Response to Video and Intermedia

           Video plays a very important role and has influence in virtually every aspect of our life. In the article, Stephen C. Foster claimed that video should be considered as one of the intermediate. He said video is spontaneous, alive, fluctuant, extensile and transformable. It can be consider another a communication to know about the happenings of the world apart from television and film.

            As far as I concerned, video can be seen as a communication of human’s life. It greatly affects our life because it can capture what is actually happening and this gives us a perception of various information. These help the average person to identify the world outside their life. Therefore, video here can be seen as a tool of communication as it transfers a piece of information from a group of people to another group of people. People get to know the world through those small cameras.

            At the end of the article, Foster raises a question “Is Breder’s video work belongs to art?” I pretty agree his idea that whether Breder’s work belongs to art should not depends on whether it “meets necessary and sufficient conditions for being art,” but rather, what art naturally should be. In my opinion, anything that can joy people’s life or inspire people’s thoughts can be consider an art. Video is a reflection of people’s daily life, which records people’s joy, anger, sad and etc. It is telling an alive story different from a dead picture and painting. If we say a picture or a painting is an art, then why not a video can’t be?

            However, similar to Foster’s opinion in his article, I don’t think we need to distinguish video from a communication and an art. I think video can be both. Video is a human product that can be used as a communication to connect people from people, at the same time; it can be presented in its special way as a form of art.