THE	
  ART	
  OF	
  INSTALLATION	
  IN	
  THE	
  FACE	
  THE	
  (MULTI)MEDIA	
  CHALLENGE	
  
Ryszard	
  W.	
  Kluszczynski	
  
Origin	
  –	
  history	
  –	
  characteristics	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  diversity	
  of	
  the	
  artists'	
  attitudes	
  and	
  actions	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  multiplicity	
  of	
  the	
  tools	
  they	
  
were	
  using	
  triggered	
  a	
  steady	
  and	
  internally	
  diversified	
  process	
  of	
  changing	
  the	
  character	
  
of	
  newly	
  created	
  installations.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation,	
  just	
  like	
  
many	
   other	
   categories	
   of	
   contemporary	
   art,	
   lacks	
   a	
   homogeneous	
   and	
   unequivocal	
  
character.	
   Looking	
   at	
   the	
   contemporary	
   works	
   referred	
   to	
   by	
   artists	
   and	
   critics	
   as	
  
installations,	
  we	
  can	
  in	
  fact	
  state	
  that	
  none	
  of	
  their	
  classical	
  attributes	
  mentioned	
  so	
  far	
  is	
  
obligatory	
   for	
   them	
   today.	
   The	
   presence	
   or	
   absence	
   of	
   those	
   features	
   only	
   makes	
   it	
  
possible	
  for	
  us	
  to	
  identify	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  installations.	
  For	
  example,	
  the	
  close	
  relation	
  to	
  a	
  
particular	
  place,	
  until	
  today	
  regarded	
  by	
  numerous	
  theoreticians	
  and	
  critics	
  as	
  a	
  defining	
  
feature	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation,	
  is	
  now	
  in	
  fact	
  only	
  a	
  feature	
  of	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  types,	
  referred	
  to	
  
as	
   site	
   specific,	
   or	
   in	
   situ	
   installation.	
   As	
   for	
   the	
   other	
   types,	
   only	
   the	
   impermanence,	
  
ephemerality	
  or	
  temporality	
  manifesting	
  themselves	
  in	
  various	
  ways	
  can	
  be	
  considered	
  to	
  
be	
  a	
  remnant,	
  or	
  a	
  consequence	
  of	
  the	
  original	
  relation	
  to	
  some	
  concrete	
  space.	
  After	
  their	
  
presentation	
  at	
  the	
  exhibition,	
  such	
  installations	
  are	
  dismantled	
  and,	
  when	
  shown	
  again	
  in	
  
another	
  gallery,	
  they	
  often	
  take	
  on	
  a	
  different	
  form.	
  Thus	
  they	
  occur	
  in	
  different	
  shapes	
  
and	
  formats,	
  which	
  means	
  that	
  they	
  remain	
  the	
  same	
  artwork	
  only	
  owing	
  to	
  the	
  identity	
  of	
  
their	
  concept,	
  idea	
  or	
  meaning.	
  Installations	
  of	
  this	
  type	
  thus	
  have	
  sort	
  of	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  a	
  
work	
   in	
   progress.	
   Their	
   ephemerality	
   ultimately	
   becomes,	
   to	
   some	
   extend,	
   a	
   defining	
  
feature	
  of	
  each	
  type	
  of	
  installation,	
  achieving,	
  as	
  stated	
  above,	
  its	
  maximum	
  concentration	
  
only	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  the	
  installation	
  in	
  situ.	
  This	
  type	
  of	
  installation	
  is	
  characterised	
  by	
  an	
  
unbreakable,	
  and	
  yet	
  unique,	
  relation	
  between	
  the	
  person	
  (artist),	
  the	
  place	
  and	
  the	
  time.	
  
This	
  process	
  of	
  transformation,	
  which	
  resulted	
  in	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  numerous,	
  originally	
  defining	
  
features	
  of	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  installation,	
  both	
  provided	
  it	
  with	
  the	
  aforementioned	
  attribute	
  
of	
  ephemerality,	
  and	
  also	
  highlighted	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  two	
  other	
  features,	
  which	
  were	
  
not	
  mentioned	
  earlier.	
  The	
  first	
  of	
  these	
  –	
  let	
  us	
  call	
  it	
  relationality	
  –	
  characterises,	
  to	
  a	
  
various	
   degree,	
   any	
   given	
   installation.	
   The	
   second,	
   which	
   we	
   will	
   call	
   intermediality,	
  
creates	
  for	
  installations	
  a	
  certain	
  context	
  of	
  references	
  realized	
  each	
  time	
  in	
  one	
  of	
  their	
  
possible	
  forms.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  term	
  "installation"	
  came	
  into	
  being	
  long	
  after	
  the	
  appearance	
  of	
  the	
  first	
  thus	
  called	
  
nowadays	
   artworks,	
   as	
   is	
   often	
   the	
   case	
   with	
   the	
   categories	
   necessary	
   for	
   the	
   proper	
  
shaping	
   of	
   the	
   discourse	
   on	
   contemporary	
   art,	
   the	
   discourse	
   capable	
   of	
   capturing,	
  
describing	
   and	
   interpreting	
   the	
   phenomena	
   characteristic	
   of	
   20th	
   century	
   culture.	
   The	
  
term	
  became	
  widely	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  1970s,	
  whereas	
  the	
  first	
  works	
  –	
  later	
  termed,	
  a	
  posteriori,	
  
"installations"	
  –	
  appeared	
  as	
  early	
  as	
  the	
  1920s.	
  Authored	
  by,	
  inter	
  alia,	
  Marcel	
  Duchamp,	
  
Kurt	
  Schwitters	
  and	
  Laszlo	
  Moholy-­‐Nagy,	
  they	
  were	
  harbingers	
  of	
  the	
  artistic	
  processes	
  to	
  
come.	
  	
  
The	
  real	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation	
  began	
  in	
  the	
  1960s.	
  It	
  was	
  then	
  that	
  the	
  
appearance	
  of	
  works	
  created	
  in	
  the	
  spirit	
  of	
  installation	
  began	
  to	
  shape	
  the	
  awareness	
  of	
  
the	
  birth	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  discipline	
  of	
  art,	
  dismissing	
  traditional	
  strategies	
  and	
  techniques	
  of	
  fine	
  
arts,	
  rejecting	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  beauty,	
  and	
  challenging	
  the	
  conception	
  of	
  form	
  understood	
  as	
  a	
  
vehicle	
  for	
  aesthetic	
  values,	
  perceived	
  through	
  an	
  aesthetic	
  experience.	
  The	
  awareness	
  of	
  
the	
  new	
  art	
  structure	
  –	
  installation,	
  was	
  beginning	
  to	
  take	
  shape.	
  It	
  was	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  more	
  
general	
   process,	
   which	
   unified	
   the	
   various	
   concepts	
   seeking	
   to	
   deformalise	
   and	
  
dematerialise	
   the	
   work	
   of	
   art.	
   Following	
   in	
   the	
   footsteps	
   of	
   conceptual	
   art,	
   the	
   art	
   of	
  
installation	
   was	
   also	
   becoming	
   a	
   domain	
   of	
   those	
   forms	
   of	
   activity,	
   which	
   replaced	
   an	
  
objectively	
  existing	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  with	
  semantic	
  discourse.	
  The	
  art	
  of	
  installation,	
  like	
  its	
  
spiritually	
  akin	
  movements	
  of	
  performance,	
  happening,	
  Pop	
  Art,	
  minimalism,	
  arte	
  povera,	
  
and	
  conceptual	
  art	
  (the	
  source	
  of	
  them	
  all),	
  have	
  thus	
  helped	
  create	
  a	
  neo-­‐avant-­‐garde	
  
current,	
   another	
   stage	
   of	
   development	
   (after	
   the	
   historical	
   avant-­‐garde)	
   of	
   the	
   radical	
  
tendencies	
  in	
  20th	
  century	
  art.	
  	
  
Following	
  the	
  formation	
  of	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  installation,	
  the	
  term	
  describing	
  it	
  eventually	
  
appeared.	
   Nowadays,	
   with	
   the	
   richness	
   and	
   variety	
   of	
   this	
   art	
   discipline,	
   one	
   cannot	
  
imagine	
  the	
  metalanguage	
  of	
  art	
  without	
  the	
  category	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  art	
  objects,	
  which	
  are	
  today	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  installations,	
  were	
  described	
  and	
  classified	
  
for	
   many	
   years	
   by	
   means	
   of	
   other	
   categories.	
   Among	
   these,	
   the	
   terms	
   assemblage	
   and	
  
environment	
  have	
  become	
  firmly	
  established	
  in	
  the	
  metalanguage	
  of	
  art.	
  Their	
  similarity,	
  
or	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  even	
  synonymy,	
  with	
  the	
  category	
  of	
  installation	
  is	
  connected	
  with	
  the	
  
fact	
  that	
  their	
  characteristic	
  features	
  also	
  belong	
  to	
  the	
  set	
  of	
  features	
  defining	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  
installation.	
   Assemblages,	
   whose	
   origins	
   can	
   be	
   traced	
   to	
   Duchamp's	
   ready-­‐mades	
   and	
  
Schwitters's	
  collages,	
  are	
  similar	
  to	
  installations	
  in	
  the	
  complexity	
  of	
  their	
  construction	
  
(though	
  not	
  necessarily	
  realised	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  way),	
  the	
  heterogeneity	
  of	
  the	
  materials,	
  the	
  
use	
  of	
  ready-­‐made	
  objects	
  (elements),	
  and	
  poor	
  structural	
  cohesion	
  of	
  their	
  components	
  
(and	
   their	
   often	
   temporary	
   juxtaposition).	
   Environments,	
   in	
   turn,	
   are	
   linked	
   to	
  
installations	
   mostly	
   through	
   their	
   topological	
   concreteness,	
   their	
   location	
   in	
   a	
   specific	
  
space.	
  The	
  second	
  constitutional	
  feature	
  of	
  the	
  environment	
  –	
  placing	
  the	
  recipient	
  inside	
  
the	
  work,	
  treating	
  her	
  or	
  him	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  it	
  rather	
  than	
  leaving	
  them	
  out	
  in	
  neutral	
  space,	
  
had	
  less	
  of	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  characterisation	
  of	
  installation	
  during	
  the	
  first	
  phase	
  of	
  its	
  
development.	
  Only	
  some	
  installations	
  were	
  then	
  actually	
  incorporating	
  the	
  recipient	
  into	
  
the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  work.	
  It	
  is	
  only	
  nowadays	
  that	
  –	
  in	
  consequence	
  of	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  
multimedia	
   installations	
   –	
   the	
   importance	
   of	
   this	
   feature	
   has	
   increased	
   considerably,	
  
leading	
  also	
  to	
  changes	
  within	
  the	
  concept	
  itself.	
  The	
  change	
  has	
  been	
  accompanied	
  by	
  a	
  
transformation	
   of	
   many	
   other	
   factors,	
   elements	
   and	
   aspects	
   of	
   installation,	
   and	
   of	
   the	
  
structure	
   of	
   their	
   mutual	
   interactions,	
   which	
   has	
   consequently	
   led	
   to	
   the	
   necessary	
  
redefinition	
  of	
  the	
  category	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
	
  
Let	
  us	
  have	
  a	
  closer	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  principal	
  characteristics	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  attribute	
  to	
  the	
  art	
  
of	
  installation.	
  Ephemerality/temporariness	
  (1)	
  –	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  attributes	
  –	
  has	
  been	
  already	
  
discussed	
  previously.	
  	
