"Video and Intermedia" Reading Response

What is "intermedia"? As stated in Wikipedia, intermedia was a concept to describe the often confusing, inter-disciplinary activities that occur between genres that became prevalent in the 1960s. Thus, the areas such as those between drawing and poetry, or between painting and theatre could be described as intermedia. As for Stephen C. Foster, the author of "Video and Intermedia: Remarks on Their Relationships", intermedia is most inter when the medium serves "as a vehicle through which a variety of generic intentions can be processed". That is, the thing that passes ideas through its content.

The author focuses on whether certain genre of art should be defined as intermedia. Although theoretically all media that are being working on can be qualified as intermedia, Foster doubts it. However, he believes that video is highly qualified as intermedia because it compels. I absolutely agree on this point because video is the electronic media for recording and broadcasting moving visual content with audio. As discussed in today's class, painting is "dead" in comparison with video. Audience percept the meaning of video through expression of author but they sort of "guess" the meaning of a painting because it's still. The reason why videos are more broadcasted and watched is because of its easiness of being understand and its straightness of being expressed. It's much faster to watch a video than to read a book with same content. It's also simpler for audience to catch the pace. Thus, in this course, during the production of videos, we shall care more about the feeling of audience.

Moreover, I love the concept of video that its the extension of ourselves. Videos generate empathy that make people have the same emotions. They would applaud if news repots the growth of economy. Likewise, they would pray for the victims after knowing that fire burns out peoples home. That is the magic of video, as intermedia. It shuttles back and forth in people's heart. Consequently, it all depends on how producers are going to utilize the magic of video.

Firewire cable and adaptor

Firewire Cable Adaptor

Video & Intermedia: Lather Rinse Repeat

My first thoughts while reading Foster's Video and Intermedia were, "I am confused.", "What does that even mean?!", and "I should probably read this sentence over." My second and third thoughts weren't too different. I did find; however, toward the end of the writing, I was understanding what the overall message was. I felt if I could just visualize it, I'd be home free. And so different snapshots of past works I had seen popped into my head: stories that arose from motley mixtures of the arts that stood out to me. But I was still slightly confused by a) what Foster even considered intermedia and b) how the subject matter, elusive and almost inconceivable to me in the first place, behaved.
And then, with the mention of how video lends itself to intermedia, I started to get it. And the example that stuck in my head was Sigur Rós' Fjögur píanó. Partially because this video, quite similarly to a certain paper, confused me until the last few minutes; but more so because of how I struggled to see what Fjögur píanó was about.
What caught my attention most in Stephen Foster's Video and Intermedia was his assertion that video's spontaneity exists only because of viewer's expectations. I actively fought to predict what was going on, struggling against the natural current of where the piece was taking me. And I noticed I do this frequently, out of habit. And I did the exact same when reading about intermedia. I wasn't being receptive to what was being provided to me. The very nature of video is one that is organic, it can include so much or be very basic. It has endless possibilities and isn't as formulaic as I sometimes want to force it to be. Which is why it works so well when utilized for intermedia. Eureka! At this point my inner hippie chimed in and about the fluidity of our perceptions and the connection between all aspects of culture and I am fairly certain I got a tad of track again. But there was Foster, who in his last paragraph, held out a hand and in so many words explained how much freedom was allotted when using video. And, sighing heavily, and decided I should shut up and let the performances do with me what they wanted. My body, and mind, were ready.

Fjögur píanó

The Nervous System and by Extension Intermedia

One thing I found interesting in this article was that it compared the medium of video to the nervous system in humans, and how the structure and effectiveness of the nervous system is what it is revered for, not necessarily the physiological aspect of it. What I took from this comparison is that video should be studied with respect to how it works, how it can improve different areas of life, and its effectiveness. However, the nitty gritty parts, like the construction of a video camera for example are less important for the overall understanding and use of the medium. Now, as far as the nervous system goes, biologists, doctors, and others that study it, still must know the physiology of the system in order to be able to do research on it or treat diseases within it. Although the general public might know that the nervous system is a body system that connects the brain and spinal cord and allows us to do pretty much everything that we are able to do and think, true experts will know all about the details of the neurons and the chemicals that pass through them and the physiological processes that allow the system to work. Therefore, I think it is important that the experts of video creation and production do know and understand the “physiology” of video. The article also says that video is an extension of the nervous system, which ties in to this notion. If one knows the very basics about the nervous system and also only knows the very basics about video creation, in essence the structure and effectiveness, they might be able to make a decent looking creation. On the other hand, one that knows the details of what goes on in their nervous system and in video creation at a deeper level, they can use these aspects together to create something absolutely amazing, truly a creation of intermedia. This is not to say that it is necessary to know the details of both or either to make something great, but it certainly would not hurt.

