Intermedia Reponse - Alizah

Although the question of "what is art?" has been around a while, I always thought of it in terms of visual art.  After reading the Intermedia reading and listening to things curated on Ubuweb, I am for the first time finding myself exploring this question as it relates to sound.  Even though I am consciously aware that music is art (after all, we call bands, singers, etc. "artists") I never really think of it in that way.  For example, this piece is just a combination of various sounds that makes a more substantial piece of music. But where does the line between "combination of sounds" and "song" or "music" exist? Which I believe is similar to what Foster's idea of intermedia is (though I may be wrong as I do not fully understand what he is trying to say).

Foster says that video is suited for intermedia because it compels (more so than other types of art, to which I would generally agree) but I think sound fits this distinction as well. I think everyone can think of a specific piece of music that makes them feel happy, sad, energized, angry, etc.

It seems that Foster is putting video up on a pedestal and saying that no other art form will ever compare to the gloriousness that is video.  This is not the case.  Video is very different in that in a single video we are seeing a multitude of images whereas traditionally with other forms of visual art we are only seeing one (though this too, is changing).  While I do think that video is underrated as an art form (though not in general) it seems as though Foster's belief of this is causing him to put forth the notion that video is a superior art form than any other, which is not the case.  If we were able to definitively decide this, than we would also be able to definitively decide an answer to the question "what is art?" which we clearly cannot.