  	
  
2.	
   Relationality	
   had	
   already	
   been	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   assemblage,	
   highlighting	
   the	
  
relations	
  between	
  the	
  particular	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  work;	
  it	
  also	
  contributed	
  to	
  the	
  creation	
  
of	
  the	
  term	
  "environment",	
  this	
  time	
  emphasising	
  both	
  the	
  relations	
  between	
  space	
  and	
  
the	
   structure	
   of	
   its	
   arrangement	
   and	
   between	
   the	
   recipient	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   and	
   space	
  
(including	
  its	
  constituents,	
  aspects	
  and	
  dimensions).	
  Installation	
  art	
  reveals	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  its	
  
incarnations	
   –	
   far	
   more	
   clearly	
   than	
   assemblage	
   and	
   environment	
   –	
   just	
   this	
   attribute,	
  
making	
  it	
  eventually	
  its	
  essential	
  feature,	
  whereas	
  the	
  diversity	
  of	
  forms	
  under	
  which	
  this	
  
attribute	
  appears	
  becomes	
  the	
  main	
  source	
  of	
  criteria	
  for	
  the	
  classification	
  of	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  
installations.	
   The	
   higher	
   degree	
   of	
   relationality	
   in	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   artworks	
   as	
   a	
  
defining	
  feature	
  of	
  installation	
  art,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  its	
  importance	
  and	
  function,	
  
result	
  from	
  dematerialisation	
  of	
  these	
  works.	
  The	
  functions	
  which	
  e.g.	
  in	
  assemblage	
  were	
  
fulfilled	
  jointly	
  by	
  the	
  material,	
  form,	
  and	
  the	
  relational	
  structure,	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  installation	
  
art	
  are	
  performed	
  exclusively,	
  or	
  mostly,	
  by	
  the	
  latter.	
  That	
  is	
  what	
  makes	
  relationality	
  an	
  
essential	
  feature	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
3.	
  Intermediality,	
  in	
  turn,	
  which	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  means	
  being	
  in	
  unique	
  contact	
  with	
  other	
  
disciplines	
  of	
  art,	
  is	
  a	
  feature,	
  which	
  is	
  common	
  to	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation,	
  and	
  some	
  other	
  
domains	
  of	
  20th	
  century	
  art,	
  such	
  as	
  film	
  or	
  video	
  art.	
  It	
  also	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  symptomatic	
  of	
  
the	
   whole	
   artistic	
   culture	
   at	
   the	
   end	
   of	
   the	
   20th	
   century.	
   In	
   a	
   sense,	
   intermediality	
   of	
  
installations	
  can	
  be	
  regarded	
  as	
  yet	
  another	
  variant	
  of	
  relationality	
  characteristic	
  of	
  this	
  art	
  
form.	
   The	
   relations	
   considered	
   here	
   hold	
   between	
   various	
   forms	
   of	
   creative	
   behaviour	
  
activated	
  by	
  installation	
  art.	
  Installation	
  in	
  its	
  diverse	
  forms,	
  as	
  an	
  artistic	
  phenomenon,	
  
seems	
  to	
  have	
  close	
  and	
  dynamic	
  ties	
  to	
  any	
  other	
  kinds	
  of	
  art.	
  Both	
  different	
  forms	
  of	
  
visual	
   creation,	
   such	
   as	
   drawing,	
   painting,	
   sculpture	
   or	
   architecture,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   other	
  
artistic	
   disciplines,	
   such	
   as	
   music,	
   poetry	
   or	
   performance,	
   are	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   system	
   of	
  
intermedia	
   references	
   initiated	
   by	
   installation	
   art.	
   Especially	
   important	
   among	
   them	
   is	
  
what	
   is	
   broadly	
   termed	
   media	
   art	
   and,	
   primarily,	
   one	
   of	
   its	
   variants,	
   video	
   art	
   (to	
   be	
  
discussed	
  below).	
  	
  
4.	
  Another	
  feature	
  of	
  installation	
  art	
  may	
  be	
  called	
  pro-­‐interactivity.	
  I	
  understand	
  by	
  this	
  
the	
  tendency	
  of	
  installations	
  to	
  make	
  reception	
  both	
  an	
  active	
  and	
  individualized	
  process.	
  
This	
  feature	
  is	
  sometimes	
  referred	
  to	
  simply	
  as	
  interactivity	
  (see	
  e.g.	
  Morse	
  1990).	
  In	
  such	
  
a	
  case	
  the	
  reason	
  given	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  recipient	
  chooses	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  way	
  of	
  experiencing	
  the	
  
installation,	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  many	
  possible	
  ways	
  of	
  its	
  reception	
  (ibid.	
  159-­‐161).	
  I	
  myself	
  am	
  not	
  
willing	
  to	
  subscribe	
  to	
  the	
  assumption	
  that	
  each	
  installation	
  by	
  itself	
  has	
  an	
  interactive	
  
character.	
   I	
   would	
   rather	
   speak	
   of	
   interactivity	
   only	
   in	
   connection	
   with	
   the	
   artworks	
  
(including	
  installations)	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  interference,	
  or	
  activity,	
  of	
  the	
  recipient	
  is	
  not	
  limited	
  
to	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  reception,	
  but	
  also	
  extends	
  onto	
  the	
  ontological	
  plane,	
  where	
  the	
  processually	
  
understood	
  artwork	
  itself	
  rather	
  than	
  its	
  mere	
  reception,	
  undergoes	
  individualisation	
  or	
  
even	
  is	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  interactive	
  creation	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  suggested	
  or	
  organised	
  by	
  the	
  
artist	
  (cf.	
  Kluszczynski	
  1996;	
  1997).	
  Numerous	
  installations	
  do	
  fulfill	
  this	
  condition.	
  Still	
  
more	
  numerous,	
  however,	
  are	
  those	
  which	
  do	
  not	
  possess	
  this	
  quality.	
  Instead,	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  
them	
   incorporate	
   the	
   recipient,	
   making	
   him	
   or	
   her	
   an	
   element	
   of	
   their	
   structure.	
   Such	
  
works	
  then	
  acquire	
  a	
  certain	
  degree	
  of	
  derivative	
  interactivity,	
  for	
  the	
  individualisation	
  of	
  
reception	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  becomes	
  a	
  sui	
  generis	
  individualisation	
  of	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  work.	
  
Conversely,	
  the	
  installations	
  which	
  do	
  not	
  possess	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  interactivity	
  in	
  the	
  full	
  
(and	
  proper)	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  term,	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  make	
  the	
  recipient	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  structure,	
  can	
  
acquire	
  a	
  sort	
  of	
  reference	
  to	
  interactivity	
  thanks	
  to	
  the	
  presentism	
  characteristic	
  of	
  this	
  
kind	
   of	
   art.	
   The	
   presence	
   of	
   the	
   installation	
   and	
   the	
   recipient	
   in	
   the	
   same	
   time-­‐space,	
  
without	
  referring	
  the	
  latter	
  to	
  other	
  worlds	
  (imaginary	
  or	
  virtual),	
  necessarily	
  creates	
  a	
  
certain	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  two,	
  relationship,	
  which	
  modifies	
  the	
  artwork	
  itself	
  in	
  a	
  
special	
  way	
  and	
  constitutes	
  a	
  substitute	
  for	
  interactivity.	
  And	
  owing	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  all	
  
three	
   forms	
   of	
   interactivity	
   (or	
   quasi-­‐interactivity)	
   manifested	
   by	
   installation	
   art	
   have	
  
blurred	
  boundaries	
  and	
  are	
  characterised	
  by	
  the	
  smooth	
  transition	
  from	
  one	
  to	
  another,	
  
the	
  decision	
  to	
  ascribe	
  pro-­‐interactivity	
  to	
  installation	
  art	
  genre,	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  justified	
  
than	
  ascribing	
  to	
  it	
  en	
  general	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  an	
  interactive	
  discipline.	
  The	
  latter	
  decision	
  
would	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  situation	
  in	
  which	
  interactivity	
  can	
  be	
  applied	
  to	
  all	
  types	
  of	
  installation,	
  
both	
   those	
   inherently	
   interactive,	
   and	
   the	
   ones	
   which	
   in	
   fact	
   only	
   gravitate	
   towards	
  
interactivity.	
   Differences	
   among	
   these	
   types	
   will	
   thus	
   be	
   another	
   source	
   of	
   internal	
  
divisions	
  and	
  classifications.	
  	
  
5.	
   A	
   further	
   attribute	
   of	
   installations,	
   presentism,	
   has	
   already	
   been	
   mentioned	
   in	
   the	
  
above	
   discussion	
   of	
   pro-­‐interactivity.	
   It	
   refers,	
   primarily,	
   to	
   the	
   non-­‐illusoriness	
   of	
  
installation,	
  which	
  does	
  not	
  fulfill	
  a	
  presentative	
  function	
  or	
  send	
  the	
  recipient	
  outside	
  the	
  
space	
  where	
  the	
  installation	
  has	
  its	
  location.	
  Consequently,	
  such	
  an	
  installation	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  
staging	
  (cf.	
  Morse	
  1990);	
  it	
  only	
  exists	
  in	
  physical,	
  so	
  called	
  real	
  space,	
  which	
  it	
  shares	
  with	
  
the	
   recipients,	
   that	
   in	
   turn	
   means	
   that	
   they	
   are	
   necessarily	
   within	
   the	
   installation's	
  
boundaries	
   and	
   enter	
   into	
   various	
   temporal	
   and	
   spatial	
   relations	
   with	
   it,	
   often	
  
unintentionally.	
   It	
   is	
   such	
   relations	
   that	
   together	
   create	
   the	
   aforementioned	
  
pro-­‐interactive	
  character	
  of	
  installation.	
  
6.	
  The	
  last	
  (but	
  by	
  no	
  means	
  the	
  least	
  important)	
  feature	
  of	
  installation	
  that	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  
mentioned	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  complete	
  its	
  definition	
  will	
  be	
  called	
  semanticity.	
  As	
  concluded	
  
previously,	
  an	
  installation	
  is	
  above	
  all	
  an	
  operation	
  on	
  meanings;	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  structure	
  arranging	
  
various	
   semantic	
   constructions	
   into	
   a	
   system	
   (an	
   ad	
   hoc	
   ordering)	
   of	
   mutual	
   relations.	
  
Semanticity	
  thus	
  plays	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  basic	
  substance	
  (material)	
  of	
  the	
  work,	
  its	
  context,	
  
and	
  of	
  its	
  only	
  frame	
  of	
  reference.	
  The	
  artistic	
  doctrine	
  of	
  conceptual	
  art	
  thus	
  becomes,	
  as	
  I	
  
have	
  earlier	
  pointed	
  out,	
  the	
  basic	
  source	
  and	
  the	
  framework	
  for	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
	
  
Media	
  installations	
  	
  
The	
  artistic	
  media	
  played	
  a	
  prominent	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  shaping	
  of	
  the	
  installation.	
  Of	
  these,	
  the	
  
most	
  important	
  was	
  video	
  art.	
  However,	
  besides	
  video	
  installations,	
  the	
  media	
  art	
  of	
  the	
  
late	
   1960s	
   and	
   early	
   1970s	
   also	
   developed	
   an	
   extremely	
   interesting	
   trend	
   of	
   film	
  
installations,	
   which	
   can	
   be	
   regarded	
   as	
   an	
   offshoot	
   of	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   video	
  
installations.	
  But	
  it	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  regarded	
  as	
  an	
  autonomous	
  process	
  of	
  transformation	
  of	
  
the	
   film,	
   which	
   attempted	
   to	
   overcome	
   the	
   limitations	
   imposed	
   by	
   the	
   linearity	
   of	
   the	
  
medium	
  and	
  to	
  assume	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  spatial	
  art,	
  bound	
  with	
  real	
  surroundings.	
  In	
  such	
  
films,	
   the	
   projection	
   ceased	
   to	
   be	
   only	
   an	
   external,	
   "invisible"	
   and	
   aesthetically	
   neutral	
  
foundation	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  (located	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  dispositif),	
  winning	
  in	
  return	
  the	
  
status	
  of	
  a	
  significant	
  element	
  of	
  artistic	
  film	
  structure	
  (as	
  well	
  as	
  entering	
  the	
  framework	
  
of	
  film	
  textuality).	
  Film	
  projections,	
  just	
  like	
  other	
  types	
  of	
  film	
  installations,	
  were	
  part	
  of	
  
an	
  extensive	
  and	
  internally	
  diverse	
  trend,	
  which	
  Gene	
  Youngblood	
  (1970)	
  called	
  expanded	
  
cinema.	
  Film	
  installations	
  (often	
  accompanied	
  by	
  film	
  performance)	
  of	
  such	
  artists	
  as	
  for	
  
instance	
   Tony	
   and	
   Beverly	
   Conrad,	
   David	
   Dye,	
   Dan	
   Graham,	
   Malcolm	
   Le	
   Grice,	
   John	
  
Hilliard,	
   Takahiko	
   Iimura,	
   Polish	
   artists	
   Jozef	
   Robakowski	
   and	
   Andrzej	
   Rozycki,	
   Paul	
  
Sharits,	
  or	
  Peter	
  Weibel,	
  constituted	
  jointly	
  the	
  "artists'	
  films",	
  associated	
  with	
  galleries	
  
and	
  museums,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  "art	
  films",	
  feature	
  films	
  shown	
  in	
  cinemas	
  (see	
  Gidal	
  1972,	
  
Nicolson	
   1972).	
   Andy	
   Warhol’s	
   1963	
   –	
   1965	
   films,	
   such	
   as	
   Sleep,	
   Empire	
   or	
   Couch	
  
preceded	
  their	
  appearance).	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  worth	
  noting	
  that	
  the	
  category	
  of	
  film	
  installation	
  
itself	
  began	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  relatively	
  early	
  in	
  the	
  literature	
  (e.g.	
  Le	
  Grice	
  1972),	
  which	
  made	
  it	
  
possible	
  to	
  separate	
  works	
  of	
  the	
  aforementioned	
  artists	
  from	
  among	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  artistic	
  
film	
   production,	
   and	
   which	
   was	
   evidence	
   of	
   the	
   high	
   degree	
   of	
   awareness	
   of	
   that	
  
phenomenon	
  among	
  avant-­‐garde	
  filmmakers	
  and	
  theorists.	
  	
