Foster on Breder

Stephen Foster seems to very heavily rely on Hans Breder's work as a way of defining what intermedia is, and what it has the potential to encompass. Acknowledging Breder's (contemporarily) recent incorporation of more video into his work, Foster goes on to praise the ability of video to inherently raise the questions and confronting the problems Foster feels are central to the development of a work as intermedia. The obvious effect Breder's art and opinions have on Foster make his take on intermedia feel somewhat flat, as it is clearly built by one major influence rather than an assortment of sources and critical opinions on intermedia, or a more personal take on Foster's part.

Although Foster goes on to deride the ability of most media -- and artists -- to provide a source of intermedia, he does define it, in the context of Duchamp's fountain, as being able to "catalyze a variety of artistic and social mechanisms....as a 'function' of a single thing." It is an interesting line, because it simultaneously encompasses the inherent ability of intermedia to involve multiple elements while trying to bring them together as one idea on a much grander scale. It makes the creation of a work of intermedia seem somewhat elegant, and it reminded me of The Clock, a video project by Christian Marclay. The report below describes The Clock in more detail, but in essence, it is a synced and accurate twenty-four hour clock, built from film clips which reference the time, verbally or visually. It simultaneously creates a narrative and disrupts thousands from the way it cuts often tiny clips out of much larger sections of story, but the creation of an awareness of time is fascinating and spellbinding, while raising the occasionally troubling question of "what are we doing in watching this?"

a BBC newsreport on Christian Marclay's The Clock

Video is not junk.

One of Foster's main points is that video is indeed an effective way to transmit ideas and expression, and therefore is a valid medium in which to make art. Many people simply assign movies and television to the same realm of junk food; easily consumed but worth nothing. This is simply wrong. I strongly agree that video in all forms should be considered art. Furthermore Foster correctly identifies why video has such an appeal to artists, that "Video is an extension of ourselves because we can no longer distinguish between ourselves and TV-type technology." Video draws you in, and allows your mind to escape from your body and into the characters on a screen. You are hypnotized by it, and it consumes three of the five human senses, something most other mediums cannot do.

Though it is a commercial, the adds for 5-gum have always appealed to me. I enjoy the way the ads try to let us feel something unreal, such as being massaged by a billion steel balls. Again, even though it is a commercial, the clip feels much more like a short film, and this is why I am sharing it.

Foster's Article response by Greg P

In Foster’s article, Foster attempts to differentiate intermedia from multimedia. After reading his remarks, my interpretation of video as art has been reformed to an extent. He claims that video extends our nervous system; I agree with this. When I see a video, many different emotions arise. I believe when a movie or show affects my emotions the most is when I can call it art. But when I see video that doesn’t have the same affect on my persona, I don’t think it is necessarily art, yet others do think so. So, the “what is art” debate got me thinking of how I should be watching video not only for my own entertainment, but from the view of the artist and his intentions. Proclaiming art as “art” is timeless because it is always changing and its boundaries are always being expanded.

http://soko-barefoot.blogspot.com/2012/06/hans-breder.html

I found a blog on Hans Breder containing some of his artwork, and I felt this represents my idea of proclaiming what art is. I do think his work is interesting and maybe with more speculation would have a greater impact on me. Yet, as I look at some of the artworks, I don’t see anything but naked bodies with mirrors in random environments. I’d say I felt nothing before I read Foster’s article, but now I can think differently. I begin to understand Breder’s intentions; the perplexities allow me to delve into my inner self with questions of myself and the world around me.

Sound artists and articles

Sound Artist: Robert Worby. I am not a sound artist. Sex and Sound: An exhibition by Micheal Snow. I haven't had the chance to go through these things yet, but they looked promising. WW

Foster's talk about intermedia

In Foster’s article, Foster first introduced the concept of intermedia. However, I tried hard to distinguish the definition of “intermedia” and “multimedia” but still got confused.  Here is what I guess: Multimedia is some forms of media combine to represent something, while Intermedia is a form of medium that brings out meanings immediately.

