s

e
sed ... on-
ces
rd Shenzhen
-endent Animation
ALTE
BRUCKE
VERLAG c,'.--,-~-,--,--
ale
.. ,,,,-,,

,f:t00--;!,t'f-ti::!IR~±

tt ~
=~)~:rJff ~tt!VEtrTiffixV
24 u,tfaJsiJr- ¼ 1:ffi4~ 114 ~fs]q:i09;/][!l!J
The Square of Time Li Zhenhua
Animation in Space
26 / 3Gfa]
U·HrlJ
Time Based, Non-Places
*ffi~
Li Zhenhua
120 Bt fB] "¥:
Jcfo]i'J(]!i!!.Jll! t/L:.:.!ill ~ fL i,/J
i*:!Jil ,r;'.1-f
lfflJ JI *~~
Geographies of "Time Based, Non-Places": Li Zhenhua
The 3rd Shenzhen Independent Animation Biennale
42 ;/J@-~MHii:~#,9iAiR.!:5
Mffi 144 :3/;JfH, Hiidz:tx.t SCI
tllJ'l-r*l
1,!fl'.'.E/t
1;1- *W-tL · bi-JmiJi!I.
Animation and Media Art, Knowledge & Presentation Why Talk Feminism in World of Warcraft? Angela Washko

44 tii!HJUE
JfiJ il[(f,\,,ts 160 !s-tc.'f-Jtl
· 1:tJiJ-F ~ 5[.}Jj,. {Jjti-Ji:
Directed towards Knowledge Jcffrev Shaw Catherine Biocca Max Power

~ ~~~~,-~ffl~*fflOO•*~~~~M~"J!: - ~ **
mtg~11Hifr.l itrr
i~ 172 )\fa11'¥-l:-1t:litll;jft):Jii w*r · "fS!1!&1T, t
Rli;rl;;
Expanded Animation: A Short Genealogy Siegfried Zielinski Pure Land AR Sarah Kenderdine, Jcffrey Shaw
in Text and Images

66 Jc±-fll,,1!sH1:J'i(J~Wl: --H£ttA,
"Non-Places" Exhibition Sun Qidong 208 4'!j,J31J:fi!l:l!ift
Special Screening
12 11m~t<<¾!zit!J0'l'liJ~"¥:7ll::ft · llilt
fx.!Oi!I
The Aesthetics of Change in Paik's Zen for Film Hanna Hiilling 2w mmu~
-m-/111:&t1~, -,mm
f 2!Em~
Everything is an fllusion and a Mirror Li Zhenhua

9s ~Ji: ;/JumI UM :it~ 216 lill/il9[:$-=.@i*:IJll)!l(fz:z;!JjjijjU:~Jl--·-tHJUWI~ #Jil

Review: The 3rd Shenzhen Independent Animation Lu Chunn
Expanded Animation, Socially Engaged Biennale Special Screening
100 "J\EV»xi!)f':!J;_t"$:&tf.~ :Ntrt-:ll1J Wl~ z.
Manifesto of RMB CITY, Second Life Project Cao Fei
232 ft· :&lfxfl-w:JI *iM~
Li Zhenhua
Co-curating
104 !R.f-\!1/~J'i(]<()\~.!Jil11%>> f~i~~n 234 tJl.fr!f,:j/.lJ:)\13'f~---pJil .?!ji)Rip
Some Notes on Cao Fei's RMB City Hou Hanru
Li Zhenhua
Executive Curator: Lu Chuan
106 ff['j})l)\f]\\i!frl~Jlii #Mb u~tffi
Audio-Visual Awakening Wu Chao, Xia Weilun
of Vegetative State ;/]Il!IJ;J-vft
250 q:i00~!R.ll.
Brief Intro: Chinese Independent Animation
110 zm, '5.7,1/HI-¾
(<Jli+>> *~
Written after Suspending Wu Chao 2s2 L"i!~----r! 1 00)!!(4-i,/JilfilBiJi&
z;/Jillli fSCwHM~trnll Wl·lti.
Ferocious Animation- Cao Kai
112 :{';A, ,J,-J?!<,
if:1~~ Fl~Ht Chinese Independent Animation Takes Off
The Old, the Young, and the Healer Xia \Veilun {Text Revised from Speech)
268 IBiiE~~-Jijl!frm !f:'ft-Jll#iF
Witness of an Enchanted land-Qiu Anxiong Yuko Hascgmrn 377 :ft#ntl!9c
Nominated Screening
v6 *e~~~~~= ~oo~•~-~~~~•-1=.im~m• 1!1HE1,
:fi ~~
Asia from the West: A Case Study and Cao Kai, Shi Changjic
the History of Chinese Experimental Animation
451 ili\\_pj[
293 <:JlliJ'/ill
f\1;1>I ft,5'§
ic xul~ Review
Working Notes on PIERCING LiuJian
4s2 !J\t,i.JUJl!Hr=
*Hl=-rooi*;!jJl~!l!ft.:;;f11lllixx1f:w!:=tlalw!:J'i<JimlJlu5'§ic
:ffl'gj(il(f.
302 ffrIBMt1r ;;r!li'.~ The Ghost Goes West: Four Notes on the Themed Dong Bingfeng
Old and New Media Miao Xiaochun Exhibition of the 2nd Shenzhen Independent
Animation Biennial

Miao Xiaochun: Artist Statement Miao Xiaochun 462 ;j;z;}~JJ[ii;(z'.:#Ifi!-¥:~f91 ~artlft.i;/JillfJJ'i<JJ=!l!ii':~>l. £~JEE
,C,,I,z1ft,W.:
The World of Soul: Building Virtual Artistic Wang Chunchen
320 1:&IBrl:Jfffr:
M¥ftrliliftillitl:7'2*=(ignJtm ~ · ~t,tJ\lr¥
iffi#'r!/~!11. Engineering-On the Theoretical
·-W•M~~~Z.:-~~~~-~=
«JJ[=ti;l:ITT:ffrltf'Fti»
«H20>> ;fil «6_1':)i:~J\1,}i:>>
Significance of Chinese Independent Animation

Discovering The New in The Old: The Early Siegfried Zielinski 469 {Bt:i\!flWiB'.J~!Jft--2000 if!V,*cj 1 ~jffift.igjjfilj~~]Jfu:z.:lit ijji;;J,ro,
Modem Period as a Possible Window to the Future? The Obscured Experiments-Experimental Journey Zhang Xiaotao
On Miao Xiaochun's Renaissance Trilogy the Last of Chinese Independent Animation since 2000
Judgment in Cyberspace I H2O / Microcosm

336 ft.l'Jt,.f½·:tl/:!1:l= tv:Jfl-1=.i::rn-MI

JtiJ1~1si1~ft~~J'l<Jtxh-~i~~- :kl!· :Y:~Ml
You are Just a Piece of Meat: Power and Misunderstanding, David Elliott
Desire and Hope in the Work of Zhou Xiaohu

364 krA-?Jt:J::x,'-Pt
:1t:11l!tJUia.t'2J'i<J:X:{Ul/j,£:
-JW1-ir-1=.i
:Jl.:1lt·li-* 'f mM~~ Ji:
Cultural Spiral of the Bio-mechanical Age: Fu Xiaoclong
Cyborg, Posthumanism and Embodiment
on Tian Xiaolei's Solo

366 JJJ,\~fl'.I
E.i=!'E:f[1 Jl't!*lm
Realistic Utopia Huang Liaonmn

368 *ffiij', X jii~: X'J"f\1;*=iJ?.:W1'.fti.·-1':!J£~ 1':~:if;, ';!f,f.li

Li Zhenhua x Lei Lei: Li Zhenhua, Lei Lei
To me it feels like a castle
72 73
 {

74 75
76 77
78
 The Aesthetics o Change
in Paik's Zen for Film
Hanna Efolling
2016