  
	
  
As	
  I	
  have	
  already	
  mentioned,	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  video	
  installations	
  has	
  a	
  privileged	
  position	
  within	
  
the	
  domain	
  of	
  (audio)visual	
  media	
  installations.	
  Compared	
  to	
  photographic	
  installations	
  it	
  
is	
  richer	
  by	
  a	
  temporal	
  (and	
  aural)	
  factor;	
  it	
  is	
  in	
  turn	
  superior	
  to	
  film	
  installation	
  by	
  its	
  
ability	
  to	
  build	
  (audio)visual	
  feedback	
  connections	
  (closed	
  circuits),	
  and	
  to	
  create	
  tension	
  
between	
  simultaneously	
  existing	
  aspects	
  of	
  reality	
  and	
  their	
  (audio)visual	
  representations.	
  	
  
The	
  term	
  "video	
  installation”	
  consolidated	
  its	
  position	
  within	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  art	
  criticism	
  
in	
  the	
  same	
  decade	
  as	
  the	
  general	
  category	
  of	
  installation.	
  In	
  that	
  initial	
  period	
  of	
  video	
  art,	
  
phenomena	
  having	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  installations	
  were	
  also	
  described	
  by	
  some	
  other	
  terms.	
  
Those	
  terms,	
  however,	
  were	
  also	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  quality,	
  which	
  we	
  had	
  regarded	
  as	
  the	
  
essential	
  one	
  for	
  defining	
  installation	
  in	
  general,	
  i.e.	
  relationality.	
  A	
  telling	
  example	
  is	
  the	
  
term	
   "closed-­‐circuit	
   video	
   environment",	
   which	
   was	
   used	
   by,	
   inter	
   alia,	
   Lizzie	
   Borden	
  
(Borden,	
  1975),	
  while	
  characterising	
  the	
  main	
  tendencies	
  in	
  video	
  art	
  in	
  1965-­‐1975.	
  Not	
  
only	
  does	
  this	
  term	
  reveal	
  relationality	
  as	
  an	
  important	
  feature	
  of	
  video	
  installation,	
  but	
  it	
  
also	
  points	
  to	
  the	
  relations	
  between	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  and	
  environment	
  –	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  
space.	
  Closed-­‐circuit	
  video	
  environment	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  remains	
  closely	
  bound	
  with	
  the	
  
receptive	
  behaviour	
  of	
  the	
  viewers,	
  in	
  that	
  it	
  combines	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  video	
  with	
  the	
  
parallel	
  perception	
  of	
  physical	
  surrounds,	
  and	
  interferes	
  with	
  the	
  traditional	
  methods	
  of	
  
orientation	
   (physical	
   and	
   psychological	
   dislocation).	
   It	
   also	
   introduces	
   an	
   element	
   of	
  
simultaneity	
  to	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  the	
  video	
  itself.	
  The	
  other	
  two	
  trends	
  distinguished	
  by	
  
Borden	
   include	
   the	
   abstract	
   video,	
   which	
   she	
   also	
   calls	
   self-­‐referential	
   video,	
   and	
   the	
  
figurative	
  video,	
  which	
  may	
  additionally	
  have	
  a	
  narrative	
  character.	
  	
  
	
  
Obviously,	
   the	
   category	
   used	
   by	
   Lizzie	
   Borden	
   was	
   closely	
   bound	
   with	
   the	
   situation	
   in	
  
video	
  art	
  characteristic	
  of	
  that	
  decade,	
  since	
  the	
  basic	
  type	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  was	
  then	
  
the	
  one	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  camera,	
  the	
  monitor	
  and	
  their	
  surroundings	
  constituted	
  one	
  system	
  
of	
  interrelations	
  (cf.	
  Duguet	
  1985).	
  Some	
  other	
  writers,	
  however,	
  were	
  concurrently	
  using	
  
the	
   term	
   "video	
   installation"	
   to	
   name	
   and	
   characterise	
   all	
   types	
   of	
   spatial	
   video	
  
arrangements,	
   both	
   those	
   utilising	
   the	
   feedback	
   system,	
   and	
   the	
   ones	
   favouring	
   other	
  
systems	
  of	
  relations	
  between	
  elements	
  or	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  work.	
  Among	
  those	
  writers	
  was	
  
Wulf	
  Herzogenrath,	
  who,	
  characterising	
  the	
  situation	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  in	
  West	
  Germany	
  and	
  
distinguishing	
  four	
  main	
  areas	
  of	
  art	
  making	
  use	
  of	
  video	
  technology,	
  described	
  one	
  of	
  
them	
  as	
  the	
  domain	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  and	
  video	
  objects	
  (Herzogenrath	
  1976:	
  222).	
  	
  
As	
   I	
   have	
   mentioned,	
   Herzogenrath's	
   approach	
   was	
   not	
   unique	
   at	
   that	
   time.	
   Video	
  
installations	
  were	
  discussed	
  very	
  often.	
  The	
  authors	
  of	
  the	
  publications	
  devoted	
  to	
  this	
  
kind	
   of	
   video	
   art	
   (and	
   using	
   the	
   aforementioned	
   category)	
   include	
   David	
   Hall	
   (1976),	
  
Stuart	
  Marshall	
  (1976),	
  Peter	
  Frank	
  (1976),	
  Susan	
  C.	
  Larson	
  (1978),	
  and	
  Ingrid	
  Wiegand	
  
(1978).	
  This	
  fact	
  can	
  be	
  treated	
  as	
  a	
  proof	
  that,	
  although	
  it	
  was	
  relatively	
  new,	
  the	
  concept	
  
of	
  video	
  installation,	
  just	
  like	
  the	
  very	
  phenomenon	
  itself,	
  became	
  firmly	
  established	
  in	
  the	
  
world	
  of	
  art	
  at	
  that	
  time.	
  Indicating	
  the	
  growing	
  artistic	
  awareness	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  
was	
   also	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   its	
   numerous	
   examples	
   were	
   included	
   (and	
   supplied	
   with	
   both	
  
theoretical	
  and	
  historical	
  commentary)	
  in	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  first	
  monographs	
  of	
  video	
  art,	
  the	
  
eponymous	
  anthology	
  published	
  by	
  Ira	
  Schneider	
  and	
  Beryl	
  Korot	
  in	
  1976.	
  	
  
It	
  is	
  worth	
  stressing	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  Lizzie	
  Borden	
  wrote	
  in	
  her	
  article	
  mentioned	
  above	
  about	
  
the	
  history	
  of	
  video	
  installations	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  1965-­‐1975.	
  It	
  was	
  also	
  true	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  then	
  
that	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   the	
   phenomenon	
   preceded	
   the	
   appearance	
   of	
   its	
   name	
   and	
  
concept.	
  The	
  beginning	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  coincides	
  with	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  in	
  
general,	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  video	
  installations,	
  authored	
  by	
  Nam	
  June	
  Paik	
  and	
  Wolf	
  Vostell,	
  were	
  
created	
  as	
  early	
  as	
  1963.	
  They	
  were	
  followed	
  by	
  numerous	
  works	
  of	
  other	
  artists,	
  which	
  
turned	
   the	
   discipline	
   of	
   video	
   installation	
   not	
   only	
   into	
   the	
   area	
   of	
   rapidly	
   developing	
  
experiments	
  laying	
  the	
  foundations	
  of	
  video	
  art,	
  but	
  also	
  into	
  the	
  most	
  dynamic	
  area	
  of	
  
installation	
  art	
  in	
  general.	
  Nam	
  June	
  Paik's	
  artistic	
  activity	
  alone	
  provides	
  examples	
  of	
  an	
  
immense	
  variety	
  of	
  video	
  installations	
  and	
  is	
  itself	
  a	
  source	
  of	
  many	
  of	
  their	
  types.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   characterisation	
   of	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   artistic	
   installation	
   which	
   I	
   carried	
   out	
   at	
   the	
  
beginning	
   of	
   this	
   article,	
   made	
   it	
   possible	
   to	
   define	
   its	
   essential	
   qualities:	
   relationality,	
  
intermediality,	
   temporariness,	
   pro-­‐interactivity,	
   presentism,	
   and	
   semanticity.	
   All	
   these	
  
attributes	
  of	
  installation	
  in	
  general	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  video	
  installation.	
  Yet,	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  
exhaust	
  the	
  set	
  of	
  features	
  characteristic	
  of	
  it,	
  because	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  
comprises	
  some	
  other	
  features,	
  peculiar	
  to	
  it	
  owing	
  to	
  the	
  characteristics	
  of	
  its	
  medium,	
  i.e.	
  
the	
  video.	
  	
  
The	
  first	
  of	
  these	
  should	
  be	
  termed	
  pro-­‐virtuality.	
  Video	
  installations	
  use	
  the	
  contrast	
  
between	
  the	
  physical,	
  material	
  world	
  (reality)	
  and	
  the	
  virtual	
  world	
  for	
  artistic	
  purposes.	
  
They	
  put	
  the	
  recipient	
  at	
  the	
  boundary	
  between	
  these	
  two	
  ontological	
  dimensions,	
  which	
  
in	
  consequence	
  means	
  that	
  the	
  discourse	
  on	
  the	
  methods	
  of	
  articulating	
  reality	
  through	
  
the	
   media	
   inevitably	
   becomes	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   reception	
   process.	
   Thus	
   the	
   basic	
   function	
   of	
  
video	
  installations	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  culture	
  becomes,	
  as	
  Margaret	
  Morse	
  demonstrates,	
  an	
  
analysis	
  of	
  all	
  kinds	
  of	
  materialisation	
  of	
  the	
  conceptual	
  element	
  which	
  are	
  accessible	
  to	
  
contemporary,	
  deeply	
  medialised,	
  society	
  (Morse	
  	
  1990:	
  155).	
  	
  
In	
   the	
   currently	
   developing	
   (multi)media	
   paradigm1,	
   the	
   relation	
   between	
   the	
   material	
  
and	
   the	
   virtual	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   artwork	
   is	
   now	
   coming	
   to	
   the	
   fore.	
   Video	
   installations	
  
represent	
  particular	
  types	
  of	
  relations	
  between	
  the	
  material	
  and	
  the	
  virtual	
  sphere.	
  These	
  
relations	
  jointly	
  create	
  a	
  paradigm	
  of	
  co-­‐presence,	
  realised	
  through	
  conflict	
  tensions	
  or	
  a	
  
harmonious	
  dialogue;	
  they	
  also	
  show	
  the	
  different	
  forms	
  of	
  implementation	
  of	
  those	
  two	
  
dimensions.	
  The	
  diversity	
  of	
  forms	
  of	
  materiality	
  is	
  accompanied	
  by	
  similar	
  diversification	
  
of	
  the	
  forms	
  of	
  virtuality.	
  	
  
	
  
A	
  further	
  form	
  typical	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  is	
  narrativity.	
  Before	
  I	
  proceed	
  to	
  discuss	
  it,	
  I	
  
should	
  first	
  like	
  to	
  call	
  up	
  one	
  more	
  differentiation,	
  this	
  time	
  within	
  video	
  installation	
  itself.	
  
