Video Art and Film

The excerpt from The Origins of Video Art touches on the distinction between Video Art and broadcast TV, but does not overtly differentiate between Video Art and certain applications of film, such as experimental film. The distinction seems to be one related to application, rather than aesthetics. The piece does allude to various techniques more suited to video than to film, such as digital image capture and rapid editing, but it seems to me that these tools unique to video allow for artistic convenience more than aesthetic qualities unique to the medium, since similar techniques can be employed in experimental film. Consequently, it seems to me that video art is significant in relation to film mostly because its convenience and accessibility make it useful in the production of motion-picture (a term that I feel applies to both video and film) artworks. However, this convenience and accessibility that largely differentiates video from film is also related to a sense of immediacy. Video feels very immediate to me, and this attribute might be seen as helping shape video's role as a significant artistic medium. However, these ideas of convenience and accessibility are less strong for video when it is compared to smaller film cameras such as the Super 8, so what might further distinguish video from these smaller film production that can also be experimental? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-HjHseHhC0