Dangling by Their Mouths

I went to Jon Davies‘ latest video screening on Friday at Gallery TPW: a programme of video art from around the world that looked at the manipulation of language – authoritative or subversive – and explored the various ways words can be transformed into nonsensical and even violent utterances. I really enjoyed it. It had a solid variety of mediums, styles and topics and was really well curated. Even though there were a few longer (10 min. +) pieces, the order of the programme was strategic so that they didn’t ever seem to drag.

For starters, the gallery was totally packed. It was the second video screening I’ve been to this month that has been maddeningly (and inspiringly – I know that’s not a real word) busy. It’s encouraging to see so many people show up to watch, laugh at and talk about video art, which can often be a tricky and difficult medium.

Cecilia Lundqvist, Dead End [still], 2006

The whole night was bookended by two animation pieces by Cecilia Lundqvist that used collaged found sound material to make semi-nonsensical, tautological dialogues between a (British) man and woman (I’m almost sure a bunch of the sound clips were Julie Andrews). I sort of have a soft spot for animation ever since Vtape, but I really liked the way Lundqvist’s two animation pieces used the same soundtrack but completely re-contextualized the meaning and connotation behind the words with drastically different images.

Knut Asdam, Finally [still], 2006

My absolute favourite piece, however, was Knut Asdam‘s long quasi-narrative about three people in Salzburg, Austria who speak in puzzling, poetic fragments as they wander through the city and eventually physically fight each other in the streets and park. It surprised me that I liked this piece so much. It’s not the type of video work I’m usually drawn to, but something about its cryptic beauty totally sucked me in.

Which was sort of a theme for the evening for me. I thought Davies’ programme was really solid, yet I don’t think it’s a theme I would ever come up with on my own. His interest in the political nature of language and how absurd language becomes whenever it is pushed to extremes was well articulated in his programme notes, but those are the type of issues I always find hard to write about. They seem so slippery and like a problematic mine field that grad school profs would tell me to steer well clear of. Which is maybe why I liked it so much in the first place.