Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Reading 2 Response Questions

1. Kate Horsfield discusses how early video manipulation was difficult and highly unpredictable. Is this unpredictability an obstacle in art or does it contribute to the allure of it?

2. Horsfield states that programs like Final Cut Pro have allowed the tools for making digital art to reach the masses. Is the world becoming over-saturated with video art? Will great video artists be appreciated when anyone with a computer can produce it?

1 comment:

  1. For the spectator, I think being unpredictable is 'always' an allure'. Ha. For the artist, it can be problematic. For one, you seem to have less faith in your work at times. If you will ever get it done or if it will financially be worth it. Sometimes for the more avant garde or crazier artists, the very idea of unpredictability 'is' the content. I guess performatively speaking. Putting the body in some kind of crisis or unpredictable moment creates interest to the viewer, and then interest for the artist because the body is something the artist always has complete control over.

    That is a good second question too. Almost harkens back to a little Walter Benjamin. With the distance lowered between point A and point B, will the value of the art itself (video art) still be as it was before? My faith behind that is that society has a way of fitering out good art and bad art. It is hard to believe at times, but original work still exists out there. When it happens, society will know it, and give it its due reward. While everything else being imitated over and over again will gradually be out of focus.

    ReplyDelete