An interesting film from 2001 by Taiwanese director Tsai Ming-liang. Very visually quiet. It's about a man who can't resist changing clocks to Paris time. If you only have a moment, 1:00:40 to 1:03:00 is a good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ass11dxuyzU

The origins of video art

Video art, as with photography and other forms of digital art continues to evolve along with increased technology. The fact that video is so accessible puts into question what videos are “actually art”. However, Chris Meigh-Andrews brings up an interesting point in the end of the essay; increased accessibility to camera equipment empowered artists and activists to get their messages out and fight back against corporate television. I think that as photo and video become more and more available to the general public, what starts to count as “art” is driven more by content and intermedia. Yes, I can take a video of a duck swimming on the Genesee, but I could also take a video of a duck swimming along the Genesee with a factory pumping out smoke behind it. Both video may have been taken with my iPhone, but the latter one has more meaning and content. This can be done within feauture length films as well. I chose to share the plastic bag scene from American Beauty. Out of context this scene doesn't mean much, however, in the film the plastic bag could be seen as a metaphor for Jane's beauty. While her beauty is often discarded by others, he recognizes it and fixates on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHxi-HSgNPc

Art as a Medium of the Past

        The excerpt from the book deals with art as a medium and what that means for the viewer. It talks about the medium of communication and how it is heavily dependent on the technology we use and the way the film is developed. Whether that be used a Super 8 camera, 16mm or 35mm and 70mm, the influence that technology has on society is very profound and defines the entire viewing experience.

For example the first thing that comes to mind with the Origins of Film is the The Lumière Brothers 1895 Film “Arrival of a Train”. In the film, which is rather simplistic, it is simply a train coming into a local station and then people boarding the train. With today's films such as Avatar and Transformers which rely heavily on CGI (Computer Generated Images) to tell their stories, the Lumière Brothers film is seen as a very bare boned version of what is currently on the market now.

However, during the time of the films release at the end of the 19th century, this piece was seen as revolutionary by many. In fact, many people in the theatre that were watching this were startled that the train was going to hit them. It is this ability that film has from its origins that shows the impact that it has had on society for over 100 years. 

These films were widely seen by broadcasters and historians who wanted to capture the medium and study it. It was events and films such as “Arrival of a Train” that set a precedent, and paved the way for a new way of film that would later lead to auteurism, the first blockbusters and the creation fo CGI that we have today. In the end, without silent, simplistic films like “Arrival of a Train” paving the way for a new future of film, much of what we experienced now would not be perceived the same way, and most limey would not even exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk

Thoughts on Origin of Video Art.

After reading this article I feel differently about what video art is. I don't really understand what they mean about a certain type of video art or anything. I feel indifferent about these opinions of video art because I feel that video art is another form of expression. I feel that it is more of a tool to express your inner self and this article is more of the technical side but more opinionated of what is considered video art. I believe that the use of cameras to create videos is similar painter using a paint brush. An yet maybe I read this article in the wrong light entirely but I still feel that the no boundaries of video art is exactly what art is. It is the freedom of expression. It's an art form that only has been changing drastically in a small amount of time. We have been able to create videos but I believe this article is only talking about tapes to be video art. This is something I would need clarified, but the advances in technology has only made the art form of video more convenient, so that's another part I am a still a little unsure of. I wanted to know how that has an effect. I also agree with this article and how video can push art in a way it never has before by connecting with people in more ways than one.

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

Nam June Paik

So I did some research on Nam June Paik, who is the father of Video Arts. He is an artist who creates so many possibilities at that time period. His work sticks to how art should communicate with life. While other musicians play instrument to entertain a certain amount of audiences, he breaks the instrument, considering that as another kind of music. While filmmakers play movies to the audiences, Nam June Paik plays the video of audiences themselves through closed-circuit camera to engage them and their reactions to the creation of art. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G3XomkkTPY

This is a clip from Nam June Paik’s exhibition. He puts TV bras on the model, his living sculpture. We are watching television all the time, but Nam June Paik places the medium in another medium to be a wholeness. He creates a new kind of media. 

Video Art Versus Video Medium

"There is a problem between broadcast TV and artist's video because although they both share common technology it is hard to make the argument..."

While reading this article my main question was what is video art. My problem in trying to identify the definition was in the fact that I kept reading the article without taking into account what video recording was really like before our time. In earlier years, to truly use the camera as a medium for art, I feel, the cinematographer must execute a shot that conveys an idea or feeling and must take things into effect like lighting and positioning of the camera- here I see where video art is created. When using a camera to document a historical event, the person simply aims and shoots, which is why I don't believe documentaries or broadcast televisions are considered here as video art. 

The author also states that with regards to cameras, artists didn't get to pick and chose what effects they could make with the camera, which is why it is not true art unless you execute well an idea or emotion. In the sense of painting, the artist has a canvas, paint colors, and paintbrushes just like a cinematographer has his camera, but where the painter could chose the colors and which brushes to use, the cinematographer has to make with what he is given, at least this is my interpretation.

My question is, how about now? when we use a camera, is it art now, even in the sense of documentaries (with the exception of live television, I feel)? In the article the author references Hanhardt and states, "Hanhardt posits that all video art can be seen as a collage because of the way in which the electronic processing, layering, and mixing of images and sounds is an inherent aspect of video technology and in terms of the image display and viewing condition..." almost all camera shootings undergo this manipulation and enhancement, so what definition distinguishes the video forms from video art now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbPO7PXEkPE
Early documentaries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw2fycH-Avc
Documentaries now- even though here the creators are not trying to evoke emotions are make viewers depict an idea- one is taken out of the realm of this world. Especially on 23:40 and on.