1
' \\-hut is Zen for Film?." ! was oskcd sornctirnc in the curly fall of 2014, on the a mission long assigned to conscn-ution, is dcariy inseparable from the question of
occnsion of u. prcpnratury mcc. rin9 for Revisions. un exhibition to fcururc Zen cu ration: rcciprocaliy. curation cannot a\ oid challenges posed by questions concerning
for Film (1962 6,i). ~an1 June Puik's "blank;' film projection. Despite the many conservation. Conscn·ation. then, like its ''object." becomes son1cthing else it
discussions thut preceded the n1ccting, when it came to the question of what the considers the continuity of artwDrks on both a conceptual and a material h.:vcl rather
matn o.nd the onl) art\\·ork of this exhibition was. \\-c felt u~ if \\e'd been left in the than fostering attachment exclusively i::o1he material object.
dark.
In ,drnr foliows. l offer a few paragraphs from Revisions-Zen for Film that
Curatorial en~a~1en1cnts are nor al\\·ays simple. Only s0111ctin1cs mi9ht ihcy in\·olvc accompanied an cponyn1ously titled exhibition organin:<l at the Burd Graduate Center
the pleasing task of assembling exhibitions fron1 objects that tell fa~cinatinri stories. Gt1llcr1' in :-s!c\\- York (September l7. 2015 February 22. 2016). l'ragmcnts uf this
11
Bur the act of exhibiting n1ay also fill rhc space \\'ith the ,·astncss of a philosophical essay were olso published in n1y article "The Aesthetics of Changc and on the \\-cbsite
1
challenge. as in the case of Zen for Film. The gesture of exposinrJ an artwork to the of rhc project ,\1cdia in the Expanded Field.
£J07C of the \·icwcr can pose nrduous questions questions with which one strugfJlcs
,-.,·ithout any hope of enlightenment and to which answers arc always partial and
imperfect. \X.hnt. then, is Zen for Film? J f no one asks me, l know whur it is. If l ,,-ish
ru explain it to somc.:orn.: else.. to paraphrase Saint ,-\ugusrinc, 1 do not knov.-. You say: the real, the world as it is. But it is not, it becomes! It moves, it
changes! It doesn't wait for us to change ... It is more mobile than you can
Is Zen for Film an object to be respected as an artifact and for its material imagine. You are getting closer to this reality when you say it 'presents
idiosyncrasies an objccr/''n1ultiplc" or an object/relic? Is it an idcu. a concept or itself'; that means that it is not there, existing as an object. The world, the
rather. Gn cn:nt, a performance, or u process? Ho,,- has what it is been dctcnnincd by real is not an object. It is a process (Cuge 1<JS1: 80L
whctt it once was or what it has become in rhc process of reinterpretation? How has
it been nffcctcd by conceptual und physical chanqc? All in ail, ,1.'har. how. and when is \\.ith these \H)rds,John Cane. one of the most influential avant-garde composers. music
the artwork? theorists. writers and artists of the 20th century, reminds us of the change that the
psychophysical \\·orld undcr~1oes. This change oppost'.s the fixity and sdi-contuirnncnt
Revisions--Zen for Film. u book published by Bard Crndu,1te Cenrer. C-:cw York of objects and artworks' 2 an issue iOo often neglected. especially when we analyse the
and Lnin:rsity of Chicouo Press in Scpternbcr 2015 is an exploration of all of these cxpondcd ficid of consen-ation, inclu<lin~J presentution and curatorial practices. Too
questions. Zen for Film. nlso known as Fluxfilm NO. I. is one of the most cn,cati,·e often. thcsl: practices nssumc a certain fixity of objects or c\·cn strive to accomplish it.
works lw korcun-.\mcrirnn artists Nam June Puik. Created durin,1 the carh- l %Os, this
piece consists of a scrcenin~J of blank ftltn: as tht: film ages and \\Tars in the projector, In this paper. I propose to reYisit some itnpiicit and explicit concepts in <Ht nnd
the viewer is confronted with a constantly cvolvin~J work. Because of this mutobility, consen,ution theories that contributed to a notion of a static object with a particular
the project, as ] show. un<lern1incs any assumption that art can be subject to a sin~1lc emphasis on the materiality of Nam June Paik's filmic 1rnrk Zen for Film (1962 6-lJ.
interpretation. e1lso kno"·n as Fl!D:film No.]_ l'luxus is a particularly fruitful tcrruin for my qucrv
essentially due to its precursory rule in the dc,·clopment of performance art. its
Featuring Zen for Film as its main character, this book sets out to chullcnfJC a questioning of the status of the object and its focus on the idea of tcn1porality and
number of assumptions about Zen for Film frotn the pcrspccti\·e of its pn:scntation. duration.
archi\·ization, nnd continuation. Fron1 such a nndtifocai stance. and \\·ith potential
consequences for unalogou.., clrt\nirks. Rc\-isions addresses \\ hllt is ~lt si-akc \\·hen From traditional to new coaceptioas
it comes 10 the arnvork's presentation un act shaping nnt only the (rclatin.:iy)
n1omcntary CYent of cxhibitin9 objects bur also the way in which artworks n1uy be 1"or some considerable rime. both art and conservation theories \\·ere oriented to\\'ords
pcrcein:d. rcmen1bcred, and n:ClctiYatcd in the future. Inquiring inLo the modes of a static. stable, unique a.nd authentic object. In cunscrYation discourse and practice.
un art-,\-ork's existence. Revisions observes how technological obsolescence and such an understanding of an object was bound \Yith traditional approaches established
1
n.intcrprctntion fran1c the \1.:ork s identity. Purticu!ar!y with respect to recurring in the context of the rt'.storation of artworks conceived of as unique things. often in
installations thut undcr~Jo the rroccss of de- and rc-asscn1blaiJc. such os Zen for a single medium, embodying an (indi\-i<lual) authorial intention. Because the ooal
Film. questions rqJard!n~J its institutionalization, display. and distriburion become of rraditionai conscryation v:as to render 'objects' stable. change \\-as cbar£1cd with
the ones thot affect its exisrc.ncc. In the case of itcrunt urt\n>rks, cnrc for the future. negative qualities. so it was often to be concealed and/ or arrested. This also had an
82 83
 impac[ on the notion of time implicit: in thinking about the conservation of art\nlrks. the work and resulted in a dsuai performance in which change [he accumula[ed
Associated with a negative aspecr of change, time was smoking the picture (\\iillium dust. scratches und marks pim·cd a considerable role. Zen for Film leans on
Hogarth), often related to the negative effects of yellowing, cracking and fading of the aesthetics of bricolage: Paik's creariYe gesture rendcre-d a conven[ionally used
painted layers. Paradoxes of the ideas about time and their relation to the status of film l~ader. a material widclv available. and an ubiquitously present analogue film
objects resulted in attempts to return the pervious, 'intended' condition of an object projector. his fil1nic opus magnum. The n1ore used the better the film, worn, used
following and m the same time subverting the linear conception of time (}li\lling and stressed, was to represent the material condition of its own existence, as wcil as
2013: 157). \'fith the introduction of changeable artworks sometime from the middle Paik's thinking with and lhrough the medium of film in the \-cin of experimental and
of the last century, consen-ation theories gradually began to shift. New chinking in this structural cinema.
field began to be marked by the dichotomv of the enduring and the ephemcral--·two
different conditions of art to be conceptualised and treated differently. Zen for Film must hm·e fascinated George Maciunas (1931 19,8). a self-proclaimed
Fluxus impresario and organizational force as well as an enthusiast of film culture..
Until the transformation in the understanding of artworks created since the late 1950s Producing unlimited homemade Fluxus editions. Fluxkits, Maciunas encased Yarious
brought about different conceptions of what art might be, art theoretical discourse. lengths of a blank film leader in sc\'eral plastic boxes acquired in Canal Street in Ne\\'
too, revolved around the questionable term of a static art object (Merewcther and York. Through this gesture, Zen for Film from Fluxkit emerged: it indeed retained
Potts 2010: 5; Heubach 1970). Since the late 1950s, artworks have gradually become Paik's initial concept (a potentially projectable film). but it also became something
associated with action, performance, happening and event. "'Art" is an artwork not as else ..,a collectable am fact (Fig. 2). :\dditionally, Maciunas also transposed Zen for
long as it endures, but when it happens', claimed German art theorist and psychologist Film's simple logic,-·,,a leader that runs through a projector with no determination
Friedrich Wolfram Heubach (1970).' The idea of duration and temporality ruptured of duration,- .. into a determined duration of a Fluxfilm program. One of them.
art-historical narratives and effectuated a certain demur in the understanding of the Flv.xfilm Anthology (! %2 1970;,'' comprises some 37 F!uxftlms by artists including
art object, formulated in the criticism of that time. notably in relation to painting. George Brecht. Dick Higgins, Yoko Ono and \X'olf Vostell. Zen for Film opens the
American critic Harold Rosenberg sought to understand a painting in terms of the compilation with a ritic sequence: "Zen for Film Fluxfilm :'Jo.1. "lam June Paik." In
transformation of its artefactual 'thingness' to the act of painting itself (Rosenberg this filtn, the proccssuui character of the artwork, its trace accumulation and the-
