The origin of video art discusses about the history of video
art, and it’s development as a new art medium. In the first part of the
article, the author covers the advances of technology, anti-art movement and
how these factors establish the status of video art.Due to the fact that video recording technology has become
more and more available to general people, the Video become a territory without
defined rules, boundaries, or critiques. What make me interest about the fact
about the video art is that, the freedom attracts different artists that come
from totally different background, for example David Hall who was trained as a
sculptor, he worked with photography before taking video. Which I think bring a
wide range of variety to Video art. The development
of video art cannot happen without Nam Jun Paik: “Father of Video art” who
participating the Fluxus which is inspired by the composer John cage who use every
day sounds and noises in his music. Which I believe has profound influence on
the development of video art, glitch art, remixing art. the misusing the instrument
and tool in our ordinary life , or distorting the element of the medium and recombine
it in a new ways are something that I found really fascinating. Here are two video that could illustrate the innovative media that mention above:
Here is a video of John cage performing a piece using unusual items and sound of environment:
I'll allow myself once this semester to go on a great tangent that gently touches on the reading, but that is extremely important for me: that is the intersection between the west and east art scenes, particularly during the 20th century.
Increasingly throughout the 20th century, I have been witnessing through readings in this class and many others as well as through my own art explorations, the numerous relationships that rose as a result of increased contact between the East and West. For lack of a background in Asian arts and crafts history, I rely on crude comparisons that best describe western art to draw links between the Asian and Western aesthetics.
So far, I have been able to distinguish two forms of interaction between the two worlds: Asian inspired modern and contemporary western art, and Asian art reshaped after a western experience. Nam June Paik falls in the second category, for example, while John Cage may very well fall in the first one.
Both of them, I think, represent the intersection between both worlds in different ways. Paik, as stated in the reading, was trained in Europe under the avant-garde and the influence of John Cage. As one art critique said in the reading, he wanted to be famous, or at least be a famous Asian. His work reflects Cage's obvious influence as well as his desire to make his work famous, if not popular through the use of cultural icons and images if the elites. The fact that he is South Korean does however bring forth the "Asian spirit" in his work. The randomness, spontaneity and participatory characteristics of his work are yes, modern but with Asian origins.
There is a great discourse among art intellectuals of the extent of the impact that Asian beliefs and traditions, such as Zen Buddism, sumi-e calligraphy and illustration, Japanese architecture, and other thousand-year old Asian traditions had on western modern art and architecture expressions. The simplicity, the relation to nature, the sense of order and peace as well as expression over pure form are all shared elements of modern art and the much older Asian tradition.
Joh Cage, (one among thousands of modern western artists) through his study of Asian culture and art, morphed, interpreted and reinvented the niche where he worked: music and performance. He was very much aware of the eastern influences he used to create an entire new philosophy of music.
I agree with the many art historians that see the Asian component of modern western art as a quintessential aspect of the movement. As someone that has studied modern and asian architecture, I find it impossible to not find relationships between the Japanese landscaped Pagoda and a Frank Lloyd Wright Praire House.
My video is a performance of "Dream," one of John Cages many compositions, but one that I think embodies an "eastern" aesthetic and philosophy. The piano that is being payed is clearly a western expression, but the melody and the spiritual echo of the composition are undoubtedly influenced by Asian music.
In the scheme of art history, video art is relatively recent, but seems a lot more relevant to the average person. A main premise of this reading is the idea that almost anyone can create video art as video cameras are easily accessible. Especially today, most people can record video on their smart phones. Yet, the reading makes a clear distinction between video art and commercialized television. I see commercialized television as a way of telling a story or providing entertainment to a viewer, with exceptions. Video art, contrarily, is usually more conceptual and thoughtful. Often the artist will use this form to make a statement, whether political or social. Since video is often a lot more realistic and easier to interpret than other art forms, more people are apt to experiment with it and choose it to display a message.
As I mentioned, for more recent video art, convenience can be key. This is seen in the "iPhone Film Festival" in which artists without access to expensive film equipment or locations submit short films shot mostly on iPhones. The film currently being displayed on the home page is called "USA Trip 2012" and was shot on and iPhone and a GoPro. USA Trip 2012
Additionally, a friend from high school made a short experimental film with a pretty mediocre camera. It's definitely more on the abstract side, but I believe his goal was to expose consumerism and materialism and promote environmental awareness. Even so, this piece shows that anyone, really, can create video art that is interesting and captivating, but more importantly can promote a message and take a stance on something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLwammQjQeQ
“Video was the solution because it had no tradition. It was
the precise opposite of painting. It had no formal burdens at all.” (9)
Why do I watch Fight Club over and over again? Is it for the
soundtrack, the wardrobe, or Brad Pitt? No. It’s because of the amalgamation of
every aspect of the experience. The narration, the ambient sounds, the story
line, the cast, the camera’s cuts, angles, etc. I watched Fight Club when I was
a junior in high school and fully immersed myself in the movie watching experience.
