Question #1: It's interesting to see how quickly video art evolved from more observations like Nam June Paik's Pope video to much more processed videos or experimental tools - such as the video where he's using a ball to record the scene or in the article when they discuss trying experimental tools and methods. In the article, there is also a discussion on what is art versus what is artful; the distinction seems to be a very grey area. As video artists are developing there work and creating videos, how do they keep their intentions toward producing art rather than producing something else? So much mainstream and commercial tv is reality television today where a lot of it is sold as being observations or real- does that devalue artists that might be creating works that are observational?
Question #2: As technology becomes more sophisticated and tools for video arts develop- does video art morph into computer art? Are they the same thing, a whole new thing, or entirely separate? In the reading- it points out a couple of times, that some artists think video replaced painting and drawing. If that is the case- what replaces video? Is it even a matter of replacing or is it more of an addition? Paintings, drawings, and prints are still valid and valued forms of art. Does that make the argument of replacement moot?
No comments:
Post a Comment