David Antin's essay "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" focuses on the definition of video art. Antin includes a wide variety of examples and how the term can be defined. He clearly states that the current video art is especially important because it will affect future media(148). I like the fact that Antin stresses the"sending" and"receiving" of media,and that this is the basis of social relations. Another important point Antin makes is the significance of information presentation. The way the receiver sees what is on the television and how it is portrayed, influences his or her reaction. The main points I found include that the most fundamental property of television is its social organization. This includes, once again the presentation, the style of the performances, and editing. Another interesting point Antin makes is the fact that the audience loves it when there is a production error or when a comedian messes up. Stasheff and Bretz concluded that the audience enjoys watching the character getting out of the situation. Antin later on discusses the different types of medium, including news, contest shows, and commercials. I could relate to the examples and explanations he gave about commercials because he stated that someone can watch a commercial for about 30 seconds, but completely forget what was being promoted. I always watch commercials, but sometimes forget what the point of it was, or what it was trying to sell. Finally,l the author emphasizes the need to edit and the importance of transitions. Overall, the essay was a good introduction to the main aspects of media.
For an essay written to describe video art, I was surprised to see that it was not so much a description of what video art is, but rather a description of what it isn't. Because a majority of the essay focuses on how television works, it is hard to decipher what might constitute as "video art," since the concept of "if it isn't A, then it must be B," cannot be directly applied to this case. It is true that, by expecting video art to be like a television show, one might be sorely disappointed or find the art form mundane and uninteresting; I experienced the same bewildered detachment toward the video art we were shown in class. However, since the term is still relatively new, and the form yet to be solidified (if it should ever be able to), I do no exactly know what to expect upon the viewing of video art, and therefore cannot help but to compare it to things I might see on television.
On a similar note, this essay brought an interesting point about the business of television to my attention: the fact that commercials and programs alike were structured in a way that made them almost one and the same. Though having been dimly aware of the time splits that programs utilize, I never really thought too deeply about it. David Antin made me more aware of this fact; it also made me more conscious of just how effective commercials and televisions are. It is no wonder, then, that people spend so much of their day sitting in front of a television every day.
The first week reading “Video: The distinctive features of the Medium” discusses the temporal and spatial characteristics of motion pictures as we know it today. It discussed its evolution from mere means of “transmitters-receivers” to the entities that came to be known as “senders-receivers” and their inter-dependence. It introduced how the medium was seen as a source of income for the media corporations and paved the idea for live television. In the later part of the article it discussed the medium from the viewpoint of the audience. It references fictional shows, reality shows and stand-up comedy but doesn’t discuss how the medium experimented with content it broadcasted. It discussed different kinds of feature presentations along with their dedicated time-slots, focus, shots, editing and many other properties that we relate to the idiot box. However, in such lengthy article, it did not effectively discuss how these characteristics developed or came into being as we know it today. For instance, it discusses commercials and its time-slots but doesn’t highlight who came up with this idea and what was the impact of the first commercial that was broadcasted. Thus, the article would have been more interesting to read if it discussed how the features of television came into being.
In David Antin’s article, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, he attempts to define video art. To develop his argument, he offers an in-depth history of television and how it “haunts all exhibitions of video art” (148). I agreed with his statement regarding television that “choice is in the hands of the sender” (150). Even today, this remains true as we see the morals and standards of society mold to the expectations put forth by the media. Furthermore, news broadcasts are becoming increasingly distorted before reaching the public.
Antin’s connection between video art and television was quite interesting to follow; the intimate control that large corporations extended over the production was quite extensive, making it nearly impossible for individuals to buy equipment for filming purposes. Those who did purchase the equipment were limited by the abilities for taping and editing. However, a remarkable correlation between television and video art became clear when video art began to rise because it was modeled around television, either “parodying the television system” (163) or simply bypassing its capabilities (163).
After reading the first article, I understood the similarities and differences between a film, a video, and television. Interestingly, television became the foundation where many individuals began to consider films and videos. In the article, it states that "if anything has defined the formal and technical properties of the video medium, it is the television industry"(149). The article emphasizes on the techiques used by directors, and editors in order to make their video art more appealing to their audience, such as different editing techniques, the difference in time-slots, as well as ways to achieve image smoothness. But, it does not thoroughly explain the origin of these techniques. However, throughout the article, the commerical aspect of the article captured my attention the most. I found it interesting to read the many examples that Antin provided and relate it to my own personal experience. For example, commercials can last up to 30 or 60 seconds long, and within that time period, after watching several commericals I tend to forget the very first commercial that I watched. As appealing as the product is, there are simply too many commercial to remember all of them.
“Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin is a very informative piece about what "video art" actually is and how it is perceived by both artists and audience. To try to describe what video art really is, Antin dedicates a large portion of his article on television and it influences the film world and the audience consumed by it. Antin presents this idea that there is a transmitter and a receiver relationship when it comes to television, which is very prevalent in regards to commercials and advertisements on tv. After the integration of video tape editing, it was easy to manipulate how the viewing audience would perceive televised material and how they would react to it. Antin makes it clear that the television industry has always been highly commercialized and that there is a generally accepted way of presenting content. The most interesting point made in the article, in my opinion, regarded how artists responded to television. Antin said that they responded by mocking the telvision system in the form of a parody or by proving that they can produce even better material without the use of expensive resources.
The article Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium by David Antin is very dense and very informative. Reading this article opened mind eyes and educated me about the video industry and the technical aspects involved within it. What I found particularly interesting what that television broadcasts were both similar and different than radio broadcasts. Many traditions back with the radio were passed on to television. An example can be seen with commercials and sponsorships. Radio stations usually had only one sponsor and play the same commercial over and over again. However, in televisions, there were many sponsors for the same station and the station played multiple different commercials. David Antin also discusses how television is in a way, the thing to watch for the “truth”. Because in film, for the most part, or planned and manipulated. Antin continues with the process of editing and the processes a show or film goes through to make it more entertaining for the audiences. And I must say that this article is very detailed on how the processes take place with things such as editing and getting equipment. Antin does a very nice job at trying to explain of what “Video Art” is.
When watching television, it isn't difficult to notice the time structures of the commercials. They have designated sections for advertisments before, after and in between almost every program on T.V. There seems to be a clear difference in the ads and the program, but this article made me think that they may not be so different in structure as well as intent. The foundation of T.V. was built the instantaneous ability of radio brodcasting and corporate marketing. This article explores the differences between T.V. and video art. Even though television closely resembles film in style,the form of film came though in video art. The only way for artists were able to comment on T.V. was through video art since they could not get easy access to brodcasting. This aspect of video art always seemed to comment on the rigid format and dishonest messages dissiminated through T.V. I think the structures in this article have had a lasting affect on audiences today. We have become aware of these structures and now the ad companies have adapted their techniques as well. Now, companies will try to be ironic and poke fun at their tactics in order to sell a product. Or companies will have to be more discreet by hiding the advertisments within the actual program or production since people can skip commercials (ex. tivo) or find T.V. shows on the internet.
