Playing Devil's Advocate

I must say, I do tend to play Devil's Advocate when reading about media, and art in general. As a digital media studies major I have been learning how to ask the right questions but I need to know what I'm asking questions about, first! This is why I am very excited to delve into the media of Video, as I have little to no experience on the topic. 

Throughout the reading, I was very confused as to what exactly is “intermedia”. The first sentence of the second paragraph, where Foster talks about generic intentions, piqued my interest. I was curious to read Foster use the word generic to describe types of intentions that can be processed through intermedia. Generic has always seemed like a safe word to me, a word to describe the boring and lackluster which makes me wonder why anybody would be attracted to using intermedia in that it instinctively produces generic ideas. Before describing “Fountain” and its applicability to intermedia, Foster speaks more about the definition of intermedia and multimedia that was very confusing to me. At one point, it sounds as if the author is hating on intermedia when he says that intermedia is the vehicle that helps the commoner process the most generic intentions of art – a seemingly negative thing. The author then leads me to believe that intermedia is, in fact, the vehicle that enables one to motorize ideas and expectations in unique areas of activity – thus being exceedingly un-generic. Needless to say, I did not find this author’s writing very fluid. If I have this correct, intermedia is what changes the “function” of a “thing”; the “thing” is what is affected by intermedia through the “thing”’s exhibition.

Foster writes about how video must be alive because our “conceptual and perceptual apparatus for “images” is dead.” This sentence reminds me of Bo Burnham’s song “Art is dead.” Although it is a satire and Burnham himself is intrinsically cynical, it has an interesting message about the media industry in general and what we consider to be “art”. Bo Burnham rose to fame through YouTube – an online social networking site that allows people to upload their own video media with whatever content they choose – and used that fame to propel him from Internet celebrity to real celebrity. That “real celebrity” stage fame brought him comedy special upon comedy special that he then recycled into a video that he posted on YouTube for free. The videos that Burnham puts up do have cinematic conventions – the lighting is perfect, the cuts and angles professional – which makes me wonder if the videos we see on YouTube are in fact becoming stabilized in cinematic conventions.

How can video be spontaneous if it is a tried and true medium? It has been studied for years and is constantly evolving with technology, much like the majority of other mediums, however when you watch a video you can as easily predict what will happen next as you can with television or sound – especially when the two are put together. When we watch a scary movie, we expect there to be daunting music getting louder and louder, and at the climax of the music there be a cut to a dead body or a ghost in the hallway. Of course, it is very likely that I am not properly distinguishing the difference between video and video in cinematic conventions – that is why I am looking forward to this class and learning how to make these important distinctions!