This video does not deal with biology, but it combines an in depth knowledge of math, art, and a likely strong understanding of video making, which is an approach that brings an extension of this woman’s self to her intermedia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK5Z709J2eo.

Intermedia and French New Wave Cinema

As I was reading Stephen Foster’s article, I did have trouble accurately identifying Foster’s suggested denotation of “intermedia.” Even so, the first full paragraph on page 64 piqued my interest. In this paragraph, Foster explains the way in which video functions and why it is such a powerful medium in relation to “intermedia.” As Foster continues to explain his idea of video, I could not help but recall the films I watched for my French New Wave Cinema course. French New Wave Cinema is a school of film that was popular in the 1950s and 1960s, known for its unique treatment of the camera [1]. The camerawork in the various New Wave films places the viewer in uncomfortable or confusing situations by employing long takes, discontinuous shot reversals, etc.. With this in mind, Foster’s discussion of spontaneity strongly relates to this type of film: “Video is spontaneous because spontaneousness only makes sense with reference to fixed expectations” (64). French New Wave cinema employs spontaneity to a large degree by constantly defying what the viewer expects to see on the screen. In the Claude Chabrol’s film Le Beau Serge, the viewer’s assumption as to where the camera will travel is completely shattered. In this film, the camera is constantly shifting its placement so the audience cannot identify the POV through which the film’s story is told. In addition, the camera crosses the 180-degree line numerous times, which completely disorients the viewer in relation to the set; as a result, the viewer must constantly question the location, the camera’s motivation, and the director’s intentions. The following clip exemplifies the disorienting nature, or spontaneous nature, of the camera through its unexplainable shifting POV shots (when the camera moves to the girl’s foot causing the two characters to converse out of frame) and its crossing of the 180-degree line (which character is the viewer meant to identify with?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPpmz16Sc4

Although I do not entirely grasp Foster’s concept of “intermedia,” I do believe the New Wave genre relates to what Foster is stating. After all, New Wave is not simply a school that means to test the boundaries of film as a form of art. Instead, the directors in the school wanted to play with viewers’ perception of film and how this perception can be guided by various cinematic qualities. In this sense, I do believe the New Wave directors found “a place, which ‘facilitates’ or ‘enables’ intellectual, critical and aesthetic activities” (63). If anything, the directors wanted to assume the role of the nervous system (64).

Video and Intermedia: Its Up To You- Fernando Parnes

Is it art? Truly a question with endless possibilities: A criticism, a honest question, a quiz... indeed there are those and many more. No wonder it is related to intermedia by Foster; since (according to Foster himself) intermedia art is political, it too could be seen in many ways, and by its own definition, is affected by the different ways it is seen. A perfect example of this is Captain Murphy's 30 minute video/ mixtape Duality:
(BE WARNED, THIS VIDEO IS INTENDED FOR MATURE AUDIENCES, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldRhniqAI6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldRhniqAI6sThe video fits Foster's description of Intermedia (following the example of Duchamp's 'Fountain'): it is a balance and mixture of emotion, artistic sensibility and art itself. It is at its core a emotional and sensory experience, designed to take the viewer off their regular axis to be uncomfortable and amazed at the same time. A balance of sound and video is achieved designed to take the viewer inside the mind of the artist, but more importantly, designed to change in lieu of the way it affects the mind of the viewer.
 Which brings us back tot he question: is it art? Some will invariably say no; they might consider rap as not being music, the video as being nonsensical and irrelevant. Some will follow the artists dream, in this particular case a guide to being a cult leader, with underlying messages about the dangers of being brainwashed, a corrupt society and the mold-ability of the human mind which Captain Murphy does through his art, and cult leaders through their manipulation. Some will see it purely as a sensory experience. An amalgamation of video and sound designed to take you on a mental journey through your own psyche. Our own messages and desires are inevitably added to the project, and because of this the project is different. Thus lies the essence of Intermedia. It is expected to change and to mold. It is not stationary nor can it be; by its very nature, intermedia is controversy. It is not comfortable or stable,and at any point one might find a reason to discard it. But one also has the potential to bring it back to life in a way it never was before.
Is it art? It can always be.

