After the first selection of Arminian video art in 2003, apollonia presents a new programme conceived by Ruben Arevshatyan, Yerevan based art critic and curator.
This new selection entitled “Glorious futilities” covers the period from the middle 70s till nowadays. The works illustrate the evolution of Armenian video art – as well from the technological point of view, as for their contents.

Curator : Ruben Arevshatyan

Artists:

Hamlet Hovsepyan
Untitled, 1976


Diana Hakobyan
Paran,  2005
Getnic Barcr,  2005

Hovhannes Margaryan
A Hammock Story, 2005

Vahram Aghasyan
Untitled, 2005
Bangladesh, 2003


Arman Grigoryan
168, 2006

Sona Abgaryan
Untitled, 2006
Player 13, 2005

Azat
Don't worry, 2001

Glorious futility   

The process of transition from Soviet epoch to the new era of independent nation state for Armenia was marked by serious political and social upheavals. It started from a romantic phase of struggle for democratization and independence, the rise of nationalistic wave, Karabakh war, severe economical crisis followed by subsequent liberalization of society, which had also brought with itself neo-liberal trends and neo-capitalistic effects in socio-cultural developments. In the extremely polarized post-ideological Armenian society today it is possible to follow, on different social levels quite contradictory emotional and perceptive states which in general could be described as a striving to improve the quality of life having the idea of “prosperity” as a conception for a better future, experiencing at the same time certain nostalgia towards socialistic past. Despite the social and temporal contradictions those consumptive programs freely apply/manipulate with the conceptions belonging to different social and political world outlooks, which in their combination hardly produce an image of rational social order.


But if there will be a question – what is the main sign that would indicate the shift of epochs in the post Soviet Armenia – one of the most common answers will definitely concern the changes of the images.
The changes of visual typology that determine the paradigm of new socio-cultural state touched in fact all the aspects of neo-liberal cultural reality. New characters intruded into the urban landscapes as the new buildings of neo-capitalistic “wild architecture”, as the new pictorial and sculptural monuments that have come to substitute the old symbols of former ideological society, etc.

One of such significant examples of imagery substitutions in Yerevan is the huge TV monitor that had been displayed in exchange for Lenin’s monument at the Republic Square (former Lenin Square). Instead of static idol that used to be the main ideological symbol of soviet epoch representing both the conception of “bright future” and centralized totalitarian system, now there came out a visual interactive surface with the dynamic imagery. Flowing together with the reflections upon the glass surfaces of new urban architecture the continual drift of pictures appearing on the screen is creating a sense of fleetingness of time and frailty of any metanarratives. But on the other hand the kitschy aesthetics and content of local video clips, commercials and political advertisements are asserting the culturalization logic of neoliberal society by reflecting the “eternal” essence of both national self-consciousness and consumptive nature of new society, which is being on its early phases of accumulation of capital.

In that endless flow of images it is possible to follow a general trend vectored to establish/define the image of new “protagonist” that would represent the new epoch. But the establishment of that image paradoxically leans towards the “heroic” images and the “hero forming” technologies of the past epoch making to experience a certain déjà vu or a sense of backward development of time and history. That queer combination of representational forms creates also a certain dichotomy in the static disposition of that “monumental” electronic device and dynamic multitudes of characters shuffling in a rush on the screen surface, trying to strike static poses but being displaced by the other potential “heroes” waiting in line. 


The transformations of the image that were taking place in Armenian contemporary art were also in a certain way connected with the change of the media. Video image not only released the character from the static representation but it had also shifted the focus on the new aspects of the very logic of perception and formation of image. The appearance of the video in the Armenian contemporary art situation by the middle of 1990s as a new media for representation (first as a part of installations and later as an autonomous form of art) coincided with the moment of serious reconsiderations of the image of protagonist and subjects of representation in the local contemporary art productions.
The images and subjects of the revolutionary romantic period since the end of 1980s up to the middle of 1990s that used to prevail in the artistic expressions, and which were fraught with the zeal to announce the end of the history (though judging by their avant-garde gestures and positions it could seem that they were trying to contradict to the old history a new one)  and to fill the perceptive disparity that existed in between the reality and its representation were now substituted with the qualitatively new artistic positions.

The appearance of introvert, contemplative perspectives since the beginning of 2000s in different works and projects made by many artists belonging to different generations today could be considered perhaps as a general tendency which strictly distinguishes from the pathetic intonations of preceding revolutionary decade, where the artists besides changing the language of representation were also trying consider art as an effective instrument that was able to influence social reality.
 
