Community Discussions
Explore the latest discussions and community conversations related to this domain.
Where to see video art?
Main Post:
Yeah, in person, at exhibitions and/or screenings. But you know. Besides the usual streaming websites (ubu/mubi/dis) where else do you look for stuff? I read around that for some stuff there are torrents out there but nowadays I barely download anything anymore so I'm not even sure where to look for them.
Top Comment: Electronic arts intermix https://www.eai.org/ Or the internet archive
Which are the most famous video art artworks?
Main Post:
And where can I see or read about them?
Top Comment: The Cremaster Cycle by Matthew Barney.
how do you make money as a video artist
Main Post:
I’m currently a senior in art school and first went in with wanting to be in the film industry, now i’m more of an experimental filmmaker. took a couple of art theory and history classes as a side interest and decided i’m more interested in the art industry. I would love to continue my career in video art but my only concern is how have video artist like Pat O’Neill or Bruce Connor gained profit from making experimental films? I’ve had works be shown in small galleries and theatre’s but nobody has actually taught me how to make money off it other than commercials and NFTs, which are not my thing. Really interested in learning how the business side of all this works. If it’s any help, I’m currently based in Chicago. Any resources in this topic or articles where this is discussed?
Top Comment: Typically you need a day job unless you have a rich family who willingly give you money. Even apparently successful artists have day jobs. The only ones I know who don't work have literally never had a job in their lives due to rich families. Don't let this discourage you though - keep making work, amazing things happen!
Whats your favorite video\tv installations art?
Main Post:
I'm currently working on my personal project about relationship between man and television and I'm willing to expand my visual knowledge on history of modern media art. Please, could you share with me some of your favourite video art \ tv installations\ performances?
I'm particularly actively looking for performances and art projects featuring broadcast signal intrusion. Have there ever been cases in history where television has been hijacked by artists?
Top Comment: Everything Nan June Paik
Finding video art online?
Main Post:
I've been looking for a video on and off for years: Answer Me (2008) by Anri Sala.
Here is the artist talking about it: https://vimeo.com/154828419 -- his talking about it has always made me want to see it but every time I do my brief internet search I come up short. Best I can find is someone's video recording of the video on YouTube.
I'm aware of the Video Data Bank via SAIC but it seems their collection is limited. Are there any other resources for finding video art online?
Top Comment:
check ubu.com yet?
Any suggestions for digital video artists to check out?
Main Post:
So I’m in a class rn that’s working through how to write music for visual media and our next project requires us to submit a segment of a “digitally generated video work,” and as I’m primarily a musician/composer I’m kind of at a loss as to where I should look. Ideally I’d like something/someone whose work is very spacious and somewhat minimal but I’m open to hearing about any of your favorite artists in this space! Thanks!
Top Comment: Daniel Crooks built a robotic camera dolly and used an excessive amount of motion tracking to make it transcend three dimensional space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FrOoxz71Zg Norimichi Hirakawa does stuff with data and cosmology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEe9TRcwoZY Adam Faramaway is kind of obsessed with bathing and hygiene products: https://www.adhamfaramawy.com/work/videos/ This guy wrote a crude machine vision program to remove cars from video footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LudBS3bS4 Demoscene graphics are pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imquk_3oFf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jziQBWQxvok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnjIMd3kVf4 Pilotredsun makes animations that feel like Lynchian fragments of 1990s point and click adventure games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P52mGNLNJ1g
Any tips for making art videos?
Main Post:
Since the American quarantine is likely to last at least a few more months, I figured it's a good time to try pursuing a dream I've had since I was 12: making art youtube videos. I do traditional art, so my plan would be to film myself drawing in real time and then commentate over it in post.
Only problem is... I pretty much know nothing about video-making. I don't know how to film, how to edit, and I don't know what kind of equipment I'd need (I assume just a mic and a camera, maybe a tripod so I can angle the camera down towards the paper?)
I was wondering if there were any artists on here that also film their process? If so, any advice for someone who wants to start doing the same?
Top Comment: Hey! I currently make art videos on YouTube. You can see some here . Don't ever let gear hold you back. I've made that mistake. If you have a decent phone you can take some pretty good video with that. Audio is SUPER important though. Sometimes I do voiceovers with a cheap lapel mic and my phone. Works pretty well. I have a desk with a shelf and I often prop my phone or iPad on the shelf with some resourceful diy to record top down. Good lighting does wonders for any camera too. My advice is to start with what you got and slowly invest after research and some experience making videos. Only you can really decide what you need and what set up will work best for you.
Any good contemporary video art resources?
Main Post: Any good contemporary video art resources?
Top Comment:
[Have fun] (http://www.ubu.com/film/)
Film vs Video Art: Defining a Medium
Main Post:
So last night I watched Samsara (2011), a so-called "documentary" that has since made my brain race uncontrollably over the distinction in the title of this post. I put the term "documentary" in quotes, because to call this film a documentary does not even begin to explain the depth and significance of its format. Samsara is un-narrated travelogue, shot in 25 countries over the course of 5 years. It uses nothing but music and gorgeous 7mm film visuals to explore themes of spirituality and the human soul, searching in both the dirtiest, most wretched squalor and in the world's most holy places. Some shots are staged, others candid, and a few even make the leap into surrealism. Samsara is not so much a documentary as it is a guided meditation, bringing the viewer through both related and contrasting images that are often captured halfway across the world from one another. Regardless of artistic statement, the film is beautiful, and is a must-see for anyone who appreciates excellent cinematography.
What has stuck in my mind, however, has not been the gorgeous visuals of the film as much as it's intrinsic structure. Samsara doesn't follow the traditional story arc that most viewers expect from a film. It simply guides viewers along with its images, a style which doesn't build and denouement as much as it explores and imagines. In many ways, watching it reminded me less of a "film" and more of a piece of video art, which is another medium of visual art that I particularly enjoy. Samsara almost feels as though it belongs in an art gallery, next to Andy Warhol's Kiss (1963) or the like. Actually, Samsara specifically reminded me of "Seven Intellectuals in a Bamboo Forest", the work of a Chinese video artist named Yang FuDong. Both Seven Intellectuals and Samsara explore themes of human spirituality, birth and relationship to technology and the environment using slow-paced and dialogue-less analog filmmaking. These striking similarities between the two got me thinking, why was Samsara marketed as a 'documentary film' rather than as a 'video art' piece? What makes one better for viewing in a gallery, and the other better for viewing in a theater?
These questions can be extended much further, which is what I'm hoping we can discuss. For instance, why do surreal/artistic directors consider themselves "filmmakers" rather than "visual artists", and furthermore, why do "visual artists" not call themselves "filmmakers"? For instance, why do we think of Lynch's "Eraserhead" as "film" and not "video art", and what traits make it one rather than the other? Why are the media of distribution for these two seemingly related artistic pursuits so disparate? Why isn't film considered a "fine art" as well?
I don't have many answers for these questions myself, but I'm curious what you all think. Personally, I have trouble seeing any difference between these two media, but perhaps someone can explain to me where the distinction lies. Lastly, what films have you watched that have changed your perception of what "film" means as a medium? What have you seen or heard that has influenced you to change your definition of what a "film" can be?
tl;dr: What's the difference between film and video art? What have you seen/read/heard that makes you feel this way?
Top Comment: There's actually a couple different questions in there. Besides a question of recording / exhibition format, there's a historical, financial and continuing disciplinary dimension. Here's the main difference: No matter what the piece is about, the difference tends to be defined by where it's shown. Video art tends to be in galleries (often referred to as white box), with an ambulatory audience (walking around etc.). Movies (or "film" as you inaccurately call it) is shown in a theatrical setting where you plop your butt down (black box). Therefore, the main issue becomes one of duration. Is the audience expected to watch the whole thing? In a black box cinema setting, that is usually what is expected. In a gallery, you have more freedom, and very few people watch a whole piece from beginning to end, often jumping in, "getting it", then moving along. What medium it is shown on isn't as strict anymore either. Obviously a lot of works made for the cinema are made with and shown on video nowadays. Similarly, it's not uncommon to see a celluloid film projector in a gallery showing a short loop of film over and over. (Which is why the question of "difference between video art and film" isn't specific enough. We all know what you mean, but let's sharpen it up a bit.) So wait, why is it called video art then? Historically, it's oft said a lot of filmmakers (both narrative and experimental) didn't care much for video when it came out, noting it's lack of quality, etc. Note how the Ann Arbor Film Festival, the oldest experimental festival in the country, only started accepting digital works in 2003 (and similarly, to counter that, Dallas Videofest has been around for 25 years). A lot of folk from the art world took up the tool very quickly however. (Also of course, it's important to note issues of projection and cost. How difficult and expensive it would be to project video to the same amount of people as you could with film, etc.) Galleries on the other hand, have historically ignored filmmakers who worked like artists. This is both because these films required seats for you to watch the whole thing, but also because it was and still is hard to sell moving image work. Of course, there's the financial dimension. Note that the most expensive moving image work shown in a gallery setting - The Clock by Christopher Marclay - sold for about $500,000. Obviously, that's nothing compared to both the grosses of regular movies, or to the prices that artists working in painting, sculpture, etc fetch, like Gerhard Richter. Even when they would show moving image work, they would be much more interested in a famous artist like Picasso just playing around with the camera, rather than the folk who were actually doing pioneering film work like Robert Breer, etc. All this fed to a disciplinary difference, as in, what you studied. Art students make "video art" and show it in galleries because that's what they study. They watch and read about Nam June Paik, Bill Viola, etc. Even if those folk work with film, like Tacita Dean. There's a greater knowledge of art history at work usually, involving performance, sculptural qualities and so on. Theatrical movie students study film history, as they make work for a black box setting. They study Man with the Movie Camera, John Ford, and if they're lucky, experimental film like Brakhage, Frampton, etc (which tends to bring up a lot more thoughts and questions regarding the history of moving images and also more cross-pollination with art history.) But in general, art students tend to not have classes in film history, film students tend to not have art history classes. So while they are all making moving images, and contributing to the history of moving images, they are coming out of different traditions. The fact that there's these two different traditions is terrific, but it can be annoying when one displays complete ignorance or lack of interest over the other. It continues to this day with galleries ignoring people who work in a theatrical setting, or even with places like this subreddit where it's rare to see anything other than common narrative films being discussed. Physical difference between mediums - as someone else said, there's things you can do with film that you can't do with video and vice versa. This is a long and debated topic. Let's keep it simple. You can use celluloid as a performative tool. Live scratching the film, manipulating it by sticking all sorts of things on it. See Brakhage's film Mothlight. Sorry if this was all a bit rambling. There's a ton of lit out there about all this. A recent read would be a series of blog entries at LUX (London based distributor of experimental films) by Erika Balsom under the title Distribution Dossier . Edit: Grammar. Sorry, I'm not gonna try to tl;dr this.