Reading Response 2

e-flux

One thing I realized right away is that Steyerl is right about what happens to an image, if you keep making digital copies of a copy, it degrades and is very poor compared to the original image. I thought Steyerl gave a lot of good detail, which helped me understand what he was trying to say. However, the large amount of detail that Steyerl put into this article also make it very confusing for me. I often had to reread paragraphs but still didn’t really get it. Also, on the first page of the article, it took me until that end of the last paragraph to realize that he was saying that poor images are what films are made of.

2nd reading response

On Video Art -

To me this reading was somewhat hard to follow, by that I mean it was hard to determine what point exactly the author was trying to make. It seemed like he bounced quickly between different subjects, from when and how television came to be, what defines video art, to production costs for editing film. Perhaps it could be my lack of understanding his intent of the piece as a whole, or some of the terminology he used that was foreign to me, but all in all, I had a very hard time comprehending most of this reading as far as what I was supposed to learn or get out of it. One thing however that I did find interesting was the fact that television (or video) some what stemmed from radio during the post World War era, and that the government seemed to control who would be able to "transmit" information via this medium by limiting the general public to access to necessary equiptment financially. They did this by increasing the costs of, or limiting access to things such as video cameras, while making it possible (once again financially) for the general public to afford the recievers for "their" transmissions. I find this interesting, because today there are about 5 major corporations that control the television networks ; Disney, NBC, CBS, Viacom, and I can't remember the last one, who still control the access the general public has to broadcasting their work on-air, which is virtually no access. After reading this article, I realized that this control of the media, and what is broadcasted to us, was being run and censored by the government from the get go.

Reading Response #2

e-flux

This article really goes in depth about poor imaging. I thought this article was very detailed and honestly a little too much. It was very interesting but at the same time boring. I found it fascinating that poor imaging is being used often and is what created cinema and video art. It’s shocking to hear how Humphrey Jennings refused to show clips that had rich imaging. Then again, I do believe that high resolution image can be too powerful and can possibly take away from the film. However, if I had to choose I would definitely want high-resolution instead.

video

I wish this article wasn’t so long and draggy. Even if I found myself skimming through pages, hoping to get to the next page; this article gives a great history of video art and television. I found it interesting that television is what brought video art where it is today. I found to enjoy pgs 162-167 to be more interesting, it made me really think. This article definitely links to the other reading because it talks about videos and the low quality and low budget used in some videos made.

Second Blog Response Post

Video Art: This reading was very dry and straightforward reading but it did make me think that each commerical is a story built into a very short period. Which I never really thought about until reading that sentence, while some are more developed stories then others each of them still have a story in them. I have had many times where I watch a television shows and certain episodes just captivate me and I cannot take my eyes of the television. Stories like that are what make television a must have for nearly every home in America. While when I hear the word video art I more think towards the television side of things than some of the videos I have seen in galleries I still believe that both can be very similar. Each side can have an art to it that the other cannot do.

E-Flux: Now while reading this I was just imagining all the small pixelated images I have seen over the years, especially after reading the part where all images are reshaped, resize and transmitted over and over again all the time losing quality. While reading the Now part, it said that older cinema and video art is what embodies the past. Which is partially true in my opinion but there is also the pictures and videos found on the internet that are in such low quality as well. So while all new videos are in much higher quality it really matters on the person uploading to choose whether they want to have a new age look to it or for a quicker upload speed they sacrifice the quality.

Reading Response02

The "Video Art" reading was a bit of a dry read for me; yet there were somethings that I related with. The fact that a tv screen is compared to a living thing, right there in reality in front of us. I can agree with that, there have been a number of times I've spent the whole day losing track of times as I watched that glorious screen, succumbing myself to her or his glow. If cars and boats can have genders, why not a tv. It's also interesting that television itself follows a social dictate of being both entertainer and salesman. Either by use of the shows that air that makes us laugh, cry, etc; with the commercials that flitter between them enough to say "hello, you should buy this". Another thing, I guess commercials for X-rated films were probably more common back in the day, because I haven't seen any lately; either that or I'm watching the wrong channels. That said tv itself has a structure to it. Most shows for example, follow a set path or plot, like first a problem may be presented, then trials and tribulations and then a resolution. That in itself, reminds me of life itself; so in a sense tv is just mimicking life, or perhaps it's the other way.