One	
  should	
  differentiate	
  there	
  between	
  two	
  types:	
  
1.	
  Installations	
  where	
  audiovisuality	
  is	
  only	
  a	
  function	
  of	
  feedback.	
  The	
  camera	
  transmits	
  
the	
   picture	
   (and/or	
   sound)	
   onto	
   the	
   monitor	
   and	
   the	
   installation,	
   remaining	
   in	
   close	
  
circuit,	
  investigates	
  the	
  relations	
  between	
  the	
  picture/representation	
  and	
  its	
  environment,	
  
deconstructs	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  that	
  environment,	
  deals	
  with	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  transmission	
  and	
  
communication,	
  highlights	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  spatial	
  and	
  the	
  temporal	
  aspect	
  of	
  
the	
   work,	
   and,	
   as	
   Morse	
   observes,	
   reflects	
   on	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   medialising	
   identity	
   and	
  
power	
  (1990:	
  159).	
  
2.	
  Installations	
  which	
  use	
  pre-­‐prepared	
  (audio)visual	
  material,	
  recorded	
  on	
  magnetic	
  tape.	
  
In	
  this	
  case,	
  the	
  installation,	
  developing	
  over	
  time,	
  complements	
  its	
  spatial	
  character	
  with	
  
the	
   intensified	
   status	
   and	
   properties	
   of	
   a	
   process,	
   at	
   the	
   same	
   time	
   creating	
   a	
   specific	
  
world	
   –	
   a	
   correlate	
   of	
   mental	
   states.	
   The	
   created	
   world	
   has	
   a	
   problematic	
   ontological	
  
status	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  brings	
  about	
  tension	
  between	
  mimesis	
  and	
  simulation.	
  	
  
Let	
  us	
  go	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  narrativity	
  of	
  video	
  installation.	
  It	
  would	
  seem	
  that	
  narrativity,	
  as	
  a	
  
structural	
  feature	
  of	
  the	
  record	
  on	
  tape,	
  is	
  connected	
  only	
  with	
  video	
  installation	
  of	
  the	
  
second	
   type.	
   However,	
   the	
   analysis	
   of	
   various	
   existing	
   works	
   allows	
   us	
   to	
   state	
   that	
  
although	
  narrativity	
  is	
  a	
  structural	
  quality	
  of	
  only	
  those	
  installations,	
  which	
  make	
  use	
  of	
  
pre-­‐prepared	
  tapes,	
  we	
  can	
  also	
  speak	
  of	
  a	
  kind	
  of	
  narrativity	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  other	
  
types	
  of	
  works.	
  Narrativity	
  in	
  video	
  installation	
  extends	
  far	
  beyond	
  its	
  traditional	
  domains.	
  
In	
  fact,	
  it	
  often	
  goes	
  beyond	
  the	
  structural	
  design	
  of	
  a	
  given	
  work.	
  We	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  to	
  tell	
  a	
  
story	
  even	
  when	
  we	
  want	
  it	
  to	
  appear	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  designated	
  by	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art,	
  which	
  we	
  
are	
   creating.	
   We	
   can	
   make	
   references	
   to	
   stories,	
   which	
   every	
   recipient	
   carries	
   within	
  
himself	
  or	
  herself.	
  In	
  such	
  cases	
  the	
  work	
  merely	
  releases	
  these	
  stories,	
  or	
  generates	
  their	
  
institution	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  artistic	
  communication.	
  This	
  strategy	
  is	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  an	
  
example	
  of	
  defusing	
  conflict	
  tension	
  between	
  the	
  material	
  dimension	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  and	
  its	
  
virtual	
  aspect,	
  represented	
  here	
  by	
  the	
  story.	
  In	
  such	
  a	
  situation	
  narration	
  is	
  understood	
  as	
  
1	
  The	
  term	
  (multi)media	
  embraces	
  here	
  both,	
  media	
  and	
  multimedia	
  phenomena.	
  	
  
a	
  kind	
  of	
  physical	
  component	
  of	
  the	
  work;	
  it	
  is	
  indirectly	
  introduced	
  into	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  
the	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  way	
  and	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  basis	
  as	
  the	
  work's	
  material	
  elements.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   concept	
   of	
   a	
   game	
   is	
   becoming	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   basic	
   structural	
   categories	
   of	
   the	
   latest	
  
developments	
   in	
   (multi)media	
   installations.	
   It	
   is	
   a	
   game	
   between	
   materiality	
   and	
  
virtuality,	
  conception	
  and	
  technology,	
  space	
  and	
  time,	
  narration	
  and	
  its	
  framework,	
  history	
  
and	
  the	
  present,	
  the	
  artwork	
  and	
  its	
  recipient.	
  	
  
The	
   recipient	
   gains	
   a	
   special	
   and	
   important	
   position	
   within	
   the	
   framework	
   of	
   such	
   a	
  
creative	
  strategy	
  as	
  described	
  above.	
  As	
  a	
  carrier	
  of	
  stories,	
  activated	
  and	
  incorporated	
  
into	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   artwork,	
   he	
   or	
   she	
   concurrently	
   becomes	
   the	
   hero(ine)	
   of	
   the	
  
narration,	
  a	
  character	
  from	
  the	
  stories	
  told	
  by	
  the	
  artwork	
  with	
  her	
  or	
  his	
  participation.	
  He	
  
or	
   she	
   also	
   becomes	
   an	
   object	
   of	
   his	
   or	
   her	
   self-­‐observation.	
   They	
   cannot	
   escape	
   their	
  
intervention,	
  voluntary	
  or	
  not	
  -­‐	
  becoming	
  in	
  consequence	
  an	
  element	
  of	
  the	
  work,	
  and	
  the	
  
subject	
  and	
  object	
  of	
  observation.	
  	
  
There	
   is	
   another	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   process	
   within	
   which	
   the	
   viewers	
   participate	
   in	
   the	
  
structure	
  of	
  the	
  observed	
  work.	
  When	
  the	
  recipient	
  becomes	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  image,	
  at	
  that	
  very	
  
moment	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  image	
  becomes	
  the	
  recipient,	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  body	
  becomes	
  the	
  screen.	
  
This	
  strategy	
  is	
  a	
  fragment	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  analysing	
  the	
  image,	
  which	
  results	
  in	
  freeing	
  
the	
   image	
   from	
   its	
   surface.	
   The	
   discovery	
   of	
   the	
   materiality	
   of	
   the	
   image	
   (the	
   material	
  
dimension	
  of	
  virtuality)	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  makes	
  it	
  clear	
  that	
  one	
  consequence	
  of	
  that	
  fact	
  is	
  
the	
  self-­‐sufficiency	
  or	
  autonomy	
  of	
  the	
  image,	
  which	
  is	
  its	
  own	
  basis,	
  its	
  own	
  screen.	
  The	
  
two	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  individuating	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  reception	
  and	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  
the	
   experienced	
   work	
   complement	
   the	
   attributes	
   of	
   installation	
   discussed	
   above,	
   i.e.	
  
(pro)interactivity	
  and	
  presentism.	
  	
  
	
  
Together	
   with	
   the	
   film	
   installations	
   mentioned	
   above	
   and	
   photographic	
   installations	
   –	
  
which	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  discussed	
  here	
  (represented	
  e.g.	
  by	
  the	
  works	
  of	
  Jan	
  Dibbets	
  or	
  John	
  
Hilliard,	
  and	
  present	
  also	
  in	
  the	
  oeuvre	
  of	
  such	
  Polish	
  artists	
  as	
  Izabella	
  Gustowska,	
  Adam	
  
Klimczak,	
   Konrad	
   Kuzyszyn,	
   Natalia	
   Lach-­‐Lachowicz,	
   and	
   Jozef	
   Robakowski)	
   –	
   video	
  
installations	
  have	
  formed	
  an	
  extensive	
  trend	
  of	
  visual	
  and	
  audiovisual	
  installations	
  using	
  
technical	
  images.	
  Their	
  development	
  has	
  been	
  accompanied	
  by	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  sound	
  
installations,	
   which	
   are	
   just	
   as	
   interesting	
   and	
   internally	
   diverse.	
   Together,	
   they	
   have	
  
brought	
  into	
  being	
  an	
  extensive	
  and	
  multiform	
  phenomenon	
  of	
  media	
  installations,	
  one	
  
that	
  has	
  had	
  an	
  enormous	
  influence	
  on	
  the	
  condition	
  of	
  both	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation	
  and	
  
contemporary	
  art	
  in	
  general.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  have	
  emphasised	
  many	
  times	
  the	
  great	
  importance	
  of	
  media	
  installations	
  –	
  above	
  all,	
  
video	
  installations	
  –	
  in	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation.	
  The	
  characterisation	
  of	
  video	
  
installation	
  carried	
  out	
  above	
  has	
  provided	
  abundant	
  evidence	
  for	
  this	
  claim.	
  	
  
Relationality,	
  which	
  should	
  be	
  regarded	
  as	
  the	
  basic	
  determinant	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation,	
  
is	
   a	
   fundamental	
   feature	
   of	
   video	
   installation.	
   Video	
   artists	
   and	
   critics	
   promptly	
   and	
  
unanimously	
  identified	
  this	
  feature	
  as	
  a	
  defining	
  attribute	
  of	
  video	
  installation.	
  In	
  Poland,	
  
Andrzej	
   Paruzel,	
   for	
   instance,	
   wrote	
   in	
   1978	
   in	
   his	
   exhibition	
   catalogue	
   "each	
   video	
  
installation	
  constitutes	
  a	
  certain	
  system	
  with	
  definite	
  structure.	
  To	
  understand	
  it,	
  one	
  has	
  
to	
  discover	
  the	
  relations	
  obtaining	
  between	
  the	
  elements	
  of	
  that	
  system."	
  (1978)	
  	
  
Dematerialisation	
  and	
  deformalisation	
  –	
  the	
  processes	
  upholding	
  the	
  dominant	
  character	
  
of	
  relationality	
  within	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  installation,	
  are	
  the	
  basic	
  structural	
  properties	
  of	
  
video	
  installation.	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  other	
  types	
  of	
  installations,	
  they	
  often	
  occur	
  in	
  a	
  much	
  
substantial	
  or	
  weaker	
  form.	
  	
  
Intermediality,	
  a	
  further	
  element	
  of	
  installation	
  art,	
  is	
  a	
  definitional	
  feature	
  not	
  only	
  of	
  
video	
  installation,	
  but	
  also	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  in	
  general.	
  	
  
The	
  presentism	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  is	
  a	
  logical	
  consequence	
  of	
  its	
  relationality,	
  which	
  also	
  
absorbs	
  the	
  recipient,	
  making	
  her	
  or	
  him	
  an	
  element	
  of	
  the	
  installation.	
  At	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  
dominance	
  of	
  analytical	
  tendencies	
  in	
  art,	
  this	
  property	
  acquired	
  the	
  status	
  of	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  
most	
  important	
  features	
  of	
  video	
  installation,	
  since	
  it	
  laid	
  the	
  foundations	
  of	
  the	
  processes	
  
of	
   discovery	
   and	
   self-­‐discovery.	
   The	
   issue	
   was	
   vividly	
   present	
   in	
   Paruzel's	
   text	
   already	
  
mentioned	
  above:	
  "In	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  getting	
  to	
  know	
  its	
  structure,	
  the	
  person	
  entering	
  a	
  
video	
  installation	
  has	
  a	
  chance	
  to	
  concurrently	
  discover	
  the	
  functioning	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  
cognitive	
  structures,	
  thanks	
  to	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  manipulation	
  both	
  within	
  the	
  interactions	
  
processed	
  by	
  the	
  system,	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  system	
  itself"	
  (ibid.)	
  Before	
  Paruzel,	
  other	
  Polish	
  video	
  
artists	
  –	
  most	
  of	
  all	
  Wojciech	
  Bruszewski	
  and	
  Jozef	
  Robakowski	
  –	
  expressed	
  their	
  artistic	
  
views	
  in	
  a	
  similar	
  vein.	
  
Pro-­‐interactivity	
  is	
  much	
  more	
  intense	
  in	
  video	
  installations	
  than	
  in	
  non-­‐media	
  forms.	
  It	
  is	
  
a	
   logical	
   consequence	
   of	
   the	
   other	
   properties	
   of	
   video	
   installation.	
   Paruzel	
   ends	
   his	
  
comment	
   quoted	
   above	
   as	
   follows:	
   "Currently	
   my	
   activity	
   focuses	
   on	
   such	
  
recipient-­‐centered	
   situations,	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   creative	
   act	
   is	
   realised	
   through	
   a	
   conscious	
  
participation,	
  co-­‐creation,	
  understanding"	
  (ibid.).	
  In	
  this	
  way	
  pro-­‐interactivity	
  turns	
  out	
  to	
  
be	
  the	
  natural	
  extension	
  of	
  relationality	
  and	
  presentism.	
  
