema than incomplete, damaged, or badly pro- jected 35mm or 16mm prints. This approach would also justify the money spent on the preservation of master material that would not have artefact status, but would be essential for the production of archivally approved celluloid or digital copies This scenario is designed to provoke discus- sion. However, the bottom line is that would 3like to know how you would introduce the con- cept of the artefact into film archives. __Av: My most immediate answer would be to turn the terms around: How to introduce the concept (and praxis) of film into “artefact archives” and museums? This is certainly nor a new question, but it seems that with the recent shifts in the museum world (regarding their self-image and new social function), as well as in the culture at large (the “digital revolution”), it has become more — in- stead of less— difficult to addeess it and to make oneself understood. | think that in order to reach a better understanding of film’s role vis-é- vis the museum, we need to (a) look more closely at what film actually is (in itself and in re- lation to other forms of expression); and (b) to question thoroughly the values and cultural principles that most contemporary museums ‘operate on in relation to reproductive media and popular forms of expression. Which also means to question the ways in which museums are “convincing their constituencies” of what an “original” or an “artefact” or an “authentic artwork’ is in the field of reproductive media Before going into any further detail, choughe Td look up what the encyclopedia has to say about the word “artefact”. [ went to Wikipedia, in honour of the digital revolution. The things T found there are quite interesting, not only in terms of definition, buc also for the associative space they create in relation to film. So here are a few definitions from Wikipedia: ‘An Artefacts: a human-made object, such as a tool, weapon, or ornament, especially those of archaeological or historical interest.” 4 “An Artefact is: 2 human-made object that is ‘a prototype or standard of measurement.” “A prototype is an original type, form, or ins stance of some thing serving as a typical exam: ple, basis, epitome, or standard for other things. of the same category.” “Artefact (archaeology): any object made or modified by a human culture, and later recov ‘ered by an archaeological endeavour.” ‘A cultural artefact is a human-made object which gives information about the culture of its creator and users. The artefact may change over _ time in what it represents, how it appears, and how and why itis used as the culture changes over time, The usage of the term encompasses: the type of archaeological artefact which is recovered at archaeological sites; however, man- made objects of modern society are also cule tural artefacts. For example, in an anthropolog- ical context, a television is an artefact of modern: culture,” “Artefact (fantasy): in the fantasy genre, is usually a magical object so powerful that it cans not be duplicated or destroyed by ordinary means. In role-playing games and fantasy liter ature, an artefact is a magical object with great ‘power. Often, this power is so great that it can+ not be duplicated by any known art allowed by the premises of the fantasy world, and often cannot be destroyed by ordinary means, Arte- facts often serve as MacGuffins, the central focus of quests to locate, capture, or destroy them.” believe there is only a short distance from the artefact as MacGuffin (in the fantasy genre) to the artefact as itis still understood by most museums today. In both cases, itis the aura, the " great power” bestowed on the “magical” object {and not its documentary, informational, aes-thetic, or educational properties), that is sup- posed to make us hold our breath. 1 will come back to this issue later on. As for the other definitions, tool, weapon, ornament, all seem quite valid for film (@ tech- nical-cultural tool for humanity to produce new ways of understanding the world; a weapon in terms of its potential influence on individual minds as well as large parts of a population; an ‘ornamentin the sense of something that makes the world we live in more pleasurable or beau- tiful to look at) The term “prototype” and the description of the “cultural artefact” appear to be similarly valid for film. By touching on the anthropolog- ical context, however (and by taking television as an example), the Wikipedia definitions bring us loser to an understanding of why, to my mind, film cannot be fully understood as an artefact at all ~at least as long as we identify artefact with an object. So here’s my key statement: In relation to film, a museum essentially needs to preserve, shoiy, and interpret not just an object/ artefact, buva system, more specifically: a working system. ‘The terms “object” and “artefact” fall short in relation to what film is, because they only refer to one element of the film equation, namely the fixed element (the film strip). It isa necessary element for creating the film experience (if we exclude certain Expanded Cinema practices that ithout celluloid), but itis certainly notiden- tical with it. The term film experience, on the other hand, is not a sensible replacement term either. An experience is something individual; too much of it resides in the unattainable world of the viewer. A museum cannot “preserve” something which, to a high degree, is outside its influence, It can only establish the conditions {for film experiences to take place. A further con ceptual step brings us closer co what we're searching for: The film experience is enabled by a performance of film — the act of putting the “time-less” film-object/artefact into a machine which (if it works and if the conditions of the screening space are set accordingly) produces the phenomenon we call film. This phenome- non is always (a) an aesthetic one — no matter what type of film runs through the machine; and (b) durational one. Apart from a few works in history (loops; some installations) which do not have a pre-set duration, al film works (= per- formanecs of film) are defined by the spe time they take to appear in full. One might say they are “framed by their duration (if you accept the analogy to paintings or drawings)—or, rather, “framed” by the last moment in time before they begin and by the first moment in time after they have ended. In the case of a painting or drawing, the work is what's inside the frame (or wher- ever the paper/ canvas ends); in the case of film, the work is what's inside the time-frame and in- side the visual/aural space created by the joint performance of strip, machine, and operator. ‘To make that film work, understood in the above terms, fully appear to the viewer is what a museum can do. It is, I believe, the only way in which a museum can make the work fully ap: pear to a viewer. There are many other ways in which a museum can make some properties or aspects of the film work appear (exhibiting only the machine or the screen; exhibiting the un+ moving film strip; exhibiting film stills; exhibit ing transmutations of the work on other ma- chines; exhibiting parts of the film in looped form; etc.). Butif we expect a museum to make 85,