Intermedia is metatextual

        My interpretation of Foster’s definition of “intermedia” is that part of the magic of true intermedia pieces is that they peel back multiple layers of meaning. Not in the sense that there are multiple visual interpretations, as with an optical illusion, but that their deliberate betrayal of their construction offers us new ways to perceive the object that is the focus of the piece. I’m reminded of Platonic forms, in context of the idea that the pure Form can never be accessed. Let’s take the chair, for example. Suppose there is a “Platonic” “chair”, composed of the basic qualities of a chair and nothing more. While we can intuitively understand this concept, any attempt at imagining this chair will always take on our expectations based on the chairs we have been exposed to. I feel that intermedia, rather than attempting to discover or expose the Platonic state of an object, instead takes advantage of its complexity.

        An intermedia piece says “This object/concept that I’m exploring in my art can be understood from various perspectives – let me show you how.” An intermedia work takes these possible ways of looking at something and integrates them into a piece that evokes multiple layers of interpretation. I don’t know how this definition can be applied to something like Duchamp’s “Fountain” but that may be a fault in my own analysis of the art, because I don’t know the artist’s intentions. I think it makes sense that video has a high potential for being intermedia, simply because it already removes the audience from direct interaction with the subject – the video camera becomes our eyes and shows us the variability of perception. For example, it can make images in black-and-white, with camera distortion, or a variety of other effects.

        I think the 1998 Peter Weir film The Truman Show is an interesting example of an intermedia video piece. In this movie, Truman Burbank was born into a giant dome in southern California staged as the town of “Seahaven”, on an island surrounded by a sea that Truman has been afraid of since he was a young child. Here’s the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1878327577/. He’s been followed by cameras since birth and the images have been projected 24/7 on a television program that is broadcast all over the “real” world, “The Truman Show.” I believe The Truman Show is intermedia because not only do we as viewers see Truman through the television show’s cameras, from different physical points of view, but there’s an additional layer of distancing because of the movie camera recording the actors, and finally we through the movie camera also watch the TV show’s creators watch Truman and control his environment. Everybody in Seahaven knows they are actors except for Truman, including his wife and best friend; they often advertise products directly on the show in obvious displays of product placement. With these layers of observation alone we’re forced to see the simulacrum constructed in Seahaven. The metatextual quality of The Truman Show, the watchers being watched, draws attention to the pervasiveness of monitoring in our world and thus brings into question the realness of our own privacy and free will.

Video and Intermedia: a function

Video and Intermedia: a function

In his article, Stephen is just saying that video being a very important form of art simply because of the fact that videos can uniform “artistic and social mechanisms” (i.e. sound, picture, structure, nature elements, micro atoms, human motion, etc.), combine these mechanisms “politically” so as to make a purpose, or at least an implication, and effectively compel these information to its audience. This is what Stephen defines as “intermedia”. To be brief, everything, the sound, the pictures, different elements, the manipulations, just serves as media. What important is they together contribute to one purpose.

However, he seems quite worried that only few people truly understand what video and “intermedia” really means. To point it out, he made an interesting analogy---function. As an engineering student, I can’t help to admire his intelligence. In mathematics, a function is a relation between a set of inputs, (here he means the aesthetic elements) and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output.[i]

Exactly one output---this is what he emphasis. In field with high-dimension, an input could be a vector with tons of variables, e.g V (X₁, X₂, X₃, …, X_n). Our world is a world with high-dimension. Here our one input can be a vector such as (light, steps, fluid, emotion, outside environment, breath, coffee, atmosphere), while what would be crucial is: we only have one outcome by one input. Otherwise the work can’t be counted as a successful video, not even art. “Multimedia” where elements are just causally placed without a clear purpose is what Stephen hates to guts. To make a purpose, Stephen suggested, artists need to care about the society.

Yet, I don’t quite agree on his later claim that “video is an extension of ourselves and we can no longer distinguish between ourselves and TV-type technology without an anti-environment.” Like what ‘The Matrix (1999)’ illustrated, there’s always some bugs in an artificial environment for some people to discover. That is, bugs exist permanently. That’s also why I love this world and engineering so much--- massy enough.

---

[i] Halmos, Paul R. (1970). Naive Set Theory

Playing Devil's Advocate

I must say, I do tend to play Devil's Advocate when reading about media, and art in general. As a digital media studies major I have been learning how to ask the right questions but I need to know what I'm asking questions about, first! This is why I am very excited to delve into the media of Video, as I have little to no experience on the topic. 

