Response to "Video and Intermedia"

            Let me start by saying that I really had a hard time understanding what this article was saying. I had a hard time following it and I may not have fully understood it. One of the things that I think I understood however, is the point about video has to have meaning. One way the article describes it is that it has social relevance, it then goes on to list a whole bunch of things that video supposedly does. I however don’t fully buy into the idea that this gives video some kind of deeper meaning or social relevance. I think that it’s very possible to take a video for no other reason than just because you can, without some deeper message. Videos don’t have to make some kind of statement, they can just be fun.

            However, one thing that I think the article is saying, and that I agree with, is that video is one of the most engaging art forms. Like the article saying, video is the art form that most connects with a person because it is the one that most simulates the human experience. Obviously, what people see and hear is constantly moving and changing, so therefore video, as opposed to photos, painting, sculpture, etc, is the closest to that. This also allows for video to show other forms of art in the nearest way to someone actually seeing it live. This, at least to the way I understood it, makes video what they call “intermediary”. This could be considered the best way display other forms of art without being there.       

Jeremy Reich