The	
   semanticity	
   of	
   video	
   installations,	
   owing	
   to	
   the	
   structural	
   and	
   substance-­‐related	
  
complexity	
  of	
  this	
  art	
  form,	
  is	
  potentially	
  much	
  greater	
  than	
  in	
  other	
  types	
  of	
  installation.	
  
On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  the	
  intensified	
  virtuality	
  of	
  the	
  video	
  medium	
  ultimately	
  strengthens	
  
the	
  dominance	
  of	
  semanticity	
  over	
  the	
  materiality	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  one	
  cannot	
  but	
  conclude	
  that	
  video	
  installation	
  is	
  superior	
  to	
  all	
  the	
  other	
  types	
  of	
  
installation	
  not	
  only	
  owing	
  to	
  its	
  exceptional	
  cohesion	
  (or	
  organicity,	
  as	
  one	
  is	
  tempted	
  to	
  
say)	
  in	
  combining	
  all	
  its	
  aforementioned	
  features,	
  but	
  also	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  abundance	
  and	
  
diversity	
  of	
  the	
  relations	
  it	
  creates,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  scope	
  and	
  scale	
  of	
  its	
  influence.	
  Initiated	
  
and	
   developing	
   at	
   the	
   same	
   time	
   as	
   the	
   art	
   of	
   installation,	
   video	
   art,	
   equipped	
   with	
   a	
  
number	
  of	
  characteristic	
  features,	
  doubtless	
  played	
  a	
  crucial	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  in	
  which	
  
installation	
  was	
  beginning	
  to	
  secure	
  a	
  place	
  for	
  itself	
  within	
  the	
  cultural	
  system,	
  and	
  in	
  
which	
  it	
  was	
  building	
  its	
  identity.	
  One	
  would	
  probably	
  be	
  justified	
  to	
  assume	
  that	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  
installation	
  has	
  found	
  its	
  perfect	
  manifestation	
  in	
  video	
  art,	
  were	
  it	
  not	
  for	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  
development	
   of	
   technology	
   and	
   multimedia	
   arts	
   has	
   complicated	
   the	
   whole	
   system	
   by	
  
introducing	
   new	
   elements	
   and	
   thus	
   calling	
   for	
   a	
   fresh	
   consideration	
   of	
   the	
  
characterisation,	
  place	
  and	
  status	
  of	
  installation,	
  this	
  time	
  within	
  an	
  interactive	
  and	
  virtual	
  
cyberculture.	
  	
  
	
  
Installation	
  –	
  object	
  –	
  sculpture	
  	
  
	
  
Let	
  us	
  go	
  back	
  for	
  a	
  moment	
  to	
  Herzogenrath's	
  (1976:	
  221-­‐222)	
  distinction	
  between	
  a	
  
video	
  installation	
  and	
  a	
  video	
  object.	
  It	
  seems	
  that	
  in	
  his	
  view	
  the	
  latter	
  is	
  semantically	
  
equivalent	
  to	
  a	
  video	
  sculpture;	
  both	
  of	
  those	
  terms	
  direct	
  us	
  to	
  those	
  video	
  phenomena	
  
where	
  the	
  material	
  dimension	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  –	
  its	
  physical	
  form	
  –	
  plays	
  a	
  role	
  which	
  is	
  at	
  
least	
  as	
  significant	
  as	
  that	
  played	
  by	
  its	
  media-­‐related,	
  electronic,	
  or	
  virtual	
  aspect.	
  The	
  
video	
  sculpture	
  therefore	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  the	
  materialisation	
  of	
  video	
  art,	
  the	
  
product	
  that	
  also	
  achieves	
  formal	
  permanence	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  this	
  materialisation.	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  
common	
  –	
  and	
  not	
  unfounded	
  –	
  opinion	
  that	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  video	
  art	
  (and	
  the	
  term	
  itself)	
  
owes	
  its	
  existence	
  (and	
  especially	
  its	
  frequent	
  occurrence	
  and	
  its	
  acceptance	
  within	
  the	
  art	
  
establishment)	
   not	
   only	
   to	
   its	
   adherence	
   to	
   artistic	
   tradition,	
   but	
   also	
   to	
   the	
   slowly	
  
advancing	
  "museumification"	
  of	
  video	
  art,	
  i.e.	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  incorporating	
  this	
  discipline	
  
into	
  museum	
  collections	
  (Lehmann	
  1994).	
  After	
  all,	
  from	
  a	
  museum-­‐based	
  perspective,	
  
video	
  sculpture	
  seemed	
  for	
  a	
  very	
  long	
  time	
  (or,	
  indeed,	
  still	
  seems)	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  artefact	
  much	
  
better	
   adapted	
   to	
   the	
   conventions	
   and	
   practices	
   of	
   a	
   museum,	
   than	
   the	
   ephemeral,	
  
dematerialised	
  and	
  in	
  a	
  sense	
  aformal	
  installation,	
  or,	
  for	
  different	
  reason,	
  videotape.	
  	
  
The	
   dichotomous	
   character	
   of	
   video	
   sculpture	
   –	
   manifested	
   in	
   the	
   tension	
   between	
   its	
  
electronic	
  (virtual)	
  and	
  material	
  aspects	
  –	
  is	
  thus	
  arrived	
  at	
  in	
  a	
  different	
  way	
  than	
  in	
  the	
  
case	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  using	
  feedback.	
  There,	
  such	
  character	
  is	
  determined	
  primarily	
  by	
  
the	
  relation	
  between	
  physical	
  reality	
  and	
  its	
  (audio)visual	
  representation,	
  a	
  relation	
  that	
  at	
  
the	
   same	
   time	
   introduces	
   relationships	
   –	
   crucial	
   for	
   a	
   work	
   of	
   this	
   type	
   –	
   between	
   its	
  
temporal	
  and	
  spatial	
  orders.	
  Of	
  course,	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  relation	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  video	
  
sculpture,	
   turning	
   it	
   into	
   a	
   work	
   of	
   increased	
   structural	
   complexity,	
   and	
   equally	
   sharp	
  
dichotomy.	
  	
  
The	
  structural	
  dichotomy	
  mentioned	
  above,	
  manifested	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  characteristic	
  either	
  
of	
  video	
  installation	
  or	
  video	
  sculpture,	
  is	
  also	
  very	
  often	
  extended	
  to	
  the	
  semantic	
  plane.	
  
Video	
  installations	
  and	
  sculptures	
  are	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  ontological	
  complexity	
  of	
  the	
  
world	
  of	
  our	
  experiences;	
  they	
  tackle	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  similarities	
  and	
  differences	
  between	
  its	
  
various	
   spheres	
   and	
   of	
   their	
   interrelations.	
   Nowadays,	
   because	
   of	
   the	
   increasing	
  
virtualisation	
  of	
  the	
  all	
  dimensions	
  of	
  reality	
  (Welsh	
  1991),	
  those	
  issues	
  become	
  more	
  and	
  
more	
   important.	
   I	
   have	
   already	
   discussed	
   this	
   problem	
   in	
   connection	
   with	
   video	
  
installations.	
  I	
  shall	
  return	
  to	
  it	
  in	
  the	
  subsequent	
  sections,	
  this	
  time	
  investigating	
  them	
  in	
  
relation	
  to	
  multimedia	
  art.	
  	
  
It	
  is	
  easier	
  to	
  distinguish	
  both,	
  a	
  video	
  sculpture	
  and	
  a	
  video	
  object	
  (the	
  contrast	
  between	
  
these	
  two	
  forms	
  most	
  probably	
  results	
  from	
  some	
  artists'	
  disinclination	
  to	
  associate	
  their	
  
work	
  with	
  an	
  art	
  form	
  so	
  traditional	
  in	
  character	
  as	
  sculpture)	
  from	
  installation	
  at	
  the	
  level	
  
of	
  theoretical	
  considerations,	
  than	
  on	
  the	
  phenomenal	
  plane,	
  where	
  particular	
  works	
  often	
  
combine	
  the	
  features	
  of	
  both.	
  The	
  characteristic	
  attributes	
  of	
  a	
  sculpture	
  (an	
  object),	
  i.e.	
  
the	
  emphasis	
  on	
  the	
  materiality	
  of	
  its	
  form	
  and	
  its	
  disconnection	
  from	
  concrete	
  space	
  (or	
  
place	
   of	
   presentation)	
   are	
   not	
   always	
   enough	
   to	
   draw	
   a	
   clear-­‐cut	
   and	
   indisputable	
  
distinction.	
  Also	
  the	
  works	
  belonging	
  to	
  the	
  particular	
  types	
  of	
  video	
  installation,	
  such	
  as	
  
e.g.	
  video	
  walls,	
  can	
  take	
  on	
  features	
  turning	
  them	
  into	
  video	
  sculptures.	
  Given	
  a	
  certain	
  
superiority	
  (at	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  definition)	
  of	
  video	
  installation	
  over	
  video	
  sculpture	
  and	
  video	
  
object,	
  one	
  can	
  accept	
  these	
  two	
  forms	
  as	
  (a)	
  special	
  category	
  (categories)	
  of	
  installation	
  
(cf.	
  Hattinger	
  1996).	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  have	
  disregarded,	
  as	
  secondary	
  to	
  the	
  interest	
  of	
  our	
  discussion,	
  the	
  issues	
  connected	
  
with	
  the	
  artistic	
  applications	
  of	
  robots.	
  Any	
  discussion	
  of	
  those	
  issues	
  would	
  simply	
  go	
  
beyond	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  our	
  considerations.	
  The	
  reason	
  why	
  I	
  mention	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  this	
  
domain	
  of	
  art	
  here	
  lies	
  only	
  with	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  relevant	
  for	
  the	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  works	
  
of	
   Nam	
   June	
   Paik,	
   the	
   artist	
   who	
   has	
   played	
   an	
   extremely	
   important	
   role	
   in	
   the	
  
development	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation.	
  	
  
Multimedia	
  installations	
  –	
  the	
  art	
  directed	
  towards	
  the	
  future	
  
	
  
The	
  development	
  of	
  interactive	
  and	
  multimedia	
  art	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  two	
  decades	
  has	
  changed	
  
fundamentally	
   the	
   position	
   of	
   art.	
   It	
   has	
   also	
   considerably	
   affected	
   the	
   state	
   of	
   the	
  
installation.	
   Contemporary	
   multimedia	
   installations	
   significantly	
   alter	
   or	
   expand	
   the	
  
established	
  properties	
  of	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  art.	
  	
  
	
  
Relationality	
  becomes	
  here	
  primarily	
  a	
  system	
  of	
  references	
  between	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  
interaction	
  (i.e.	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  the	
  artist's	
  creative	
  effort)	
  and	
  the	
  recipient,	
  i.e.	
  the	
  (co)	
  
author	
   of	
   the	
   work	
   (interactor),	
   which	
   is	
   a	
   product	
   of	
   the	
   recipient's	
   interaction.	
  
(Kluszczynski	
   1997).	
   The	
   individualisation	
   of	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   work	
   here	
   goes	
   to	
  
extremes	
  and	
  the	
  basic	
  creative	
  (and	
  research)	
  concerns	
  also	
  include	
  the	
  tools	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  
interaction	
  (i.e.	
  the	
  interfaces).	
  In	
  another	
  dimension,	
  relationality	
  assumes	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  a	
  
telematic	
   connections	
   network,	
   and	
   the	
   basic	
   research	
   concern	
   is	
   e.g.	
   the	
   Internet	
  
installation.	
  	
  
Intermediality,	
  in	
  turn,	
  is	
  identical	
  with	
  multimediality,	
  which	
  makes	
  one	
  reflect	
  on	
  the	
  
relationship	
   between	
   both	
   systems	
   of	
   correspondences	
   des	
   arts,	
   and	
   on	
   the	
   potential	
  
consequences	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  way	
  of	
  "internalising"	
  the	
  relations	
  between	
  art	
  genres	
  on	
  the	
  
digital	
  platform.	
  	
  
Temporariness	
   (ephemerality)	
   assumes	
   completely	
   new	
   connotations	
   in	
   the	
   context	
   of	
  
advanced	
   interactive	
   practices,	
   and	
   especially	
   in	
   the	
   case	
   of	
   individual	
   and	
   collective	
  
creations	
  on	
  the	
  Internet,	
  where	
  it	
  gets	
  entangled	
  in	
  the	
  questions	
  of	
  potential	
  existence	
  
and	
  the	
  issues	
  of	
  multiple	
  worlds,	
  or	
  extended	
  reality.	
  	