Just like the birth of any revolutionary form of media, it is understandable that the television industry was once viewed as a strange. Television becomes familiar nowadays, but it has a hard developed time in past century. Let’s not forget that nowadays we can watch films at home. The brief distinction that the article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” made between television and film causes some thought of development. David Antin points out the filming and television industry shares more similarities.He mentions its impossible to refine discuss the difference between film and video since television is the best representation of Video Art; it has taken part in education, communication, entertainment, etc. From the standpoint of 2011, television appears to be a “public” motion picture, which is in the form of a video being played in a public area in front of a large crowd. Television has the element of having its programs produced with the general public as target audience in mind, while allowing the audiences to view them in different locations.Video Art comes to everywhere through television.
According to David Antin's essay, television and film have several uses, ranging from informing viewers, to entertaining audiences, to appealing to consumers, and much more. Ultimately, he describes the many aspects of film (actors, audiences, viewers, broadcasting stations, etc.) as receivers and transmitters. As a matter of fact, he seems to take a jab at how broadcasting companies (transmitters) are limiting what viewers (receivers) can and cannot see on television, for they are limiting our ability with high transmission prices and thus restricting us from experiencing the full effect of television in society. He then goes on to say that although we as viewers may see the film and television industry as some complex and complicated entity, it is actually quite simple, and like most other things in this world, is dictated quite simply by the amount of time and money the production calls for. In reading this essay, I'd say I have to agree with all of Antin's notions he makes. It is true that we are being taken advantage of with high television service prices, as well as the fact that even though the movie industry does require a lot of effort, determination, and work; everything can be boiled down to time and money. I found it especially intriguing when the author described how viewers respond to commercials- in that they may only be a few seconds long and are simple in understanding and complexity, but yet we forget what they were about as soon as they are over. I can't begin to say how many times this has happened to me, that I forget what I was just watching, but perhaps it's because I'm entranced by the magical and mystical powers of television.
In his article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, David Antin is mainly Discussing the relationship and differences among video, television and film and how television work as a information “sender” in our society. In his opinion, the television is patterned on commercial radio, and it is “in the hands of the powerful radio networks, which constitute essentially a government-protected, private monopoly” as far as I am concerned, this problem is still existing in today’s media industry. Freedom of speech is one of the appealing concepts in today’s society. However, a large portion of the mass media is still controlled by the government and a few sponsors, although these controlling are less visible than before. Commercials today are in similar patterns today indeed. I watch the Errol Morris commercials and found out that his commercials share similar cutting and narrating, some of the commercials even share the same shots. But I can remember most of his commercials after watching them for once due to his creativity ideas in these ads.
In “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin, he discusses the similarities and differences between television and film. In the beginning of the article, he states that television is the product of commercial radio. He continues to discuss how television and it's components were "developed entirely for their convince and profit". I think it is interesting how, at this point, television and the commercial media converge to create a new stylized way of shooting video in order to benefit the commercial needs. He continues to discuss how the framing and establishing shots of television are created in such a way to give information to the viewer as fast as possible since "air-time" is expensive. This is where, in my opinion, places the distinction of video art production and television production. Since art is essentially this "freedom" of production, television places limitations due to the financial restrictions, making art production within the commercial television sphere essentially nonexistent.
In the article "Video: The Distinctive Feature of the Medium" we are presented with several ideas concerning the video media industry and how it relates to video art. The most pressing issue presented is that video art is suffering at the moment because of how television dominates and dictates the industry. An interesting point that I hadn't thought much of was just how influential the commercial system is in not only bringing in revenue but in how tv shows themselves are structured. Tv shows are organized just like advertisements are now. We have become so accustom to this fluid style narrative, that we tend to believe that everything happens at once. This is even more apparent by our appreciation for mistakes on live TV. We like to see that the people we are watching are real people.
I think a point that would have been interesting to discuss in this article is how easily we are able to convey a meaning or idea through the medium. He talks about the educational uses of video through news and such, but not so much about how just a simple narrative can spark so many ideas. Then again I think it was correct to focus on the toll creating such a piece takes financially. We can all assume just how much a movie or such would cost, but we never know just how much each layer of editing adds to the cost. I personally feel that some of the ideas/emotions conveyed are a bit extreme, but I don't really consider myself in an adequate position to judge that as of yet.
David Antin’s essay, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, describes video art by exploring the formal and technical aspects of the medium through the history of television. Commercial television roots from commercial radio. Naturally, the powerful radio networks, as the largest costumer in the electronics industry, essentially had monopolized government-protected control over the new medium, so components were designed and priced for these large corporations. The deep affiliation between radio and television resulted in radio practices and concepts carried into the television industry. For example, Antin emphasized the concepts of “sending” and “receiving” which were derived from social relations. Originally, the “sender” and “receiver” were only relative to the transmission of information like broadcasting news. Only powerful radio networks had access to the airwaves, which was determined by the asymmetric power relation of the more expensive transmission dominating reception. But now it seems the underlying meanings of “sending” and “receiving” have evolved into the actors and the audience. But most importantly, Antin points out that the technical aspects of television like editing and especially its ability to warp time. With these aspects in mind, television, in the hands of an artist, becomes a powerful medium.
In David Antin's essay the relation between video art and video media is explored. The most important aspect of the essay is how video media has a some what negative impact on video art. The reason being is the television' industries looming shadow over all of video's forms. The reason television has this negative effect if the fact that it creates a huge restriction on video's means to the public. No one average individual can broadcast video to the masses only television corporations have the monetary means to do so. This is not because the means of broadcasting are more technically complex than receiving but, rather they are controlled by these big busynesses and have a government protected monopoly over it. Thus people had no choices in what to watch really only the choices that were given to them by the companies that owned the means of broadcasting witch were the same companies that owned radio broadcasting before. This caused people to either chose to watch what the limited video choices on TV or not watch at all. In the end people even began modeling their lives after what TV shows showed their lives to be. This was not an art but a form of control. This is part of Antin's explanation on why video as an art has a lot to overcome since it hasn't been used as such in the past and it also is very new since the means of video production have been kept from most people out side of the big industries for so long. I do find it interesting how Antin brings up how there was no place for people to exchange videos with each other freely like people could exchange conversation over the phone. I feel that is on its way to being something of the past since videos are shared over the internet by the millions. Many people have the ability to make a video on the web and people all over the world have them all to chose from.