1952). The event of the painting resulted in the physical evidence of a completed set undetermined duration of projection became fixed !which did not pre,·ent rhc new
of actions. In his writings, following Rosenberg and with reference to Jackson Pollock, 1ncdiurn from being worn and stressed in ils own manner).
Allan Kaprow approached Pollock's paintings in terms of concluded happenings
(Kaprow 2003 [1958]). A painting was 'happening' now (shifting its status from gerund The uansposition of Zen for Film to its Fluxkit variant and to Film Anthologv
to a ,-erb) (McLure 2007: 14), and an artwork 'worked'. As one of the most versatile
cffcctua[cd from Maciunas' ideology of economic distribution of Fluxus art\vorks
artistic tendencies of the 1960s, Fluxus, too, radically questioned the status of the 'art reassured bv his leftist political artitudc. Art making, according to Maciunas. should
object' as both a representation and as a static entity. Art. since Fluxus, has become a be m·ailabl~ to e,•crybody and should use the simplesr means aYailablc. From another
do-it-yourself but rather than a do-it-yourself object. a do-it-yourself reality. The perspective. Paik, too, was interested in simplicity deri,·ed from Zen Buddhism and its
functional, sacrosanct object, an art object as a commodity and as a vehicle of its own assignment of minimal importance to the execution of artworks as well as an emphasis
history, was rejected by artists associated with Fluxus (which did not prevent it from on the narure of materials (an artwork is alrcacfr a work of natural art before the
returning in the later phase of the commoclification of performances).' lnstead, and arrival of the artist on the scene). The identity of the cork Zen for Film might be
as we shall see in the example of Zen for Film, art became that which happens and 7
located in its transition from Paik s initial idea (a blank film run on a projector) i::o
transitions--an artwork in the state of permanent impermanence. Maciunas' later interpretations :Zen for Film as a f!uxkit and as a part of Fiuxfilm
,\nrho!ogy) which not only destabilizes the concept of a static object, but also questions
The artwork(s) the notion of singular authorship. Later transitions of Zen for Film. howeYcr. have to
be entirely attributed to the artwork's museological life.
In one of its many incarnations, Zen for Film is a filmic artwork created by Paik
sometime between 1962 and 1964 (Fig.I). In its simplicity, Paik's creative act assumed
The troubling multiplicity
a Duchampian gesture of a readymade: what the work constituted was a blank 16 mm
film leader run through a projector. Although functioning as a concept rather than Zen for Film has entered numerous collections such as the Museum of Modern Arr
a physical arrangement of things, the work, as originally conceived, was bound to a (MoMA) in New York. Ccnrre Georges Pompidou in Paris, Harvard Arr Museums/the
specific display apparatus, a film projector. The projector determined the behavior of Fogg Art Museum in Cambridge and the \X"alker Arr Center in Minneapolis, among
84 85
 many others. Increasingly. the art\nJrk has been displayed as u i(J 1nn1 projection. as a 8 tu ken O\ er hy the appnrutus). ur a process nf tr nee accumulorion and dc~1rodutiun?
mm projection (most ccnainly a result of erroneous interprcration of the film leader's ! low has \,-hut it is been deiC!"mincd by when it once \Yas. or \Yhat it hns bcco1ne in the
dimcntionl. as a film frorrl Fluxkit. as a film relic from the 1960s enclosed in a ftln1 can process of reinterpretation. affected b~ conceptual Llnd phYsical chonqc? ,\ll in alL
and housed b,- the "'!0M1\ Sih-crman Fluxus Collection (Fig, 3\ and a< a digital f,lc, \\-hat. ho,.,, und when is the artwork.'?
The work can also be \-ic\\-cd und is known to the majorit~· of the Internet users in il
digitai form on YouTube. l'bu\\'cb and until recently. it was also u\ ailoblc through the :\lthoufJh to at!empt to oi;;c- answers to ccu.:h of these qucsuons in this paper ,.n)u!d
Electronic :\rts Intermix (EAi) digital dutabasc. necessary fail due to the spatial constraints. ~nd Revisions-Zen for Film (I lbllin~1
2015) elaborates on rhcm mnrc cxtcnsin.:l~. · in the foi!owin~J. I orpuc that Zen for
In the course of 1ny research. Zen for Film n1atcrializcd in muny \-ariants and Film's chonQcublc character rctkcts the temporal turn of the l 9(J0s and pcrforma1;ct-
,·ariations. For instance. the Guggenheim !Vluseun1 in ~cw York presenred Zen oric:ntcd interests. l aiso propose that the dilemma posed by the multipiicity of Zen for
for Film as a projection together with the 1%(ls filmic rciic (The Third Mind: Film's potential prc-senrations reflects the diaiectic of pcrn1anence und impermanence,
American Artists Contemplate Asia, 1860-1989. 30 January 19 April 201)9\ explicated in the arrachmcnt to the physical, collecrable- object Gnd in rhc zeal to
while Tate! ,i,-crpool displayed a digital file extracted from Fluxfilm Anthology (Nam prt:scn:c static things.
June Paik: Video Artist, Performance Artist, Composer and Visionary. 1-:
December 2010 13 March 2011), Mo:VL\ displmul Zen for Film as a looped 16 mm The dichotomy of the permanent and the impermanent
film projection' (There Will Never Be Silence: Scoring John Cage's 3'44", 12
October 2013 22 June 20141 and has onlY rccenth· discouraged to present the tilmic Thinkinp about nrt\\·orks can nc, er he <liYorccd from the temporal aspects of
relic ds~(Fvis the projection. ()ftcn the -dcwcr encounters in the qallcry only the Fluxkit tnaicriality. In this context, l LannoL help bur wonder y:;hnt it meat:s that sorncthin~1. nr:
Ycrsion of the work. which represents the idea of a collectable but lacks the cinen1atic artwork. is impern1nnent. The idco! of permanence of rhinf.Js and interests in securing
representation of Pailc's idea. the existcnct.'. of artworks in the fun.ire hound with the notion of tin1clcssncss is an
uoder!yinu principle of cnnservnrion. But what is I he reason for this? \X.hy do objects
There is. it seems. no limitation to the multiplicity of existence of Pnik'5 filtnic work. ha,·e to be rendered pcrmo.nent? \\.here docs the diYision bet,1s·ecn the pcrmGncnt and
This is also the reason why. when it comes to the moment of its exhibition, the 1mpcnnoncnt come from, and ho,i.· con \\"C conccin: of artworks in rclution to this
.standard art-historicu.l line of inquiry might not be sufficient to account for whar is dichotomy?
or stake. Although obtaining permissions (either fron1 Polk's Estate und/or from one
of rhe museun1s) seems to be a sufficient condition to project the work. how about i hypothesize rhut this <lichotomy is e\-oked by the probkm of the understanding of
Zen for Film's mum- physical Yuriants, the relic of the 1%!ls and rhc ftlmic residues artworks ns being in tinK, in dun1rion. and hos son1ething to do \dth the understandinq
produced more recently? Arc all ,hesc works. indeed, Zen for Film' of rime in terms nf endurance as cut to the human dimension. Likc\\'isc. this problem
might also relate ro the fact that in conscnation and n1uscum practice. die life of n
Is Zen for Film conserYable? When the work is displa\'cd as a projection, nothing consen-ator or a curator is too short to qrasp the temporal passinfJ of a masterpiece,
clmn9cs hands bcrn·een the borrower and the lender but the instruction (the borrower is \\-hicl1 is therefore conccin:d and has to be con sen ed to cndur<: forc\-CL or at
1
responsible for an arrangement of both the projection and the film leader), Therefore, least for an e\·er' of a human temporal ditncnsion. This is precisely. I would c.1roue.
it could be said that there is indeed nothing to be presetTctL But if we examine more whar elicits the idea of a ::;table. 'consen,nblc' object nnd what determine~ tradirionai
closely the idea of rctainin~1 the filn1ic relic from the 1960s, its presen·ation 111i9ht theories of conscrYotion.
signal nn artachment to the physical trace to the conservation of the tan9ibic. stable
objccL I lal'in,J a different history, Zen for Film from Fluxkits also seems to satisf, The- consideration of the temporal aspect of artworks eYokcs (~otrhoid l~phraim
conseryation's materialist ideolo~ff in that these fiims arc ncyer projected. but arc kept Lessinq's di\-ision bct"\\Tcn spatiul and ren1poral an and its critique in medin cmd nrr
cncase<l in a plastic box. theories CLcssintJ 1853;. J\s I argued in Re:Paik ([ liiliing 2(113:1H8, 1'J(JLspatial art hm
similar qualities to te111poral art. and tnifJht be Yicwcd us sio"¼-rather than fost. Such o
Zen for Film is neither cxhibitablc nor conscrn1blc without asking more profound temporal definition of, a medium allows us to identify its actin: c..indpassi,-e response
questions concerning its nature and bcha,·ior. Is Zen for Film un object to be to time. und differentiation in the ways media under~Jo chan~Jl'. Arrworks such os
respected for its artifactual nature and material idiosyncrosies--- an object-·multipk or 1nedio instullations, pcrfonnancc and cvetHs acti\-cly in,-oked with tirnc experience
an object-relic? Is it an idea. a concept, or, rather. a cinematic c,-ent, a performance foster chan£Jc: slower artworks such as pointing and sculpture passin.:ly respond to
of the blank filtn (where the role of the body known from traditional performance is time. which becomes reflected in the <le£Jradatiun. decay and aqcing of their phy~ical