In contrast to the evolving “rationalizing” trends within neoliberal and neoconservative culturalization logic the new characters and subjects that started to appear particularly in the video works of different artists were now more and more getting focused on the rereadings and deconstructions of imposed (by the very same culturalization logic) identities, psychological states, complex aesthetical, cultural and perceptional superposition, all considered from the perspective of contemporaneity.

The other important feature that distinguishes those new artistic approaches and which in fact was depicted as a main subject for this video selection is the apparent accentuation of absurd, futile and irrational actions, contemplations, superpositions that gain different forms, different manifestations and different energetic tensions in the works that had been created in the period of 1998 till 2006.

One of them although is an exception in sense of temporal belonging. Hamlet Hovsepyan’s untitled 16mm experimental film made in 1976 (which was converted into video format and was first time presented in 2005 at his personal exhibition in Yerevan) through the monotonous repeating motion of a man walking around the big rock presents the image of the 1970’s stagnation period’s emotional tension where absurdity of action becomes an allegory for existential condition and in a certain sense the only way out from the situational deadlock. The second untitled video made by Hamlet Hovsepyan in 2006 on the basis of the ideas that the artist had developed in 1974 is a still picture of an electric wooden pillar that was shot today exactly replicating the aesthetical and compositional principles specific to the experimental cinematography of 1970s. The only elements that purposely are giving away the temporal belonging of the video are the film scratches (the artificiality of which is delicately emphasized) made with the computer program. That laconic image that is echoing the aesthetics and spirit of 1970s in its meaningless dramatic tension creates the feeling of déjà vu in the context of backward development of time.


Another author – Haroutyun Simonian in his untitled video performance that was produced in 2004 in colaboration with Utopiana association and Centre pour l’image contemporaine Saint Gerves, Geneve presents another “meditative” state where the artist within 20 minutes keeping his naked body in a state of fight with himself trying that way to define the limits of body, movements, social space in the desperate attempts of liberation which in the consequence of painful falls and hard risings creates on one hand a sensation of total hopeless and meaningless situation and on the other it discloses deep existential conditions.
Another state of meaningless motions is presented in Sona Abgaryan’s untitled video (2006) where the artist is moving in front of the fixed camera in a certain rhythm. Those movements can’t be qualified neither as a dance, gymnastics, struggle (or imitation of struggle) nor as disordered neurotic convulsions.
In those movements it is possible to see all those aforementioned states all in one which represent the personal resistance towards invisible, absorbing state of systemized harmony.

Meditative state which could be described as a purposeful but at the same time obviously futile action trenched upon idiotic manifestation comes out in AZAT’s “Don’t worry” short video (2001) where the artist presents easy process of blowing the balloon as an ironic reflection upon social expectations from the “work of art”.

Grigor Khachatryan’s untitled video (1998) presents backward process of grave digging that concludes with syllogistic speculations on the rational social understandings about the meaning of life contradicting to that his own “idiotic” position for ratiocination. 

“At first I thought I would grow up and become an artist, then I thought that I would grow into an idiot, now I think that I’ll die if I grow more. Therefore, when I die I have not become great enough. Therefore when I’ll die, I’ll be great. Grigor Khachatryan, a name high and delightful.”


The development of new socio-cultural situation on the background of gradual fragmentation of the society after the fall of the “last hope of alternative social order” and the reestablishment of neoconservative power systems with evolving trends of backward development of the history at a certain moment started to evoke in social thinking a sensation of fatality, incapacity to change the binary conception of the world.

But the paradox of this new era is in the persistence of past experience and realization of the effects that relate to the logic of the society of spectacle. Although despite the persistence of that consciousness the drama of split personality and rapture in between conceptions and personal experience leads to the detonations of irrational upsurges.

Video performance “Civic commotion” by David Kareyan (2000) is an explicit reflection on split state of personality regarded in the context of backward development of history expressed through the outburst of irrational blind fury of patriarchal man in a result of bankruptcy and disability of liberating and emancipating conceptions but which had in fact effected not only the conscious but also the body of patriarchal society.   

