|
[?]
|
|
|
Newsroom, 1983 |
Collaborative project with Larry Sultan,
1983
Installation/exhibition at Matrix
Gallery, Berkeley Art Museum
The following material is edited from a
lecture by Mike Mandel and Larry Sultan
at the Berkeley Art Museum, June 22,
2008
For Newsroom we rented AP and UPI wire
service machines, and installed them in
the MATRIX gallery at the Berkeley Art
Museum. The news flowed into the museum
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just as
it does in any newsroom.
Newsroom was based on the idea that
interpretation comes from context and
presentation. We responded to the raw
news, rearranged it and showed how these
images and stories were treated in
various newspapers, comparing them,
graphing various aspects of the news,
making murals and sequences. It was
completely spontaneous, and very much a
process-oriented show. We spent a lot of
time in the gallery. Usually you spend
your time and labor before you have a
show. This show was created in the
museum, the museum as studio. We were
beholden to the world of events to
generate interesting pictures. In a
sense, the idea was that the museum show
could generate itself. We didn’t know
what was going to come over the wire.
Each of the wire machines would produce
150 pictures a day. So we had 300
pictures a day to look at and try to
figure out what we might do with them.
Of course, the daily newspaper might use
three of those pictures in Section 1 and
all the rest of them would’ve been
thrown away. We identified that were all
kinds of news images that, though they
might never make it to the paper, had
all kinds of metaphorical possibilities.
We made large-scale murals. We would
identify different kinds of
gestures--journalistic tropes--and we
would create sequential relationships
with the gestures. The thousands of
pictures that we collected eventually
became detritus, a big island of stuff
placed the middle of the gallery floor
that kept piling up day by day.
It’s worth noting the technology of the
moment. If you think about how this
information is being communicated now,
we couldn’t do the project in this form,
because we’d simply be looking at
computer monitors.
We invited news media to review the
show. But the reporters expected that
the show would be more analytic, more
critical, that we would be trying to
find the "hidden bias" in the
news. The thing that we were very clear
about was that the politics that we were
interested in were the politics of
representation. We didn’t want to make a
political statement about the bias in
the news, that would simply spoil the
fun--it would just be didactic. It’s not
whether or not we are getting an
accurate portrayal of events, there is
no such thing as accurate memory. We
were looking at a different language,
the voice of gesture, the voice of
sequential relationships, the ideas of
spectacular scale. We were an aesthetic
voice that isn’t normally given instant
access to news imagery. The show also
included graphs and dates, actually, all
fake information, to make it look
important. Who really cares about how
many pictures there are in the news?
Gender and the news is a little bit more
interesting, but we felt we ought to
keep track of something, just to provide
a false impression that we were involved
in a project of journalistic
significance.
15 photos | 149 views
items are from between 18 Dec 2007 & 16 Oct 2008.