Origins of Video Art: Danielle Rennalls

In Part I of “The Origins of Video Art: The Historical and Cultural Context,” Chris Meigh-Andrews mentions and argues several great points supporting the development – “history” – and advancement of video art. However, two points that I found particularly interesting throughout the reading were; artists were drawn to video art because it didn’t have a history and that video art was used as a sort of defiance against broadcast television.

I find it very interesting that people gravitated to this art form because there were no established rules like that of painting or sculpting. This lack of guidelines to govern how video art had to be shot or edited, created a sense of freedom that artists craved that wasn’t offered to them in other mediums. Artists across the world fell in love with video art because it gave them the liberty to do whatever they desired and to be creative outside a set of rules.  

Furthermore, with the lack of rules to govern creativity and the constant development and advancement of technology, more opportunities became available to artists to acquire the equipment they needed. As is stated on page 5 of “Part I, The Origins of Video Art: The Historical and Cultural Context” of Chris Meigh-Andrews A History of Video Art: The Development of Form and Function, “The development of video as a medium of communication has been, and remains heavily dependent on technology, and the activity of artists’ video is inevitably as dependent on the same technological advances.”

This illustrates that the constant advancement of technology is what pushes video art and continues to let it strive. Consider the fact that before the twentieth century video recording was only readily available to broadcast television just by the mere fact that the equipment was excessively large and very expensive to own. However, starting in the 1960s, when interest began to boom in an attempt to produce art of the form of broadcast television, there began an “extraordinarily rapid development…transforming video from an expensive specialist tool exclusively in the hands of broadcasters…into a ubiquitous and commonplace consumer product.” 

This advancement gave artists the opportunity to own equipment like the Portapak and to capture movement around them. However, as technology continues to improve even in this present day, so does the quality of video art and its accessibility.

Origins of Video-Anna L.

One key point that I took away from this article was the case that the evolution of technology has always directly impacted the aesthetics of video art, and another was that it is a relatively very young medium in comparison to painting, sculpture etc. The first current examples of technology affecting aesthetics that came to mind are the videos that are being made with GoPro cameras. These cameras are very small and it seems they can be strapped in their life-proof cases to just about anything. Their appeal is that they require no active control from the “videographer,” as they are usually themselves the subject. This technical function- lack of control- mirrors the situations that the subjects put themselves into; they are sometimes skillfully riding the wave of control (skiing/surfing), and other times reveling in the complete lack of control (I’m thinking of parachuting, though I understand this does still include the control of descent.)  In addition, these extreme sports end up being captured via very extreme angles and every bump is transparent; thus the footage effectively transports us to these rough-and-tumble terrains. However, one question I did have was chicken or egg- meaning, this article claimed that engineers have the reigns of creating new technological advances, but that since they are not the users they can only create products based on what they think will be desired, as opposed to the artists presenting a need first. In this case, I am sure that even smaller cameras pre-dated the GoPro (laproscopic medical procedures being one example) so while the advent for the need comes at the same time as technology allows, I do not think it is necessarily a cause/effect relationship. But then, the author even mentions that this position is flawed, but still the best way of showing the chronology of changes in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAxqf5ZAssw

Origins of video - Karina Banda

I agree that video is the most versatile medium form there is. Since video acts essentially like a pair of eyes, it can show anything and everything. It is not 3 dimensional or tangible like a sculpture or other tangible art forms, but it does not limit video. Although video itself has no depth, it can still show you depth. It is also a medium that can be stable through stills or it can be continuously changing with through motion, colors, and visual textures. The reading also mentioned that through the years, with technology changing, the things you can do with video changes as well. He also mentions that artists usually don't like tv shows and that type of culture and that video is more simple because it doesn't have all the commercial baggage but I feel that with these new technologies of modern day, TV and video aren't as distinct from each other. They sort of have converged together. Many of the TV shows today are so beautifully and carefully constructed that they can be conceived as works of art in my opinion. Game of Thrones for example pays so much attention to all the details in both the settings and the wardrobes that each scene could be though of as a carefully detailed painting.

Video when it was first accessible by people also didn't have that many capabilities that you could play around with. It started out with being able to change exposure levels and then being able to do in camera edits and big editing were left to films and TV shows. Now video has the same capabilities as film and TV shows. We have such advanced programs that are accessible to the public that anyone can start editing video heavily so that it start mimicking the feeling that a film would have or a show. Take this youtube video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=desb0W6u80Y. All the editing and special effects mimic that of a movie but its only a 2 minute video. Video is always changing and the distinctions between video, tv, and film were always argued but I feel that the distinctions have been erased by modern day technologies and that film has gained an even larger scope today.

The Origins of Video Art (Sean Strelow)

I find this article to be effective in the way that it explores both sides of the argument regarding video as art. It acknowledges the fact that some people, like John Wyver, are skeptical about considering video as separate from other moving image forms (like film), while others, like David A. Ross, enjoyed video for its lack of restriction. This idea was what stuck out to me the most from the article; the idea that video offered a new and undefined way for artists to express themselves is really interesting to me and helps me to start to piece together the puzzle of video. I often find myself thinking like Wyver and wondering why people separate video and film, but the idea that video was appealing due to its separate qualities from film and other media makes sense to me.

Before video, moving images were not shown in museums; video brought about this idea of moving images as part of performance art. The performative aspect is what separates video from film. This is due in large part to video's accessibility. When handheld cameras became commonplace in the 1970's, people explored what they could do with them. This made for a less rigid structure for video, or a lack of restriction, as Ross calls it. This also made it more intimately connected with our lives, as it came more of a product out of them. Video also works in a variety of situations; this video (https://vimeo.com/40348356) by Sabina Shikhlinskaya, called Dangerous Red, can be viewed on Vimeo as a video in and of itself. But it was also shown as an exhibit at the Tou Scene art center in Stavanger, Norway in 2010. A film is confined to be seen as a chunk, all at once, and in a specific environment. But video, due to its versatility, as with exhibits in a museum, can be walked in upon, viewed for a moment, and then left, all the while imparting a message on us.

The segment on Fluxus also struck me, as a group of students at my high school made a performance based on flux. They took over the gym area, and had different performances going on in each of the squash courts. People could roam the atrium and see the performances on their own time. This idea breaks the convention of theater as something that you see in a string of passing time, and instead puts the viewer in control of what they see and when they see it. It turns theater into a window-shopping experience instead of a locked-in roller coaster ride. I can see that this relates to video as a medium, though similar to film, intentionally subverted its conventions.

Aisyah: The Origins of Video Art

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).

The Origins of Video Art - Christian Cieri

The article “The Origins of Video Art” was truly informative in the way that video was treated when it first became considered an “art” especially describing how technology has helped to advance video-art since it began. As I read the article, however, what really stuck out to me was how far this technology has come. In the article, the author makes reference to different points in the history of video-art, and also the new technological improvements that aided in its expansion. But all of these improvements and technological milestones seem so insignificant to what we are able to use in today’s society. With smart phones (and even some simpler cell phones) almost everybody has some type of portable camera, and depending on the phone, the quality can be near HD. Cell phones are lightweight and don’t even require film to record on, and can even usually be used for editing as well. Then there are modern cameras, with all different kinds of features and editing options available while filming.

However, with all these advancements, one might wonder why exactly video-art doesn’t gain as much attention as it once did, at least to an average person. And the answer lies in these advancements; with the ability to record almost everything in HD, the “charm” of grainy and black and white film has become lost to us. With the advent of the big Hollywood blockbusters now invading the space of film, movies and such are no longer as special and rare.

Still, I don’t consider video-art to be completely lost. In fact, I believe one thing has saved it; the internet. Everywhere you look on the internet, video-art is being produced by artists who don’t need to pay for it to be published. Most artists need only to create a YouTube account and upload a video, and their video-art can live on forever. A clip I found online that I believe is an example of this is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5-SmngOoaQ. In the clip, a woman is pouring pain on her face, but it is shown in reverse. The internet has given her a space to create this art, and is one of many videos of performance art and video-art that the internet has to offer.

Television as Video Art - Lauren

The title of the article seems to indicate that the entire history of video art revolves around the debate over how to categorize video between art and television or something in between.  Some people like “John Hanhardt argues that video art in the United States has been formed by…its opposition to commercial television”.  What this means is that the development of video art was due to the fight against some sort of television.         

