There are a few points that this
reading brought up that I found particularly interested. The first of them is
the distinction and dissidence that was made between video art and TV
broadcasting. In the times that she is talking about, television shows focus
much revolved much more around the conservative “nuclear family.” This was for
the most part an unrealistic and picture-perfect portrayal of life in America
and something the video art wanted to move away from. Video art was more
interested in what different and interesting things they could do the video
technology.
Another point I found interesting is
the change in availability of video technology and what that meant for it. As
the reading says, video equipment started off being very expensive and were
mostly owned by big broadcasters, corporations, etc… this therefore meant that
they were the ones who controlled what people saw. However as time has gone on,
video equipment has much more affordable and transportable and has allowed many
more people to make videos. To go even further, the rise of the internet and
websites like Facebook and YouTube have allowed an almost absurdly high amount
of people to share what they have recorded and made in a way that wouldn’t have
been thought possible a number of years ago. I think one of the reasons why
video is so powerful and has lasted so long is because, especially with more
and more technological advancements, there is so many different things that you
can do with it. For example, the fairly new app Vine shows us all the interesting
things we can do with seven seconds and cut editing.
No comments:
Post a Comment