Throughout the reading, I was very confused as to what exactly is “intermedia”. The first sentence of the second paragraph, where Foster talks about generic intentions, piqued my interest. I was curious to read Foster use the word generic to describe types of intentions that can be processed through intermedia. Generic has always seemed like a safe word to me, a word to describe the boring and lackluster which makes me wonder why anybody would be attracted to using intermedia in that it instinctively produces generic ideas. Before describing “Fountain” and its applicability to intermedia, Foster speaks more about the definition of intermedia and multimedia that was very confusing to me. At one point, it sounds as if the author is hating on intermedia when he says that intermedia is the vehicle that helps the commoner process the most generic intentions of art – a seemingly negative thing. The author then leads me to believe that intermedia is, in fact, the vehicle that enables one to motorize ideas and expectations in unique areas of activity – thus being exceedingly un-generic. Needless to say, I did not find this author’s writing very fluid. If I have this correct, intermedia is what changes the “function” of a “thing”; the “thing” is what is affected by intermedia through the “thing”’s exhibition.

Foster writes about how video must be alive because our “conceptual and perceptual apparatus for “images” is dead.” This sentence reminds me of Bo Burnham’s song “Art is dead.” Although it is a satire and Burnham himself is intrinsically cynical, it has an interesting message about the media industry in general and what we consider to be “art”. Bo Burnham rose to fame through YouTube – an online social networking site that allows people to upload their own video media with whatever content they choose – and used that fame to propel him from Internet celebrity to real celebrity. That “real celebrity” stage fame brought him comedy special upon comedy special that he then recycled into a video that he posted on YouTube for free. The videos that Burnham puts up do have cinematic conventions – the lighting is perfect, the cuts and angles professional – which makes me wonder if the videos we see on YouTube are in fact becoming stabilized in cinematic conventions.

How can video be spontaneous if it is a tried and true medium? It has been studied for years and is constantly evolving with technology, much like the majority of other mediums, however when you watch a video you can as easily predict what will happen next as you can with television or sound – especially when the two are put together. When we watch a scary movie, we expect there to be daunting music getting louder and louder, and at the climax of the music there be a cut to a dead body or a ghost in the hallway. Of course, it is very likely that I am not properly distinguishing the difference between video and video in cinematic conventions – that is why I am looking forward to this class and learning how to make these important distinctions!

Video and Intermedia Reading

Stephen C. Foster explores how video fits into the idea of intermedia; his main questions are whether or not it qualifies as art and what meaning can be derived from it.  In many cases, video may lack artistic value and serves strictly as an informative medium.  However, does that mean that video of a performance or other type of art can’t be artistic?  That’s the question I was most intrigued by when reading this piece. 

I think this can be partially answered as a matter of intention.  Foster describes that, “Video, if one uses it as an extension of one’s self rather than as an extension of one’s notions of art, cannot avoid confronting problem areas in communication, information and meaning” (64).  This further implies that if video is originally crafted as art, it doesn’t necessarily have to be brutally criticized and is left up to personal interpretation.  Yet, if it is only used as a medium to display another medium, then there is less room to be creative and the meaning should be clear.  Because of how involved video is with people’s perceptions of reality, it’s expected that it should well-depict real life.  It could sometimes be overlooked as an art form because it is often thought of as a way of delivering a message and exact meaning opposed to some other media that can be more open-ended.  Thus, while sometimes a video of another medium may not be considered art, in certain contexts it definitely should be, and could be just as critical to the aesthetics of the inner medium.

The video I attached is a scene from The Great Beauty (La Grande Bellezza) in which the main character, Jep is critiquing a performance piece by an artist named Talia Concept.  It essentially mocks the extremes artists will go to in order to be “avant garde” and original, and the art is seen more in the film itself than the satirical performance piece. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YRMZZUfiUk 

Huancen (Harris) Liu's response to Foster

While reading Stephen C.Foster’s article, I found it interesting that Foster made a distinguish between “intermedia” and “multimedia”. In the article, Foster seems to say that Multimedia is simply a combination of different mediums, on the other hand, intermedia, as Foster said, is most “inter” when the medium, whatever that happens to be, servers as a vehicle through which a variety of “generic intentions” can be processed, either consecutively, serially, or simultaneously.

Form what I understand from his words is that Foster seems to suggest that the function of intermedia is to act as a liaison between audience and the ideas of artist therefore it can facilitate a “political discussion”. and the "generic intentions" I assume it has to do with the different form of artistic expression.

Another concept that resonated with me the most was how video is an extension of ourselves. as a human being watching some relative to ourselves is easiest way to bring up our emotion.  as Foster claims that "if one uses an extension of one's self rather than as an extension of one's notion of art, cannot avoid confronting problems in areas in communication , information, and meaning." Video has its power to bring up our emotion because it's relative to our daily lives on an artistic and non artistic level. for example, I can stare at Cheryl Donegan's Head http://vimeo.com/17888330  for hours without getting meaning. However, when I was watching Martha Rosler- Semiotic of the Kitchen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zSA9Rm2PZA&feature=youtu.be It is impossible to get absolutely nothing out of it.

Video and Intermedia: Is it art?

As Erik recognizes in his own response, Foster underlines the natural connection between intermedia and video performance art by virtue of the innate criticism they bring to society as well as their political nature and “spontaneousness.” Of the two examples mentioned by Erik, Stille Nacht is by far the most shocking one as for the images it offers of naked bodies smeared with blood and organs from a slaughtered pig to the peaceful tune of “Silent Night.” This video does bring to mind one of the episodes of the British satire television series “Black Mirror:” “The National Anthem,” and which I highly recommend. On this episode (spoilers ahead) a member of the royal family is kidnapped. The criminal’s request (uploaded to YouTube for everyone to see): a live broadcast of the Prime Minister having sexual intercourse with a pig under specific technical arrangements. My video is a clip from this episode when the bizarre request is done:

The request is indeed executed; the PM does have sex with a pig on national television while at the end it is uncovered that the criminal was in fact a sort of performance artist who actually kills himself during the broadcast. An art critique is quoted in the episode by the news as calling the PM’s "performance" as “the first true work of art of the 21^st century.”

With both “Stille Nacht” and the satirical episode in mind, I was forced to raise the question, just like Foster does at the end of his piece, “is it art?” Not only this, but “what limits, if any, are allowed on this kind of experimentation in the name of art?” These questions go far beyond most people’s repulse to hard blood scenes and “gross” sex scenes. Indeed, it is a matter of freedom encased in morality and vice-versa. Performance art will always challenge conventional structures and ideas. But in the not so unreal event that such a request like the one done in Black Mirror is done in the real world, who, how and why, will draw the line between criminal offense (many performance artists are well acquainted with jail) and art? To me, the prospective for intermedia and performance video are both exciting as well as frightful given the trend started by Duchamp, intentionally or not, and the empowerment of video with YouTube and similar internet technologies. Moreover, the ever increasing abstraction of art from craft to concept to merely object releases all kinds of both thoughtful, as well as distorted expressions of “art.”

Video and Intermedia: Why is video so successful?

Video and Intermedia: Why is video so successful?

The text makes a good point. A lot of times with traditional painting or drawing, the artist draws/paints a mundane image that doesn't hold much meaning for even them. Why? It's because some approach an artwork with inverted priorities. That is, they think "I'd like to paint… I'll paint my cat!" which of course means they are putting the artistic act before any kind of message they'd like to portray, making any present theme trivial and poorly communicated. On the other hand, they might have approached the artwork thinking "I love my cat so much! I take 500 pictures of him to post on imgur every day… I know! I'll try painting him! that will surely properly convey his majesticness!" 

All silliness aside, this would be a much more successful approach simply because it is a message-pointed piece; the art would be more infused with whatever it is the creator is trying to say, thus it would be a more successful representation of the artist and his/her opinions/preferences/ideas/etc.

That is not to say, however, that it's inherently bad to create something simply for the sake of doing it. Certainly to master any style of art, one will need technical practice, even if this means that the subject matter will be lacking in personal worth. But for creating artwork that is meant to be viewed and shared by others, meaning IS important, and there is no denying that certain mediums, more than others, have higher efficacy for portraying our messages and ideas. I'd have to agree with the text that video is one of these mediums.

Our two strongest senses are our vision and auditory senses, respectively. Our sense of touch might also be very strong, but at least when we represent experiences in the brain (in dreams, memories, etc.) there is little somatosensory representation, and we rely heavily on our visual and audible representation. For that matter, when we use our imagination, i.e. daydream or make up a story in our head, we mostly keep to constructing the visual and audible aspects. It is no wonder, then, that we feel the easiest way to extend ideas and experiences to other people using image and sound (as the text says). This way, with video (image + sound) things are easily shared because they are relatable; they are relatable because they are easily translated into our own memory and internalized. So what Foster wrote about the idea that video is nearly a neurological extenuation of ourselves is accurate in very realistic ways. 

The video I am posting below is just a short dictation to illustrate my point, as it describes in brief humans' capabilities for imagination. We approach thought with visual construction, and we integrate sound into it. Particularly the narrators mention the idea of schema or prototypes (which they call tokens) within the brain. Basically this means we amass sensory information and characteristics (mostly visual ones) and link them together to make 'prototypes' of something (for example, a prototype of a dog is something that has 4 legs, barks, brown fur, wags tail, etc.) With this in mind, we can say that video easily satisfies our representation of ideas/thoughts because it most easily activates these established prototypes in our memory and imagination, more more easily than does a simple painting. That is, it can look like a dog, but if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, and barks like a dog, then we will much, much more easily call it a dog; the more information we are given, the more, and more quickly, we can receive and internalize a message.

ON MEDIA

the author makes a good point in the beginning that today we have reached an ultimate peak in the reproduction and distribution of artwork, yet this has not in any way deducted from the effectiveness of an art work. certainly we can find simple creations, or re-creations, on youtube that we value and that speak to us personally. For example, Frozen was one of the most pirated films this winter, and was sold out for weeks in theaters, but didn't enjoy it any less than they would have were available only at a special place/time. Some probably even never saw the movie, but saw and enjoyed videos online of the award winning song "Let it Go" from the movie. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk

In addition to this, multimedia such as Frozen is enjoyed, and judged, by its "mimesis" as Hovagimyan would say. In the past 10 years or so, we have seen an astounding growth in the animation industry, and the quality has been improving just as much (perhaps in causation?) as well. But how do we judge quality? Just as the author said, we like to see how close to reality we can get artwork like video, so in addition to better lighting and textures in the animation, a huge part is getting all different media to match up, mostly the visual and auditory parts. To do this, dreamworks has been known to ask voice actors to wear special lipgloss so they can film them as they speak their lines, and then use the footage to perfectly animate the lips of the characters in correspondence with each actors' respective voice. A similar technique called roto-scoping is used to match movements of the entire body. And the result, well you can see the video from Frozen produces something that is perfectly lifelike in movement. This is important for quality. the McGurk effect is a cognitive phenomenon that demonstrates how important it is that this that visual and auditory aspects fit together; if things are inaccurate, it can completely alter the experience. this video demonstrates the effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFPtc8BVdJk

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/rpg/sc315/effects/

On a related note, like anything that makes its way to the internet, the Frozen song was subject to a lot of remixing. Reinterpretations are a hazard of any widely reproduced art, yet they receive the same criteria for judgement. in this parody by Iodine Cerium, you can see she emulates the actual song, though the mouth doesn't match up nearly as well as it does with the original lyrics. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlZdZYLCfU

But it gets due credit for being hilarious

Sound Scape

https://soundcloud.com/chloerenee/sound-short

On Performance Art

This article of course raises a lot of the same questions we have discussed thoroughly in my other class, performance art. Firstly we tried to examine what can qualify as performance art. Almost immediately we found ourselves trying to define what qualifies as art in the first place. We came to the conclusion that art can be virtually anything, and made in any medium. The analogy we used is this: a painting is considered art when the raw materials (the paint) is taken and re-arranged with purpose on a canvas; in the same sense, any art (performance art, for example) is art when the raw materials (in performance's case, actions and interactions) are rearranged with purpose on a canvas (or in a setting).

This is vague, yes, but it truly exemplifies what all art is. You cant say its about trueness to reality because most art is abstract; you cant say its all about aesthetics because some art is not pleasing to the eye; you cant even say its about something visual/audible/etc that conveys some message or has some stimulating, inherent meaning because some art is simple not intended to have meaning for certain viewers, yet it is still art. What we consider to be good or bad art is a different story, riddled with opinions. Warhol and Duchamp are fine examples of people's skepticism on what constitutes (good) art. But the good, the bad, and the weird, its all art under our definition. Like actually, really really weird: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbuluDBHpfQ

On the subject of opinions, I think the author makes a good point that the art should NOT have ingrained, uniform meaning and that the viewer is ultimately responsible for the meaning they get out of a piece of art. That is, while its definitely good when an artist can provide some background and sources for a piece of artwork, they should not have to tell the audience what it is intended to mean; the artist may divulge what they were going for, but the best pieces of art imbue intended meanings on their own, without explication. However if someone views a piece of art and doesn't get what the artist was trying to portray then thats not bad. What is truly important is, even if the viewer misses what it means to the artist, that the art still inspires some personal meaning for the viewer.