Notes from class:

Concept of video art

• Commercial TV negates it. waited until streaming was available for a ‘revolution’ to begin
• Unrequited expressionism.
• Free of form

Experimental film – TV Lab (70s) New York
Glitch art

As film equipment became portable and more available to the public artistry in the medium became more common.  DIY revolution.

• Nam June Paik. – essential component in the conception of video art/inspiring others.

Video piano – visual synthesizer. Using music to inflect visual distortions and patterns. (old school windows media player)

James bond intro stylisation almost  – first possible mainstream use of video art in film? ‘Dr. No’ (1962) predates Paik – possible form of inspiration.

• New experience for audiences. Hype train prior to the movie?

Heavily utilised by MTV – abstract.

A Clockwork Orange – indoctrination/torture scene?

QUESTIONS:
Is there a reason for why video art has not had a major resurgence (merely a zeitgeist)? Seen some in music videos, particularly in the 90’s and 2000’s, but nothing overtly mainstream now. Additionally, filming equipment and any recording device is far more common place now, with a camera in everyone’s pocket. Is it because it has all been explored, said and done, or is the inspiration missing? – spark to ignite the flame of popularity.
To what extent does this exist? How broad is the umbrella of video art? – Soviet Montage – manipulating editing to specific ‘beats’ to coerce a specific reaction from the audience.

Modern renditions?, ‘r/surrealmemes’, YTP’s, steamed hams, (muse, knights of Cydonia film clip), music video seems to remain the most dominant form – but that may only be due to there’s a distraction from the video. Not a clashing medium, but only accompanying the song, rarely appreciated alone –take away the music, much of which the song is in time to, and much of the video’s artistry can be lost. (lest it’s made purely from the concept of the song and made in relation/to accompany the song itself.

 

Whilst video art is unique unto itself and differs greatly from almost every other aspect of film I believe it has suffered from having such an early conception; with the ideas overshooting what was available technologically. By the time technology caught up the ‘genre’ of it was almost burnt out. It’s still perfectly viable artistically and expressional-wise to create video art now, even quite different, but I don’t think it will ever return en masse and have a resurgence such as the readings suggest. It fell victim to its own time, burning brightly but quickly, stuck in a zeitgeist.
only enough space for a handful of major video artists to exist simultaneously. Can’t exist in the spotlight, and so in order for it to be popular it would have to be heavily saturated. (not exactly a bandwagon everyone can jump on)

I hope I’m wrong though.