In this article, Antin starts out asking about what video art is. He goes on to talk about how shabby and low-quality video art is compared to "high class" television. But he also suggests a bright future for video art. He goes into detail about commercial television being controlled by big corporations.
He compares television to telephones (transmitters and receivers).
Antin then writes about live television. If we see video from across the country, even if an event happened a few hours beforehand, we still accept it as a live occurrence.
I like what he writes about "boring art." He basically says that we see a work of art as boring if we expect it to be something else. If we see the art as accomplishing a goal, it isn't seen as boring. A lot of video art I've seen has been boring to me, but maybe I was just expecting it to be something else.
Antin then breaks down television programs and commercials into intervals. He even breaks down sports events into specific parts to make a comparison between sports and other television programs. He sees no definite stylistic distinctions between commercials and programs.
It was interesting to read about the costs of some of the early video recording and editing equipment. I have more respect for early video art because of the costs of some of that equipment, as well as the apparently difficult early editing techniques.
This is an interesting article. Started off a little slow but then got pretty interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment