On ***** Media Response

In Hovagimyans conclusion he states that we've moved away from the "Playback culture" of recording and moved into an era of "generative art". Now if he means to say that we've moved away from raw photography, film and music in return for purely synthetic creations, I couldn't disagree with him more.

I did like how he noted the drastic change in photojournalism when it started to surface. There was no glancing over the gritty details in a photo of war. However I don't think that's been lost. Sieving through pages and pages of news online, you'll still come across harrowing unaltered images of broken homes and families torn apart at the hands of war and conflict. If anything, with the technological improvements made in recent years this recording of still images has become even more powerful and wide spread. Think of any international news story that has occurred in recent years and you will be able to find gripping images of every single one. It is a medium that has, and always will be a powerful recording medium. Just look at social media. It's a constantly updated recording of our everyday lives. Hovagimyans does have a point that we can fabricate generative art. We can take a still image and alter it to our hearts content on software such as Adobe Photoshop and Aperture. But I can't imagine this replacing the above. I think photo as an art, it grew from photojournalism and branched off to do its own thing. Never replacing but always getting bigger and bigger.

And music? for music to have changed to a generative art, alternative, Acoustic, Blues, Classical, Country, Hip-Hop, Rap, Indie, Jazz, Latin, Opera, R&B, Soul, Reggae and Rock would all have to be extinct. Yes there may be post production to clear up some of the noise, and yes auto-tune has made an impressive showing in some genres, but the ones I listed above are still played live to millions of people with just a few speakers and a soundcheck. As it was in photography, there have been explosions of interest in new and fresh sounds such as electronic music, but it's grown and now holds itself apart from the rest as it's own genre. It hasn't muscled in on any others, it's found it's own spot and has thrived.

As for video, you need look no further than youtube, vimeo, hollywood, and most news broadcasting companies, even television, and you'll see how valuable a recording device video is. In my lifetime, I think the most impressive advancement has been the creation of GoPro. A first person point of view camera that really has changed how we film in certain areas, especially in extreme sports. Some of the footage is stunning. Sharing recorded personal experiences instantly.

I have to admit this article still confuses me a lot. I am not sure whether I understand what Foster tries to convey, because I disagree with some of his points. Foster discusses, “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) I do not quiet follow Foster’s definitions of “one’s self”  and “one’s notions of art”. To me, those two sometimes send the same meaning. Video is created by a person, who is individually different from others according to experience, personality and so on. His or her work, no matter is notions of art or not, definitely develops connection between himself or herself. Therefore, the terms “one’s self” and “one’s notions of art” is inseparable. However, what Foster means here might be, if one only focuses on oneself, such as one’s own perception derived from one’s own conceptual world without any hints or explanation, his or her work tends to become biased and partisan. Notions of art functions as an assistant here; it helps receivers to construct, to better understand artist’s conscious world. 

It reminds me of the film Do the Right Thing, the director Spike Lee vividly depicts a mixed neighborhood based on his own understanding of different culture. He manipulates camera movement in a anti-realist way to convey his meaning. In this circumstance, his dramatic camerawork serves as a notion of art, assisting audience to developed an connection and understanding to the problematic issues Spike Lee raised in the film. It is somehow Brechtian by the way. 

I also confused about the concept of art Foster raised in the last paragraph, his definition of art, and that, it seems to me, still is idle and ambiguous. I consider what he means is the decision of whether it is a piece of art depends on one’s self, it varies according to people’s own perceptions. Yet, it counterposes to what he discuses about “one’s self” and “one’s notions of art”, that if only emphasizes one’s self, it will encounter problems. 

http://www.ubu.com/film/fei_shadow.html

Danielle Rennalls: "Video and Intermedia..." By Stephen C. Foster

Stephen C. Foster’s article on Video and Intermedia: Remarks on their Relationship gives insight to the connection between media that I myself never would have thought to make such comparison.

Foster makes it clear that works of art that builds or draws from different aspects or genres, should not necessarily be categorized as multimedia but rather intermedia, for it is being comprised of different media, drawing upon different sources of art to make an overall piece. I found this idea of video art being more than just composed of different genres to be fascinating, because as artists we are constantly seeking inspiration from outside sources in order to create originality. Being categorized as multimedia creates a limitation where artists seem to just be building off another persons work without any originality. However, having the label of intermedia gives an artist the ability to receive and offer insight from other media, while still maintaining his/her uniqueness and individuality.

Take for instance if all films embodied the same ideas and no one film maker thought to borrow from or internalize their own understanding of a medium in order to create something original, but rather just built ideas based on another film maker in the same genre. All films in this particular genre would be the same, and there would be nothing interesting to compel us to watch, as we would be aware of how the story would unfold. However, having the ability to generate ideas from different media outside one’s particular field – intermedia – creates an environment for different ideas and building sources.

Nevertheless, as Foster mentions this idea of intermedia far out exceeds video arts, as it can stretch beyond this realm into any particular medium. I particularly think this is the beauty of such an open-ended term as it enables artists to be as he states, “intellectual, critical…” The idea of having the opportunity to create ideas from such vast amounts of media pushes the reader and artiats to exam his/her interest.

The links attached below, are songs that have been altered to incorporate different genres of music, thus illustrating the idea of intermedia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jus7S5vBJyU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ZatuoalP0

Sean Strelow- Video and Intermedia Response

I won’t lie, this reading confused me a bit. Foster claims that “video enables and has a high potential for intermedia it, as a medium, compels. Video is spontaneous because spontaneousness only makes sense with reference to fixed expectations” (64). I feel like if video has expectations, it is through similar ways to other mediums. How did audiences develop expectations of film? Directors started making films and through audience reaction and their own innovation developed storytelling and continuity conventions to what we see today. So how does Foster think that video developed expectations? How is it magically separate from other mediums? Video came out of film, and it shares many of its conventions with film. If it has its own unique set, at least some crossover is evident.

I think Foster means to assert that a specific kind of experimental video is in its own artistic realm, which is up for debate and slightly different than a “video as a whole” argument. Many directors in movies today shoot video but make full length movies just like film ones. Are those “videos” as artistically enlightened as the video he refers to? I can’t really tell.

Regardless, Foster’s assertions about video in the modern age hint at how it is a pervasive form, possibly an art form (and maybe not), one that inherently connects other mediums in how it emerges from and engages what we think. Foster posits 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 areas in communication, information and meaning” (64). For example, I found a video by Aleksandra Mir called The First Woman on the Moon, documenting a real event where a beach was transformed into a moon-like landscape and a woman placed an American flag on it. The event itself pokes at JFK’s speech that references getting a man on the moon. The video, then, documents this event and becomes its own work separate from the event in how it records it and pieces it together. It incorporates the history of the JFK speech along with new events, which makes it socially relevant, and creates its own work from that. These aspects combine to make it an intermedia production.

Here's the link: http://www.aleksandramir.info/projects/first-woman-on-the-moon/

Week1 Yukun Liu

I started getting confused when Foster adding the concept of art to the article. As Foster said, “Theoretically, any medium an artist is working can serve intermedia purposes. As a practical matter of fact, I think that few do”, he questioned it. Then he started to argue whether video is alive or not. I agree with Foster’s opinion that video is alive. However, I disagree with the reason he said. Like he said, “Video enables and has a high potential for intermedia because it, as a medium, compels”, when we watching a video, we feel things that the author of the video wants us to feel, such as sadness or happiness, or encouragement or depression. But then he gave the reason that video is alive, which is “our conceptual and perceptual apparatus for ‘images’ is dead”. I turned to disagree with him. I don’t think “our conceptual and perceptual apparatus for ‘images’ is dead”. Images are always typical for certain objects, how can’t you feel sad when you see an image of an old man standing by a gravestone? For this part, he did a good job express his statements but failed to make good examples to support his statements.

He also talked about intermedia and multimedia. “This, it seems to me, is what makes work ‘’intermedia” rather than ‘multimedia.’” He thought that intermedia pieces not just “break down traditional art boundaries” and used the Duchamp “Fountain” as the example. The “Fountain” is a good example here, “simply” changed a porcelain urinal’s positioning to make an “new” object. Foster explained the reason that the “Fountain” is not intermedia, “it occupies a place between art and plumbing.” In the end of this paragraph he concluded his idea, “That ‘thing’ is the agent of the phenomenon of intermedia.”

This is the sound I found, it’s like a mix of everything of the 20th Century:

http://www.ubu.com/sound/dj_food.html

Foster- Karina Banda

Foster's writing on Intermedia raised more questions to me than it answered of what intermedia is and I'm at an absolute lost at how he was trying to define intermedia. The part that I understood about intermedia is its political nature in its ability to facilitate “intellectual, critical, and aesthetic activities”. What I was confused about was his description of it also being “active”. Now I may have completely misunderstood his explanation, but I don't quite agree with his statement: “any art 'means' based on private or unpersuasive vocabularies or information structures, are not empowered to activate anything excepting themselves”. I think anything has the power to “activate” something within at least one viewer. Yes, somethings better accomplish this than others, but what is the cutoff point?

What I was also able to understand and agree with Foster is his interpretation of video as a medium that has extreme amount of power to compel. I agree that video feels alive. He states that “video is an extension of ourselves because we can no longer distinguish between ourselves and TV-type technology”. Even if a video is abstract in nature, we know that it filmed real things and our brains get engaged in trying to discern the reality in it. He also goes on to say that “video puts us back in touch with the structures by means of which social and psychological patterns are fabricated” . Right now, video, among all mediums, has the most power of creating similar subjective experiences in all its viewers because it gives us sound and a string of images all in one place which are the primary senses people need to understand the place around them and their place in it. Touch is another primary sense but it doesn't compare to the string of information we get by hearing and watching something.

In 1985, Wergo Records published this 9 minute sound piece (http://www.ubu.com/sound/sound_sculptures.html) titles Sound Sculptures. Music has the power to take you on a journey (similarly to video when done right) as the speed, melody, and instruments change and interact with each other. This piece in particular was all about the interaction of the different instruments and it literally had a physical affect on me. I could feel physically rushed and hurried when the instruments got louder and faster, while other times just letting my emotions be swayed and manipulated by the sounds. For example, when there were only soft high chimes, I felt happy as I could picture a christmas scene. At another instance, I could feel a battle playing out as different instruments with heavy drums were playing. You can literally visual the sounds as sculptures rather than a normal composed music.  

Aisyah: Response to Foster's "Video and Intermedia"

     “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.” This quote was what stood out to me the most in this reading. At first, I found it hard to understand it – for me to draw a solid line between the extension of one’s self and the extension of one’s notion to art contradicted my beliefs of what art really is. I first interpreted the quote as, “if you use video as self-expression rather than convey a political message to your viewers, you will face a lot of problems.” I thought, well, isn’t conveying a political message a form of self-expression, anyway? But after having read the article again and again, I realize that I definitely had misinterpreted it. I believe that what Foster meant by “an extension of one’s notion to art” is when the individual is conscious or aware of a medium’s capabilities and possibilities, and trying to expand them from the conventional ways of using that medium. Having said that, “an extension of one’s self” would be when the individual is not conscious or aware of expanding the medium’s capabilities and possibilities, and is only interested in expressing/conveying a message (vlogging, for example).

     The main problem we face with using a medium as an extension of one’s self brings up a big question that Foster mentions later in the article: “but is it art?” This is a very common question that everyone asks all the time. What is art? What makes art? Where do we draw the line between what is art and what isn’t? I found a video that talks about this. At one point, the filmmaker says that one way art can be defined is that it is “the expression of creativity, imagination, or both.” However, this is a very broad definition, as expression of creativity and imagination could be anything, and it can easily overlap with an extension of one’s self.

     So how does this relate to the topic of intermedia? What I believe that Foster was trying to say is that intermedia is what bridges the gap between an idea and an art form. However, this is still a little confusing for me to grasp because of the ambiguity of what art is and what it is not.

Video and Intermedia - Christian Cieri

When I first read Foster’s article, I wasn’t quite sure exactly what he was trying to get across to the reader; his point was coated in extremely technical terms that I could not figure out, nor did he seem to have one real thesis except to try and explain that video was very closely related to intermedia. That was something I could definitely understand, because it’s obvious that videos bring together different types of medias into one central medium. They incorporate sound and images to create one of the most realistic experiences that anyone could receive from any medium. But why does Foster strive so hard to differentiate between intermedia and multimedia? At the end of the article I felt just as confused about the entire argument then I did in the beginning. From what I could understand Foster seemed to be defining multimedia as something that brings together different medias while intermedia is an overlap of them, but isn’t that essentially the same thing, the only real difference being the terms?

Foster uses the claim that video is a perfect example of intermedia to support the argument made throughout the article that tries to define intermedia and differentiate it from multimedia. He states that video “…is an extension of ourself because we can no longer distinguish between ourselves and TV-type technology without what McLuhan has called an anti-environment.” I took this to mean that because video incorporates so many things to be realistic, we see it as such and no longer any form of art. This I can accept in the argument because I know that this can be extremely true; we can accept video as reality if there are no barriers that force it to self-recognize as a video.

The clip I have choses from Ubuweb is of a men’s cologne commercial directed by French New-Wave director Jean-Luc Godard. I chose it because I believe it is both an example of how video is and is not intermedia according to Foster. In it, many things are being combined and overlapped, mainly dialogue and music, video, but also narrative and commercial selling. The multiple layers seem to resonate with Foster’s ideas of what video is and how it is multimedia. At the same time, I believe it is an example of how video cannot be multimedia because it calls attention to itself being a video because of its harsh sound and video quality, and the fact that at the end of the narrative, a narrator breaks the fourth wall and directly tells the audience to buy the product.

http://www.ubu.com/film/godard_schick.html

Response #1 (Intermedia)- Anna Lenhert

This week, I have approached the article “Video and Intermedia: Remarks on Their Relationship” by Stephen Foster in light of the opening classes in the Introduction to Media Studies in which I am also enrolled. We have discussed how media is a combination of support (materiality) + social conventions  (based on “Addressing Media” by W.J.T. Mitchell.) In other words, when we define a media such as video, it is not limited to just the technology of the camera and the places and people inside the frame, but also how the use of those materials are defined by conventions. This basis helped me understand Foster’s statement that “The Duchamp ‘Fountain’ is not because it occupies a place between art and plumbing but (if it is intermedia at all) because it (in a way that painting or sculpture never could have) catalyzed a variety of artistic and social mechanisms...”(63). I admit, I had to do my homework and research what exactly Duchamp’s Fountain was, but after doing so it was very clear that the relevancy of this work, seeing as the materials form a “ready made” piece, lies purely innovating and challenging the ideology what constitutes art. Thus, if I am interpreting this and the rest of the article correctly, it seems that it is more important to discuss how intermedia is a “catalyst” for new ways of thinking. The following passage also suggested to me that within a given form of intermedia, the unification of ideas into a single stream is important; “I have always found that intermedia is most ‘inter’ when the medium, whatever that happens to be, serves as a vehicle through which a variety of ‘generic intentions’ can be processed, either consecutively, serially, or simultaneously”(63).

A part of this reading that puzzled me was Foster’s statement that “Video is alive because our conceptual and perceptual apparatus for ‘images’ is dead” (64). I understand that video has emerged as a newer medium, and how time would correlate to established expectations, but it still seemed like an extreme statement to me, or perhaps I am misunderstanding his meaning.   

For my exploration of Ubuweb, I began with a composer that I have already had some exposure to John Cage. I found the work "49 Waltzes for the Five Boroughs," and thought it might relate well to both our article of intermedia as well as our upcoming first project. As Ubuweb describes, the piece was initially based on a visual, a map of New York City that had colored lines based on randomly selected addresses. Then, "Using the map-score of the boroughs, hundreds of coin tosses and the I Ching, I arrived at a 'tapestry' of sound, combining hundreds of traditional waltz fragments, and distributing them among three groups of five players each. This recorded version uses three pianists playing fragments (of other pieces in the collection as well as traditional waltzes), auxiliary sound making devices played by the same performers (musical toys, musical boxes, car horns, etc.) and pre-recorded environmental tapes made in various parts of the five boroughs (as indicated by the score.) Though this piece might be clearly more audio than visually focused, the map-score is enough of a key ingredient that I thought it a worthwhile example (and also, within audio it mixes genres of music and environmental sounds in an experimental way.)         

http://ubumexico.centro.org.mx/sound/cage_john/Cage-John_49-Waltzes_1977.mp3

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.