Remarks on Foster's Remarks

I could sit here and echo Foster's sentiments, highlighting the parts of his comments I agree with and elaborate on those points, but simple regurgitation and embellishment of his comments would be boring. There were, however, a couple points he made that I felt were a little difficult to agree with completely. For example, Foster asserts that "video is an extension of ourselves." This is, ultimately, a limiting viewpoint if he means that video is linked to the artist. This considers a video in the context of the artist and fails to consider it independently of the author, as an independent aesthetic piece (Roland Barthes is rolling in his grave). Any piece of art in virtually any medium could be viewed as an extension of the artist or a materialization of their thoughts. However, this view obliterates any chance for subjective interpretation on the part of the viewer. And, in my opinion, the "art" occurs at the point of consumption and interpretation, not the point of creation. Essentially, a piece of art is like the feces that clogged the toilet; in the end, it doesn't matter who did it or how it came to be, but that is exists. I once watched an interview with Ingmar Bergman in which he declined to interpret one of his films, since his interpretation might have been different from some viewer's and therefore would have upset that person by implying that they were wrong. Basically, relying on the author for context limits people's ability to interpret a work.

If Foster means that video is an extension of the viewer, the implication then becomes not only that video becomes a part of a viewer's environment, but that people are indistinguishable from their environment. The idea that people, as Foster says, "can no longer distinguish between ourselves and TV-type technology" is almost disconcerting. He seems to imply that, upon viewing, we then become a part of video and it becomes a part of us. I'm inclined to disagree with that notion, however. It oversimplifies human nature and our ability to think critically about our environment. On a literal level, one does not simply confuse the self and the environment.

Anyway, the biggest thing I got out of this article is an understanding of the difference between intermedia and multimedia. If Foster's definition is to be accepted, intermedia is anything that can be viewed as political, sparking intellectual or critical activities. This lead me to the realization that anything, placed in the right place, can be intermedia (an obvious example is Duchamp's Fountain). Warhol's films seem to be an interesting example of intermedia, as can be seen in his 8 hour epic, Empire.