Next, I read the original book by Chuck Palahniuk summer after sophomore year
in college. Almost four years later, I consumed the story in an absolutely new
way and had an incredibly different experience. Like any book turned into a
movie, the original narrative is warped in order to fit the new media of
cinema. However, after reading the book and watching the movie once more, I
have more appreciation for the movie as opposed to feeling like the movie is
not faithful to the book.
There is no formal burden of cinema. One can argue rules
that directors must follow, but in the end the combination of multiple mediums
to create one solid freestanding piece of media is incredible and so intense
that it cannot and should not be confined to any tradition. The tradition is
the magnificence itself. When the Lumiére brothers created “L’Arrivé d’un train
en gare de La Ciotat” it was every single aspect of the moving image that made
it incredible. Man learned to control film, audio, and eventually everything
was reprogrammed in the digital. If we look at the history of film – of media
in general – we see that there are literally no bounds. Whether it is the
utilization of the audio, the narrative, or the camera techniques there are an
unlimited amount of possibilities.
This reading is giving us some of the historical progression and background of the concept of video art. Video art is not limited to one specific style or even one specific nation of origin. Anyone with a video camera, sound recording equipment and some basic knowledge of editing (or even without this knowledge) can create some form of video art. The definition of video art is any type of art which relies upon moving pictures and comprises some sort of video and audio data (but the audio data is not necessary).
One does not need to look far to get an idea of the scale and widespread nature of video art - just by taking a look at some of today's modern music videos. The huge range of styles, techniques, and editing types. We have music videos that include silent pauses that are reminiscent of the silent films of many decades ago - it is the job of the video maker to use simple images to convey and carry on the story while the music stops. We have cases were the music videos are shot with a lot of soft focus to create dreamy, airy effects and ones where there is excessive depth of field to create the illusion of bigger spaces and express different atmosphere.
Today with such different and widespread availability of a whole variety of camera and recording equipment it is very easy for even the most basic filmmaker or "artist" to experiment and create
something special with minimal effort and just a little imagination.
It is amazing how much the medium of video has evolved over the years. In the article, “The Origins of Video Art,” it describes how as more technology advances and became available to people, more and more artistic and individualist types of video came about. This was video art. What is amazing about the newer technologies is that they can be used to manipulate moving pictures and create something completely different than the ordinary films or TV shows. However, this could lead to many archival issues in the future. The article touches on the problems with storing and archiving older forms of video, and how large amounts of footage have been lost. With new editing, changing, and artistic software to create video art, there comes new modes of playing the videos. Soon there will be newer and different ways of creating and playing videos and the cycle continues. In the digital age, storing information, including videos, is only temporary, and likely much of this art will be lost to the ages if not archived properly. Which may be a very difficult task, indeed.
This time has not yet come however, and we can still enjoy the works of video artists, including the work of Paik. The article discusses his piece of cutting people’s ties and clothing, as well as his television piece. Television can be thought of as an art form, in that it is a creation that evokes emotion and tells a story. However, video art is more about using the actual medium of video to produce something aesthetic or of value. Both television and film use video as a means of telling a story, but the video is not the focus, which is what Paik was trying to express. He wanted to make the machine that played video, not only show the art to the world, but be the art itself. Which is, in essence, what video art is. Although they may use the same equipment, they are basically different media. This distinction is important because it gives us the knowledge to judge, critique, and feel differently depending on the type of media presented, TV or video art.
I thought these two videos were great modern examples of video art and how they can both be very different, yet still beautiful and somewhat haunting.
After reading "The Origins of Video Art," I perused the internet to find examples of the artists' work who are mentioned in the article. In my search, I came across the work of Marcel Duchamp. The piece I found is entitled "Anemic Cinema" and is from 1926. Duchamp's is an abstract piece that plays with visual representation. After I watched Duchamp's piece, I then moved to an example of the Fluxus movement. In searching for an example of the Fluxus movement, I stumbled upon Wolf Vostell's "Sun in Your Head." Created almost 40 years after Duchamp's film, "Sun in Your Head" also plays with the idea of visual representation but in completely different manner. "The Origins of Video Art" then cites an argument stated by John Hanhart that suggests the development of technology is what allowed Vostell to display visual representation in a new way. With this claim in mind, one can watch Duchamp's piece followed by Vostell's and understand the impact technology had on Vostell's ability to create innovative works. After all, Vostell's film simply seems to build on Duchamp's via the use of collage which "overlapped medias," a technique that was not available during Duchamp's production.