86 87
 materials. In its cinematic n1anifcstation. Ze.nfor Film's constant readiness to shed its Barthcs the csstncc of film resides in film stills (Barthcs 19-:'0)/ for an theorist S,Tn
physical freight renders it an artwork acti,-cly responding to time. On rhe artefoctuol Ltitticken, the essence of true live performance 111ight be seen in photos, films. \'i<lco
le,-el, the Fluxkits one! relic, in turn, accept the temporal passing, clcorlr visible in the and descriptions :Liittickcn 2005: 24). \'Chcthcr or not the existence of such essence io
cmbrittlen1cnt of the celluloid. ycllo\ving of the labels o.nd plastic casings. film and performance can be claimed, focused attention paid ro their extended residual
history is highiy rcle\-unt for the understanding of the nature of their sources. Herc,
\X-ith this ond the example of Zen for Film in mind, rnther than thinking about the the Fluxfilm Anthology rnriant of Zen for Film mighr be seen as both a residue
permanent Yersus the impcnnancnt. I suggest reconsidering artworks from the point of an<l a documentation of the projection of the 1960s bcarinfJ C\-idcncc of its tnatcrial
view of the rclntiYity of their tcn1poral duration. condition at the rnomenl it was transposed by tv[aciunas.

The relative durations of the impermanent In a sort of gcncalo9ical interdependence. in which facsimiles of documents build
upon documents and which, in turn, build upon documents that bccorne artworks
'The issue is not one of the ephemeral versus the permanent. Nothing is forercr, It is themselves,,. such stratigraphy of documentation 111ay ne\·er cease to expand.
the question of the rciati\T durations of the impermanent', stated British performance conrinualiy depositing new iaye:rs on the already accumulated sediment. Nc\\-
artist Stuart Brisley (2008: 83)_ Accordingly, perhaps instead of the problematic intcrprctations, technologies. cultures of actualisation (permitting certain things while
dichoton1y of the permanent and impermanent. one could focus attention on the restricting others), and multiple locutions in which the work exisrs or is reinterpreted
aesthetics ond qualities of change, accepting change os o positi,-e value with regard to render the achie\·ement of the totality of an artwork's archi\·c an illusion. The
both short-durmional ond long-durational works. subsequent interpretation \\-iii therefore only rch- on fragmented information ond will
be never unbiased, complete.
In order to elucidate my point, I wiil argue that because Zen for Film can be re-
instantiated c,-cry time anew with the help of a different film projector and a leader, f'rom the temporal perspective, then, Zen for Film might be conceived of as a
it approximates the cyclical, occurrcnt o.nd repetitive lo9ic of performance and event. performance of sorts, in which the action is enacrcd by the projector and v,:itncsscd by
Arnunks-cvents. performances ond process.es often require textual 5rabilisution: the audience. The tnechanical ctnbodimcnt consists of an apparatus that runs a blank
scores, instructions, scripts, tcsrimonics and digital narratiYes. Although there is nu film and rcsuits in a projected-upon yertical surface. \'rhat remains of this performance
cYi<lence that Paik eyer formuiated an instruction on how to pro)ccr the film. Zen for is film loops endowed with trace, a temporal marker ond reference to the many hours
FilmJs instruction exists both implicitly (it is pnssc<l over by Paik's Estate, his curators of labour, individuai objects ro be appreciated for their c,-idcntial quality. Dependent
ond collaborators) and explicitly in the form of a document, such as, for instance Loan on the status of the projection. and contingent on Yalue judgcn1cnts regarding what
11
Specifications fonnulate<l by l\lo~lt\. ' tnight receive permission to enter the archiYe (\vhechcr it is deemed valuable, historical
or worthless). the residues of rhis performance the used films arc 'consen-abic'
Artworks-events. performances and processes also generate a Yost number of objects ond might be presen-cd. Potentially, they may, just like the early film ond the boxed
and by-products that act against its temporal passing the 'death dri,-c' as it were. Fluxkit editions, become o signifier of times long passed-- --fossilised filmic arrefoct-
Documentation (film, video, photography, text), props, costumes and lcfto,ers, rclics cherished for their !ink to the past, but also precisely for this reason condemned
rcq uisites ond relics all fill in for the absence of the e1·ent, ensuring a relation to the never again to sec the light of the projector.
sphere of the tangible, legible and ,-isible. Herc, the aesthetics of change might be
repioccd by the aesthetics of disappearance, understood as gencrati,-c of the omossmeor Following the perpetual logic of prescn-otion, cun we keep the residues of Zen for
of 111atcrials produced while the work 'disappears'. This deficiency generates the urge Film's current projections? Too many lcftoYcrs muy possibly rclativisc the value of the
to presen-e and collect which, in turn, expands the ortv;orks' all-accumulating arrhi,-e_ relic that rests not only in its singularity as an element of the historical projection, but
J\s in Freud's theory of fetish that o!so relates to the affect oriented towards physicoi also in the comtnodity value that it acquires as a non-replicable, unique and fctishiscd
objects, this desire to collect is never stilled. In the context of performance theorr, the collectable.. During nurnerous con\-ersations with curators. a suggestion to oblige
writer and curator Christopher Bedford names this phenomenon 'the viral ontology borrowers to destroy used fiimstrips produced in the course of the works' rcinstallations
of performance', and relates it to extended trace hiswry (theoretically extcndable to surprised me, If such spggestions ha,-e to be followed, would it not allow Mof\[A to
infmity) ond reanimation of performance in o variety of media (Btdford 2012). claim a certain exclusivity of its relic?

