When Chris Meigh-Andrews described the nature of video art as being "impermanent and ephemeral", I was a little mad. Perhaps it's because I love creating art through video therefore I am a little bias towards the medium, resulting in my optimism in the ease of preserving or archiving a video artwork. When I read Meigh-Andrews' description, I had a strong opposition towards it because I believe that video art can be archived, preserved and restored just the same as a painting or sculpture would due to the technology we have today. Technology has become a part of our everyday lives, which makes it one of the main reasons why I think video art is not impermanent.
However, after having read the next paragraph, I can understand why Meigh-Andrews stated that the video art form can be impermanent and ephemeral. He explains that the "development of video as a medium of communication has been... heavily dependant on technology..." This is true — if, for whatever reason, technology were to be stripped out of our society completely, video art would not exist. It would be harder to archive and preserve them, too, resulting in the remains of a written history instead as Meigh-Andrews mentions. Even so, these written histories may be ignored or treated insignificantly over time, thus resulting in the impermanency of the medium (a statement that Meigh-Andrews mentioned earlier).
No comments:
Post a Comment