Contents |
In discussing new media technologies, focus is often placed on the introduction of new technologies and facilitations, e.g. radio, television, personal computers and the Internet etc. However, in the case of video, applications of the medium, other than originally expected, have added to related technological advancements to re-qualify it as a new media.
Video cameras, until 1965, “existed only as enormously expensive, cumbersome television-camera-and-broadcast apparatus restricted to use within tightly controlled broadcast transmission facilities� (Lovejoy, 2004: 94), but were revolutionised in 1965 by the introduction of Sony Corporation’s Portapak. The Portapak was significant in that it was "relatively cheap and its operation required little technical skill" (Perrée, 1988: 5), which granted everyday users access to the technology. Also, its "ease of operation in the studio or outdoors without the need for special crews or operators" (Lovejoy, 2004: 95) served only to make it more attractive to potential video artists.
Certain individuals saw video to be an end to the quest for a democratised medium. This was originally what television promised to be, with early live transmissions showing the potential power of the viewer in terms of content. However, the economics of the industry soon revealed the true nature of television as a medium, when it was obvious that "[t]he viewer became 'the product of TV'" (Perrée, 1988: 3).
A product of the avant-garde, technology-embracing mentality, video art experienced rapid early growth and acceptance. Pioneering works, such as Nam June Paik's Magnet TV (1965) were experimental and exhibited a certain curiosity about the medium and what it had to offer. Subsequent works such as Global Groove (1973) had evolved to also include real-life images.
The discourse of video, differentiated from television, did not have intrinsic ties to commercial culture, and thus its appeal to artists who employ the medium in their practice. However, video art does not automatically negate the commercial connotations associated with television. Being vaguely similar, i.e. being a produced work for display on a screen for an audience, with sometimes little to demarcate the boundaries of commercial or otherwise, "this is often perceived as compromising their [video art's] artistic claims" (Decker-Phillips, 1998: 8)
Beyond discussing the integrity of video as a valid medium for artistic practice, video offered excitingly unprecedented characteristics for a communicative medium. Apart from being "dispersible, reproducible, ephemeral, theatrical, and interdisciplinary" (Birringer, 1998: 153):
which invited a new wave of artists to experiment and present in the medium.
Nam June Paik and Wolf Vostell pioneered the use of video in artistic practice, "us[ing] the medium creatively against itself, against the institutions of art, and against commercial culture" (Birringer, 1998: 153).
Paik, "the artist most identified with the transformation of video and television into new art forms" (Hanhardt, 2000: 4) is probably the most significant proponent of video in artistic practice. Interestingly enough, Paik preferred not to use the term 'video art' but 'electronic television' instead (Birringer, 1998: 152).
A significant issue dividing video artists concerns the definition of video art, primarily regarding the differentiation between video art and documentation of performance. Joan Jonas, a dancer at the Judson Church, "stopped performing in the mid-seventies but continued to exhibit installations about earlier or fictive performances, such as State Sets (1976) and Upside Down and Backwards (1979-82)" (Birringer, 1998: 156).
The argument against the documentation of performance being considered video art, finds issue with the site of the art per se- i.e. 'art in video', in comparison to 'art on video'.
The most recent obvious technological advancements involve the computers Internet. While video-streaming on the Internet has proven to be an option, the infrastructure (e.g. broadband) required to sustain high quality video is not yet an affordable option for the typical consumer. Given the rate of recent technological advancement, it is not too ludicrous to expect this technology to become mainstream within a few years. As such, it is not unlikely that artists will choose to take advantage of the potential exposure possibilities of this new medium.
--Ryan Lee 00:22, 10 Sep 2004 (EST)