The article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium,” acts as an interesting meditative piece at the formational time of a new medium and explores what video art’s purpose is both as a format and as a new style. David Antin characterizes the medium of video art in relation to other dominant media forms at the time. He approaches this by exploring the influences of television on the medium and television’s connection in shared technology and viewing. Antin is realistic about the dominant influences of television on the medium of video art and the limitations created by that, but describes how artists have taken that influence as a means of exploration and expression. He presents the idea that what distinguishes video art from television as a medium is said exploration of “television’s fundamental equivocation and mannerism”, either through means of parody or by equaling and sometimes surpassing television’s purpose(163). Really, it is television that remains limited in the commercial sense. It’s form cannot be further explored because of it’s roots in the form of segmentation. Despite the fact that video art will always be perceived with the lens of television’s influence, this limit is what gives video art it’s independence as a medium. It rises out of it’s limitations.
Antin’s "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" I felt depicted his view and mainly dislike of the television industry in comparison to video. His article explains the imbalance of video art and television. I found his article very interesting in how he focused on exposing the television industry’s dominance. He explains how the whole television system is designed to constantly generate profit. “Yet while the most fundamental property of television is its social organization, this is manifested most clearly in its money metric, which applies to every aspect of the medium, determining the tempo of its representations and the style of the performances, as well as the visual syntax of its editing” (151) I especially liked how he explained the TV industry division of commercial and program time from seconds to minutes. He further explains the lack of distinction between commercials and programs and how you could watch different commercials and find it difficult to recall what items were being promoted. Overall I thought it was a very interesting essay taking in account technology of that time period and how far advanced we’ve come with video and television art and production.
Before reading the article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin, I was quite ignorant to the differences between film and television. Although I could clearly distinguish one from the other because of their distinction formats, but now I am beginning to understand how and why this is. The first point that stood out to me was that television inherited its segmented format from radio. It also inherited the power hierarchy of transmission – transmission being more expensive than reception (151) – ensuring that the broadcasting oligopoly of the radio era remains in tact. It’s interesting that not much has changed in the world of television regarding broadcasting ownership. Even though we may have hundreds more channels to choose from now, there is still an overt oligopoly that remains in control of the broadcasting. Another interesting point that Antin makes which stood out to me was how the medium maintains a continual assertion that it can and does provide an adequate representation of reality, while everyone’s experience continually denies it (153). It is no secret that television is no longer an immediate telecast; however, often the viewers are still given tidbits of a perceived spontaneous or unrehearsed event within the program to maintain the illusion of immediacy. This is not something I was consciously aware of although I have seen it countless times. I wonder why I have never questioned this seemingly obvious method of falsification before. Nevertheless, I now can see more clearly how television and film have developed the distinct differences between them thanks to this article.
The article contrasts TV and film. David Antin talks about how television has a "special unit domain", specifically because transmission is more expensive than reception. The power is asymmetric in that the taker dominates the communication. He also states that there is a limitation of the possibilities of a video communication genre, and these limits itself have become the very thing which artists have been aiming to adress in their works. Antin also writes about the earlier aspects of the industry including the economics and genre, and the evolving aspect of television. He also talks about commercials and programs that share segments with commercials, like news programs or talk shows. Using these programs he illustrates the point that the line between commercial and programs are somewhat a blur. Overall, I thought the article was interesting based on its aspect on art and film.
David Antin's article, "Video: the Distinctive Features of the Medium," explores many different aspects of television and how it is designed for an audience. Antin first talks about 2 discourses that have emerged as reactions to video art years ago. One openly welcomes the new medium and makes the most of it, the other looks for what makes the television unique from, say, a painting. Antin then goes on to talk about the two parties involved with art, the receivers (the audience) and the transmitters (the broadcasters), and the differences of them between television and other communication methods. The article also talks about timing in the show, and how the time of a show may seem short or long to viewers, but in reality, it is just the right amount of time to send its message. This and the viewer's short attention span is the reason why commercial ads are usually around 30 seconds long. Next, he talks about the art of the shot and obtaining a perfect frame to match the desired mood.
I have honestly never thought about how television is created for the viewer, yet I found myself agreeing with most of the article. Perhaps I was aware of my short attention span during commercials or how I was choosing to accept the message being broadcast subconsciously. Now, thanks to this article, I realize how little control I have over television as a viewer.
In David Antin's "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium", he comprehensively demonstrates the definition of "Video Art" in several different perspectives. He uses the development of video art as a guideline when expatiate his point of view with listing great pieces from other artists. Even more noteworthy, he uses comparison several times to help us understand the theories that are obscure by people most of the time, such as television and video, commercials and programs, etc. These are the highlights of the whole article. In the end, it's quite interesting to me how he attaches some successful low-budget examples of videos. They, to a certain extent, bring video art, a seem-to-be highly technical and costly genre of art, back to a common level which is a fascinating and magical to express the inner passion of the artists.
David Antin’s 1987 article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” provides an enlightnening view on the evolution of video art from film and television. Important to note when reading the article is the fact that it was written in 1987, a mere ten years after the birth of video art, which the author points out himself. The fact that this article is more than twenty years old speaks much of the evolution of media since that time. Many of the norms of the time which artists were beginning to break are commonly broken today, while others remain the same. One difference that stood out to me was the availability of production means. Antin speaks of how inherently exclusive the television world was due to control of industry by producers and the government. This was done by making receivers affordable to the average person while keeping the means of production such as editing and cameras high out of reach. This firmly established the role of the average person as consumer, and the government/producers as entertainer. This norm was broken with the advent of affordable video technology, as artists began purchasing cameras and editing systems of their own. They intentionally took the conventions of television and broke them. Rather than create ‘entertaining’ videos, their videos were commonly long and ‘boring’ causing the viewer to reflect on the abnormality of the format, which would in turn cause them to reconsider what the norms were. This stood out to me in comparison with the media world today. With the advent of the internet, and in particular YouTube, media has taken a new direction. It has been flooded by countless videos of inexperienced people who are neither artists nor producers, and this has become the norm. In the sense that these videos are not ‘professional’ they are like video art, but in other ways they are still bound by the same conventions of television. This is apparent in their short, thrill-seeking nature. Most videos are very short and are meant to give a good laugh, and be moved on from, much like television ads and programs. These videos today escape another convention of television which Antin discusses. This is the ‘authority’ of the cameraman, by which everything that happens in the video was controlled by and meant to happen. Many of today’s videos are happenstance and luck, and no false pretention of control is made. This is contrary to live broadcasting, in which even live events must be made to seem under control of the producer.
In David Antin's article, "Video: The Distinctive features of the Medium" he explains how video and television are two completely different entities and the effect television has on our lives. In the past, we were very limited in our selection of video entertainment. We were essentially limited to government controlled television, where the viewer had little freedom in what they could see. This ties into the relation between video as an art and television. Since video was such an exclusive and expensive medium at the time, video art had yet to emerge as a common form of expression as it has in the past 5-10 years. Now that cameras and video are commonplace, the use of video as art has blossomed and various works are now more attainable to the common person.
After reading Distinctive Features of the Medium, by David Antin, I found it very interesting how he referred to television as this more older and powerful enemy that would be unwise for film makers to despise, also because television happens to be its' frightful parent. David Antin explains why this is true by bringing up the history of television and how it took control of the medium post-World War. With powerful radio networks, which were protected by the government and turned into private monopolies. He then later explains how when film came into the picture, cameras and transmission systems were designed and priced out of the reach of anything but corporate ownership. And picture quality and transmission signal were regulated by the standards of the government which would ensure the control would remain in the industry. I find it very interesting how the government controls and determines the outcomes of so many things in this country, I guess it's true for many other things as well.
Antin's essay elucidates the importance of video media, as he argues its ability to influence future forms of media. The text delves into the characteristics of time and space in video media today. Video media began to evolve into an entity defined not only by those who created it, but also by the reactions of those who viewed it. Antin touches upon the power of large corporations accessing the ability to control and limit the production of release of video media; creating barriers in regards to individuals utilizing media production instruments. All in all, the article portrays this argument that the masses look to television and commercials as a basis to judge and view other forms of video art and media. Antin states that the different techniques of editing, time slots, etc. are used to make videos more appetizing to the pubic, but he fails to informatively discuss these techniques and strategies.
David Antin's article, "Video Culture", explains the discrepancies between video art and television, that these two forms of media root from the same tools however are on contrasting ends of the spectrum. Television caters to an audience conditioned to consume the image as a form of instant gratification, whether through a thrilling cop and robber chase or a slap stick tv sitcom--television, Antin stresses, is government-controlled and is very limiting. Resulting is our expectations of what is to be projected to us on the screen, and when we are exposed to video art, ironically, we may find it uncomfortable and uninteresting to watch when it is otherwise. Video art, unlike television, is not a passive form of media. Artists who create these forms of media encourages us to question what is on the screen, to disapprove of it, to leave feeling unsettled and compare it to our receptiveness with television. For instance, from last night's lecture, we watched Phyllis Baldino's series of shorts featuring commonplace objects used for absurd purposes. His intention is for the audience to question what is on the screen, which Prof. Trigilio quips, the "interrupted act". Baldino's short films thwart any kind of continuity, i.e. we enter the short when the individual has already begun drilling the metal piece, and leave the frame as s/he begins to utilize the finished absurd product. While television limits our potential to question what is on the screen because it feeds us comforting, expected images we've long been conditioned to consume, video art demands active participation and expects us to challenge and criticize what is on the screen, not simply chew fluff about the plot and the characters.
Although David Antin's essay illuminates different aspects of "video art" or what is understood as "video art" I found his explanation of the place of television as the beginnings of video art to be very interesting. Although what is referred to as video art today is usually very distinct from television today, it goes to say that they both have their own place. As David Antin had said, television had an instantaneous factor to it as well as a "perceived reality" facet. Even though this medium may not be taken strictly as video art, it had spawned the idea of what is today defined as video art. It was the artists that wanted to depart from the usual instant, real, and "coming to you live" characteristics of television in a sense that destroyed the bridge between the sender, which is the artist, and the receiver, the audience. This disruption of reality is seemingly accepted as video art. This realization has made it easier to accept the intended work of an artist as it is rather than what I want tp perceive as David Antin had mentioned within his essay.
Note to TA Ela: This is just a reminder that I had received my reader late due to it being out of stock at the library and therefore am writing this comment now.
I think that David Antin is a keen observer of how the different formats of motion picture affect our perceptions of video art. He mentions television specifically as a great influence, which I agree with fully. People used to the fast-paced narratives of most TV shows are more likely to be impatient with stories that take longer to develop, and outright intolerant of "video art" that has no specific story at all. Personally, I found much of the video art I saw to be uncomfortably long, and even aggravating in its violations of the conventions set by TV and cinema. I felt duped at the lack of storyline, and felt as if I was grasping for meaning that simply wasn't there.
Yet, for all its initially irritating qualities, there is something liberating about video art. It challenges the status quo between transmitter and receiver as mentioned by Antin, and explores new perspectives not seen anywhere else. As I slowly become accustomed to this bewildering new medium, I appreciate its subtleties and hidden meaning more and more. While I probably won't ever enjoy video art the same way I do TV and cinema, I am beginning to understand what it means to let video art be itself.
In his article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium,“ David Antin assesses the influence that the highly established television industry has had on the (then) newly emerging artistic medium, video art. Antin contends that there is a general consensus that video art is boring, attributing this sentiment to the (purported) tendency of comparing video art to television, as opposed than more traditional art forms such as paintings or sculptures. Antin argues that the television has become the comparative standard out of sheer influence, pointing out the television industry is vastly more developed (then newly emerging video art) and has become culturally rooted into society. The author sees the function of television as a delicately crafted, highly rule-based commercial medium--a one way transmission, broadcast from corporate monolith to disillusioned, insatiable consumer. Elaborates on this notion through an analysis of time structure of television, pointing out that television is delivered in unitary increments; 30 second commercials, 30 minute programs, and very little stylistic differences between. Both program and commercial are engineered to maintain the erratic and highly volatile attention span of the viewer. Therefore the viewer requires constant visually pleasing stimuli, which in turn calls for extravagant production.
The discourse regarding the impact and history that TV has on video art was enlightening. I would like to explore the comment under D2 on page 148. I am not clear on the description of video as a comparison to film: with video you look into the source of light, with film you look with the source of light. In television, the source of light and the information are one.
In David Antin's article, Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium, he illustrates the difference between film and television (which at first was the same thing) and how they influenced artists whom they're now called as "visual artists". I thought it was very interesting and agreeable when Antin points out how television is made to please the audience so they would watch their programs or shows. Television is not film in which it's usually made from visual artists whose goal is to convey their personal, own message to the viewers. However, it is the reflection in which audience WANTS to see so it is less of an art, but rather more "dramatic" than what something actually displays.
David Antin's article "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" examines the roots of video and what made video art what it is. He starts with saying that television is the fundamental root of video, and explores the beginnings of video art through television. I found it quite interesting when he puts television in terms of the transmitter, which would be the person conveying what they want to present, and the receiver, which is the artists audience. Continuing on this point, the receiver is not always there and only the receiver gets to choose whether or not they want to view the piece. In contrast, David Antin makes the claim that television is designed for the transmitter to instead make that decision.
He also made the statement that television also takes in aspects of film, photography, and radio all in once which was another interesting point. This observation is actually very apparent within television as film and photography exists in both the defining shots within a piece and shots that draw attention to the motion of the film. Not only that but the way television is always connected to its receiver is a way it relates to the radio as they both are intruding in this aspect.
David Antin's essay "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" focuses on the definition of video art. Antin includes a wide variety of examples and how the term can be defined. He clearly states that the current video art is especially important because it will affect future media(148). I like the fact that Antin stresses the"sending" and"receiving" of media,and that this is the basis of social relations. Another important point Antin makes is the significance of information presentation. The way the receiver sees what is on the television and how it is portrayed, influences his or her reaction. The main points I found include that the most fundamental property of television is its social organization. This includes, once again the presentation, the style of the performances, and editing. Another interesting point Antin makes is the fact that the audience loves it when there is a production error or when a comedian messes up. Stasheff and Bretz concluded that the audience enjoys watching the character getting out of the situation. Antin later on discusses the different types of medium, including news, contest shows, and commercials. I could relate to the examples and explanations he gave about commercials because he stated that someone can watch a commercial for about 30 seconds, but completely forget what was being promoted. I always watch commercials, but sometimes forget what the point of it was, or what it was trying to sell. Finally,l the author emphasizes the need to edit and the importance of transitions. Overall, the essay was a good introduction to the main aspects of media.
ReplyDeleteFor an essay written to describe video art, I was surprised to see that it was not so much a description of what video art is, but rather a description of what it isn't. Because a majority of the essay focuses on how television works, it is hard to decipher what might constitute as "video art," since the concept of "if it isn't A, then it must be B," cannot be directly applied to this case. It is true that, by expecting video art to be like a television show, one might be sorely disappointed or find the art form mundane and uninteresting; I experienced the same bewildered detachment toward the video art we were shown in class. However, since the term is still relatively new, and the form yet to be solidified (if it should ever be able to), I do no exactly know what to expect upon the viewing of video art, and therefore cannot help but to compare it to things I might see on television.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, this essay brought an interesting point about the business of television to my attention: the fact that commercials and programs alike were structured in a way that made them almost one and the same. Though having been dimly aware of the time splits that programs utilize, I never really thought too deeply about it. David Antin made me more aware of this fact; it also made me more conscious of just how effective commercials and televisions are. It is no wonder, then, that people spend so much of their day sitting in front of a television every day.
The first week reading “Video: The distinctive features of the Medium” discusses the temporal and spatial characteristics of motion pictures as we know it today. It discussed its evolution from mere means of “transmitters-receivers” to the entities that came to be known as “senders-receivers” and their inter-dependence. It introduced how the medium was seen as a source of income for the media corporations and paved the idea for live television. In the later part of the article it discussed the medium from the viewpoint of the audience. It references fictional shows, reality shows and stand-up comedy but doesn’t discuss how the medium experimented with content it broadcasted. It discussed different kinds of feature presentations along with their dedicated time-slots, focus, shots, editing and many other properties that we relate to the idiot box. However, in such lengthy article, it did not effectively discuss how these characteristics developed or came into being as we know it today. For instance, it discusses commercials and its time-slots but doesn’t highlight who came up with this idea and what was the impact of the first commercial that was broadcasted. Thus, the article would have been more interesting to read if it discussed how the features of television came into being.
ReplyDeleteIn David Antin’s article, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, he attempts to define video art. To develop his argument, he offers an in-depth history of television and how it “haunts all exhibitions of video art” (148). I agreed with his statement regarding television that “choice is in the hands of the sender” (150). Even today, this remains true as we see the morals and standards of society mold to the expectations put forth by the media. Furthermore, news broadcasts are becoming increasingly distorted before reaching the public.
ReplyDeleteAntin’s connection between video art and television was quite interesting to follow; the intimate control that large corporations extended over the production was quite extensive, making it nearly impossible for individuals to buy equipment for filming purposes. Those who did purchase the equipment were limited by the abilities for taping and editing. However, a remarkable correlation between television and video art became clear when video art began to rise because it was modeled around television, either “parodying the television system” (163) or simply bypassing its capabilities (163).
After reading the first article, I understood the similarities and differences between a film, a video, and television. Interestingly, television became the foundation where many individuals began to consider films and videos. In the article, it states that "if anything has defined the formal and technical properties of the video medium, it is the television industry"(149). The article emphasizes on the techiques used by directors, and editors in order to make their video art more appealing to their audience, such as different editing techniques, the difference in time-slots, as well as ways to achieve image smoothness. But, it does not thoroughly explain the origin of these techniques. However, throughout the article, the commerical aspect of the article captured my attention the most. I found it interesting to read the many examples that Antin provided and relate it to my own personal experience. For example, commercials can last up to 30 or 60 seconds long, and within that time period, after watching several commericals I tend to forget the very first commercial that I watched. As appealing as the product is, there are simply too many commercial to remember all of them.
ReplyDelete“Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin is a very informative piece about what "video art" actually is and how it is perceived by both artists and audience. To try to describe what video art really is, Antin dedicates a large portion of his article on television and it influences the film world and the audience consumed by it. Antin presents this idea that there is a transmitter and a receiver relationship when it comes to television, which is very prevalent in regards to commercials and advertisements on tv. After the integration of video tape editing, it was easy to manipulate how the viewing audience would perceive televised material and how they would react to it. Antin makes it clear that the television industry has always been highly commercialized and that there is a generally accepted way of presenting content. The most interesting point made in the article, in my opinion, regarded how artists responded to television. Antin said that they responded by mocking the telvision system in the form of a parody or by proving that they can produce even better material without the use of expensive resources.
ReplyDeleteThe article Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium by David Antin is very dense and very informative. Reading this article opened mind eyes and educated me about the video industry and the technical aspects involved within it. What I found particularly interesting what that television broadcasts were both similar and different than radio broadcasts. Many traditions back with the radio were passed on to television. An example can be seen with commercials and sponsorships. Radio stations usually had only one sponsor and play the same commercial over and over again. However, in televisions, there were many sponsors for the same station and the station played multiple different commercials. David Antin also discusses how television is in a way, the thing to watch for the “truth”. Because in film, for the most part, or planned and manipulated. Antin continues with the process of editing and the processes a show or film goes through to make it more entertaining for the audiences. And I must say that this article is very detailed on how the processes take place with things such as editing and getting equipment. Antin does a very nice job at trying to explain of what “Video Art” is.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching television, it isn't difficult to notice the time structures of the commercials. They have designated sections for advertisments before, after and in between almost every program on T.V. There seems to be a clear difference in the ads and the program, but this article made me think that they may not be so different in structure as well as intent. The foundation of T.V. was built the instantaneous ability of radio brodcasting and corporate marketing. This article explores the differences between T.V. and video art. Even though television closely resembles film in style,the form of film came though in video art. The only way for artists were able to comment on T.V. was through video art since they could not get easy access to brodcasting. This aspect of video art always seemed to comment on the rigid format and dishonest messages dissiminated through T.V. I think the structures in this article have had a lasting affect on audiences today. We have become aware of these structures and now the ad companies have adapted their techniques as well. Now, companies will try to be ironic and poke fun at their tactics in order to sell a product. Or companies will have to be more discreet by hiding the advertisments within the actual program or production since people can skip commercials (ex. tivo) or find T.V. shows on the internet.
ReplyDeleteJust like the birth of any revolutionary form of media, it is understandable that the television industry was once viewed as a strange. Television becomes familiar nowadays, but it has a hard developed time in past century. Let’s not forget that nowadays we can watch films at home.
ReplyDeleteThe brief distinction that the article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” made between television and film causes some thought of development. David Antin points out the filming and television industry shares more similarities.He mentions its impossible to refine discuss the difference between film and video since television is the best representation of Video Art; it has taken part in education, communication, entertainment, etc.
From the standpoint of 2011, television appears to be a “public” motion picture, which is in the form of a video being played in a public area in front of a large crowd. Television has the element of having its programs produced with the general public as target audience in mind, while allowing the audiences to view them in different locations.Video Art comes to everywhere through television.
According to David Antin's essay, television and film have several uses, ranging from informing viewers, to entertaining audiences, to appealing to consumers, and much more. Ultimately, he describes the many aspects of film (actors, audiences, viewers, broadcasting stations, etc.) as receivers and transmitters. As a matter of fact, he seems to take a jab at how broadcasting companies (transmitters) are limiting what viewers (receivers) can and cannot see on television, for they are limiting our ability with high transmission prices and thus restricting us from experiencing the full effect of television in society. He then goes on to say that although we as viewers may see the film and television industry as some complex and complicated entity, it is actually quite simple, and like most other things in this world, is dictated quite simply by the amount of time and money the production calls for. In reading this essay, I'd say I have to agree with all of Antin's notions he makes. It is true that we are being taken advantage of with high television service prices, as well as the fact that even though the movie industry does require a lot of effort, determination, and work; everything can be boiled down to time and money. I found it especially intriguing when the author described how viewers respond to commercials- in that they may only be a few seconds long and are simple in understanding and complexity, but yet we forget what they were about as soon as they are over. I can't begin to say how many times this has happened to me, that I forget what I was just watching, but perhaps it's because I'm entranced by the magical and mystical powers of television.
ReplyDeleteIn his article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, David Antin is mainly Discussing the relationship and differences among video, television and film and how television work as a information “sender” in our society. In his opinion, the television is patterned on commercial radio, and it is “in the hands of the powerful radio networks, which constitute essentially a government-protected, private monopoly” as far as I am concerned, this problem is still existing in today’s media industry. Freedom of speech is one of the appealing concepts in today’s society. However, a large portion of the mass media is still controlled by the government and a few sponsors, although these controlling are less visible than before. Commercials today are in similar patterns today indeed. I watch the Errol Morris commercials and found out that his commercials share similar cutting and narrating, some of the commercials even share the same shots. But I can remember most of his commercials after watching them for once due to his creativity ideas in these ads.
ReplyDeleteIn “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin, he discusses the similarities and differences between television and film. In the beginning of the article, he states that television is the product of commercial radio. He continues to discuss how television and it's components were "developed entirely for their convince and profit". I think it is interesting how, at this point, television and the commercial media converge to create a new stylized way of shooting video in order to benefit the commercial needs. He continues to discuss how the framing and establishing shots of television are created in such a way to give information to the viewer as fast as possible since "air-time" is expensive. This is where, in my opinion, places the distinction of video art production and television production. Since art is essentially this "freedom" of production, television places limitations due to the financial restrictions, making art production within the commercial television sphere essentially nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Video: The Distinctive Feature of the Medium" we are presented with several ideas concerning the video media industry and how it relates to video art. The most pressing issue presented is that video art is suffering at the moment because of how television dominates and dictates the industry. An interesting point that I hadn't thought much of was just how influential the commercial system is in not only bringing in revenue but in how tv shows themselves are structured. Tv shows are organized just like advertisements are now. We have become so accustom to this fluid style narrative, that we tend to believe that everything happens at once. This is even more apparent by our appreciation for mistakes on live TV. We like to see that the people we are watching are real people.
ReplyDeleteI think a point that would have been interesting to discuss in this article is how easily we are able to convey a meaning or idea through the medium. He talks about the educational uses of video through news and such, but not so much about how just a simple narrative can spark so many ideas. Then again I think it was correct to focus on the toll creating such a piece takes financially. We can all assume just how much a movie or such would cost, but we never know just how much each layer of editing adds to the cost. I personally feel that some of the ideas/emotions conveyed are a bit extreme, but I don't really consider myself in an adequate position to judge that as of yet.
David Antin’s essay, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium”, describes video art by exploring the formal and technical aspects of the medium through the history of television. Commercial television roots from commercial radio. Naturally, the powerful radio networks, as the largest costumer in the electronics industry, essentially had monopolized government-protected control over the new medium, so components were designed and priced for these large corporations. The deep affiliation between radio and television resulted in radio practices and concepts carried into the television industry. For example, Antin emphasized the concepts of “sending” and “receiving” which were derived from social relations. Originally, the “sender” and “receiver” were only relative to the transmission of information like broadcasting news. Only powerful radio networks had access to the airwaves, which was determined by the asymmetric power relation of the more expensive transmission dominating reception. But now it seems the underlying meanings of “sending” and “receiving” have evolved into the actors and the audience. But most importantly, Antin points out that the technical aspects of television like editing and especially its ability to warp time. With these aspects in mind, television, in the hands of an artist, becomes a powerful medium.
ReplyDeleteIn David Antin's essay the relation between video art and video media is explored. The most important aspect of the essay is how video media has a some what negative impact on video art. The reason being is the television' industries looming shadow over all of video's forms. The reason television has this negative effect if the fact that it creates a huge restriction on video's means to the public. No one average individual can broadcast video to the masses only television corporations have the monetary means to do so. This is not because the means of broadcasting are more technically complex than receiving but, rather they are controlled by these big busynesses and have a government protected monopoly over it. Thus people had no choices in what to watch really only the choices that were given to them by the companies that owned the means of broadcasting witch were the same companies that owned radio broadcasting before. This caused people to either chose to watch what the limited video choices on TV or not watch at all. In the end people even began modeling their lives after what TV shows showed their lives to be. This was not an art but a form of control. This is part of Antin's explanation on why video as an art has a lot to overcome since it hasn't been used as such in the past and it also is very new since the means of video production have been kept from most people out side of the big industries for so long. I do find it interesting how Antin brings up how there was no place for people to exchange videos with each other freely like people could exchange conversation over the phone. I feel that is on its way to being something of the past since videos are shared over the internet by the millions. Many people have the ability to make a video on the web and people all over the world have them all to chose from.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium,” acts as an interesting meditative piece at the formational time of a new medium and explores what video art’s purpose is both as a format and as a new style. David Antin characterizes the medium of video art in relation to other dominant media forms at the time. He approaches this by exploring the influences of television on the medium and television’s connection in shared technology and viewing. Antin is realistic about the dominant influences of television on the medium of video art and the limitations created by that, but describes how artists have taken that influence as a means of exploration and expression. He presents the idea that what distinguishes video art from television as a medium is said exploration of “television’s fundamental equivocation and mannerism”, either through means of parody or by equaling and sometimes surpassing television’s purpose(163). Really, it is television that remains limited in the commercial sense. It’s form cannot be further explored because of it’s roots in the form of segmentation. Despite the fact that video art will always be perceived with the lens of television’s influence, this limit is what gives video art it’s independence as a medium. It rises out of it’s limitations.
ReplyDeleteAntin’s "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" I felt depicted his view and mainly dislike of the television industry in comparison to video. His article explains the imbalance of video art and television. I found his article very interesting in how he focused on exposing the television industry’s dominance. He explains how the whole television system is designed to constantly generate profit. “Yet while the most fundamental property of television is its social organization, this is manifested most clearly in its money metric, which applies to every aspect of the medium, determining the tempo of its representations and the style of the performances, as well as the visual syntax of its editing” (151) I especially liked how he explained the TV industry division of commercial and program time from seconds to minutes. He further explains the lack of distinction between commercials and programs and how you could watch different commercials and find it difficult to recall what items were being promoted. Overall I thought it was a very interesting essay taking in account technology of that time period and how far advanced we’ve come with video and television art and production.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading the article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin, I was quite ignorant to the differences between film and television. Although I could clearly distinguish one from the other because of their distinction formats, but now I am beginning to understand how and why this is. The first point that stood out to me was that television inherited its segmented format from radio. It also inherited the power hierarchy of transmission – transmission being more expensive than reception (151) – ensuring that the broadcasting oligopoly of the radio era remains in tact. It’s interesting that not much has changed in the world of television regarding broadcasting ownership. Even though we may have hundreds more channels to choose from now, there is still an overt oligopoly that remains in control of the broadcasting.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point that Antin makes which stood out to me was how the medium maintains a continual assertion that it can and does provide an adequate representation of reality, while everyone’s experience continually denies it (153). It is no secret that television is no longer an immediate telecast; however, often the viewers are still given tidbits of a perceived spontaneous or unrehearsed event within the program to maintain the illusion of immediacy. This is not something I was consciously aware of although I have seen it countless times. I wonder why I have never questioned this seemingly obvious method of falsification before. Nevertheless, I now can see more clearly how television and film have developed the distinct differences between them thanks to this article.
The article contrasts TV and film. David Antin talks about how television has a "special unit domain", specifically because transmission is more expensive than reception. The power is asymmetric in that the taker dominates the communication. He also states that there is a limitation of the possibilities of a video communication genre, and these limits itself have become the very thing which artists have been aiming to adress in their works. Antin also writes about the earlier aspects of the industry including the economics and genre, and the evolving aspect of television. He also talks about commercials and programs that share segments with commercials, like news programs or talk shows. Using these programs he illustrates the point that the line between commercial and programs are somewhat a blur. Overall, I thought the article was interesting based on its aspect on art and film.
ReplyDeleteDavid Antin's article, "Video: the Distinctive Features of the Medium," explores many different aspects of television and how it is designed for an audience. Antin first talks about 2 discourses that have emerged as reactions to video art years ago. One openly welcomes the new medium and makes the most of it, the other looks for what makes the television unique from, say, a painting. Antin then goes on to talk about the two parties involved with art, the receivers (the audience) and the transmitters (the broadcasters), and the differences of them between television and other communication methods. The article also talks about timing in the show, and how the time of a show may seem short or long to viewers, but in reality, it is just the right amount of time to send its message. This and the viewer's short attention span is the reason why commercial ads are usually around 30 seconds long. Next, he talks about the art of the shot and obtaining a perfect frame to match the desired mood.
ReplyDeleteI have honestly never thought about how television is created for the viewer, yet I found myself agreeing with most of the article. Perhaps I was aware of my short attention span during commercials or how I was choosing to accept the message being broadcast subconsciously. Now, thanks to this article, I realize how little control I have over television as a viewer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn David Antin's "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium", he comprehensively demonstrates the definition of "Video Art" in several different perspectives. He uses the development of video art as a guideline when expatiate his point of view with listing great pieces from other artists. Even more noteworthy, he uses comparison several times to help us understand the theories that are obscure by people most of the time, such as television and video, commercials and programs, etc. These are the highlights of the whole article. In the end, it's quite interesting to me how he attaches some successful low-budget examples of videos. They, to a certain extent, bring video art, a seem-to-be highly technical and costly genre of art, back to a common level which is a fascinating and magical to express the inner passion of the artists.
ReplyDeleteDavid Antin’s 1987 article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” provides an enlightnening view on the evolution of video art from film and television. Important to note when reading the article is the fact that it was written in 1987, a mere ten years after the birth of video art, which the author points out himself. The fact that this article is more than twenty years old speaks much of the evolution of media since that time. Many of the norms of the time which artists were beginning to break are commonly broken today, while others remain the same. One difference that stood out to me was the availability of production means. Antin speaks of how inherently exclusive the television world was due to control of industry by producers and the government. This was done by making receivers affordable to the average person while keeping the means of production such as editing and cameras high out of reach. This firmly established the role of the average person as consumer, and the government/producers as entertainer. This norm was broken with the advent of affordable video technology, as artists began purchasing cameras and editing systems of their own. They intentionally took the conventions of television and broke them. Rather than create ‘entertaining’ videos, their videos were commonly long and ‘boring’ causing the viewer to reflect on the abnormality of the format, which would in turn cause them to reconsider what the norms were. This stood out to me in comparison with the media world today. With the advent of the internet, and in particular YouTube, media has taken a new direction. It has been flooded by countless videos of inexperienced people who are neither artists nor producers, and this has become the norm. In the sense that these videos are not ‘professional’ they are like video art, but in other ways they are still bound by the same conventions of television. This is apparent in their short, thrill-seeking nature. Most videos are very short and are meant to give a good laugh, and be moved on from, much like television ads and programs. These videos today escape another convention of television which Antin discusses. This is the ‘authority’ of the cameraman, by which everything that happens in the video was controlled by and meant to happen. Many of today’s videos are happenstance and luck, and no false pretention of control is made. This is contrary to live broadcasting, in which even live events must be made to seem under control of the producer.
