Firewire to mini cable

Cable to buy.

My Response to Foster’s "Video and Intermedia"

In his article, Foster examines the relationship between video and intermedia and comes to the conclusion that while they lend themselves very well to one another, videos are not intermedia unless they reach a higher level of bringing some overlooked and unrelated facts of life to becoming art, and subsequently impacting those that view it. Intermedia is the point where art inserts itself into our thoughts and world. Where it inspires reflection and discussions and becomes part of our intellectual surroundings.

It blends seamlessly with the ordinary and the mundane and because of how versatile video is as a medium itself. Foster argues that painting, film, and the more traditional art forms are more constrained by standards that video need not adhere to. Because video is a fairly new and easily accessible media, videos do not necessarily have to be “art”. Because of this, it is easier for video to seamlessly interact with the world and those that watch it. It becomes easier for it to bridge the gap that makes it intermedia, and to be relatable.

According to Foster, video is the medium that most easily becomes intermedia, as it is as spontaneous, alive, and constantly in flux as the world in which it was created. Video is, in essence a copy of the filmmaker’s view of a specific aspect of the world. Foster challenges the traditional idea that intermedia “breaks down art’s boundaries,” and interjects that it does more than just that - it is art that unites totally unrelated aspects of life itself and results in a deeper psychological impact to those that see it than would a traditional form of art that is not intermedia.

I chose this sound clip from Ubuweb because it relates to what I think Foster was saying about Intermedia. It is a woman, Kelly Mark, reading a poem called “I Should Really” In which she goes through all of the things the average person really should do, but probably won't do, for a while at least. I think it is intermedia because of the subject matter. The poem makes art out of mundane, ordinary-life statements, and the fact that it is a voice clip makes it represent more than one form of media as well.

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KG/NYT/Kelly-Mark_I-Really-Should_clean.mp3

Response to Video and Intermedia

What I got from reading Stephen Foster's article is that video doesn't necessarily have to be art. Video doesn't necessarily have to be liked by others around you. Anything one does in life doesn't have to be liked by others around them. The only thing that matters when it comes to self expression is one's self. As long as you think what you came up with in your mind and transferred to either paper, an object, or maybe even a video, means something to you that's all you should care about. Other people may not fully understand your expression which is why it's yours. It's nobody else's video or "art" just yours. You can have countless videos, drawings, paintings, etc and keep them to yourself and love every single one of them. Or you can put them out into the world and allow for other people to get a taste of how you view things around you or how you view things in your mind and if they like it, they like it, if not it really doesn't matter. If however you expressed yourself allowed for you to get how you felt off your mind, whether it was a happy expression or an angry one that's all that that person should care about. That's what art is, the expression of one's creativeness or imagination.

http://www.ubu.com/film/davis_energies.html

Came across this video on ubuweb. Its a little eerie but I thought it was pretty cool. I liked how the imagery matched up with the different tones of music.

While multimedia makes use of various mediums in interesting ways, Foster argues that intermedia pushes the boundaries further, bringing art, culture, and society into question together. Intermedia art is elevated beyond a physical structure or act into a meaningful and provocative form that has lasting impact. Intermedia artwork should have an active presence that deserves a conversation between the work itself and the work’s audience. It should live on in the audience’s own conscious even after interaction with the art has ended.

As noted in this reading, the Duchamp “Fountain” made use of everyday plumbing to generate deep debate as to what makes art art. In its simplicity, Duchamp’s work generated questions and forced thought. It broke artistic norms and struck a cord in cultural understandings. Though Foster does not consider this work to be a prime example of intermediate art, it is an example of how intermediate art should function.

Intermedia art can inspire introspection into one’s own self, but also into one’s self as a member of the greater world. Video, a form so able to capture the real world, can be used as a powerful tool to engage powerful thought and capture humanity at its essence. While it is up to the audience to watch and interpret the video and form a relationship with what is on the screen, video can’t rely just on the audience’s experiences.

I believe that in editing and splicing together recorded moments, one can manipulate sight and sound, bringing to light issues or topics of importance, evoking and reaching real emotions. Video can take what we as audience members know, and show it to us in a new way, sending messages both consciously and subconsciously. It is our world shown back to us from a different perspective. When executed effectively to elicit emotion or response, I believe that video can successfully be considered intermedia art. And, to Foster’s point, maybe the label doesn’t matter.

I thought this was an interesting and refreshing take on gender issues: http://www.ubu.com/film/sherman_doll.html

Respons to Video and Intermedia

In his remarks, Foster is not describing Breder’s work, but rather seeks to explain the questions that video, specifically Breder’s video, has given him. One of the first questions Foster seems to be focused on intermedia and what makes something intermedia. He indirectly poses the idea that many seem to merely consider that “intermedia pieces ‘break down traditional art boundaries’”. I think what he means by this is that oftentimes, people consider a work an “intermedia piece” when it combines two forms of art, however, this is not what intermedia means. He goes on to explain that, “it (intermedia), is more a question of finding a means of motorizing ideas and expectations in different areas of activities”. What I think he means by this is that the piece itself should stimulate the viewer’s thoughts in such a way that is much greater than a non-intermedia piece.

I thoroughly enjoyed Foster’s comparison of intermedia to being political. It makes sense, quite simply, seeing that political affairs can bring about the most critical feelings in even the most quite person. Such can art do the same when it is serving intermedia purposes. This, I think, is due to the fact that intermedia art is, as Foster stated, “‘facilitates’ or ‘enables’ intellectual, critical, and aesthetic values.” This is why Foster places so much emphasis on video, because, without going into detail, it compels and it has all of these different characteristics that make it so easy to connect with the viewer. This connection between the work and the viewer is so inherently important to the concept of intermedia because “intermedia”, according to Foster, “might closely parallel how we would go about describing or evaluating a human being”. Because intermedia so closely parallels to the evaluation of a human being, the viewer becomes enabled by the piece, causing the viewer to feel, especially with video, strongly about the subject and raise criticisms, questions, or actions about the piece. As Foster points out, “video cannot avoid being political, it cannot avoid being confronting problem areas, and it cannot avoid being socially relevant,” but to me, this is what defines intermedia, to be a medium that challenges the viewer. Without this challenging the viewer, what purpose does the piece have, other than pleasure?

Here is my ubuweb video: http://www.ubu.com/film/marker_junkopia.html

It was created by Chris Marker, John Chapman, and Frank Simeone in 1981 and is titled "Junkopia". I found this piece interesting because it is essentially video artists creating their piece using the pieces of sculpture artists. Another thing that makes this video interesting is that the sculpture artists remain anonymous, they create their sculptures with items from the sea and remain anonymous. This anonymity ties in well with the sounds that follow the video. These sounds can be said to be creepy, but they bring the viewer deeper into the anonymity, a mother level deeper into the unknown. 

Response to Video and Intermedia

I found this piece incredibly interesting because it breaks down the concepts with video art. Breder’s identifies the root of the intermedia as the activity of ‘art’, which leads me to ask, how can we define art? The author compares communication to legitimate art work, and leaves it as an open ended question. I believe it goes both ways: communication is an art and art is a form of communication. Both are processes that take preparation, focus, creativity, and skill to be successful. As for Breder’s discussion of intermedia, he claims it used to be confined to art and now includes performance. This leads me to believe that media will intertwine to continue to include technology based forms of communication as art work. Today we have video art, but tomorrow the possibilities are endless. For instance 3D-printing: is it an engineering-centric process, or is it an art of building? As the possibilities of art continue to grow, the lines between art work and video are merging, but it’s more than defining the two. They are working together to improve each other forming a symbiotic relationship. Video needs artists for such tasks as animation, design, and placement (scripts, sounds, movements).  Art can expand because of the opportunities video provides. Separately, they are good, but together, video and art, art and video, open doors for each other that otherwise would not exist. This results in intermedia, where each piece of art is not strictly categorized into a type. By mixing the different media, the result is unique because it expands boundaries that have been broken down. The combination of the two creates new industries, and has truly changed the way the younger generations visual art, which is a new kind of contemporary- it’s technological. Yesterday, we had sound art- mp3. Today, we have video art- mp4. Who knows what tomorrow will bring for the intermedia forms of art?

http://www.ubu.com/film/glabicki.html

This video in this link combines art, technology, animation, sound and video to demonstrate a result of intermedia back in 1978. We can compare this to an animation such as a Pixar movie today to truly demonstrate the advancement of intermedia.

Response to "Video and Intermedia"

In Foster's argument, he says video is the best form to show intermedia. The main example that he uses throughout his argument comes from Hans Breder. "Intermedia" is facilitated by the medium, which it is "a function of a single thing". It has a very broad sense that Foster stresses on its of ability of delivering messages and communicating with the audiences. Foster said "video enables and has a high potential for intermedia because it, as a medium, compels". The spontaneousness, the ways of representing the materials and technology can avoid the inartistic, and can be efficient.

Hans Breder's concept of intermedia experienced three different times. The first was art. Later, more art forms were included. Most recently, Breder has focused on video, use of languages and work. Once again, it emphasizes art and communication cannot be separated from each other. Video helps to reconstruct and reconnect the patterns with society and culture. 

The "Post Cards From The Heartland "nightmares" episode 1 by Hans Breder agrees with what Foster argues. The beginning of the video suggests that it was an electronic postcard from the heartland. Then Within this video, there is another video that talks about the God's creation of banana. During the video, there are unexpected windows popping out randomly to interrupt and cover over the banana one. At the end of the video, Hans Breder gets a banana and sits in front of the screen and starts to peel as what the banana video said. It is an ironic way to compare a yelling one and a religious one in a screen. Certainly, it communicates with audiences about religion and creation.

Foster leaves an open question at the end saying whether all those activities are art. "Art contains the communication apparatus". From this piece, the words appear on the screens, discussions in the videos, and Breder's action means to communicate with the audience. In this sense, it is art. But the poor settings and the blurriness of video do not look artistic at all. What I think it makes its art it is the structure and communication function that the video presents us, which I agree with Foster's argument after all. Video can well-present intermedia without separated art and communication. 

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. 

Response to Video and Intermedia

     In this passage by Foster, the author touched on a few aspects regarding the difference between "inter"media and "multi"media and the connection to video. I liked the way Foster made it a point to differentiate the similar terms because it's something I never really thought about, but makes complete sense. According to him Intermedia goes further than multimedia by not only incorporating various types of art forms but allowing other media forms to pass through one another and intertwine instead of just being pressed together. Because of this reason, it makes sense to classify video as intermedia because it serves as a vehicle to present other types of media to the viewer.

According to Foster, video is an extension of us. I completely agree with this point and is one of the things that caught my interest in video. It is such a diverse tool that can express so many emotions, stories, or be used to recall memories or significant events. It gives us a chance to capture anything and manipulate it to present our own opinions. Foster defined video as an “extension of the nervous system” which was an interesting concept to picture in my mind, just picturing our nervous system extending through the video to the viewer. Video is compelling and attracts viewers and invites them to witness an event the way someone else experienced it. I guess that’s why I get really invested when I’m watching movies to the point where my body pretty much immobilizes and I just get lost in what I’m watching.

     

One thing I didn't quite understand with this article was the point Foster makes about how "intermedia implies being political." I didn't think this point was explained very well because it seemed to just be thrown in the paragraph. Anyone else know where he was going with that?

Also with exploring uvuweb, I found this one clip http://ubumexico.centro.org.mx/sound/Blood_Stereo/Various-Tracks/Stereo_Blood_The-Brain-Made-Out-Of-Gas_Split-With-Pod-Blotz_2007.mp3 that I really liked. It has a very sinister and creepy feel to it that caught my attention.

-Marisa Guerin

Response to "Video and Intermedia"

I thought the article was a bit hard to understand because Foster keep going off on different tangents when speaking about what intermedia means to him and how it is different from multimedia. If I understood anything at all from the passage, it would have to be that video is something that should be seen, rather than explained or described. And therefore, shouldn't be questioned as being art or not? I agree with Foster when he suggests this because the sole purpose of questioning is a type of art in itself. However, he says that the problem is not in questioning whether Breder's work meets "sufficient conditions for being art", but rather, that we forget to question the endless possibilities of what art can be and should be.

I found these clips to be very interesting: http://www.ubu.com/sound/dial.html especially Jim Carroll's excerpt from the "Basketball Diaries" (because I've seen the movie), Michael Brownstein's "Geography", and Brion Gysin's "I Am That I Am".

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