The reading about "Poor Image" was kind of interesting. In a way it is true that the more we take an image or any type of video and alter it, change it, resize it, etc; the more the image is distorted from what it originaly was. I mean today it seems we have totally disregarded personal property when it comes to any type of digital media. We see an image we like, we take it, decide to share and then it goes on from there to be seen everywhere. While on the one hand it's good because we can have access to things we might not be able to have access to normally. For ecample, I personally am strapped for cash, so to be able to read manga or watch anime online is great for me. On the other hand it's a negative because sometimes it can be used steal something and then claim that it's yours, when it isn't. In this day and age, we have become a society that shares, sometimes it might even be too much; however, despite that we should still be able to respect others.

Reading Response #2

"These works have become travelers in a digital no-man’s land”. Exactly how I would describe the internet and what happens when someone uploads really anything to the internet under copyright or “ownership” of some sort. That’s how the internet is, is users copying, saving, than uploading the digital copy somewhere else from the original place downloaded. Once the image is saved or copied, the owner of the image has no idea where their image is going. The ideal of internet users is that you’re not stealing something, your borrowing it, showing it off somewhere else. This ideal is what causes images to get copied, saved, upload over and over again and thus get blurred and changed over time. In a way these blurred and copied images kind of become their own accidental art form.

The second reading, “Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium” by David Antin, I found to be to not very understandable as it was in very artsy, nonsensical talk. But it does talk about video art, and my definition of video is really anything that anyone creates. This could be a Youtube video, an image that someone made in photoshop, or an edited photo.

Reading Response #2

Video:

Beginning with the article about video art and that is arguing if video art is actually art. I believe that any video that has been taken the time by an artist to film, is considered art. This article just goes on and on very slowly discussing certain things about television such as live television and commercials that play during you're favorite program. The most interesting topic that really caught my eye was the discussion of how television maintains a continual assertion that it can and does provide an adequate representation of reality, while everyone's experience continually denies it.

E-Flux:

The "poor image" I feel has become something of the past. Everything that we see nowadays is a copy of something or something that has already been altered slightly to make something new. I don't think there is any problem with distorting or altering an image, it brings out creativity and it is somewhat of a brainstorming process. The article also brings up piracy and how people view films with poor quality rather than the sharp quality it is supposed to be presented originally.

Response #2

Video:

I thought that the "Video" article was a bit dry. It defiantly could have been more exciting. The fact that television made a pathway for video art itself is incredible. One interesting aspect of video art is that it does not require the use of actors, dialogue, and also does not necessarily require a plot. I found this interesting as I read because video art does not have to coincide with movies or cinema, but something similar like short films or games. I think that instantly when we think video art we think more along the lines of television. To know that video art has another side that also relates to something like games is amazing.

E-flux:

This article was confusing. While I enjoyed the pictures that went along with the article to help further the points. They way that Steyerl speaks is even more confusing. Although I felt this way, my favorite sections were "Low Resolutions" and "Resurrection". I enjoyed the Low Resolutions because when he was speaking about the DVD's it reminded me of how much more impressive that picture is compared to the old fashion VHS tapes. As for Resurrection, I thought it was interesting how they didn't want to show the images because they were in fact old. I think this goes along with my thoughts on the Low Resolutions and the VHS tapes. This relates back to todays society because, many people would not want to show anything on VHS to a group of people.