ReplyDeleteIn David Antin's article, "Video: The Distinctive features of the Medium" he explains how video and television are two completely different entities and the effect television has on our lives. In the past, we were very limited in our selection of video entertainment. We were essentially limited to government controlled television, where the viewer had little freedom in what they could see. This ties into the relation between video as an art and television. Since video was such an exclusive and expensive medium at the time, video art had yet to emerge as a common form of expression as it has in the past 5-10 years. Now that cameras and video are commonplace, the use of video as art has blossomed and various works are now more attainable to the common person.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Distinctive Features of the Medium, by David Antin, I found it very interesting how he referred to television as this more older and powerful enemy that would be unwise for film makers to despise, also because television happens to be its' frightful parent. David Antin explains why this is true by bringing up the history of television and how it took control of the medium post-World War. With powerful radio networks, which were protected by the government and turned into private monopolies. He then later explains how when film came into the picture, cameras and transmission systems were designed and priced out of the reach of anything but corporate ownership. And picture quality and transmission signal were regulated by the standards of the government which would ensure the control would remain in the industry.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting how the government controls and determines the outcomes of so many things in this country, I guess it's true for many other things as well.
Antin's essay elucidates the importance of video media, as he argues its ability to influence future forms of media. The text delves into the characteristics of time and space in video media today. Video media began to evolve into an entity defined not only by those who created it, but also by the reactions of those who viewed it. Antin touches upon the power of large corporations accessing the ability to control and limit the production of release of video media; creating barriers in regards to individuals utilizing media production instruments. All in all, the article portrays this argument that the masses look to television and commercials as a basis to judge and view other forms of video art and media. Antin states that the different techniques of editing, time slots, etc. are used to make videos more appetizing to the pubic, but he fails to informatively discuss these techniques and strategies.
ReplyDeleteDavid Antin's article, "Video Culture", explains the discrepancies between video art and television, that these two forms of media root from the same tools however are on contrasting ends of the spectrum. Television caters to an audience conditioned to consume the image as a form of instant gratification, whether through a thrilling cop and robber chase or a slap stick tv sitcom--television, Antin stresses, is government-controlled and is very limiting. Resulting is our expectations of what is to be projected to us on the screen, and when we are exposed to video art, ironically, we may find it uncomfortable and uninteresting to watch when it is otherwise. Video art, unlike television, is not a passive form of media. Artists who create these forms of media encourages us to question what is on the screen, to disapprove of it, to leave feeling unsettled and compare it to our receptiveness with television. For instance, from last night's lecture, we watched Phyllis Baldino's series of shorts featuring commonplace objects used for absurd purposes. His intention is for the audience to question what is on the screen, which Prof. Trigilio quips, the "interrupted act". Baldino's short films thwart any kind of continuity, i.e. we enter the short when the individual has already begun drilling the metal piece, and leave the frame as s/he begins to utilize the finished absurd product. While television limits our potential to question what is on the screen because it feeds us comforting, expected images we've long been conditioned to consume, video art demands active participation and expects us to challenge and criticize what is on the screen, not simply chew fluff about the plot and the characters.
ReplyDeleteAlthough David Antin's essay illuminates different aspects of "video art" or what is understood as "video art" I found his explanation of the place of television as the beginnings of video art to be very interesting. Although what is referred to as video art today is usually very distinct from television today, it goes to say that they both have their own place. As David Antin had said, television had an instantaneous factor to it as well as a "perceived reality" facet. Even though this medium may not be taken strictly as video art, it had spawned the idea of what is today defined as video art. It was the artists that wanted to depart from the usual instant, real, and "coming to you live" characteristics of television in a sense that destroyed the bridge between the sender, which is the artist, and the receiver, the audience. This disruption of reality is seemingly accepted as video art. This realization has made it easier to accept the intended work of an artist as it is rather than what I want tp perceive as David Antin had mentioned within his essay.
ReplyDeleteNote to TA Ela:
This is just a reminder that I had received my reader late due to it being out of stock at the library and therefore am writing this comment now.
I think that David Antin is a keen observer of how the different formats of motion picture affect our perceptions of video art. He mentions television specifically as a great influence, which I agree with fully. People used to the fast-paced narratives of most TV shows are more likely to be impatient with stories that take longer to develop, and outright intolerant of "video art" that has no specific story at all. Personally, I found much of the video art I saw to be uncomfortably long, and even aggravating in its violations of the conventions set by TV and cinema. I felt duped at the lack of storyline, and felt as if I was grasping for meaning that simply wasn't there.
ReplyDeleteYet, for all its initially irritating qualities, there is something liberating about video art. It challenges the status quo between transmitter and receiver as mentioned by Antin, and explores new perspectives not seen anywhere else. As I slowly become accustomed to this bewildering new medium, I appreciate its subtleties and hidden meaning more and more. While I probably won't ever enjoy video art the same way I do TV and cinema, I am beginning to understand what it means to let video art be itself.
In his article “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium,“ David Antin assesses the influence that the highly established television industry has had on the (then) newly emerging artistic medium, video art. Antin contends that there is a general consensus that video art is boring, attributing this sentiment to the (purported) tendency of comparing video art to television, as opposed than more traditional art forms such as paintings or sculptures. Antin argues that the television has become the comparative standard out of sheer influence, pointing out the television industry is vastly more developed (then newly emerging video art) and has become culturally rooted into society. The author sees the function of television as a delicately crafted, highly rule-based commercial medium--a one way transmission, broadcast from corporate monolith to disillusioned, insatiable consumer. Elaborates on this notion through an analysis of time structure of television, pointing out that television is delivered in unitary increments; 30 second commercials, 30 minute programs, and very little stylistic differences between. Both program and commercial are engineered to maintain the erratic and highly volatile attention span of the viewer. Therefore the viewer requires constant visually pleasing stimuli, which in turn calls for extravagant production.
ReplyDeleteThe discourse regarding the impact and history that TV has on video art was enlightening. I would like to explore the comment under D2 on page 148. I am not clear on the description of video as a comparison to film: with video you look into the source of light, with film you look with the source of light. In television, the source of light and the information are one.
ReplyDeleteIn David Antin's article, Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium, he illustrates the difference between film and television (which at first was the same thing) and how they influenced artists whom they're now called as "visual artists".
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting and agreeable when Antin points out how television is made to please the audience so they would watch their programs or shows. Television is not film in which it's usually made from visual artists whose goal is to convey their personal, own message to the viewers. However, it is the reflection in which audience WANTS to see so it is less of an art, but rather more "dramatic" than what something actually displays.
David Antin's article "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" examines the roots of video and what made video art what it is. He starts with saying that television is the fundamental root of video, and explores the beginnings of video art through television. I found it quite interesting when he puts television in terms of the transmitter, which would be the person conveying what they want to present, and the receiver, which is the artists audience. Continuing on this point, the receiver is not always there and only the receiver gets to choose whether or not they want to view the piece. In contrast, David Antin makes the claim that television is designed for the transmitter to instead make that decision.
ReplyDeleteHe also made the statement that television also takes in aspects of film, photography, and radio all in once which was another interesting point. This observation is actually very apparent within television as film and photography exists in both the defining shots within a piece and shots that draw attention to the motion of the film. Not only that but the way television is always connected to its receiver is a way it relates to the radio as they both are intruding in this aspect.