  

Going off of this, I want to discuss television in more depth because I consider the videography behind certain television shows a work of art.  The article constitutes video as an art form if it is avant-garde, meaning it is new and innovative – something that has not been done before.  There are a few TV shows that stick out in my mind that could possibly be considered avant-garde, and therefore the videography could be considered at art.  Game of Thrones for example exhibits beautiful shots panning over scenery, the camera angles are always perfect to represent a person of power or a subordinate, some fight scenes use extreme close-ups on sword fighting or footwork, I could continue but I won’t.  On the other end of the spectrum is reality TV; today much of reality TV is formulaic, but The Real World, considered the first reality television show when it first aired in 1992, created a whole new way to interpret television which is what video art should do: it should make viewers think.  The Real World showcased real life people – not actors – for the rest of the world to see and view as complete idiots or cute or funny and naïve, but the point is that this was new because it was a camera crew following a “normal” human around their everyday life. 

Origins of Video Art Yukun Liu

I like the point that he think how technology closely relates to video art. This is what I keep mentioning all the time, and this is the main reason that I’m really into these things. Technology shapes me as I trying to follow it. It’s probably the most important thing in the world now, in my opinion, even prior to politics. I enjoy trying new things because technology allows me to do it. For video art, it’s the same thing. It’s interesting that he talked about how technology developments in the relate fields have all had an influence on the developing aesthetics of video art by making examples like magnetic resonance imaging. I can see how MRI did it by its special perspective, and this is not an obvious example. Back to the start, it seems like everything started late 1960s. But video art wasn’t that popular and a common thing of life until mid to late 1980s. We can see how technology carries us to a world with video art such as from black and white to color. The major medium of video art would be TV with no doubt. Since 1940s, TV walks into ordinary families. It totally changed the way that people think of video art. Things that sound impossible years before can easily come true today because of technology. In my life, the commonest example would be mobile phones. Mobile phone was something expansive and cumbersome, most people use telephones in their houses. But right now, who really use their telephones? Mobile phones were becoming fancier these years. It’s a new way to view video art. There are so many things we can do on a phone now. Everything in my life connects to video art in many different ways, it’s an important element in my life.

This video was made in 1973 by computer, very early stage of video art: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8uvUtxIVow

Jack Scardino Re: Origins of Video Art

One of the major points this article makes is the significance of technology as it relates to video art.  I find it interesting that some artists in the earlier days of video art were attracted not just to the affordability and portability of video, but also to its particular visual "look".  The article even describes this look as being monochrome and low resolution.  In a way, these qualities are charming about video, especially today.  As I read this I am constantly reminded of one of my favorite internet groups Red Letter Media. RLM is known most famously for the so-called "Plinkett reviews" of the Star Wars prequels.  They're essentially a group of friends who are very much into media, particularly movies, and are also well-learned in these fields.  RLM has been operating for a few years now, and in that time the group has also reviewed, analyzed, reminisced about, discussed, and mentioned a variety of movies new and old.  A significant number of these are video productions, and have been featured on their show Best of the Worst.  I am as familiar as I am with video art because of Red Letter Media and Best of the Worst, and the seemingly endless number of video titles (mostly dating from the 1980s and '90s) they have included on their show.  There has been an incredible amount of both competence and total incompetence featured in some of these video movies, which kind of speaks to the "double-edged" sword of its accessibility.  It's like the music industry today; anyone can do it, and, anyone can do it.

But I do have to go back and think about what the article mentions about video art's reliance on technology.  The initial spark video offered to the world was inspiring, but I'm not sure it resonates quite the same way today as it did decades ago.  The quality of video is ever-improving, and for the most part the public agrees that better quality means a better video.  I wonder what this means for the sake of video's significance.  It seems more like a tool today.

Video art still maintains its niche however .  On Best of the Worst, hosts Mike and Jay have talked to several artists who consistently work with video, and work with it passionately.  They fully realize they are creating low-budget, low-fi productions, but like your local indie band (I mean truly "indie"), they care where it matters most.  They're still effectively underground, but the medium can survive for now.