To me, this separation of video "art" and video "commercialism" all boils down to whether the viewer discovers or believes to be a personal significance behind what they are seeing, regardless of whether or not it is true the screen of a television or one's own eyes. It doesn't seem unlikely that a viewer would not subconsciously use the video media as a reflection of what he finds familiar in his own day-to-day world, what he can relate to...etc. And through these intricate connections and interpretations that he makes, the individual --as both the viewer of and the experiencer of life-- believes he has taken away something special from that moment, whether it is from a commercial on his old TV or a moment that he shared with his lover a few minutes ago. People must remember that it isn't a sin or an offense to believe that one form of video art or another isn't what one would consider a work of "art". "Art" is the impression that can only be captured through one's personal connection with the work and whether one feels that cathartic pull or not is not up to artist or the art itself. Instead, it's the deep meaningful connection that can only be established through personal experiences and values gained from them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6odQHn9GBA8
a documentary on video arts as a medium in the 1980s, featuring artists including Nam June Paik.
No comments:
Post a Comment