  
Pro-­‐interactivity	
  achieves	
  its	
  most	
  complete	
  and	
  advanced	
  form	
  in	
  hypermedia	
  art.	
  The	
  
hypertextual	
  structure	
  of	
  multimedia	
  installations	
  is	
  subjected	
  to	
  the	
  creative	
  experience	
  
of	
   reception,	
   i.e.	
   navigation,	
   and	
   one	
   result	
   of	
   such	
   practices	
   may	
   be	
   complete	
  
individualisation	
  of	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  work,	
  which	
  in	
  this	
  case	
  is	
  actually	
  identical	
  with	
  
communicative	
  experience.	
  	
  
An	
  installation	
  making	
  use	
  of	
  virtual	
  reality	
  gives	
  a	
  new	
  meaning	
  to	
  presentism,	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  
same	
  time	
  puts	
  the	
  recipient	
  in	
  a	
  position	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  is	
  forced	
  to	
  define	
  anew	
  the	
  
relations	
  between	
  the	
  actual	
  and	
  the	
  virtual	
  reality,	
  and	
  determine	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  the	
  
place	
   of	
   experience,	
   and	
   of	
   the	
   status	
   and	
   function	
   of	
   corporeality	
   in	
   the	
   processes	
   of	
  
reception.	
  	
  
Semanticity	
   also	
   acquires	
   completely	
   new	
   dimensions	
   in	
   the	
   world	
   of	
   art,	
   where	
   the	
  
meanings	
  multiplying	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  interaction	
  transform	
  objective	
  meaning	
  into	
  an	
  
endless	
  process	
  of	
  signification.	
  	
  
	
  
As	
   a	
   consequence	
   of	
   the	
   introduction	
   of	
   hypermedia	
   technologies,	
   the	
   number	
   and	
  
diversity	
   of	
   video	
   installations	
   created	
   today	
   has	
   increased	
   significantly.	
   Jeremy	
   Welsh	
  
(1991),	
  for	
  example,	
  characterising	
  only	
  the	
  British	
  art	
  scene,	
  enumerates	
  the	
  following	
  
types	
   of	
   installations	
   made	
   under	
   the	
   video	
   umbrella:	
   (1)	
   installations	
   within	
   a	
   closed	
  
circuit	
  (feedback	
  and	
  surveillance	
  cameras);	
  (2)	
  video	
  objects	
  and	
  sculptures;	
  (3)	
  narrative	
  
installations;	
  (4)	
  multimedia	
  installations	
  and	
  environments;	
  (5)	
  public	
  art	
  projects;	
  and	
  
(6)	
  interactive	
  projects	
  using	
  new	
  media	
  technologies.	
  
Interactive	
  multimedia	
  art	
  confronts	
  the	
  researcher	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation	
  with	
  a	
  number	
  
of	
  new	
  problems,	
  which	
  are	
  additionally	
  much	
  more	
  complex	
  than	
  anything	
  in	
  this	
  field	
  so	
  
far.	
  Their	
  solution	
  is	
  –	
  as	
  always	
  –	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  adopted	
  axioms,	
  and	
  on	
  preliminary	
  
definitional	
   choices.	
   For	
   example,	
   the	
   adoption	
   of	
   the	
   axiom	
   that	
   relationality	
   is	
   a	
  
fundamental	
   attribute	
   of	
   installation	
   makes	
   it	
   possible	
   to	
   accept	
   the	
   Internet	
   as	
   a	
   new	
  
domain	
  of	
  installation	
  art.	
  The	
  process	
  of	
  dematerialisation	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  is	
  completed,	
  and	
  
the	
  art	
  of	
  installation	
  becomes	
  identical	
  with	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  communicating,	
  thus	
  becoming	
  one	
  
of	
  the	
  latter's	
  basic	
  categories.	
  	
  
	
  
To	
  close	
  this	
  part	
  of	
  our	
  considerations,	
  let	
  us	
  recall	
  a	
  handful	
  of	
  examples	
  of	
  interactive	
  
multimedia	
   installations	
   realised	
   in	
   recent	
   years.	
   It	
   is	
   true	
   that	
   the	
   lack	
   of	
   a	
   time	
  
perspective	
   makes	
   it	
   impossible	
   for	
   us	
   to	
   make	
   any	
   significant	
   generalisations,	
   e.g.	
  
formulate	
   a	
   proposed	
   typology	
   of	
   the	
   works	
   in	
   that	
   field,	
   or	
   systematise	
   the	
   most	
  
important	
  tendencies.	
  For	
  the	
  time	
  being,	
  however,	
  we	
  can	
  gather	
  and	
  systematise	
  our	
  
observations	
  relating	
  to	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  these	
  works,	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  the	
  sensations	
  
they	
  cause,	
  the	
  artistic	
  means	
  they	
  use,	
  and	
  the	
  issues	
  they	
  take	
  up.	
  We	
  can	
  also	
  point	
  out	
  
those	
   tendencies	
   that	
   have	
   yielded	
   particularly	
   interesting	
   and	
   valuable	
   results.	
   This	
  
preliminary	
  reflection	
  on	
  selected	
  works	
  should	
  prove	
  useful	
  in	
  making	
  the	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  
character	
  of	
  such	
  art	
  (which	
  I	
  have	
  carried	
  out	
  above	
  using	
  some	
  general	
  categories)	
  both	
  
deeper	
  and	
  more	
  precise.	
  The	
  reflection	
  should	
  be	
  also	
  useful	
  given	
  the	
  increasing	
  need	
  for	
  
constructing	
  some	
  general	
  rules	
  and	
  criteria	
  for	
  assessing	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  the	
  interactive	
  art	
  
works.	
   Relevant	
   examples	
   have	
   been	
   chosen	
   if	
   they	
   seemed	
   representative	
   of	
   the	
  
contemporary	
  explorations	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  (multimedia)	
  installation.	
  I	
  have	
  also	
  
taken	
   into	
   account	
   their	
   originality,	
   innovativeness	
   of	
   technological	
   solutions,	
   the	
  
importance	
   of	
   the	
   problems	
   tackled,	
   and	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   combine	
   the	
   above	
   with	
   the	
  
technological	
  dimension	
  of	
  the	
  works.	
  	
  
	
  
Although	
  they	
  direct	
  us	
  towards	
  very	
  interesting	
  and	
  thought-­‐provoking	
  works,	
  we	
  can	
  
also	
  use	
  the	
  first	
  two	
  examples	
  to	
  formulate	
  some	
  critical	
  observations	
  (for	
  constructive	
  
purposes,	
  though).	
  The	
  works	
  have	
  been	
  chosen	
  so	
  that	
  –	
  as	
  I	
  have	
  said	
  above	
  –	
  we	
  could	
  
arrive	
   at	
   some	
   observations	
   concerning	
   the	
   rules	
   of	
   assessing	
   the	
   value	
   of	
   interactive	
  
installation	
  works.	
  Like	
  all	
  suggestions	
  of	
  axiological	
  character,	
  also	
  the	
  present	
  one	
  is	
  not	
  
free	
  from	
  inevitable	
  arbitrariness.	
  And	
  so	
  it	
  merely	
  provides	
  examples	
  of	
  the	
  criteria	
  for	
  
evaluation	
  that	
  could	
  be	
  used	
  for	
  hypermedia	
  art	
  works.	
  	
  
	
  
Toshio	
  Iwai's	
  installation	
  entitled	
  Piano	
  as	
  an	
  Image	
  Media	
  (1995)	
  captures	
  one's	
  attention	
  
owing	
   to	
   its	
   spectacular	
   manner	
   of	
   operation	
   and	
   its	
   strongly	
   emphasised	
   audiovisual	
  
character.	
   Using	
   a	
   simple	
   computer	
   interface	
   (a	
   trackball),	
   the	
   recipient	
   can	
   compose	
  
uncomplicated	
  tunes,	
  which	
  are	
  realised	
  in	
  real	
  time,	
  both	
  as	
  regards	
  sound	
  (a	
  real	
  piano	
  is	
  
part	
   of	
   the	
   installation),	
   and	
   vision	
   (spatial	
   projections).	
   The	
   recipient	
   is	
   dazed	
   by	
   the	
  
excellent	
   mutual	
   interpenetration	
   of	
   real	
   and	
   virtual	
   space,	
   which	
   jointly	
   form	
   a	
  
contemporary	
   version	
   of	
   a	
   performance	
   based	
   on	
   synaesthesia,	
   a	
   tendency	
   realised	
   in	
  
many	
   ways	
   during	
   the	
   last	
   century.	
   When	
   the	
   initial	
   euphoria	
   subsides,	
   however,	
   we	
  
realise	
  that	
  the	
  only	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  installation	
  we	
  can	
  still	
  develop	
  are	
  manual	
  dexterity	
  in	
  
using	
   the	
   interface	
   and	
   our	
   skills	
   of	
   audiovisual	
   instrumentation.	
   Although	
   enrapturing	
  
with	
   its	
   form	
   and	
   ingenuity	
   of	
   implementation,	
   Iwai's	
   installation	
   is	
   in	
   fact	
   devoid	
   of	
  
significant	
   depth	
   that	
   would	
   engross	
   the	
   viewer;	
   likewise,	
   it	
   lacks	
   complexity,	
   and	
   a	
  
prospect	
  of	
  transformative	
  continuation	
  that	
  could	
  motivate	
  further	
  exploration.	
  Its	
  asset,	
  
on	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  is	
  its	
  openness	
  to	
  the	
  actions	
  of	
  the	
  interactor,	
  its	
  readiness	
  to	
  effectuate	
  
any	
  project	
  undertaken	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  dispositif.	
  Piano	
  as	
  an	
  Image	
  Media	
  
is	
  a	
  classic	
  example	
  of	
  an	
  interactive	
  work-­‐instrument,	
  using	
  which	
  the	
  recipient	
  composes	
  
and	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  performs	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  work.	
  	
  
	
  
Something	
   similar	
   occurs	
   in	
   Chris	
   Dodge's	
   The	
   Winds	
   That	
   Wash	
   the	
   Seas	
   (1995)	
   –	
  
although	
   its	
   form	
   is	
   less	
   spectacular	
   and	
   does	
   not	
   provide	
   the	
   recipient	
   with	
   such	
  
extensive	
  possibilities	
  of	
  interaction,	
  as	
  was	
  the	
  case	
  with	
  Iwai's	
  installation.	
  Blowing	
  onto	
  
the	
  surface	
  of	
  the	
  monitor	
  or	
  stirring	
  the	
  water	
  filling	
  a	
  nearby	
  bathtub,	
  the	
  recipient	
  may	
  
telematically	
  disturb	
  the	
  image	
  (both	
  on	
  the	
  monitor,	
  and	
  on	
  a	
  screen	
  placed	
  on	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  
walls).	
   Yet,	
   the	
   electronically	
   generated	
   magic	
   of	
   the	
   installation	
   exhausts	
   itself	
   in	
   that	
  
gesture,	
  not	
  offering	
  any	
  further	
  course	
  of	
  action.	
  Like	
  the	
  Toshio	
  Iwai	
  installation,	
  The	
  
Winds	
   That	
   Wash	
   the	
   Seas	
   recalls	
   the	
   idea	
   of	
   art	
   as	
   contemplative	
   performance,	
   which	
  
magic	
  however	
  in	
  now	
  triggered	
  by	
  the	
  viewer-­‐interactor.	
  	