The work of Nam June Paik

In the reading, the author wrote about the history about video art and its pioneer-Nam June Paik. Video art as a combination of all other kinds of art forms; it has been a topic for artists and critics. Although the pieces of work could not always be recognized as a kind of art, artists never stop pursuing it. Meanwhile, they may be questioned, such as Paik. It reminded me of Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp used to learn drawing from an unsuccessful teacher who attempts to protect Impressionism. Later, he added signature to all his works and developed his own style of art. Paik experienced the same thing in his life. There was a quote from it said that he sometimes could be criticized as “sanctification”. “The American video artist and writer Martha Rosler suggests that his Fluxus strategy of the importation of the television set into the art world anesthetized its domestic function simply producing as ‘anti-art art’. ” For his opinion, I did not really agree. Even Paik did not follow the traditional rule of art. His work still presents some kind of emotions. They also passed some kind of message to the audience. There was an example I found on Toutube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aftng-G73Vc The performer was giving a show on the street. At the same time, the reactions of the audience were also captured into the camera. Whether they like it or not, it existed for a reason. “What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational.” As Hegel’s famous quote.

Does Video Art Rely Solely On Technological Change?

In the article on the origins of video art, the movement is spurred by the technological advances in camera, and the availability to the public. Video Art pulls from a lot of different genres of art through the medium of film. Video art has evolved using the technological capability to explore and create perspective. In the Fluxus movement, closely related to that of dada art, and that of Duchamp, Paik and other artists use the medium and avant-garde music to explore the randomness and arbitrariness of the changing world around them. While the article focuses predominantly on how video art was affected by the medium itself, it doesn't seem to focus too much on subject matter. While there is mention of Paik's work on the radio, it is still very technologically focused.

Video Art today has expanded to both fully using the capabilities of technology, but also exploring subject matter and exploring and yielding underlying morals, emotions, and reactions. For example, the music artist Janelle Monae is infamous for using music videos to express mixed messages of beauty, feminism, and various societal and political problems in the world. While several of Janelle Monae's videos are outlandish in subject matter, one particular music video, Cold War, has minimal camera movement and holds a closeup on Monae's face. As opposed to someone like Paik, while technology is still very present in this film, the focus is more on Monae's emotions, body language, and facial expressions. Monae also has a musical aid, as Paik and John Cage do, but Monae focuses on lyrical significance.

Cage & Paik's approach to music is very much rejects to the classical 'Western' approach . Cage's idea of music can feature sounds from anywhere and also can sometimes irritate and annoy the audience, as opposed to Monae who while wanting to get her message across wants to entertain her audience.

The link is Monae's Cold War, while having minimal action and camera movement yields a very powerful message on what it means to be a woman in today's world. There are also some important things to pay attention to, Monae presents the video as the first take, to show how her emotional intensity to the subject matter plays a role. With the time in the corner, it is always apparent that this is a music video, so like other Video Art, this film does acknowledge & apply the technology it is using.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqmORiHNtN4

Origins of Video Art - Nam June Paik and Fluxus

It seems that the biggest issue with understanding video as art, at its inception, was that there was no basis for comparison. Video was a new medium, with a clear practical use; it was easy to see its use as a tool for documenting events, and indeed that’s what most early videos were. It took longer, however, to realize that video could be used as (or in) a work of art.

Many of Nam June Paik’s works of video art crossed the boundaries of various media, incorporating performance, sound, and interaction with the audience in his pieces. He was also strongly influenced by John Cage, and this is evident in much of his work. For example, his piece “Zen for Film” (1962) consists of a video of a white box on a black background – with no sound – for eight minutes. This video was part of the Fluxfilm Anthology, a series of videos from various artists throughout the sixties exploring the avant-garde side of video as art. 

The video can be found here: http://www.ubu.com/film/fluxfilm01_paik.html

Nam June Paik and Video Art

After reading this article, I'm still a little fuzzy exactly what "video art" means.  It seems to me that video art encompasses a new form of art that, because of its basis in a new medium (video), was able to create itself up from nothing.  Video art did not have any boundaries or expectations from its start.  There were no traditions on which video artists had to base their artworks on.  Video art became a way for artists to create a totally new experience for its audience.
I found the article's discussion of Nam June Paik intriguing.  They mentioned that his goal for his artwork was to overwhelm, bother, and "shock" his viewers.  He did not want to give them an experience with artwork that they had had before.  It sounds like his pieces also worked to engage the audience in thinking about and creating a meaning for the art he presented.  One example of his work that I found is a piece called "Megatron/Matrix".  This piece consists of a bunch of screens (being about the size of a billboard combined) that are playing different clips or larger images.  Paik organized them to create a larger image that flowed between the screens, "suggesting a world without borders in the electronic age."  I found this piece especially interesting because, as the description states, there is too much information for the viewer to take in all at once and it overwhelms them.  It seems to me that this was Paik's goal in all of his works and it seems to be a general goal of video art as a whole.  Video art wants to be something completely different from any art that people have previously seen.  If this means that the person will not necessarily be able to handle all of the imagery at once, then that's what needs to be done.

Using the camera for interpretation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZS2IwzMFU I chose a scene from glory road. I enjoyed this scene because it has a one on one moment between the player Bobby Joe, and he Coach Don. It starts with a a medium shot of Bobby Joe and it switches back and forth from him and his coach. Then there is a over the shoulder shot of the coach that makes it seem very personal and brings out the darkness of the locker room. After Bobby Joe storms out there is a couple of great wide angle shots of the basketball court that are used rarely throughout the movie. With these shots it makes the two guys seem completely alone. These shots also give the court depth as well as dimension. When they continue to argue the camera changes through close up shots to medium shots of both males.