Bart Rutten, Gaby Wijers
Abramovic / Ulay report comparative study

One of the problems with which the institutes participating in the Project Preservation Video Art are confronted is the lack of information on the significance of the technology used. This problem is caused by the changes in technology. A responsible approach to preservation requires gaining an insight into the significance of the technology used. Here, consultation with the artist is essential. In a number of cases, artists - for example, Abramovic/Ulay - have produced a great many different versions of video works, which have ended up in different collections. In such cases, a collective procedure of artists' interviews will be followed. This is more efficient for the participants in the preservation project, and at the same time prevents the artists from having to be contacted again and again about different problems with different collections.

After the viewing, a list of questions was drawn up, which was then dealt with during discussions with Abramovic/Ulay. They are the first in this series, and their case will serve as ‘pilot' for the comparative studies that are still to follow.

See appendix with oeuvre.

The starting point is the work (titles), then followed by the versions, then the tapes from the collections. In the editing room, we viewed the various versions of each work (in alphabetical order) one after another and, if necessary, next to each other, so as to gain an overview of the differences.

The numbering of the versions came about as follows:
The starting point was the reconstruction of the process of change from version to version. That is to say, the version closest to the master recording is version 1, and that which is furthest removed from the master (reduced duration, from colour to black-and-white)* is given the highest number.

Where possible, we have defined and noted the direct relationship between the versions. Where great differences between versions made this necessary, we have placed our observations into a broader context by comparing our findings to the inventorial publications of the Van Abbemuseum (Ulay /Abramovic, Performances 1976 - 1988; Van Abbemuseum 1997 pp. 125 - 127) and Openbaar Kunstbezit (video catalogue, Openbaar Kunstbezit 1984, pp. 1 - 4). Here, a distinction is made between performance (and the medium of registration) and video.

General/content

• How do the different versions of works relate to one another, for example, AAA? Is there, generally, a version that you prefer, or is each version an item in itself?
• Do you assign a special significance to the medium used, or in other words: is there an essential difference between the use of video and film?
• How should we deal with this, in your opinion?
• Do you assign a special significance to the system used, or in other words: is there an essential difference between the use of NTSC and PAL?
• How should we deal with this, in your opinion?
• How should we deal with the colour and black-and-white versions? (Why did you convert performances into black-and-white for the Anthology and Collected Works series?)

For example:

• a specific question about preservation of Charged Space; film or video, NTSC or PAL? (If we aim at preservation of the most comprehensive registration possible, with a condensed version for the compilation, which versions should we preserve, and on which medium?)
• Specific question about preservation of Great Wall of China; film or video.
• Specific question about preservation of Incision; film or video
• About the various AAA works: make sure which is AAA-AAA and which is AAA Liege. The 1997 Van Abbemuseum catalogue states: Amsterdam on 16 mm and Liège on Umatic Video. The credits, however, would seem to cast doubt on this. How should we deal with such compiled works, and the independent works that are part of That Self?
• Modus Vivendi 2 - Question: what kind of work is this, what does it belong to, and why this same title?
• What should we do about items that were in bad condition when they were entered into the compilation, and of which a better version is now available?

The 'Collected Works' series is based on the 'Anthology' series, with spoken introductions added here and there. The Anthology series (1988) was brought out on Umatic (SMA acquired this version) and on VHS. The Collected Works version (1996) came out on Betacam and VHS. As far as we know, only the NIM and the ZKM have this version on Betacam. Other institutes, such as the Groninger Museum (which has only three parts) have acquired this version on VHS. Here it is open to question what rights can be derived from the VHS version, and whether or not it actually qualifies as a 'work of art'.
It is remarkable that a number of performance registrations were purposefully converted from colour to black-and-white.
With the exception of a Relation in Time and an Imponderabilia version, all the works made for and in possession of the Van Abbemuseum are the same versions as were included in the Collected Works, but without titles.

How do the installation versions from the Van Abbemuseum relate to the other versions?

Tuesday, April 10th, 2001 at the NIM
Present: Marina Abramovic, Ulay, Evert Rodrigo, Bart Rutten, Ramon Coelho and Saar Groenevelt (minutes)

Thursday, April 12th, 2001
Bart Rutten and Gaby Wijers

Bart tells those present that, with a view to the Project Preservation Video Art, up until now a full inventory has been made of the work of Abramovic/ Ulay. During the viewing and the inventorial work, a number of questions arose, among other things about versions / medium of publication. Before we can effectively start the digitization process, these questions will have to be discussed with the artists. As it turns out, Marina Abramovic does not have much time. She also mentions that she finds it difficult to talk about her work in an abstract manner. We agree that we will meet at another time; that we will view all the material separately and then make concrete arrangements.
When Marina Abramovic has gone, we discuss a number of general matters with Ulay.

The following subjects are discussed:

Approach
Having entered the second phase of the preservation project – and with a view to the future – we appear to be strongly inclined towards a maximally consistent and efficient way of working, so that the next phase will be less time-consuming. Previously the works were still treated as topical works of art, of which, therefore, new versions could be brought out. Both Ulay and Marina express their preference for a historical approach. This rings through in the debate on the next subject:

Version
The most original, authentic version has the highest priority. There is an explicit preference for preservation of the most complete and longest version possible. The participating institutes will be offered the possibility of acquiring this material. Nevertheless, they retain the right to preserve their own – often condensed – versions, the consequence being that this would require extra hours and would therefore be more expensive.

Medium
For the artists, the specific use of a medium, in other words, film or video, had no intentional significance. Particularly before 1980, they favoured film over video, because the image quality of film is basically better. Now they prefer video, because it makes distribution easier. Only the work That Self should perhaps be preserved on film.

System
As with the medium, the kind of system was never assigned a specific significance. They chose the system that was available at that time. This also goes for the work recorded on NTSC. In practice, preservation from NTSC is very difficult for the NIM, because the NTSC apparatus is not available. However, Ulay has no objection to preservation on PAL of work that was originally recorded on NTSC, but was later converted to PAL, because such a conversion does not detract from the content of the work and permanently makes it easier to copy.

Colour / black-and-white
Some works that were originally recorded in colour were later converted to black-and-white because, in this way, the contrast / quality could be improved more easily at that time. When we ask Ulay on which version we should base the preservation, he answers, very consistently, that we should use the most authentic work; the colour version in this case.

Tapes as installation
Ulay does not object to individual tapes being mounted one after another, or to large beam projections of tapes, like a kind of installation art. However, the works should not be perceived as installations. Only the versions from the Van Abbemuseum should be treated as installations, because their presentation requires combination with other objects. Ulay appears to like the idea of expanding the sequence of these works by adding 1996 versions.

As a continuation of the April 10 session, all the material was viewed and assessed on April 12th [8 to 11 a.m. was the only time before September that we could meet with both artists together]. See the oeuvre list and the report of Tuesday's meeting (April 10th).

The artists' criterion for preservation is the historical approach; the oldest, most original versions should be preserved. Ulay offers to inform the participating museums, and proposes to enable them to include the most original versions in their collections.
With video works in poor condition, it could be worth trying to convert the original film. However, this would probably happen outside the context of the preservation project. Apart from these, practically all the titles from the oeuvre list were discussed. Any remarks were added to the summary, and explicit preference for a specific version marked with an exclamation mark.

Bart Rutten, Gaby Wijers 2001

reference:

• * It is self-evident that a black-and-white version cannot be re-converted into colour.