  
	
  
Both	
  of	
  those	
  installations	
  involuntarily	
  bring	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  consequences	
  of	
  giving	
  
art	
  an	
  interactive	
  character.	
  They	
  make	
  the	
  viewer	
  realise	
  that	
  the	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  
aesthetic	
   perception	
   to	
   cover	
   actual	
   reception-­‐related	
   reactions	
   in	
   actual	
   space,	
   should	
  
also	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  sphere	
  of	
  symbolic	
  behaviours.	
  When	
  mental	
  activity	
  is	
  
the	
  only	
  form	
  of	
  communing	
  with	
  the	
  work,	
  the	
  coherence	
  of	
  the	
  aesthetic	
  perception	
  and	
  
of	
  reception	
  is	
  guaranteed	
  a	
  priori.	
  However,	
  when	
  the	
  mental	
  activity	
  is	
  complemented	
  
with	
   various	
   forms	
   of	
   actual,	
   physical	
   participation	
   in	
   the	
   artwork	
   (interaction),	
   the	
  
coherence	
   of	
   the	
   multilevel,	
   interactive	
   reception	
   of	
   the	
   work	
   can	
   be	
   achieved	
   only	
   by	
  
saturating	
   such	
   corporeal-­‐spatial	
   behaviour	
   with	
   the	
   same	
   qualities	
   that	
   characterise	
  
mental	
   and	
   emotional	
   activity.	
   Reflection	
   cannot	
   be	
   realised	
   in	
   this	
   situation	
   only	
   in	
   a	
  
purely	
  intellectual	
  form.	
  It	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  "embodied"	
  in	
  gestures	
  and	
  movements.	
  Actual	
  
interactive	
  behaviour	
  then	
  becomes	
  a	
  kind	
  of	
  extension	
  of	
  mental,	
  intellectual	
  and	
  affective	
  
activity.	
  It	
  is	
  only	
  in	
  such	
  situations	
  that	
  the	
  reception	
  of	
  the	
  artwork	
  –	
  of	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  
interactor's	
  co-­‐creative	
  activity	
  –	
  can	
  achieve	
  full	
  internal	
  coherence.	
  A	
  valuable	
  piece	
  of	
  
interactive	
  art	
  should	
  therefore	
  provide	
  the	
  conditions	
  for	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  reception.	
  	
  
	
  
A	
  hypermedia	
  work	
  also	
  becomes	
  more	
  valuable	
  when	
  interactive	
  behaviour	
  is	
  motivated	
  
by	
  the	
  desire	
  to	
  pursue	
  the	
  unknown,	
  or	
  when	
  it	
  shapes	
  an	
  experience	
  just	
  developing.	
  
Only	
  a	
  reasonable	
  prospect	
  of	
  entering	
  a	
  hitherto	
  undiscovered	
  dimension	
  of	
  experiencing	
  
the	
  work	
  –	
  the	
  one	
  that	
  will	
  shed	
  new	
  light	
  on	
  the	
  old	
  experiences	
  connected	
  with	
  it	
  –	
  can	
  
persuade	
  us	
  successfully	
  to	
  prolong	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  communing	
  with	
  this	
  dimension.	
  	
  
	
  
An	
   example	
   of	
   such	
   a	
   work	
   is	
   Agnes	
   Hegedus'	
   installation	
   entitled	
   Between	
   the	
   Words	
  
(1995),	
  which,	
  incidentally,	
  is	
  similar	
  in	
  character	
  to	
  Iwai's	
  work.	
  It	
  involves	
  two	
  recipients	
  
at	
   a	
   time,	
   which	
   means	
   that	
   the	
   interaction	
   is	
   enriched	
   with	
   an	
   actual	
   (direct)	
  
interpersonal	
   factor.	
   Using	
   joystick-­‐like	
   interfaces,	
   they	
   operate	
   a	
   pair	
   of	
   virtual	
   hands	
  
located	
   and	
   visible	
   in	
   the	
   space	
   between	
   them	
   (the	
   space	
   is	
   enclosed	
   within	
   a	
   cubical	
  
construction).	
   Moving	
   the	
   virtual	
   hands,	
   which	
   become	
   an	
   extension	
   of	
   the	
   real	
   hands,	
  
each	
   of	
   the	
   recipients	
   communicates	
   with	
   his/her	
   partner	
   by	
   means	
   of	
   a	
   powerful	
  
language	
  of	
  gestures.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  manual	
  behaviour	
  is	
  combined	
  with	
  mental	
  activity	
  at	
  
the	
   level	
   of	
   the	
   created	
   meanings	
   and	
   emotions.	
   The	
   fact	
   that	
   the	
   partners'	
   behaviour	
  
cannot	
   be	
   foreseen,	
   creates	
   numerous	
   interactional	
   possibilities	
   (motivating	
   the	
  
prolongation	
  of	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  work).	
  
An	
  important	
  source	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  Hegedus'	
  work	
  is	
  the	
  combination	
  of	
  real	
  and	
  virtual	
  
space.	
  The	
  interactors'	
  activities	
  are	
  forms	
  of	
  joining	
  these	
  two	
  spaces;	
  they	
  are	
  thus	
  a	
  
form	
   of	
   embodied	
   reflection	
   on	
   quasi-­‐direct	
   communication	
   that	
   transcends	
   the	
  
boundaries	
   between	
   ontologically	
   and	
   qualitatively	
   different	
   worlds.	
   In	
   this	
   context,	
  
Between	
   the	
   Worlds	
   appears	
   to	
   constitute	
   yet	
   another	
   way	
   of	
   activating	
   the	
   relation	
  
between	
  actual	
  and	
  virtual	
  reality,	
  a	
  relation	
  that	
  is	
  so	
  characteristic	
  of	
  (multi)media	
  art.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   works	
   of	
   Miroslaw	
   Rogala,	
   such	
   as	
   Lovers	
   Leap	
   (1995),	
   Electronic	
  
Garden/NatuRealization	
  (1996),	
  or	
  Divided	
  We	
  Speak	
  (1997)	
  provide	
  examples	
  of	
  other	
  
attributes	
  of	
  multimedia	
  installation.	
  Since	
  I	
  discuss	
  them	
  elsewhere	
  (Kluszczynski	
  2001),	
  I	
  
will	
  only	
  point	
  out	
  here	
  some	
  of	
  their	
  characteristics,	
  which	
  are	
  nowadays	
  becoming	
  the	
  
most	
  important	
  attributes	
  of	
  hypermedia	
  art:	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐	
  Multimediality,	
  multiplying	
  the	
  relations	
  between	
  the	
  recipient-­‐interactor	
  and	
  the	
  work	
  
he	
  or	
  she	
  is	
  experiencing;	
  
-­‐	
  Interactivity,	
  which	
  turns	
  the	
  recipients	
  into	
  the	
  interactors	
  and	
  makes	
  them	
  responsible	
  
for	
  the	
  character	
  of	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  the	
  artwork,	
  and	
  for	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  
itself;	
  
-­‐	
  Growing	
  dematerialisation	
  of	
  the	
  artefact	
  (artwork),	
  which	
  eventually	
  transforms	
  itself	
  
into	
  a	
  dynamic	
  and	
  empty	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  interaction;	
  
-­‐	
  The	
  tendency	
  to	
  treat	
  the	
  interactor's	
  body	
  as	
  an	
  interface;	
  
-­‐	
  Searching	
  for	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  combining	
  the	
  individual	
  experiences	
  of	
  the	
  interactors	
  
and	
  thus	
  making	
  them	
  dependent	
  on	
  one	
  another;	
  
-­‐	
  Combining	
  the	
  private	
  space	
  of	
  experiencing	
  the	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  public	
  space	
  of	
  its	
  context.	
  
In	
   Rogala's	
   works,	
   the	
   art	
   of	
   installation	
   becomes	
   a	
   space	
   within	
   which	
   the	
   recipient	
  
discovers	
  and	
  defines	
  (and	
  sometimes	
  redefines)	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  identity	
  in	
  a	
  dialogue	
  with	
  the	
  
other	
  interactor.	
  
	
  
Contemporary	
  trends	
  in	
  multimedia	
  arts	
  bring	
  to	
  life	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  artworks	
  entering	
  
the	
  domain	
  of	
  artificial	
  life.	
  A	
  particularly	
  interesting	
  series	
  of	
  installations	
  dealing	
  with	
  
such	
   issues	
   was	
   realised	
   jointly	
   by	
   Christa	
   Sommerer	
   and	
   Laurent	
   Mignonneau.	
   Their	
  
multimedia	
   installation	
   entitled	
   Interactive	
   Plant	
   Growing	
   (1992)	
   makes	
   use	
   of	
   D'Arcy	
  
Thompson's	
   observation	
   that	
   from	
   the	
   mathematical	
   point	
   of	
   view,	
   organic	
   forms	
   are	
  
functions	
   of	
   time	
   and	
   can	
   be	
   treated	
   as	
   events	
   in	
   time-­‐space	
   (Thompson	
   1942).	
   The	
  
recipient,	
  moving	
  his	
  hand	
  close	
  to	
  real	
  plants,	
  which	
  are	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  installation,	
  initiates	
  
the	
   processes	
   resulting	
   in	
   the	
   creation	
   of	
   virtual	
   plants.	
   Sommerer	
   and	
   Mignonneau's	
  
installation	
   thus	
   seems	
   to	
   be	
   an	
   expression	
   of	
   the	
   desire	
   to	
   discover	
  –	
   through	
   artistic	
  
activity	
   –	
   the	
   principle	
   of	
   life,	
   which	
   is	
   invariably	
   determined	
   by	
   morphogenesis	
   and	
  
transformations.	
  	
  
	
  
It	
  is	
  worth	
  mentioning	
  at	
  this	
  point	
  a	
  very	
  characteristic	
  property	
  of	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  interactive	
  
multimedia	
  installations	
  (we	
  have	
  already	
  come	
  across	
  it	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  Agnes	
  Hegedus'	
  
work),	
  which	
  assumes	
  a	
  special	
  meaning	
  when	
  they	
  get	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  issues	
  of	
  virtual	
  
corporeality.	
  This	
  property	
  is	
  called	
  tactilism.	
  The	
  interactivity	
  of	
  art	
  works	
  results	
  in	
  their	
  
reception	
  often	
  acquiring	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  tactile	
  contact.	
  We	
  touch	
  both	
  the	
  material	
  elements	
  
of	
  the	
  interface,	
  and	
  the	
  remote	
  virtual	
  forms	
  (teletouch).	
  Touch	
  always	
  has	
  the	
  character	
  
of	
   communication;	
   many	
   works	
   place	
   strong	
   emphasis	
   on	
   this	
   aspect	
   of	
   it.	
   Whereas	
   in	
  
Interactive	
  Plant	
  Growing,	
  apart	
  from	
  communication,	
  we	
  are	
  faced	
  with	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  
form	
  creation,	
  Kirk	
  Wolford	
  and	
  Stahl	
  Stenslie's	
  work	
  called	
  CyberSM	
  III	
  (1994)	
  presents	
  
exclusively	
   pure	
   tactile	
   communication.	
   Real	
   bodies	
   interconnected	
   by	
   means	
   of	
   a	
  
computer	
   network	
   can	
   communicate	
   through	
   touch,	
   using	
   the	
   tactile	
   sensitivity	
   of	
   the	
  
costumes	
  made	
  for	
  this	
  purpose.	
  When	
  a	
  participant	
  touches	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  body,	
  the	
  
partner	
   of	
   communication	
   experiences	
   a	
   tactile	
   sensation.	
   The	
   installation	
   incorporates	
  
into	
   its	
   structure	
   not	
   only	
   touch,	
   but	
   also	
   images	
   and	
   sounds;	
   however,	
   dialogue	
  
(communication)	
   is	
   made	
   possible	
   predominantly	
   through	
   touch/teletouch	
   (Wolford,	
  
Stenslie	
  1994).	
  	
  
	
  
Coming	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  works	
  of	
  Sommerer	
  and	
  Mignonneau,	
  I	
  should	
  like	
  to	
  consider	
  another	
  
interactive	
  installation	
  they	
  have	
  authored,	
  A-­‐Volve	
  (1993-­‐1994).	
  Here	
  the	
  recipients	
  can	
  
design	
  (again	
  through	
  touch)	
  artificial	
  creatures	
  swimming	
  in	
  a	
  pool,	
  and	
  then	
  (still	
  by	
  
means	
   of	
   touch)	
   interactively	
   affect	
   their	
   subsequent	
   fate.	
   A	
   new	
   element	
   here	
   is	
   the	
  
quasi-­‐independence	
  of	
  the	
  virtual	
  creatures,	
  which	
  also	
  interact	
  with	
  one	
  another,	
  thus	
  
having	
   a	
   degree	
   of	
   control	
   over	
   their	
   "lives".	
   Thanks	
   to	
   that,	
   the	
   recipient	
   is	
   able	
   to	
  
telematically	
   contact	
   the	
   virtual	
   bodies	
   of	
   artificial	
   creatures,	
   and	
   to	
   experience,	
   in	
   an	
  
artistic	
  context,	
  virtual	
  corporeality.	
  Other	
  works	
  of	
  Sommerer	
  and	
  Mignonneau,	
  similar	
  in	
  
character,	
  include	
  e.g.	
  Anthroscope	
  (1993)	
  or	
  Phototropy	
  (1994).	
  Similar	
  works	
  of	
  other	
  
artists	
   include	
   the	
   interactive	
   environment	
   installation	
   of	
   Simon	
   Penny	
   (with	
   Jamieson	
  
Schulte's	
   co-­‐operation)	
   entitled	
   Sympathetic	
   Sentience	
   (1995-­‐1996).	
   All	
   of	
   them	
   make	
  
available	
  to	
  us	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  contact	
  with	
  creatures,	
  which	
  react	
  to	
  our	
  behaviour,	
  or	
  
the	
  impression	
  of	
  being	
  in	
  contact	
  with	
  independently	
  existing	
  tangible	
  worlds.	
  	