But video art is not necessarily my forte. I can more easily understand the development of film and its parallel to the progression of technology through film's use of special effects. In 1977, George Lucas's Star Wars premiered and ultimately revolutionized the utilization of special effects. The more recently released Avatar furthers the notion that technology impacts the way in which film is captured; Avatar, as did Star Wars, once again redefined how special effects and, more generally, technology could be used in the film medium. Here is part of a documentary that explains the special effects used in Star Wars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjqk2NwlOqw&ntz=1. This article from Empire also discusses the milestones special effects has encounter during its development.
The mirroring of technological advancements and innovation has resulted in post-modernism art, much initially stimulated and engaged by the likes of John Cage and Nam June Paik. In this Neo-Dada art, dubbed Fluxus, the pursuance of aesthetics entirely anti-bourgeois and avant-garde - Yoko Ono's Avant Garde Chamber Street Loft Concerts - resulted in the innovation of something self editing and entirely experiential. Technology usurped an almost "nightmarish" and cyber-punk reality where a man-made manifestation could subjectively become integrated.
This mindlessness or crazed-brainedness reflected the "product television" so vehemently corroding subjectivity in art, with the reactionary being in Video Art. Anti-art sensibilities, minimalism, and a DIY aesthetic were proponents of Fluxus with a hand-assembly and anti-outsource outlet. The message was, in its entirety, anti-art and disparaging the market-driven art. The Fluxus movement, under dispensary proponents like Dick Higgins' Something Else Press, began the manifestation of intermedia and interplay of artistic universes. With facets technological or bodily simple (like George Maciunas's Fluxus Boxes gathering artifacts of cards, games, prints, and ideas) collage was introduced. Performance art also manifested, via pieces like George Brecht's "Drip Music" - musical scores transformed into sound art/dialogue happenings, distorting the fourth wall between audience/reality and performance/abstraction.
A most beautiful depiction of the essence of Fluxus is Nam June Paik's Fluxfilm Zen For Film. Here we note the dispersed alignment of varied elements - Zen, monotomy of average life, and science. Intimate concentration on nothingness shows the prevalence of something concrete - art subjectively created. This is the personality of Fluxus - entirely DIY. Zen For Life could very well be played in a seemingly endless projected loop, burgeoning its message in an imaginatively reactionary audience. The dust particles and scratches - purposeful pursuits of the intentionally seedy and grainy technological character that has been made aesthetic "forsaken luxury" in timelessness - are illuminated by the luminescent light that occasionally gleams and fades. Analogous to, or maybe an ode to, John Cage's works featuring silence or non-musical sound in his works, this film is as anti-film as Cage's anti-music. Cage's 4'33 encouraged the subjectivity of creating music in silence - Paik's film encourages imagery in emptiness.
Even with the emphasis that the author put on it, the statement that the evolution of video was dependent on the development of technology is an understatement. we have come a long long way especially in just the last few decades. These days, anyone can pick up their iphone (if they have one, at least a fifth of the population of the WORLD does) and make at least a short film, and then upload it to the internet and distribute it to an audience. However, about a century ago this simple task that might take 100 times as long and require 20 times as many people depending on the content. A simple short film today might only hours, and can be done by yourself; a simple short video a century ago might take months, and require the help of several specialists etc.
Animation is an overwhelmingly good example of this, since today there have propagated a numerous variety of tools to accomplish an animation. Back in the years of its birth, animation was done in a slow, frame by frame process where everything was hand drawn, and then transferred to film, and then developed into a production with enough recognition that could be distributed and shown to others, if there was a space/technology available to screen it. Several decades ago, animation took a transition to digital, and today there are hundreds of programs that allow an animator to make a full film and then send it right away to an internet audience (or transfer it to a disc for television). The efficiency that has come with the new animating technology has vastly expanded the possibilities of who can be a creator. This video demonstrates one way the technology has developed: color.
In the video, we see how film makers added color to their animation, piece by piece. It was a long and complicated process to achieve something that we don't even need to consider today. It is nearly completely taken for granted. Unless of course we are specifically setting a filter on our video editing program to make something black in white, ironically, to make it seem older.
