"Video & Intermedia"; Week 1

I was a bit confused while reading this article. After reading it a few times I decided that the author’s intention was to explain how video is, or can be, intermedia. Video is a medium, or “vehicle”, where basic intentions are processed and it can be used politically. Does this mean that radios are also intermedia mediums? Mr. Foster states many great attributes to the art of videos, but is he implying that these attributes are what makes video a form of intermedia or is he implying that it is simply the best form?

Stephen also mentions three qualities of videos: 1) it compels as a medium, 2) it is an extension of ourselves, and 3) it transforms. Yes, video compels as a medium because it grabs a viewer’s attention, which, I suppose, could mean that video is also an extension of us. Once we like what we see we could be glued to a video until it is done. However, other forms of art such as literature could have the same effect on a person. The part I do not entirely agree with is when he states that video transforms because it can avoid “prefabricated ‘artistic’ attitudes”. I understand he might believe this to be true because whenever some one records an event, he or she is recording whatever is going on and cannot manipulate the art. In other words, regardless if the person holding the camera has a vision for the video, videos in other articles that photography has this same effect, which I believe is not true. If someone takes a video but manipulates the lighting, sounds, or uses face shots versus long shots, the person is manipulating the video in order to evoke a specific mood or an emotion.

In conclusion, I believe that video enables intermedia but I do not agree with all that he said about videos and their effect/qualities.