Karine Matsakian in her untitled video (2002) reflects on the conflict between the contemporary and traditional values of the world. The doll which displays the conflict acts as the symbol of maternity. The interrelation of the artist and the doll represents the duality of the game, where the artist associating herself with the contemporary world, seems like rejecting the traditional heritage continuing to remain at the same time a daughter and a mother.



Another example of “meditative” process is represented in Astghik Melkonyan’s “Kilikia” (2002) video where the young artist is covering her naked body with the arabesque style ornaments (that are deprived from any symbolic significance) under the tunes of one of the most important romantic/patriotic Armenian songs “Kilikia”.  The automatism of process is subsequently shifting the very character of act from illusion of purposefulness, to meaningless, repeating neurotic movements trenched to desperation as well as symbolic and physical disintegration of the body in the imposed stereotyped identities.

Diana Hakobyan in her videos passes parallels between the games that we usually play in our childhood and life in the society where the personage acting in the video is trying to resist by breaking the imposed social conceptions following at the same time the rules of the game or fusing in it as in a certain mystical ritual.


The problem of disparity of essence and phenomenon, which is being filled by imposed conceptions and stereotyped identities rationalized by neoconservative, consumptive perspectives upon the reality comes out in the videos of several artists.

Arman Grigorian’s  “What is art and who creates it?” (2004) video presents philosophical contemplations around inconsistent combinations of ideas and objects. Ignoring the customary form of questions and answers directed to wide audience the artist is trying to emphasize the reality that lie in between the image and text.

Hovhannes Margaryan in his “A Hammock Story” (2005) video is reflecting on the subject of image and/or identity formation regarded in the context of cultural and historical narratives. By reinterpreting  those narratives through banal conversations or childish games played by adult artists who pretend themselves to be various well-known personages from art history – like Andre Breton or Russian artist Serov, or patron of art Mamontov in the first part called “ “Bourgeoisie rushes” topic on European and Russian art” (reinterpretation of Serov’s painting “The girl with peaches”) the artist makes parallels between creativity and contemporaneity depriving at the same time the subject and the characters from its cultural and historical context. The second episode where the philosopher is telling little girl the fairytale of “Scarlet Flower” presents the very mechanism of stereotype imposition which in fine concluded with the third episode “March of proletariat across the Russian taiga” that depicts a rhythmic walk of a man on the snow, who is being armed by those imposed stereotypes is in a process of hopeless search of his unique “own way”.

In other videos it is also possible to follow the persistence of impartial attitude upon the reality or cultural product or any action due to which the subject of consideration first looses its meaning, symbolic, cultural, contextual significance and only afterwards it starts to turn into a new narrative gaining new imagery.

That is Tigran Khachatrian’s “Satlker” (Andrei Tarkovsky’s famous film that used to be one of the most significant symbols of late Soviet dissident culture and world outlook), which belongs to the series of films called “Garage videos”. Those films are reinterpretations of well known movies, made by classic directors. The artist re-acts film by freeing it from traditional limitations of genre and style, attaching to it through personification a certain autonomous essence being interested as he says in the exploration of the perceptional differences of the same film by his and his parent’s generations.

Vahram Agahsian’s videos present the archaic image of soviet late modernistic architecture or the image of proletarian presented in a hazy environment, involved with uncertain construction which could be perceived as certain nostalgic feelings about utopian projects or just anthological views upon something that has already lost its significance but giving to the viewer an opportunity to develop his/her own meaning in regard to presented futile images and actions.

Today social utopias and revolutionary expectations have been substituted by everyday micro utopias and mimetic strategies. Impossibility of any direct critical positions against the society based on the illusion of marginality brought with itself the sensation of futility in regard any attempts to overcome the general culturalization logic.
For many artists in Armenian contemporary art scene that sensation turned into a dramatic process of reconsideration of the role of art and the reasonableness of its confrontation against the “rolling mill” of the society of spectacle. 

In the artistic approaches presented in this project “futility” of any critical positions in regard to the logic of neo conservative socio-cultural developments turns into an allegory of an existential condition, a form of creativity liberation, into a certain method of autonomous resistance against backward development of the history hoping that the focus on contemporaneity will one day turn again the development of time frontward.  And the solution of that global problem could depend, like in Sona Abgaryan’s “player 13” video, on the most unnoticeable participant – new protagonist, which continuously contradicts his/her autonomous “glorious futility” (as the main condition of creativity) to the big scale rationalizations, imposed regulations and stereotypes.    


Ruben Arevshatyan, March 2007