Documentation. too. partakes in this rationality. ln the absence of the c\·cnt. a complex Clearly, such practice would disable the potenricd limitlessness of Zen for Film's
structure of tnultilayerc<l docu111cntation proycs the existence of the work. Just as for existence implied in its concept, Rother than being ftnal products, according to Dick
88 89
 l li~EJins' theory of an cxumplatiYist nature of arrwork (I fi~J(Jins 19'8: 1S(i). the objects and commodification. 01:d in response to the urge to secure ton~Jibic rhinfJS. lcftoYers.
rcsultin9 from the realisation of such a concept (but also from a notation or a 1nodeD props, relics. Yidco and film documcntntion may CYcn acquire rhc srarus of artworks
1
arc only examplcs. -; The practice of in1posin9 1irnitorions on Zen for Film's (Jpcn then1seh·es. These rhinus. of course. rnis1ht be kept 'forc\-crJ. satisfyin~ the traditionnl
character (which not only pertains to the openness of the initial concept but is Qiso tnaterialist attitude.
specific to Flux.us' open-ended. mass--produccd editions~ mi9ht be understood as nn
interYention in the symbolic economy of art\1.-orks. This practice leans to\1,.·anls a Thai- is not to say that 1ong-durariona1 artworks fnil to produce documentation
consumption of commo<lificd products and is dcpriYcd of the upen. actiYc and social quite the contrary. Notwithstanding. as seen in proportion to their duration.
process inYoh-cd in contingencies and instabilities of Zen for Film. ' the documentation in long-durational works seems to be incomparable with the
amussmenr of documentotion and residuai objects produced by perforn1ancc. There
More consequences of artworks' temporal relativity is a lot in lonQ-clurational objects, but they arc nc\·er as \-uricd and rich in 9<:nre and
quantity and in potential to become artworks as in the case of short-durational works.
'Lrn-c obiccts, respect objects', pleads American artist Claes Oldenburg referencing
the crcatiYC act of selection and care for what is picked up after the performance But what could be analogue to the performance's relics and lefto\-ers in the cu::-c of
(Oldcnhur9 1995 [1962]), Ile continues: 'Residual objects are created in the course traditional objccrs? Perhaps. in a sense. the 'stable object' is its O\J:n relic and remnant,
of making the performance and during repeated performances. The pcrforn1ance is accu1nulatin9 stratigraphic strata of its O\Yn making and all post inrcrYentions
the main thing. but when it's O\-er there arc a number of subordinate piece:-;, which (cleanin~J. rctouchin~1. etc\ \'rhilc works by occ1aitncd anists would hold the position of
might be isolated, souYenirs. or rcsiduai objects.' These rcsiduui prc\·iously 'acted' the relic. the unsigned painting bou~1ht ut the I [ousin~J \X'orks Thrift Shop for S dollars
or 'domesticated' objects bcor memory and G history that might unfold in ihc present 1nit1ht he concei\-cd of as CI lefton.'r of an unappn~ciatcd performance.
(Brignone 2009: !,7), The,· ulso, most importantly, fulfill the desire tn stabilise and
preserve objects in accordance \\·ith traditional (\'fcstcrn) muscolo~1ical standards. After the event. or what remains
\1orco-'i:er. if works ·were not meant to function as collectable obiccts. but becnme such
Zen for F'ilmJs filmic relic bein9 an cxatnplc the processes of cornrnodification The \t.-ny of conccptualisntion of Zen for Film os performuncc recalls the acsthc:tic
dictated by market economics reinforce consen-ation and 'consernHionist' gestures. theories of philosopher Dtn'id Davies (2004). The type-·t henry stems from C.S. Peirce's
The: process of mm;caiisation counters disappearance. The wish to cure grief and sen1antic distmctions between the senses of the words 'type' and 'token' (Peirce 190(,\.
nosral~1ia with the fetish of an object is, indeed. deeply rooted. Generally speakin~J. this much-dcbarcd di~rinction applies to the muiripk ans such as
music and photonruphy. and characterises tokens as instuntiarin!:J the universal type
~O\V, the impiications of thinking aion~1 the lines of nrt\\·orks' temporal rclaci\-iry (prints of a photograph. performances of a musical work). Building on Grcqory Currie\,;
may ha\T foscinating consequences. [f one invert~ the standard assumption of an suspension of the distinction between the sinfJtilar and multiple arts (Goodn1an's
Ort'- 1.:ork as an object. a question might be posed us to whether or not all artworks theory of symbols bein9 an exan1plc of this distinction). Da\-ics offers a twist on
might be conceived of as tetnporal entities. either lonrJ or short e\·uirs. perforrnanccs his theory by claiming that all arn,:orks arc token-events rather than type-tYcnts
or processes. Accordingly, traditional paintings or sculptures would bcco111e long- (Rohrbaunh 2005 [20021), lntercstin9ly, coincidinn with the temporal rum 111 the arts of
durational artworks. This may also in\'ert con\-cntionctl rhinkinf1 in consen·ation and the 1%Os and its thcoreticul underpinnings discussed earlier. for l)ayics, the rcnl work
curatorial and museum practice. Nor only could the dichot()my of 'the ephemeral' is the process. a series of actions by which the artist arrives at his product and not the
Ycrsus 'the pern1ancnt' be rc\·oked. but also rhc problem of grappling with the nature product itself. Accordin~1 to D,n ies. the painted cat1\'aS is a 'focus of uppreciatinn'
of the 'nc\1,.-'(multimedia. performance. CYenr) throu9h the !ens of deeply rofned ideas throu~Jh which we oppn:ciatc the artist's achieYemcnr and which embodies th<: artist's
about the old, 'stable' r,bicct, idcn and \H)rk. Kinds of foci determine ph~ sica1 objects: some require analysin~J the
enactment (Dm ics 2004),
Pcrhnp:-i also. as one n1orc consequence of rny proposition, truditionul arrworks could
be approached through the lens of the 'new'. Seen from the conserYation perspective, it I bclieYe that the idta of on artwork identified by! he sort of cre(Hi\T action un<lt:rtakcn
seems to he a noYclty that requires son1c attention, nor pursuable here. Performances b\" an artist is verr interesting. Howcycr. if approached fron1 o re\Trse<l perspective.
or C\-ents have a compressed t<..'tnporal presence. but arc no less material. ivioreo\·er. the tl~is theory n1iuht -indc~d be taken further. If careful attention is paid ro the modes
number of materials produced by the art\nlrk miqht be seen as inversely proportional of artworks' creation in other words, how they came into being rhe conditions
to its c:nduruncc in ti111c. [n other \n,rds. the 'sooner' rhc artwork disappears, and for identifications of arr\n)rks rnight equally be pr<ffidcd by the obscn·ation of rhe
rerhaps the more intensive !tis. the more it produces. In the process of muscalisation aftcrli\~cs of artworks. An art\n>rk's afterlife concerns the tim(: after the work 'happened'
90 91
 (in Hcubach's sense'). important to identify what and hO\\ the artwork is. This vaiency. rules and legislation. And yec. in an ongoing aporia of existential din~rsity. do
1

realisation is highly i111portanr because it is the only reality to which we ha\-c access. performance. event and process not result in objects-originals'? (Sec Zen for Film's
So instead of retroacrin~ly identifying. nor to say imagining. the past. the proposed relic.)
theory insists on looking at the present: it is not cxclusiYcly the process of creation that
pn)\-idcs information on what these works arc (which alwavs innlh·cs gucss\n)rk). but Autochronic and allochronic works
the re-enactment, expanded trace history. actualisation an~l also transition decav.
disintegration and degradation. tvly proposition falis within the type-theoretic proposa<L For9ery recalls the Coodman distinctions between forgcablc/autographic and
but unlike Currie an<l Dudes} theory of \vorks as performances. it focuses instead on unforgeable/ allographic arts (Goodman 19:6,. Generaliy. it could be assumed
what is left: the object, leftovers. props. residues. documcnmtion. etc.;" Thus. although that allogrnphic arts arc characterized bY short duration and autogrnphic ,rnrks bv
both theories concern the question of when the art\'-:ork is, my proposal focuses on a long duration. Herc. in order ro stress the temporal dimension of my argument and
mode of studying artworks that shifts from how and when art was created, to what is draw attention to another of its aspects. I would like to replace allographicity and
left from the crcati\T act v.-hut became of it !n the present the oniy reality (liYen au[ographicity with the neologisms of allochronicity and aulochronicity, respecti\·ely. l
and point of access to the work. Consequentlv. the shift from product-art i'traclitionul owe this terminologv to the thcorisr and composer Michael Century. who emplovs it in
21
artworks) to process-art (artworks after the temporal turn in the sense of both the relation to rhc specificity of scorcs. Re-proposing Century's terms in the context of the
1%Os temporal shift and the temporal theories proposed) implies rhc concerns with temporal relativity of artworks. l propose that the allochronic mi,1ht refer to artworks
that which remoins. 1'; untethered to a specific tcmporality and re-performable. while the autochronic might
designate artworks that ha\-e a specific. fixed relation to time. Autochronic artworks
Duration and intensity arc something hitherto designated as long-durational. quasi "stable objects." \\-hiie
alluchronic artworks may reoccur in instances of their repeated iterations.
Further it follows that artworks mi,1hr be identified in relation to their temporal
characteristics: theY might ali be understood as durational. rct distinct. EYents endure Zen for Film's relic \li/Otdd thus assume rhe character of an autochronic entity. while
differently from performances. whereby the defining parameters here arc duration and Zen for Film projection. an a11ochronic one. :\gain, this distinction is only Yiablc in
intcnsity. 2 · Albeit subject to relativity judgn1ent, the duration and intensity distinguishes the context of the \\'-csrcrn traditionai muscological (and consen-ation culture'., in
the e,-cnt from performance, from process. from object. and oYercomes the clichotomy which the replication of the long-durational artwork is not accepted as a valid strateoy
of tv.'o catcqorics of artworks the permanent and the impermanent. of its continuation. Staying close in its relationship to the token-theory by denying the
diYide bct\\:cen rhc multipic and singular artworks, autochronicitv and allochronicity
In fact. Zen for Film presents us with on entire varien- of temporal durations. assure both the artwork's location in a temporal structure and its t~mporal identity. ,
Although, as l stressed, the distinctions bet\J:een these categories arc relative: if Paik's
film is conceptualised within a particular context, it might be grasped as an event Conservation. as temporal intervention
(in the sense of a non-repeatable. cinematic event). perforn1ance (in the sense of the
performed spectacle and dependent on the length of ,,iewer' s engagement). process ln sutn, the transformarion in artworks created in the posc-Cagean era such as Zen
(in the sense of accumulating traces throughout the totality of the time in which it for Film reflects not only a general change in the concept of art. what art can be
is projected) and object (in the sense of uppararos. ftlmic props. Fluxfilms and ftlmic (a question of ontological nature) and I ha,-e only scratched the surface of this
remnant-relic). puzzle but also elicits a shift in thinking on their presentation and continuity. If
we consider the order of things in conservation and curation seriously. apart fro~ its
The strategics of continuation of artworks such as Zen for Film reflect the way in theoretical implications. the suspension of the dichotomy of traditional 'cn<lurin~J'
which they are conceived. _\gains, the historical ban on reproduction (Phelan 1993: objects Ycrsus 'ephemerai' short-durational objects \Vould reltase us from the urge to
J;, performance might be re-enacted and process redone. Despite the singularity and dissolve the conflicting poles in C\'Cryday practice. Instead of arresting change. and
irreducibility of the qualities of experience of an evcnr, there is a recognitio~ that situating conservation as an active actor in this impossible mission, we may think of
the erent will be repeated, too, albeit differently (Hcarhfteld 2013: 31). The s,·stcm of artworks of all kinds us e,-er-changing and cn,lviny entities that continualh- umlcr90
recurring iterations always invokes deferral and difference." Howe.-er, the 't~chnique physicai alteration and fransition. .
of repetition' does not apply to artworks as physical objects. Not compliant with
rhc ruling muscologicui and conservation culture, such re-doing of an object wili Accordingly, curation and conservation might be considered a temporal inten·cntion
alwas-s be classified as a copy. or. in more clerogaton· terms. a forgery. depending on in these artworks. Rather than assigninrJ it regenerative capobilities (sometimes

92 93
 \q)ndrously al!owinfJ the artwork to return to its 'original srurc'), conscrYation \nrnid Notes:
1. ·1 h1~ onqrn,::ul J\ 1 per-er rrucnt'..'.d {h:tm(1 rh: ~:.E'PO'-rnm Authenticity in Transition c:1
instigate just another change ro the work in its long- or short,durational existence. thr.: (ib ;;,n :-;z.b,l:,1of :\rt l ni\crs1ty of (,lc:~11,•\Y tJ 2 lkccrnhcr _21)!,f, uw! rb.: ilZLLl5lnn ('t 2{1!:S
compliant with urchiYal and cultural permissions and/ or iirnitations. Dependent on ( ,,liq;c .\ct :\~~,1~irwon :\nn:Jo: \kumq m '\v,r \"or1; 1 1 l cbt,iur} .:'.nl 5. ~c~~10n Preserving the ArtistiC'
the cuiturcs of conscn·ation. it is the nrchi,;c that establishes the rules nnd sets lin1its Legacies of the 1960s and 1970s1. ,\ \.t.b ,cr;1 n: L~rn be :1Lu.Y,cd :1t hnp,;· n:etsttc.w:ndr>rc~ ....
um: 2li1(1 rl(1 (l- n:,t~iom er q,c mqhe~1u .,f L!'.dll\jl'
on what can be said or made. both with reference to the present, as well as to the past L \\ hcn:u~ ( l1\Jc t111qht hm,i; ,il~u hm:.i m mind the 1mpo~"1b1L;~· or tht: ob1cu ttl rcprc:sem nr L1nl1:1d~th1c
,:1liiiiing 2013: 21 ~ (,5; l li,lling 2015: :1-90.,1. H.u! the n:ul 1t in Lcnun,:ul btJ_,•m1n!(. r;~y rr--:.itrncnt ;:;t h1~ e>tmtmcnt rcl,1tt~ rn dK pruhlern pn';:..d \1:,
;h:.: :..onlcptH,n of a :.tutH. o\);cLt u pcr:>1.'-rcnt n,nmn m .1n thcorc11tul nnd (;Jr:scnutinn dr'.,L!1Ur:,L.
, ·· 'i,un"t' 1st ctn kuu"tw.:rk :H, ht ~o lun:w. \\ 1c cs luit. "ocdcrn p(:~s:crt · '"',my trnn'.>bt1lln ·
Rather than sug9cstin9 that performance theories arc the non plus ultra to continue ·L In turn. us:S1~m1.-d by th('. :\mtn, an umc \[K!md l rn;d \\ rd, d Lcrcum form of pcrfnrr:1Gti\ iry, tbt ohtn;
this inquiry, they rnay. l bclic\T, offer an opportunity to rethink traditional obiccts in ur: \J(minimuh.-.m h;.lntm:~ th-.:otm,d J r:t.:d 1')98 [196':j:,
terms of duration. This, in turn, n1ight expose the hidden deficiencies of theories lon~J _:;,,
T'.1t number n;· f"lu:-:bts pr\;d,1tcd b~· .\lu~1uc..1~ pn,luhh· '--~.Lcu!cd 211
!,. 1)1:,rnbmul lff l·lccrnn1t .\n!' !nit:rn:11:-:d 1:\:1. :\1c\~·York
applied, and once and for all allow us to let go of the belief in the apparent srabilitv of , \\ 1rh rhcc-e \ ununts rh:.: po~s1b1iit;, 1 J( cx1c-tt.ncc of Zen for Film i~ not }ct Lxhuu:>ted. \n S n:m pru1c1.u,m
objects that for too long offered a skewed 111cssagc by iso1nting the nq;arivc qualirics 1...ompltLutL~ ;r,:. curly !fr,wq w; n 1(, mm ftln: pro;cctinn. I urthcr, the qucst;on:, of the d()(.Utntn:nry ;,tJtu~
of change. ot Zen for Film o:, n d!ninl file \1 p..:irt (,f Fluxfilm Anthology'1 ro1'.>ccw m~<.:n:~ti~:odcbutc cs to rbc
n.bnon of fr.c unwnrk ro tt,; doum1enwtiun ond the thin !tnc dwt n!.tcn :,c:pGrn~c~ them
8. Lnrl} nn, Zen for Film -..,n;.n ittH.:mpr01:..u:on.
The kind of chinking in the expanded field of cu ration and conscn:ation presented here '). !n Revisions-~Zen for Film. ! hGn: punu~·d ~ai cx!c..ndcd unuiy01~ ot Zen for Film\ :11t:!t1pk
fosters the acknov:lc<lgmcnt of changeability and impcrn1ancncc of these media as a rrn1u.t11n1-"1 imkcd \l.rth the y,roLi.s; of 11, d:innbuuon und mmt.ui1~ut10n.
ll\ L'.lu,untcrul iJy the mnhor (Hi th1-,O(U.ninn n( the prcpc1rn1,,m~ hr rhc L\hib1tiun Revisions-Zen for
condition of possibilin· for rhcir survi,al. ,\, Jack Ciadncv in Don Dd.illo's White
Film
Noise. once said: '['ye qot death inside n1c. It's jusr a question of whether or not I can i !. Zen for Film \\·ou!d, 1:1 th1" \.O;--c.po~c on c:-;,c;n1on. It" !cl1tkr pr(.~,.;nt:, u~ with n,i mrnu:..'"· no r'1h:;:

outli,c it' ':UeLi!lo 2!JU9 [1985[. 150). p!~otu;1rum~ ilhlt m1qhr h;:ur Bunhc!'' cs~cnLc of the tilm:c 1111.·cirnm
!2 \ z-cir;uri'; 01; I_ \I\ \\t.b:,nc '\\.\\\\.c.~u.:>rH1\\t:bl\1~Je.htm?id ..:.JJ} spcnk-, to tbc idcntit) ~,f Zen for Film
frorn Fluxjilm Anthology m,, in fou. ,1 dornmcrn
1,. \like r..:dh·,, The Parasite Lilly ,H8! 1' dbpb}d on tb .. oo:..t;.isvm ot" The Rituals of the Rented
Island "\\ hitnc~ .\lu,,cum ot .\mcnuu; \r., 11 Ouobcr 21/JJ 2 r chrw.1r)' 21!J.f1rnioh! ~enc ht.ri. o~ un
\'LHnpl, Ht·bu.1r,~1: d1.lun1u1to.1ti!Hl, t1!m. phJ'to:Jr.1;,h~. r·~l(:s:mi!c~. ~!1ticL o:: d1;tcn:n1 ~tuqt:;, :it t.m'.1,c;t!,)f'
,rnd d1q11-1'.rt.prndm t1on v.t:rc only ;.om<.:clcrncn;s u( l!~ Lon~pkx stuti~Jroph~ n1· dol umcnt~11Hlt1.
l-l-. !ltJ:J!fi:, t:~rniil!;,h::d h!•, fr,tory '.,( tbe c:-..nm!Gtnbt i:utun: oi \\ork w hi~ \>;ntmn cnriikd '·\:·

15. \.iy (lffJumcin appnn:Huutc-. o ::-11ndorddm1'..: m mu1.ic,lo,JY Lontcrnmu tiH: nnbp (It, rnu'.>iu1I \\<,:k
rn ttnn~ \lt pcrf(,nnanu.: rut'.:u t!:un ci ptrnbU·l1JmnvHl1n "ee ( nok 2ll(JIJ. l or ,,HH1ll[Jcn~ic~ nnd
:n:,tuiJtlitic~ 11 ( d1t: c~ en1 nnd th.:,r relau:m to pcn·(,r!llum c ,b ,.1 ~nmory pnso::10tkrn n~oclc. ;--cc ko:,L ) 1)') ..j
[{1. lkuY::s. \\h,, pruct:H ..d 'n.ii~l!ous L:1n;;cn·~ir11in ot h1'.- (Ht\l.orb' ."Fn~ \f1!JnonJ or Pu!..l 'llwk, \\h()
dt:";1t.r<.1t,.:i~~o~q!l: support m the rc~1dw:s 1,! hn prnc ..'.>;;unl in'.-Ullntnn~ bc:n] nn c;,.nt11pk.. f'ur J
d1scu'.-s1oll ')t Jlumv1wm (J! pcr!ornum.c c1rH::fou~, ~cc \lit1non 2(li)9.

IH. l (if ~m mtriJUitlfl th(ll!Hht Limsrdcrm\J cut U\ d1Kt1mcn1a:i()n, ::-(.:(_

GnJ;,~ 2(/!IB.
l'J. There h rmc more llSpLLl \l.onhy (,four do~c nttcntion, :\s no citl\•ork cxi~ts uu:~1dc dK u1ntc:-.i dw1
\\ !11~hn:nwino- ot H, th,: medium \1C both lt~ nrntcnnl und irncm:cria! format) m1t1fli hcuime 1dent1t"wb1'...'
h} th,: (hun':Jc it cxpcricnt.cs. lt 1~ the 1ran,,1uon. dctt'noc:itmn, rcmc:drntmn. cmulminn and n: enmtmcrn
rhnt !,fft:r ltK poml 1,f (lUc~:- 11, the undcr::.Lrndi,~J ol du.. nmurc ot I hunucohle ,n1rk~
:)J, In ;hi" ((>ntcxt. ti11nki11q :!bo~1t T!W(. 111lt·rm~ r\t m1ennr:: rntl1cr thGn rn term" d:c '.-!1lll>ci:,cd.
med1oni;nl wuy ut tHl1C mcu~urcmcrH oppc(1f':<-more mkqtutc
21. .-\uord11~;1 ti, Dclcuzc. 1f 1_hcrc \LI'.> nn dulcn:nu.' m rtpt.11tmn, th:r-in:s '>l:ould be 1dcnt1(JL n:p,·1n1,1c \~
oppnsni 10 t!~e in:i1~ und idcnuty nt rcprc~cnw1mn :J)dt'u;-c ji)()'} \1'1(,Hj1
22. \{;cl~oc:.:!Ct.!1tur} IProft,-~,ur ,;f '.;'...'w \kd1n und \lus1c Rcm:scl~H.:r Polrtuhn1L lmtitil!C. TroY', !!1
dist mr;1on \\ 1th th:.- uu:hor, ( lt tobtr 2011
Ccntur:, ~r~·ak" ul111ut the upcn, 1rnpn1,·1~n!J\111ul und ol11)Ll1run1,·, hurnl rcr of;!,,.,
(b oppnc,cd !O 1hi· d: >-cd. routine, m.:to(hronk :-.u,rc (( enturY 2()1,f,.

