"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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment