Rush's Introduction

I thought it interesting that in the first page of the introduction, Rush explains that every representation of art has been used in someway somewhere, and so the artist's preoccupation is to find a means to create a personal statement. I think that this mentality of having to "revolutionize" art by being different is contradictory to what art is supposed to be anyway. However, the rest of the introduction goes on to explain how art essentially became more abstract and flexible for artists to work within. It has always occurred to me that painting for example, as an old artistic expression has evolved to allow greater abstract concepts. Especially when you take into consideration the Sistine Chapel era to Picasso to whoever is popular today. I thought it was very interesting how the author explained the evolution of film and imaging becoming more abstract. But even more interesting is this reoccurring theme of technology allowing for greater artistic variability and creativity. I think that is also counterintuitive to what technology was intended for, which is to service people into a faster, easier, and variable way of existing. But artists have taken technology and manipulated it for the purpose of representing an idea to the people. Sometimes that technology is even used against itself for representing the idea of "too much "Technology." I am interested to see how Rush explains further what artists use these mediums for since it continues to evolve.

The video I am sharing is what I believe to be a very cool representation of an evolution and combination of art. There is painting aspect, which evolved to encompass more definitions - even more cultural elements such as street art. And then video and technology with the animation, all together make an even better form of art. Maybe even intermedia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGaqLT-gO4