Reading Response 2

In Defense of the Poor Image

I can't tell you how many times I have been thankful for the resurfacing of the poor image, and just the poor image in itself. I have seen many videos, old commercials, and old movie spinoffs like the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special that I never even knew existed. Not to mention old experimental film... films that I have watched and gotten ideas from. With the circulation of these images, they have risen from the graves that modern media has put them in, and once again become useful to the world; even more useful than most of mass-media. I have not been fully able to understand why picture quality is such a commodity these days. I enjoy a film or image based on it's success in execution. Personally I have found that HD and Blu-ray movies are comical to watch. To me the quality is so good that it ruins the fantasy or storytelling aspect of the film and attempts to interject itself into my personal world, like I am just watching an event unfold outside of my window. I may just be an advocate of minimalism and lo-fi recording, so maybe I am slightly biased. I also enjoyed reading the part about the poor image and it's relationship with remix. This generation expresses quite a bit artistically through the avenues of remix. Works such as Bangarang by Pogo, which is composed almost entirely from sound clips from the movie Hook, do films more justice and recreate the feelings of the films more than any corporate trailer could. (In my opinion) Anyways, the fact of the matter is, these types of artistic expressions owe a lot, if not everything, to the poor image.

Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium

This guy went of on such amazingly long tangents. I followed it for quite some time but ultimately ended up skimming near the end. I enjoyed reading a lot of this as I really enjoy film art and video art. I thought it presented a clearly the evolution of film today and how television has become extremely scripted and attempts to give us the illusion of live events. I thought his comparison of commercials with television programs, and how they have become increasingly similar was interesting as well. He talked a lot about how television seems to be all about taking the viewer out of the picture. With every technological increase they are taking input away from the viewer and putting control into their hands. He stated somewhere that television is all about control now. This somewhat relates to the last article where Steyeri stated that quality was a commodity. If something were to go wrong the blame would fall upon the producer. The producer wants a good reputation and good ratings, therefore he takes all controls of the program and removes any chance for spontaneity or disaster, therefore leaving us with an illusion of reality. The truth of the matter is, that people are entertained by goofups and the like. I mean look at Youtube, just type in something about a reporter screwing up his lines and you will find hundreds of videos, many of which never made it to the air. People are looking for these videos though, because that is part of the reality which has been taken from us in modern television.

Video and E-flux

Video:
This article "Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium" , by David Antin, brought up a question right from the start - what defines "video art." For some this question is as simple as what is night, but the answer is dependent, just as with day or night, on ones reference frame. After all is night not also day somewhere else? Do some look at paint arbitrarily splattered on a canvas and retort with a "That is not art?" It seems many would define it as an interactive video similar to Wipe Cycle created by Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider. Such a definition is aggravating in so much that it is vague yet constraining. It may ostracize a video for not having a physical or viewable interaction yet at the same time commend, for example, a work out video that has the viewer stretch out. With all forms of art it is far to wide a spectrum to label video art as a film that tries to convert the "receiver into a transmitter."

On the assumption that video art requires the conversion of a receiver into a transmitter one could reasonable deduce that video games are the pinnacle example. This, however, is an entirely separate argument in the media world, but does a video game do anything else? It literally sends information to the receiver who then, via controller and interface, returns a response to complete a circuit. That in itself is far more interactive than Wipe Cycle, especially excluding the possible narrative and world within a game.

e-flux:

When I first started reading this article, by Hito Steyerl, I was confused. All I was reading was a contradiction of the title "In Defense of the Poor Image." After all statements such as "The poor image is an illicit fifth-generation bastard of an original image"is pretty unambiguous. I was amazed to hear about people like Humphrey Jennings and how he would not show his images because they where to rich for the standard DVD player. I was not aware there was such a loathing group out there for lesser digital quality. The argument, within reason, just does not seem rectifiable. I would understand the ranting if it were more so just complaining about piracy, but sections blame privatization on poor images as if they were an affront to art (which they apparently do believe is so).

