You’ve probably heard the term “video art” before and, if you’re like me, you’ve asked what is it and what makes it special. Obviously, everyone is aware of video technology. And we all recognize different forms of art, including painting, sculpting, photography, dancing and acting. So exactly how do these two things come together to make film?

To find out, I joined Doha Film Institute’s Video Art workshop held by Koken Ergun, a Turkish video artist. The session included an introduction to the form as well as screenings of some video art pieces.

Video art is considered a distinguished type of art, realizing the artist’s vision through combining different methods including motion pictures, split screens and still photographs. Depending on the actual installation, a video art piece may also use audio and actors . . . or do without either of them.

The final objective is to pose an idea or a situation for several minutes in the theater. It could be an idea that provokes or enriches the viewer, upsets or cheers them. Indeed, the audience may not even understand the idea at first, but it should definitely engage them to search for meaning.

With the development of video technology in the Sixties and Seventies, video art started to make its presence felt in fine galleries alongside contemporary paintings and sculptures.

The main difference between video art and cinema is the absence of traditional narrative components, such as scripts, plots, dialogue and characters. While cinema aims to entertain audiences and encourages them to watch a story in its entirety, video art is not necessarily meant to entertain. Instead, it is considered a tool for an artist to explore their own creative limits.

During Ergun’s workshop, we watched and discussed several video art pieces including an animated scene of an armored tank that stood still while, off-screen, people threw stones at it. The only sounds heard were the wind and a far-off noise when the rocks hit the vehicle. This scene went on for four minutes with no other events, no visible characters and no accompanying music.

Was the artist portraying an actual struggle, such as the Palestinian–Israeli conflict? Did the whistle of the wind refer to an empty place, indicating that the struggle will remain without change? Or was the scene meant to represent the scale of oppressive forces? Like the sounds of the wind, the stones had no effect. After all, stones can never harm a tank, no matter how many are thrown.

What was the artist trying to say? I honestly don’t know for certain …but he did get me thinking, imagining and analyzing. In that sense, I suppose the piece accomplished its task.