  
	
  
Daniela	
   Alina	
   Plewe's	
   installation	
   entitled	
   Muser's	
   Service	
   (1994)	
   introduces	
   into	
   our	
  
discussion	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   yet	
   another	
   borderland	
   –	
   this	
   time	
   an	
   intra-­‐artistic	
   one.	
   It	
  
combines	
   areas	
   of	
   visual	
   arts	
   and	
   literature.	
   An	
   installation,	
   together	
   with	
   its	
   user,	
  
produces	
  texts	
  (materialised	
  on	
  the	
  screen,	
  printed	
  out	
  and	
  spoken	
  by	
  a	
  computer	
  speech	
  
synthesiser)	
   whose	
   internal	
   logic	
   and	
   related	
   discourse	
   demonstrate	
   interesting	
   poetic	
  
possibilities	
  deriving	
  from	
  an	
  indifferent	
  procedure	
  of	
  generating	
  texts.	
  The	
  system,	
  whose	
  
poetic	
   potential	
   is	
   extended	
   in	
   the	
   course	
   of	
   its	
   creative	
   use	
   by	
   successive	
   users	
  
(interactors),	
   again	
   actualises	
   –	
   this	
   time	
   less	
   critically	
   but	
   somewhat	
   perversely	
   –	
   the	
  
question	
  about	
  the	
  humanistic	
  character	
  of	
  art	
  in	
  the	
  times	
  of	
  proclaimed	
  anti-­‐humanism,	
  
or	
  posthumanism.	
  	
  
	
  
Intra-­‐artistic	
  or	
  intra-­‐cultural	
  issues	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  Jean-­‐Louis	
  Boissier's	
  works.	
  In	
  
his	
  Globus	
  Oculi	
  (1992),	
  an	
  interactive	
  installation,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  in	
  his	
  other	
  works	
  using	
  the	
  
CD-­‐ROM	
  as	
  a	
  medium	
  (Flora	
  petrinsularis	
  (1993-­‐1994)	
  and	
  Mutatis	
  mutandis	
  (1995)),	
  he	
  
combines	
   traditional	
   literary-­‐philosophical	
   motifs	
   with	
   contemporary	
   interactive	
   and	
  
hypertextual	
  techniques.	
  He	
  thus	
  juxtaposes	
  a	
  classical	
  past	
  with	
  a	
  cybercultural	
  future,	
  at	
  
the	
   same	
   time	
   providing	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   possible	
   answers	
   to	
   the	
   question	
   about	
   the	
   future	
  
(place,	
  function,	
  and	
  meaning)	
  of	
  cultural	
  tradition	
  in	
  a	
  virtual	
  world.	
  	
  
	
  
Despite	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  works	
  of	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  artists	
  (Boissier,	
  Hegedus,	
  Iwai,	
  Penny,	
  Plewe,	
  
Rogala,	
   Sommerer	
   and	
   Mignonneau,	
   and	
   Wolford	
   and	
   Stenslie)	
   represent	
   but	
   a	
   small	
  
(though,	
  it	
  seems	
  to	
  me,	
  representative	
  and	
  extremely	
  valuable)	
  fragment	
  of	
  the	
  global	
  
artistic	
  production	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  interactive	
  multimedia	
  installations,	
  they	
  all	
  present	
  very	
  
competently	
   the	
   breadth,	
   diversity,	
   depth	
   and	
   importance	
   of	
   the	
   problems,	
   which	
  
hypermedia	
   art	
   incorporates	
   and	
   concurrently	
   activates	
   in	
   our	
   consciousness.	
   The	
  
observations	
  resulting	
  from	
  the	
  analysis	
  of	
  these	
  works	
  carried	
  out	
  above,	
  demonstrate	
  
the	
  variety	
  of	
  the	
  means	
  used	
  in	
  contemporary	
  artistic	
  practice	
  to	
  combine	
  within	
  it	
  the	
  
once	
  remote	
  domains	
  of	
  human	
  activity.	
  They	
  also	
  show	
  numerous	
  attitudes,	
  strategies,	
  
technological	
   and	
   structural-­‐artistic	
   solutions,	
   all	
   of	
   which	
   are	
   characteristic	
   of	
   today's	
  
interactive	
  production	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  multimedia	
  installation.	
  Finally,	
  they	
  are	
  a	
  proof	
  that	
  
in	
  the	
  world	
  of	
  artistic	
  hypermedia,	
  the	
  art	
  of	
  installation	
  –	
  owing	
  to	
  the	
  symmetry	
  of	
  its	
  
basic	
   attributes	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   the	
   character	
   of	
   interactive	
   multimedia	
   –	
   plays	
   a	
   role	
   of	
  
crucial	
   importance.	
   And,	
   given	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   it	
   is	
   the	
   art	
   of	
   the	
   hypermedia	
   that	
   will	
  
probably	
  be	
  the	
  most	
  dynamic	
  art	
  discipline	
  of	
  the	
  next	
  century,	
  installation	
  is	
  bound	
  to	
  
become	
  the	
  most	
  characteristic	
  art	
  form	
  of	
  the	
  nearest	
  future.	
  	
  
Bibliography	
  
Borden,	
   Lizzie.	
   1975.	
   Directions	
   in	
   Video	
   Art.	
   In	
   Susanne	
   Delehanty	
   (ed.).	
   Video	
   Art.	
  
Philadelphia:	
  Institute	
  of	
  Contemporary	
  Art.	
  	
  
Frank,	
  Peter.	
  1976.	
  Video	
  Art	
  Installations:	
  The	
  Telenvironment.	
  In	
  Ira	
  Schneider	
  and	
  Beryl	
  
Korot	
  (eds.).	
  Video	
  Art.	
  An	
  Anthology.	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  London:	
  Harcourt	
  Brace	
  Jovanovich.	
  	
  
Gidal,	
  Peter.	
  1972.	
  Film	
  as	
  film.	
  “Art	
  and	
  Artists“,	
  vol.	
  7,	
  no.	
  9.	
  	
  	
  
Hall,	
   David.	
   1976.	
   British	
   Video	
   Art:	
   Towards	
   an	
   Autonomous	
   Practice.	
   “Studio	
  
International“	
  vol.	
  191,	
  no.	
  981.	
  	
  	
  
Hattinger,	
  Gottfried	
  (ed.).	
  1996.	
  Objekt:	
  Video.	
  Linz:	
  OÖ.	
  Landesmuseum.	
  	
  
Herzogenrath,	
   Wulf.	
   1976.	
   Video	
   Art	
   in	
   West	
   Germany.	
   From	
   reproduction	
   to	
   medium	
   of	
  
conscious	
  creativity.	
  “Studio	
  International“,	
  vol.	
  191,	
  no.	
  981.	
  	
  	
  
Larson,	
  Susan	
  C.	
  1978.	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  (J.	
  Sturgeon:	
  Two	
  Video	
  Installations).	
  “Artnews“,	
  no.	
  5.	
  	
  
Kluszczynski,	
   Ryszard	
   W.	
   1996.	
   Interactivity	
   and	
   the	
   Problem	
   of	
   Communication	
   in	
   the	
  
Context	
   of	
   the	
   Philosophy	
   of	
   Deconstruction.	
   In	
   Irina	
   Alpatova	
   (ed.).	
   NewMediaLogia.	
  
Moscow:	
  Soros	
  Center	
  for	
  Contemporary	
  Art.	
  	
  
Kluszczynski,	
  Ryszard	
  W.	
  1997.	
  The	
  Context	
  Is	
  the	
  Message.	
  Interactive	
  Art	
  as	
  a	
  Medium	
  of	
  
Communication.	
  In	
  Michael	
  B.	
  Roetto	
  (ed.).	
  Proceedings	
  of	
  Seventh	
  International	
  Symposium	
  
on	
  Electronic	
  Art.	
  Rotterdam.	
  	
  
Kluszczynski,	
   Ryszard	
   W.	
   2001.	
   Dynamic	
   spaces	
   of	
   experience.	
   On	
   the	
   art	
   of	
   Miroslaw	
  
Rogala.	
   In	
   Ryszard	
   W.	
   Kluszczynski	
   (ed.)	
   Miroslaw	
   Rogala:	
   Gestures	
   of	
   Freedom.	
  
Warsaw:	
  Centre	
  for	
  Contemporary	
  Art.	
  	
  
Le	
  Grice,	
  Malcolm.	
  1972.	
  Real	
  Time/Space.	
  “Art	
  and	
  Artists“,	
  vol.	
  7,	
  no.	
  9.	
  	
  
Lehmann,	
  Ulrike.	
  1994.	
  Notes	
  on	
  the	
  Museumization	
  of	
  Video	
  Art.	
  In	
  Rosanne	
  Altstatt,	
  Catrin	
  
Backhaus,	
  Andreas	
  Denk,	
  Petra	
  Unnützer	
  (eds.)	
  Videonale	
  6.	
  Bonn.	
  	
  
Marshall,	
   Stewart.	
   1976.	
   Video	
   Art:	
   The	
   Imaginary	
   and	
   the	
   Parole	
   Vide.	
   “Studio	
  
International“,	
  vol.	
  191,	
  no.	
  981.	
  	
  
Morse,	
   Margaret.	
   1990.	
   Video	
   Installation	
   Art:	
   The	
   Body,	
   the	
   Image,	
   and	
   the	
  
Space-­‐in-­‐Between.	
   In	
   Doug	
   Hall	
   and	
   Sally	
   Jo	
   Fifer	
   (eds.).	
   Illuminating	
   Video.	
   New	
   York:	
  
Aperture	
  Foundation.	
  	
  
Nicolson,	
  Annabelle.	
  1972.	
  Artist	
  as	
  filmmaker.	
  “Art	
  and	
  Artists“,	
  vol.	
  7,	
  no.	
  9.	
  	
  
Paruzel,	
  Andrzej.	
  1978.	
  Video	
  instalacje	
  1976-­‐1978	
  [Video	
  installations	
  1976-­‐1978].	
  Lodz:	
  
Dom	
  Srodowisk	
  Tworczych.	
  	
  
Schneider,	
   Ira	
   and	
   Beryl	
   Korot	
   (eds.).	
   1976.	
   Video	
   Art.	
   An	
   Anthology.	
   New	
   York	
   and	
  
London:	
  Harcourt	
  Brace	
  Jovanovich.	
  	
  
Thompson,	
  D'Arcy.	
  1942.	
  On	
  Growth	
  and	
  Form.	
  Cambridge:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  	
  
Welsh,	
  Jeremy.	
  1991.	
  Video	
  installations	
  in	
  the	
  U.K.	
  In	
  Nik	
  Houghton	
  (ed.).	
  Video	
  Positive	
  
1991.	
  Liverpool:	
  Moviola.	
  	
  	
  
Wiegand,	
  Ingrid.	
  1978.	
  Videospace:	
  Varieties	
  of	
  the	
  Video	
  Installation.	
  In	
  Gregory	
  Battcock	
  
(ed.).	
  New	
  Artists	
  Video.	
  New	
  York:	
  E.	
  P.	
  Dutton.	
  	
  	
  
Wolford,	
   Kirk	
   and	
   Stahl	
   Stenslie.	
   1994.	
   CyberSM	
   III.	
   In	
   Proceedings	
   of	
   5th	
   International	
  
Symposium	
  on	
  Electronic	
  Arts.	
  Helsinki:	
  UIAH.	
  	
  	
  
Youngblood,	
  Gene.	
  1970.	
  Expanded	
  Cinema.	
  London:	
  Studio	
  Vista.	
  	
  	
  
Revised	
  version	
  of	
  the	
  text	
  originally	
  published	
  in	
  „Art	
  Inquiry“	
  vol.	
  II	
  (XI),	
  2000.