ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Michael Szpakowski is an artist, composer, writer and educator.
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
aesthetics
Text from Kenko, 'Essays in Idleness', translated by Donald Keene.
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0"><param name=movie value=http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/aesthetics/text.swf><param name=quality value="best"><param name=menu value=false><param name=wmode value=transparent><embed src="http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/aesthetics/text.swf" quality=best wmode=transparent type="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
Music Videos are the new Video Art
Hello -this was a reply to the article by Caitlin Jones on the main page - I left a comment there but it then appears here as if I've started a new thread...
It seems a slightly confusing way of doing things..is there no way the text of the original article could appear at the head of the thread, for clarity's sake?
michael
It seems a slightly confusing way of doing things..is there no way the text of the original article could appear at the head of the thread, for clarity's sake?
michael
Music Videos are the new Video Art
Is it true that most video art is now multi screen and that single channel video had a 'heyday' when it was massively & generally available & is now in sad decline?
Anecdotally, even in galleries, I'd suggest not, though how one could accurately survey this I don't know.
Certainly on the web there's currently a fantastic flowering of what is effectively the single channel art video,
enough to sustain a daily posting on dvblog, one in four of which approximately would come under a strict category of "art video" (and for every piece we show there's loads more we don't).
Secondly, is it the case that because two things simply *look* alike they fulfill the
same social or artistic or technical function? -this seems an extraordinarily superficial way of assessing
things - I could carve a comb out of a carrot & it might fool you at a distance but it would make a lousy comb.
The relationship between the music video and the art video is actually something quite old fashioned - in one direction it's design or craft appropriating fine art notions and techniques.
In the other it's fine art breathing in new life from the energy & raw vitality of popular culture, something Bach, for example, would have easily recognised - see the end of the Goldberg Variations.
But..two *profoundly* different sets of practices...
Of course the artist likes to sell art but no-one stands over her second guessing what will be popular then instructing her ( maybe the cop in her head does, but that usually makes for poor art & it's a hit and miss affair) - which is precisely what happens to the practitioners of present day popular culture once the business end gets its vampire teeth in ( which is why so many popular music careers start brilliantly and end with a long , sad tailing off)
Exactly the same case applies to TV commercials, the dichotomy there being even sharper because of the even more nakedly -if that is possible- commercial intent of the ads.
This isn't to advocate ignoring either music vids or ads, but lets not have our arms twisted by over excited curators into swallowing frameworks that are glib, attractive but ultimately utterly misleading and damaging.
Anecdotally, even in galleries, I'd suggest not, though how one could accurately survey this I don't know.
Certainly on the web there's currently a fantastic flowering of what is effectively the single channel art video,
enough to sustain a daily posting on dvblog, one in four of which approximately would come under a strict category of "art video" (and for every piece we show there's loads more we don't).
Secondly, is it the case that because two things simply *look* alike they fulfill the
same social or artistic or technical function? -this seems an extraordinarily superficial way of assessing
things - I could carve a comb out of a carrot & it might fool you at a distance but it would make a lousy comb.
The relationship between the music video and the art video is actually something quite old fashioned - in one direction it's design or craft appropriating fine art notions and techniques.
In the other it's fine art breathing in new life from the energy & raw vitality of popular culture, something Bach, for example, would have easily recognised - see the end of the Goldberg Variations.
But..two *profoundly* different sets of practices...
Of course the artist likes to sell art but no-one stands over her second guessing what will be popular then instructing her ( maybe the cop in her head does, but that usually makes for poor art & it's a hit and miss affair) - which is precisely what happens to the practitioners of present day popular culture once the business end gets its vampire teeth in ( which is why so many popular music careers start brilliantly and end with a long , sad tailing off)
Exactly the same case applies to TV commercials, the dichotomy there being even sharper because of the even more nakedly -if that is possible- commercial intent of the ads.
This isn't to advocate ignoring either music vids or ads, but lets not have our arms twisted by over excited curators into swallowing frameworks that are glib, attractive but ultimately utterly misleading and damaging.