Foster also talked about Duchamp’s “Fountain” in his article. To me, a glance at Duchamp’s work “fountain” can’t make me perceive meanings in it. At least, as a normal person, I can’t feel the relation between the mechanism and art in it. It no wonder brings great controversy and criticism after it is first showed on the exhibition. Probably what an art piece means can be no meanings at all. For example, in Duchamp’s another artwork, “bicycle”, it seems more random that Duchamp just put a bicycle wheel on a part of chair and made it as an artwork.

http://liminoid.net/breder/index.html

Here is a website I found that included Breder Hans’s intermedia artwork from 1964 to 2011, and I can see how his work, his boundary of art expands from year to year. As Breder said in a video on youtube, his art was basically based on his own experience and his own feelings from real world, for example: nature. From these Breder’s videos, I doubt that “intermedia” is strictly the same to everyone or not. Since meanings of intermedia (can an artwork be intermedia for some kinds of people but not intermedia for other kinds of people? Since there should be miscommunication happening among people.) This question stuck in my mind when I read the paragraph in the article. Is the boundary for intermedia based on meaning that from individual’s understanding or based on the artwork’s “meaning” itself? Can its definition be changed and be uncertained?

Why Video is Alive - Response to Foster’s "Video and Intermedia"

Foster’s note would work better as an art piece of a different medium rather than a writing. Following his own definition of art I would tell him that he has good ideas but they are not effectively communicated. But rather than complain about the aesthetics of his piece, I am going to emphasize and his best points and use them as catalysts.

Foster provides three essential “laws” of intermedia. 1) Intermedia must be a sociopolitical catalyst. 2) Intermedia must evoke criticism, specifically political, and not just cosmetic criticism of the piece itself. 3) Although anything can be intermedia, video has the highest potential because it can communicate by force.

Foster also gives a wonderful analogy to emphasize the importance that video goes against any fixed expectation. Video is “an extension of the nervous system”. Like the nervous system which can give us fear and make our hearts beat faster, video is known for what it does not for what it is. It cannot be given a set classification. If someone were to tell me, “I’m going to show you a painting”, I already have a picture in mind and I know to expect a painting. The same goes for a cinematic production or a commercial -  we know what to expect. This makes video alive. 

Video breathes and grows and changes. It is a baby first learning to walk and at the same time a rebellious teenager filled with argument and at the same time a tired grandmother with a slowly fading smile. Life is spontaneous because we do not know where it will take us. Neither a painting or sculpture can be spontaneous because we see it all at the same time. Video is alive because it can convey the same emotional suspense and tension that we experience in real life. A video can be a friend in the beginning yet end up as an enemy. Over time we can grow to love, hate, appreciate, or challenge a video. This ability for a video to change our minds and to move us is why video as intermedia is so powerful. Video is alive because it is spontaneous. 

Foster’s article reminds me of this video of Andy Warhol Eating a Hamburger because it makes me question: what is the difference between video and intermedia?... between technology communication and art that communicates?... and above all, what is art?

Remarks on marks on marks.

           Foster's piece begins with a distinction between the idea of "multimedia" and "intermedia", and he clearly favors the idea of intermedia. I personally remained confused as to the meanings of both words, so I looked up the definitions. "Intermedia" relates to the utilization of different genres in a piece of art, while "multimedia" refers to the more contemporary idea of modern electronic media. To Foster, intermedia (and more specifically video) works better because it serves as "an extension of ourselves."To be able to draw from different forms of art to create a coherent, singular piece is a practice that represents human activity, and the fact that as a human being we are experiencing all of our senses together all at once on a daily basis.

            It only works that video would come to the forefront of artistic preference considering that it has the ability to stimulate all or most of our senses at once. The imagery of a video, the use of sound in video, and the different ways a film maker can direct an audience serve to bring the audience into the piece more so than other forms of media. Personally I would like to use Nicolas Winding Refn's film Drive as an example of how powerful video is as intermedia. In the scene I have chosen, we can see how the music, lighting, and actions on screen purvey the point of the scene without actually telling the audience anything. Also, it's a pretty kick-ass scene.

link: http://youtu.be/i5ufgkJ-uVE

Foster's Article - Kevin's Response

Before this article I didn't really understand the term "intermedia" (which isn't a real word according to spell check).  I know multimedia is when different content forms are brought together and used as one.  Intermedia is when you take various art genres and mix them together.  Foster writes, "I have always found intermedia most "inter" when the medium, whatever that happens to be, serves as a vehicle through which a variety of "generic intentions" can be processed, either consecutively, serially, or simultaneously." Although I am not 100% sure what means by "generic intentions," but I am assuming it has to do with the different forms  of artistic expression.  For example, the medium may be TV which serves as the vehicle through which a poem may be read or a musical piece played.  Also the poem and musical piece can occur one after the other or at the same time.

I also noticed that Foster brought up the "Is it art?" question which was talked about a lot last semester in my class Intro to Digital Art.  At what point does something become a piece of art? This question has many answers; however, I usually answer it in my own specific way.  Intention is very important along with meaning and popularity.  If the so called "piece of art" was un-intentional, its value as art is questionable, but that's not the only factor.  Is the "piece of art" given a meaning? Do other people find it interesting or aesthetically pleasing?  There are so many factors that go into defining if something is art that it comes down to gut feelings.

I found  youtube video called "Leon Botstein asks 'What is art?'"
In this video Leon states at the beginning "Art transforms the everyday."  The rest of the video describes how this relates to all forms of art.
I do agree with his argument although its very broad.  Art, even a photograph, somehow distorts reality/nature in some way.

Foster Response

One of the questions I asked in class on Wednesday was, "How are we defining art?" After reading "Video and Intermedia: Remarks on their Relationship," I am almost ashamed to ask the question. I will explain why that is.

First, we of course had to watch Hans Breder's video as the first sentence instructed the reader to do. I am not sure as to how to go about criticizing video art, so I guess I will keep my analysis in lay terms. Watching what was happening was confusing. I began thinking it was a video of a portrait - but the women continued to move. They were moving in what seemed to be sexualized gestures, or....maybe just choreographed body movements used to portray specific angles of the body. I'm not sure. However, in reading through Foster's description of intermedia, I realized this uncertainty is exactly the point. The "generic intentions" that he says intermedia can perpetuate, seem to be portrayed through me attempting to classify the art into one of the following: sexualized image of the body, video strip, portrait, angles, etc. All of these are "art categories" that we learn to interpret art into. Intermedia though is a "thing."

Hans' represented art both abstract and concrete, which is what I found the most fascinating about his work. He used geometric shapes and plain portrayal of the figures in his work. However, there was also an intentional message of ambiguity to the meaning and purpose of the art. Working together, I believe is what forms a part of the "intermedia" concept that Foster is referring to. He says that it "...'facilitates' or 'enables' intellectual, critical, and aesthetic activities." As a viewer, I am intrigued and want to know more. Through the mediums that he works through, there is a possibility for interpretation that pushes his work into it's own category of medium of it's own. And Hans said himself that every time his art seemed to get popular and developed a following, he changed it. I suppose this is what makes a true intermedia artist.

I would like to go back to the beginning of my response. I said that I was ashamed to say that I asked how do we define art after reading this passage. It is not because I was confronted with the possibility of varying views on art. Or that intuitively the definition of art is supposed to be ambiguous anyway. I am regretting my question because "...the effectiveness of intermedia isn't unlike the effectiveness of a human being..." If I were to truly immerse myself into art, I would understand that art is human. When art works together that it is, as one, it is a human being. I thought this was one of the most insightful sections of Stephen Foster's writing because it just makes sense. In attempting to define a human being, you lose the "essence" of a particular human. I believe that essence is what allows us to say that we are all unique from one another. When we label, that uniqueness is taken away. Intermedia seems to exist for the artist that embraces that concept. The intermedia artist runs into ambiguity and makes it move.

In the end though, there is still a lesson that I am taking away from the Foster's reading that is not a result of my shame. Specifically, he extends video into the conscious world of communication and media as to touch on how hard it is to make unconscious video art. Hans seemed to succeed at the separation, and I hope now that I can make a video that is an open ended question.

Foster's Article

               For me, Foster’s article was difficult for me to understand. I finished reading the article and felt like I still did not have a good idea of what intermedia is in comparison to multimedia. I ended up going to Google and read from a website that intermedia involves “creative works that lie formally and conceptually between established media” (http://www.intermediated.org/what-is-intermedia). I also looked up a rough definition of multimedia, which I think is very similar to that of intermedia. One source defines multimedia as “media and content that uses a combination of different content forms” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia). These both describe a mixing of different types of media/content forms, so what is the difference between them? Foster describes intermedia as being “political,” “compelling,” “facilitating,” and “enabling,” but can’t that also be argued for any form of art? What makes intermedia so special?

                Apart from my confusion with the definition of intermedia, I enjoyed reading Foster’s description on the importance of video. I completely agree with Foster’s notion that “video is an extension of ourselves.” Whatever an artist creates is essentially an extension of themselves. They have created it using their own thoughts, feelings, experiences, and knowledge, so of course their work directly reflects their thoughts, feelings, experiences, and knowledge. However, I think art in general is so powerful because each piece is experienced differently by different people. Just because art reflects the artist does not mean that everyone experiences the piece the same way that the artist does.

                I was also intrigued by Foster’s comparison of video as an extension of the nervous system. I wish Foster had explained this notion further, because I am left wondering how exactly video is an extension of the nervous system. Is it because video can transmit signals rapidly and effectively, or because of how essential it is (to what, I can’t pinpoint. Culture? The spread of ideas? Life in general?).

After trying to find examples of intermedia, I decided to look up Foster’s “subject” in his article, Hans Breder. At one point, Foster explains that “Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’ is not intermedia because it occupies a place between art and plumbing,” so I also looked up Duchamp’s “Fountain” and attempted to compare the two. I would be interested to hear people’s opinions about the two artists and how one can be considered intermedia and the other cannot.

Duchamp’s “Fountain:” http://greynotgrey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fountain.jpg

Work by Hans Breder: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4FN0pM8SnRU/T8-rFEBbXCI/AAAAAAAAR0I/lGRFbtLDRLE/s640/HANS+BREDER+(12).jpg

Fire Wire Cable

Ok, I reuploaded the link. Here is the fire wire cable you need for class.

Personal thoughts about Video and Intermedia article (Alexa)

How I felt about video, its uses and purposes has eradicated into a completely different level. My perspectives in both sound and particularly in video have evolved into greater ideas as more knowledge of these areas are being exposed to me. This article enabled me to really understand how important video is for us, humans. While a song allows one to hear the lyrics, and a painting pushes one to learn to appreciate visual beauty, video is a mixture of both. In other words, video is the ideal combination of both visual and auditory senses. Out of every art medium that exists, I believe video is perhaps the only one that could catch our full attention and in a way remain the longest in out memory. Initially, understanding what the term intermedia implied became an issue. But once Foster began to explicate video as an intermedia medium by mentioning its spontaneity, its ability to compel and its capacity to live and fluctuate, it all began to make more sense.

Video is intermedia because it can bring together the visual beauty of studio art and the romanticism of poetry. When listening to a poem, we don’t see or evinced anything but the poet and his/her reactions as he/she delivers the meaningful message. When walking trough an art gallery, one does appreciate the visual essence each piece of art gives out, but leaves the sense of hearing unattended. A quote that personally really stood out and made such a great impact was: “Indeed, the effectiveness of intermedia isn’t unlike the effectiveness of a human being and this is why video, especially, has been characterized as an extension of the nervous system.” This comparison of video and the human being and Foster’s assurance that video is certainly an extension of the nervous system, system responsible for all the biological processes and movement in the body, made me realize video is responsible of activating our senses.

I would like to finish by including an image of one of Salvador’s Dali masterpieces “The Persistence of Memory”. I chose this painting displaying several clocks melting because I finally understood video’s potentiality to permit time appear as passing by so rapidly. As mentioned before it seems as if video is one of the few mediums pertaining inside our memory. 

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.