| |
From this angle the absence of Uruguay was a surprise, since
the country participated with a substantial number of entries
in the first competition. A factor that may have contributed
to its absence, as well as for the relatively weak representation
of Chile this year —one has to assume— is the fact
that the video format requested this time for the entries was
VHS NTSC. This new format was decided upon after the first competition
when videos from the Southern Cone arrived in VHS PAL, a system
not popular in the United States, and extensive delays and expense
occurred in the format conversion of the tapes. Argentina, on
the other hand, participated with a much larger and stronger
presence this year, winning in fact, one of the awards. Besides
receiving videos from the countries of the region, some arrived
from Spain, Italy and several locations within the United States
and Canada.
Mexico,
a country that boasted the largest participation in 2002, and
showed a pleasant degree of sophistication at managing technological
media, was surpassed this time by Brazil and Colombia, and was
comparable in quality and quantity to smaller Panama and Costa
Rica. Again the Brazilians unquestionably demonstrated great
ease, familiarity and comfort handling the technological repertoire,
exercising as well a wider range in their approaches to the
themes, including ingenuity and humor. This last was not as
detectable in the entries from the Andean region; in fact, with
few exceptions, the mood in those from Colombia, Ecuador and
Venezuela was pretty grim, while Argentina appeared in general
to be more concerned with formal and conceptual elements.
The
2004 jurors were particularly demanding and rigorous in order
to push the benchmark established in 2002 further. They acted
not only as jurors in the selection of the awards and honorable
mentions, but also as curators of the resulting exhibition.
Their verdicts were unanimous in the selection of works to receive
distinctions and be included in the exhibit. They were also
unanimous in their decision to split the first and second prizes
because, in their view, there were not substantial differences
in quality to single out two pieces for the respective awards.
As
a result the First Prize was shared between Emunho
and Poporo, two pieces from Paraguay and Colombia respectively.
The jurors ruled that these two videos reflect fundamental aspects
of Amerindian identity — an issue present in many current
discussions throughout our continent from politics to economics.
This theme was brought to the public’s attention with
extraordinary dignity and artistry, along with competent use
of technological language. In both pieces theme, content and
aesthetics appear to be solidly structured, intertwined and
resolved. Such use of technology also implies that the social
groups the videos refer to (directly or indirectly), which are
majorities in some nations, deserve better opportunities for
development and progress in view of the many disenfranchisements
and setbacks imposed by those who have proclaimed themselves
to be their leaders. These populations —in some cases
still marginalized— are owed the opportunity to advance
without renouncing their traditions, something that many see
as an impediment for personal or collective development in the
light of our increasingly globalized economy, and the challenges
that cultural penetration bring to all of us through information
and communication technology.
The
Second Award was equally shared between Strategy to Corrupt
One’s Shadow and How Things Work, entries
from Argentina and Brazil respectively, for the effectiveness
of relatively uncomplicated visual effects while addressing
complicated and unresolved issues affecting the region.
The Honorable Mentions were awarded for specific outstanding
qualities in each case, and followed the Biennial guidelines
closely.
In sum, the II Inter-American Biennial of Video Art and its
exhibition as a whole, while smaller by almost
half than the first edition, is stronger if not better than
the first. This outcome has justified the efforts and goals
of the IDB Cultural Center mentioned at the beginning of this
essay, and encourages us to gear up enthusiastically for the
third edition of the Biennial in 2006.
Félix Ángel
Director of the II Inter American Biennial of Video
Art
General Coordinator and Curator
IDB Cultural Center
Washington, D.C
|
|