The rise of digital free market, as Hito Steyerl later says, can be an amazing thing. People of all ages can acquire the files to watch, share, or alter in there own creative way. One line in Espinosa’s manifesto that I found interesting was "..,imperfect cinema diminishes the distinctions between author and audience and merges life and art." He may be speaking about imperfect cinema in a negative way but it is interesting that he feels "resolutely compromised" pieces can merge life and art. He seems to be saying that the degraded quality allows more room for the viewers creativity to get into the piece.

e-Flux and Video: The Distinctive Features of the Medium response

Video -
This article I thought was a little bit wordy for my tastes. There were times where I was skimming the paragraphs just to get to the next subject the author would talk about. I think it could have been condensed, but that's just me. I did read through it though, and it was a good article in respect to providing a history of video art and its origins from television. It id wasn't for television, video art would probably be vastly different than it is today. With television eventually came film and video. It was discussed in the article that the early cameras and transmission devices were expensive and priced out of the common persons range; only high up company executives could afford them. This naturally allowed the television and video industry to be created in the image of the corporations, and which led to a corporation controlled industry. It was until the prices of recording and editing equipment dropped and were available to the consumers domain that video art started to take its hold. It was then that such videos as the mentioned John Baldessari's tape, "Some Words I Mispronounce" and Robert Morris' "Exchange." An interesting line from the reading defined a little part of what video art is: "Videotapes are boring if you demand them to be something else. But they're not judged boring by comparison with paintings or sculpture, they're judged boring in comparison with television, which for the last twenty years has set the standard of video time." However, video art shares the same technologies and viewing means as television, but what makes it video art is the way that these artists present it. They can parody the television system or make a statement by showing that they can do all the same things television can do, and even what television can't do. It provides a medium for people to see what can't be seen on television; most of time, things that are "out of the box."

e-Flux -
This article I thought was pretty interesting. It took a section or two for me to get what Hito Steyerl was referring to with "the Poor Image." The way he talked in metaphors was a little bit confusing, but I worked through it once i knew what he was referring too. This article goes well with the Video one becuase it talks about the resurrection of old video art and films as Poor Images. They are refered to as Poor Images because they are in fact old films, back when recording eqiupment was available to the public. These poor images were avant-garde, non-commercial works, that are not conformed to today's standards of media and film. They are also works that have lost their "supporting framework of national culture." Times have changed, and so have the film and videos. Not many people still support the old cameras and artists and the works that they produced, hence the lose of its supporting framework. In the article a man named Juan Garcia Espinosa wrote a manifesto called, "For an Imperfect Cinema." In it he described perfect cinema as "technically and artiscally masterful...reactionary cinema." He describes imperfect cinema as "one that strives to overcome the divisions of labor within class society." Imperfect cinema "merges art with life and science, blurring the distinction between consumer and producer." He also predicts that the public access of video technology will produce "an art of the people." Juan could not have been more correct in his prediction. The imperfect cinema that he refers to is what the author of this article refers to as Poor Images; those films that are made by artists outside the confines of the corporate dominated film industry. An art of the people, not an art of the show.

Around 'N' About

group up

Group “Up”
Participants:
Steven Taddei

Brittney Spain

Angad Mathur

Shot list:

1. Street level

2. Land in a plane!

3. Ghosting up the stairs

4. 8^th Floor

5. Flying into a plane!

6. Walking up the stairs

To The Right

Shot List:
Ashley walking past artwork
OJ Simpson Car Chase - 0:01-0:05 (approx.)
V for Vendetta - 0:35-0:40 (approx.)
Bleach fight scene - 7:35-7:42 (approx.)
Super Mario Bros speed run - 0:11-0:16 (approx.)

Group "Right"
Ashley Jackson
Myssy Hoffower
Chris Prunotto

Montage Assignment

Nancy, Bill, Dave

Group Left:
Charles Cole
Ken DeRivera
Kourt Kellen

--

Live Camera Taxi Cab
Camera Import

Skateboarding Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQzUsTFqtW0

Slow Motion Missile Dispatch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIBcQaZzr4w

Evolution- Le parkour (Parkour Run)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjQxIRWZu0c

Backwards Mario
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZzYrgHEz0