In Foster’s article, Foster attempts to differentiate
intermedia from multimedia. After reading his remarks, my interpretation of
video as art has been reformed to an extent. He claims that video extends our
nervous system; I agree with this. When I see a video, many different emotions
arise. I believe when a movie or show affects my emotions the most is when I
can call it art. But when I see video that doesn’t have the same affect on my
persona, I don’t think it is necessarily art, yet others do think so. So, the
“what is art” debate got me thinking of how I should be watching video not only
for my own entertainment, but from the view of the artist and his intentions. Proclaiming
art as “art” is timeless because it is always changing and its boundaries are always
being expanded.
I found a blog on Hans Breder containing some of his
artwork, and I felt this represents my idea of proclaiming what art is. I do
think his work is interesting and maybe with more speculation would have a
greater impact on me. Yet, as I look at some of the artworks, I don’t see
anything but naked bodies with mirrors in random environments. I’d say I felt
nothing before I read Foster’s article, but now I can think differently. I
begin to understand Breder’s intentions; the perplexities allow me to delve
into my inner self with questions of myself and the world around me.
No comments:
Post a Comment