References:
Bur~hc;,. R :"l(rO) 'Tht: thin\ mcnnm11: rocunh nmc:, on ~.C\crui Lm~tLm Ht!i/_ in R. Hm,-in1 ~tr. 71ie
Responsibility of Forms. ·tl
(,2. Berkeley urn\ I .(b L'rn,·Lr~it} ot' ( nlihrnw Prc,'.-
B'..:dford. C (2Di2; "Th1.-\·inii ontolom oi ":n .\. !nm·'.> ond ,-\_!kuthf:cld :cd~.'- Perform,
Repeat, Record: Live Art in History.
94 95
 Blom, L (i'J91; The Intermedia Dynamics: An Aspect of Fluxus. P!,D di~!H.:nminn, Cnin:rrn: nf Rosenberg, IL (1952) 'The Amcncon action pumters'. Art News, December: 22.
(),!o.
Ur!qnont:, P. 12009) 'So !lpcurlc nh;nt~', in L ~h9,wn \e:d.l. Not to Play with Dead Things. (d '3.
SUGGESTED QUOTATION
Zuri<..h: Rinnicr Hanna 1-Wlling, Re\"isiom Zen for Film. Nev; York un<l Cbirngo: Burd Graduate Ccntcr/L 1nivcr~ity of
Brisk~-. S. ~2(,(18)'The phnwurapher and the performer', in;\. Muude Rm:by {ctl.'l. Live Art on Camera. Chllago Press. 2015.
tn 8. South,.unnwn: lohn I lansard Co!Jcry.
For
Co~J<...J. d9!:-n;, ihe Birds: John Cage in Conversation with Daniel Charles. Bmu,n and Ho.nnu Hl)lling. "The Ac,thetic.'I of Change: On rhe Relative Durations of tht: lmpcrmuncnt." [n
London: Manon HoJurs Publish::r~ Ltd. Authenticity in Transition. edited by Erma Hcrmem and Frames Robertson, 13-24. London: Archetype
Centurv. !VL (2l>l•t 'Dia~Jrnmming inten~itics: in~trumcnt, i;cot!c. and uH.ic ic c(mtcmpurary mu:.ic nnd Publirnuons, 201 (,.
mt:dm ;ut'. pn:~entarion on the tH.rn~inn nf the; Brrm·n Ban Lunch St:minur Senn, Ibn\ Grodua!e Ct:ntcr.
t\cv.· York (2.i '.\larch 2014). IMAGE CAPTIONS (to be plat cd in dose proximity of the rcspccttve image~)
Co:1k, :\. (2UOC, 'lkt\H'.cn proces:- and produce mu~ic andim pcrformonn:'. The Online Journal L ~am June Pmk, Zen For Film, 1%2 (14. Film projection. Installation nt:\1· dunng the exhibition
the Society for ,Music Theory *'(2). A,.-uilah!e u;: v.·v.-\l:.mtosmt org!is~ucs/mto.01. 1 .2 1 mto.OL Revisions-Zen for Film, Bard Graduate Ccnlcr's Focu~ Gallery. Ne...,-York, 17 September 2015 21
html#I-t"d(;IU.r (Ul(.e~e>t:d21 t-Ion.h 2015). February 201(i. Loan: Gilbert and Lila S1lverman f·'lu,;:m Collection, ?vfoscum of Modern Art (Mo:Vlt\). New
David. D. ',2004) Art as Performance, Oxford: Hladv.ell Publishin\J York. (Photo: Hanna Hiilling)
Dc!cu:Lt:, (~. 1994 [1%8] Difference and Repetition P. Putton (tc/. I\cw Y(1rk: Columbia Cn1n:rsit)
Pres~. 2. Norn June Paik. Zen For Film. 1962 64, Fluxkit containing a filmstrip. Instu!lotion view dunng the
DcL1lio, D. (20ffJ jl98S)': White Noise. ~cv.· York: Pt:nquin C!assics. exhibition Revi.sions-Zenfor Film, Bcttd Graduatt Center'~ rocu~ Gallery. Nev,: York. 17 September
Frit:d. t,.L (1998 {1967j: 'An and nbic:t.thnod'. in i\L Fried ~ed.),Art and Objecthood Chicago: Essays 2015 21 rebrnury 2016. Gilbert and Lila Silverman FluxU5 Collcctmn. Museum of Modern An (MnMA).
and Revi.ews. 1-tS "'2. Ch!(aoo: CniH:r~ity ofChico110 Pres". ~e\l.' York. (Photo; Hanoa !-folling)
Goodman,;-.,:, (1 1r:'61 LunnuO[Je~ of Arr: An Approm.h to a Tbc(1ty of Symbob. lndianupoli~: llod:nr
Publi~hin\J Co. .3. Nam June Paik, Zen For Film. 1%2 (A, Filmic relic from the 1%Os. Installation ,;1t:v; during the
Groys. B. ,'.2iJ\l8,i'.\rt 1n the uqc of hrnpol1t1es: from artwork to doLtllW..:ntutlon', m B. (,rop (uU. Art exhibition Revisions-Zen for Film. Bard Graduate Centc!r', Fotu~ Gallery, ~c-.1.·York. 17 September
Power. :i3 66, CnmbridiJe .\I:\ and London: \.HT Prt:~s. 2015 21 February 2016. Loan: Gilbert and Liia Sih'ennao Fluxw; Collection, ~[u:;eum of r,.rodcrn Art
l leatbftcld. :\. \2011) 'Then uguin'. in A. Jones and J\. l kathf1c!d (cds.,i. Perform, Repeat, Record: Live (~lo1J:\), i',;cv; York. (Photo: Hanna Ht)lling)
Art in History. 27 3i bristol ond Chirn~Jo'. InteU<.:ct.
Heubmh, F.\\' (19-:-0) 'Zur !lnppcninn und rluxus', in II. Snhm (c.:d.), Fluxus and Happening:
Materialien zusammengestellt van H. Sohm, Co!o:111<.:: F-:.iilni),chcr l(unsm:rcin
l!!o:1ins. D (J(}:'8) A Dialectic of Centuries: Notes Towards a Theory of New Arts. '.',.;c"'-York:
Prinh.d l·,dmom
lliillrnq. ! L (201.lJ Re:Paik: On Time, Changeability and Identity in the Conservation of
Nam June Paik Multimedia Installations, PhD di~i;crtnrion. Lni•:crmy of Amqerdum {pnbklliinn
fonhcomin9 201(,. Cnin::r~1ty ofCLlhfotn10 Pn:i;!l)
f !iillinH, IL (201 S; Revisions~Zen for Film. :--.;e\\'York and Chko~10: Burd C,roduutt: Crn1t:r 'Tnm::r~irr
of ( hirnoo Pr::'lj,
lkiilinq. IL -:2015) 'The Archirnl Turn'. in L \IonoYKh. R. Smite. and Raitis Smit~ (ed~.). Data Drift:
Archiving Media and Data Art in the 21st Century. 7 190. Rina: RIXC and Li1;;pnjl1s l-niHrsiry :\n
1

Rc~carch Lob.
I lii!t1nu. IL ~201(,) ''The Aesthetics of Chunne: On the Rdutin: Durnnons of the Impt:rmoncnt." In
Authenticity in Transition. editt:d br l,rnm llcr:n-cns und f-romc~ Roh1.:n~on. 13 24. J,ondon; An.hct~pc
Publilatiom.
Kaprow. '\. (20(11 [1958P 'Tht: !cgacy of Jat.kson Poilm.k', in J. Kelley (ed.). Allan Kaprow: Essays on
the Blurring of Art and Life. 1 9. lkrkcicy und I ,ondon: L'nivcr~iry of California Prc:-s.
(-..:aye.N. (199-J.)Postmodemism and Performance, l ,ondon: ,\tacmi!!an.
Lesi;inu. G.L (1851) Laocoon: An Essay upon the Limits of Painting and Poetry. LC. Brcosle', (rr.:
London: Lonnmon, Brown. Green and Lon9mum.
LiirtH.kcn. S, f2(l(J5J 'An urc:na in u.-hich ro rt: cnocr'. m S. Lt.i.ttid::en (ed.\ Live, Once Afore: Forms of
Re~enactment in Contempomry Art. i'"" W. Rnttudnm: Witte dt \'( ith lmtitutt:.
Md]ure. M. J. (2cl(i7j. ''l",:otn on Adhc~iPn-. The Ob\l'.Lt uf Art and the Work of Art nft{'.r Conccprunh~m:'
Performance Research 12, 4; 14 2:1.
~krcwcthec C. and Pnlt~, J. "2010} 'lntrodu:.tion'. in C :\lercweathC'f and J. Pons (eds). After the Event:
New Perspectives on Art History, 1 (i, Munche~ter: ,\lunchesrcr l"niversity Pres'.>.
.:\ft9non. F. (ed.) (20091 Not to Play with Dead Things. Zurich: Rin9icr.
Olde:nhur9. L (1995 [19(J2J) 'Re~1duol ohj<-'ct~'. m Claes Oldenburg: An Anthology, ,'.'...;t."'-York:
Gum1cnht>!m ,\lus<.:um Pubi:rotH>n~.
Phd:rn. P. (t1J91} Unmarked: The Politics of Perfonnance. London ond t'-."cwYork: Routledge.
Peine, CS. (19061 'Prolcnnmt:na to an upo!om- for pr-oomntic.imt', The Monist 16(4); 492 546.
Rnhrbaugh. G. (2005 j2!Xl2]J 'Ontolony of on'. in H. Gaut and D. Mc!n.:r Lopes ~cd~). The Routledge
Companion to Aesthetics. 2nd t.dn. 2.it "i4. London cmd Kev: York: Rourlcd91,;-.
96 97