Response to Origins of Video

Around pages 8-9 of the reading, author Meigh-Andrews discusses the historical quandaries surrounding the categorization of video as an art form. Some considered video an extension of film and television. Others saw it as a separate entity, one that was liberating because it wasn’t bogged down by tradition or scholarly discourse on account of its novelty.

I myself lean more towards the former view on video simply because, like film and television, video records moving images and uses them for aesthetic and communicative purposes. When contemplating the nature of motion picture media, I see a spectrum. On one end, we have the stereotypical Hollywood product: an expensive, glossy money-magnet whose cast and crew have more or less relinquished all creative control to the studio’s whims. As we move away from this pole, we get a good view of film as a collaborative art form, with director, cinematographer, sound designer, screenwriter, actor, and hundreds of other staff members working together to fulfill an artistic vision. Move even further and we hit the independent circuit, where budgets are smaller and the director has more creative reign. Film begins to look more and more like how we envision video, and eventually, the two become indistinguishable (consider Jonathan Caouette’s Tarnation, a documentary comprising only home videos, old Super 8 footage, photos, and answering machine messages; and the Korean short film Night Fishing which, though I haven’t seen, was shot entirely using an iPhone).

Television defers from film only in narrative and the way it allocates its budget. Whereas a movie finishes within two, two and a half hours, TV shows run on through multiple episodes and seasons, so writing becomes especially important. Production quality for TV tends to be lower (for an exception, see Breaking Bad) because many resources have to be invested in sustaining the story. As a moving image medium, TV’s relationship to video is the same as that between film and video. And while the narrative-heavy nature of TV makes it different than much of the video medium, there are many web series online that rely on narrative without foregoing the creative autonomy inherent in making video.

Below, I’ve posted Primer (the whole thing’s available on YouTube), a movie that was shot in five weeks on a $7,000 budget. Though very much of the film medium, this movie showcases how the gap between standard issue Hollywood product and video can be bridged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfxDFbQY10  

Origins of Video Response

As changing technology continually shapes how artists think about their work, changing technology helped elevate video as a medium into a different entity, referred to in this reading as video art. As camera equipment has become cheaper and more accessible, video artists can come from a greater variety of places (geographically and artistically) and their work can reach greater audiences. Video is no longer limited to big broadcast and productions teams screening their work on television. Video has the potential to be created anywhere, by whomever, and shown wherever. Extending the practice of video beyond real time documentation to art opens the door to endless creative possibilities. I found it interesting that even in its early years, video screenings weren’t restricted to traditional screens. Below I have attached a link to a piece I saw as part of an environmental light installation in Amsterdam (and later found as a recording on youtube – a video of a video). This projection, though spoken in Dutch, makes clear use of technology and artistic innovation to create a whimsical and unique experience that transcends that act of painting on which it is based and the location in which it was created. While Paik may have viewed this work as non-challenging, it spoke universally to the thousands of passerbys who found themselves in its audience; if his goal was to elevate video to be equal to painting or sculpture, I would say this installation met his mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XYU_gi_ks

Origins of Video Response

In this reading, one of the main ideas being established is that video as an art created a new form of art, obviously. But what’s important is that as a new art form, video had no previous art history. This was one of the main attractions artists had to this new medium was that it allowed artists to achieve things that had never been done before, which, as an artist, one seeks to create new things that haven’t been done before. These new advances in art through video allowed artists’ creations to expand indefinitely. This indefinite expansion is aided by another idea that this reading pointed out, and that is the fact that video is highly dependent on technological advances.

When video was first introduced it was difficult for the average person to take advantage of it due to video equipment being very expensive as well as requiring great knowledge to operate the equipment. As technology advanced, so did the acquirability and usability of the equipment. As mentioned in the reading, Nan June Paik liked to state that “TV as been attacking us all our lives – now we can attack it back”.

Looking at modern day video, we can see that it is even easier to produce video as most everyone has access to video cameras with their phones, as well as the Internet. This has allowed anyone to produce video and share it with the world. With the advent of Youtube and Vine, we see videos everyday that normal people created. Whether you call these videos art or not is subjective, as some of them can be very good while others can be very bad. Which brings me to my final point. The reading pointed out that because video is not necessarily written down, video not considered significant is unlikely to be preserved. However, when looking at today’s storage technology, as well as social media, we can see that video is in fact being stored and will likely remain. Once a video becomes viral on the Internet, people continue referencing it and bringing it back into light.

Watching this video, created by Sebastiano Tomada Piccolomini who focuses on documentary and portrait photography, shows us how powerful video ca be, yet at the same time, how subjective video can be. It is likely that the shots shown in this video were set up to capture this young boy, forced into war, in a destroyed city so that the viewer sees only what Sebastiano wanted them to see. The Youtube description seems to say that the boy has little invovement in actually fighting, but rather he is merely their helper. However, when viewing the video, one gets the idea that Ahmed is very active in fighting. 

Response to Origins of Video

The article is mainly talking about the development of the video and how it is affected by other new technical medias. Video is produced by using a camera. In a very early period, camera is shooting in black and white and without any sound. Since more and more new technologies developed, nowadays, video contains very high quality of sound and fresh colors. At the same time, the new medias such as TV broadcast becomes more and more popular which seems it can replace the role of video.

The most interesting part comes to me is the discussion of video and TV broadcast. Video shoots the most original scenes in life. Since TV broadcast is a relatively commercial product compare to video, video involves less editing than TV broadcast does. It is very simple and convenience to make a video at any time in any place, as long as, you get a camera in hand, however, it takes you a long time and spend you a large amount of input to produce a TV program.

Most people prefer watching TV since it involves many fantastic technical editing which can send large amount of information to people in a short time and gives people enjoyable visions. Video is relatively simple, and requires less technical cutting but it reflect the original face of our life. In my opinion, I like video the best as I think the origin sometimes can be different.

I accidently find a very interesting video on Youtube. Different from filming the scene as we normally do, this video is presented by using four iphones. Each of iphones shoots a piece of scene. When four of them connect together, it tells a story! Like I just mention, video can be an amazing media even without heavy editing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKuBMihmVHQ

Response to Meigh-Andrews's Origins of Video

The reading on the Origins of Video Art is largely regarding the ways in which video was shaped by changing technology since it’s invention. This is not very difficult to believe, as video art is inherently based on technology. Video would not be possible without the video camera, which is a very recent development in technology itself.

Because video cameras only because available to the general artist population in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it had no history. This led many artists to consider video the salvation of art, as it had no defined rules, boundaries, or critiques. There was nothing that they had to conform to, which let them return to the point of all art, which is to express yourself in a manner that is stunningly different from anything anyone else has ever thought of. Video was the ultimate for of art to them because they were completely free to be artists within the medium. This would not have been the case if video was not technology that could not have been possible until much later than most other forms of art.

In addition to this, Meigh-Andrews spends a fair amount of time discussing how each new development in video technology created a wave of creativity after it. A quote he used from one of Hall’s articles said it best, “developing technology has undoubtedly influenced the nature of the product at all levels and wherever it is made” (Hall 1989). As porta-packs became more widespread, the art aspect of videography took off. Anyone could now make art with the freedom allowed by the new, portable technology. With the invention of more advanced editing capabilities, films could now be much more exact, more easily planned, and more gracefully executed. And advanced TVs allowed Nam June Paik to establish himself as “the father of video art though his knowledge of sound waves and technological manipulation, and his extremely artistic mind.

I chose Dirty Girl by Sanne Sannes because it is an excellent example of the montage style used by early videographers in the late 1960s. It creates a very notable feeling and is also an example of an artist transitioning from photography to video.  

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

Origins of Video Art Response

The article, "The Origins of Video Art," focused on the specific period between 1960 and 1990's. In this time period the development in technology was drastic to the point where early cameras in the '60s were very expensive, grainy and only shot in black and white. Later on towards the '80s, cameras became much more available and were reproduced in better quality, as well as in color. Because of the availability, artists were then easily able to use cameras as a new medium. One of the big things that the article pointed out was the fact that video, unlike other artwork, had to be successful in its time otherwise it would not be preserved. This must have been especially difficult considering that with most art, people tend to appreciate it later, after the artist is dead, such as with the rt of Van Gogh. Artists then had to keep up to date with modern technology and try to keep their subject matter relevant to the times to gain more interest and attention. Two artists that did well in the battle for survival were Paik and Vostell who started the "Fluxus" movement that went against established art and created blurred lines between at mediums, creating mixed media works. They went against the system in the '70s to introduce video as a performance medium and take it out of the domestic scene. I found this interesting video clip from Paik's "The Medium is the Medium" that shows how video could be used for art and performance using digital art as well as overlaying video clips like a photo collage. Although it is different from domestic television and doesn't tell a story, it is sill entertaining to watch, which allowed it to survive its time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIBEaszndLA

Origins of Video Art response

The author focuses his discussion on the relationship between video technology and video art form over time. A change in video technology’s availability made video art possible; it went from being a technology primarily available to large broadcast corporations to an accessible, affordable product that artists and regular consumers began to take advantage of. He also discusses the development of video art in relation to advancements in technology, explaining how the technological transformations have impacted visual culture and contemporary art. Developments in video art depend mainly on improvements in its technology, which sets it apart from many other art forms such as painting and sculpture, for which technology is not such an important factor in determining art form. I thought it was interesting that he pointed out the ephemerality of video art, due to the inevitable obsolescence of old formats to make way for the new, and how this quality was attractive to many artists who thought its transience made a kind of political and artistic statement. This is another characteristic that sets it apart from other art forms.  

Video technology is becoming increasingly advanced, portable, and accessible. With cell phone video cameras and apps like Vine, the tools for creating video art are available to everyone and easy to use wherever you go. 

This is a compilation of creative Vines made using stop-motion technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30fdg_A7m8E

Origins of Video Art Response

I found this article very interesting because it describes Video Art as somewhat of a counter culture movement. The emergence of Video Art has given artists a way of expressing their ideas without having to be apart of a large corporation. Video Art gave people a voice when it came to cultural or political issues. Large corporations that made T.V and Movies often portrayed American society as something fake and general. Video Art emerged as an outlet for people who weren't represented in these films and television shows.

I also found it interesting that this article compared the emergence of video art with technological advances. Because technology started to become more and more advanced people that weren't in large corporations could start expressing themselves through video art. Video art will only become more and more accessible because of the exponential growth of technology. People use their cellphones now to express their political and cultural beliefs. Twitter, Facebook, and Vine all help to spread Video art and make it more significant.

The video chose shows how people with just their iphones can make cinematic short films. This short is not very political or cultural but it shows how with just an iphone these guys can make a cinematically effective film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KrhgwtXLg