Response to Foster

            In Stephen Foster’s article “Video and Intermedia: Remarks On Their Relationship” he poses the question of “what is art?” Although Foster has no outright answer to this complex philosophical question, he instead does a fair job of answering the question “what is Intermedia?”  When Foster defines intermedia, he says,  “To be Intermedia implies, in a very broad sense, being political.”   Although there are multiple ways to interpret this definition, I believe Foster is essentially saying that anything that elicits a reaction is Intermedia.  I find this assertion extremely interesting because many would define “art” in similar terms. Certain pieces of art hold powerful emotional stigmas for individuals, and no two people have identical feelings about one piece of art.  Even when Foster says, “The effectiveness of Intermedia isn’t unlike the effectiveness of a human being” he is implying that no two pieces of Intermedia are exactly the same, and much like human beings, art is in the eye of the beholder. 

This article reminded me of possibly one of the most tragic figures in cinematic history: Ed Wood.  Wood had an unbridled enthusiasm for his films, and, during production, treated each as though it were the next Citizen Kane.  So when Foster says Intermedia is always “political” and when he later poses the question “what is art?” I believe he has found his answer.  Wood would undoubtedly classify his work as art, although the rest of the cinematic community would differ.  For Wood, his films elicit an emotional reaction because they are the product of his dreams.  I believe that this demonstrates that like Intermedia, the definition of art is fluid and is only held to one rule, “it must be political.”  I have attached a link to a clip from Tim Burton’s Ed Wood.  In this clip, Wood discovers, through a conversation with his hero Orson Welles, what art really is.