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