|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Media||(Rated Start-class)|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
A good reference to how this very vague definition of video art could be cleaned up may be found at the entry for experimental cinema which, although not perfect, is much better. The description given of video art here, unfortunately, is vague enough that it might just as well apply to experimental cinema, from which it is in fact distinct. 184.108.40.206 22:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Did some reworking and reorganizing. Still much work to do. Freshacconci 20:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the definition must remain vague to include the off-shoots of video art and the broad nature of an art movement. There are painters and photographers that create works using video and televisions look. This is video art but there is little of this in the page. An art movement is a grey area. There is no precise definition with this medium. I think it is quite good so far in that it covers much but Frank Zappa's 200 Motels is not there. This is one of the first films shot on video. I would like more paintings about television included. This is just thoughts in the talk page. - cyfjc3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyfjc3 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the history section be divided into decades, from the earliest experiments in the 1960s, through the first wave of video art in the 1970s, the broadening of video in the 1980s, and then the further expansion into digital media etc in the 1990s and beyond.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the final paragraph is irrelavant and seems self-promotional. Paintings about TV are not video art. Also I wonder why Forest is so prominent in the history of video art - he is not notable.
The majority of art genres have a picture to make the entry more visually enticing; I added a wikimedia picture of Naim June Paik's Electronic Superhighway, a good representative image?Mwf95 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
EDITORS?? - Why has the website reference for the British video art chronology (non-profit!) at the bottom of your main page UK VIDEO ART: THE EARLY YEARS <http://ukvideoart.tripod.com> been recycled back to your main Video Art page instead of just leaving the reference??
- Reworked and moved. Freshacconci 20:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC). MOVED TO WHERE???18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggested additions to definition
Video Art has grown organically with the advent of computer based editing and distribution to include personal as well as public works. For the masses, accessibility of the process from lens to finishing to screen to eye no longer depends upon arts organizations to disseminate within its ranks. Schoolchildren are becoming versed with digital cameras that shoot moving pictures and sound with no moving parts, as well as with Apple's iMovie and other affordable tools.
Motion pictures with sound are becoming more and more immediate in personal communications. Teleconferencing is swiftly replacing the internet audio conversation (which had threatened to replace the long-distance telephone call).
The ability to record and edit with personal computers and distribute with the internet opens new doors for creative expression, even for those with no training in computers or art. Like blogging, a new form of time-based, linear photojournalism is emerging. It is democratic, often personal, and by forging new ground for video as art, it continues to challenge any definiton. -rockhaus
that last paragraph makes me think of cyborglogging or "glogging". sort of related. not usually video, though, but images, like a photo blog from the author's-eye-view - Omegatron 11:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Some of links on this page are artists' sites added for self-promotion and need to be removed. The suggested addition to the definition above is way too broad. A child using I-movie is not necessarily making video art. Video art is a specific art practice with a definite history. It has always been understood as a specialist practice - a small subset of video production. EZMoney
- I agree with both points. As for the second point, broadening the definition of video art so generally is like including fingerpainting in with painting (and I know an argument can be made for outsider art, but I don't think that's what was meant by the comments above on iMovie and schoolchildren. Let's keep the definition of video art within the history, but by all means include changes in technology as it is used by artists.Freshacconci 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that this link is relevant http://mikeretter.tripod.com because it is Paintings about television. Add this link if you feel it is apropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know how to edit properly here, so won't try. However in the definition it says " Video art may not employ the use of actors, may contain no dialogue, may have no discernible narrative or plot, or adhere to any of the other conventions that generally define motion pictures as entertainment. This distinction also distinguishes video art from cinema's subcategories (avant garde cinema, short films, or experimental films, etc.)" and in reality there are tons of experimental films that do not employ actors, dialogue, discernible narrative/plot etc. but are far from video art (Stan Brakhage's "Mothlight" for example). So I really feel this needs to be changed/deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
List of video art organizations
This section needs weeding out and reworking. It's too long. Freshacconci 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It definitely still needs this work, but I think to remove it entirely would be a huge disservice, so I added it back in.
nice one, 188.8.131.52, back in July last year - if a fictional video artist can survive in the list for ten months it suggests that either (a) everyone saw the joke and decided to leave it, (b) the page is incredibly neglected, or (c) the field is so esoteric that nobody realised he isn't real. Oh, how I *so* want it to be (c)... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- What can you do? This page needs lots of work. Anyway, Mr. Harrington is now gone. Thanks for the heads-up. freshacconcispeaktome 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Infermental and 80's - deleted by Freshacconci (???)
Look man, you really seem to have no idea how to go about this in a schoolar and collective way - and I'm totally sorry to say that.
My contributions were adding Gabor Body, Infermental and Axis - the 80's (as a starting chapter) which were not even mentioned on this page - which is like talking about baroque music without mentioning J. S. Bach :(
Infermental is not an "organization" - as you called it before deleting. It's living art history - "wrote" in the 80's in present time continuous. It's not only a collection - since works of art wer not just collected but contributed. Well I also added a few lines about "what INFERMENTAL was NOT". It's really disappointing to see what you have done.
For anyone else's information: Infermental is practically as much as a short form of saying: "Video Art In The 80's from Berlin to Tokyo and Vancouver".
You already made a couply of mistakes:
1. not even knowing about it
4. deleting it completely
I mean what is your goal?
even if Infermental had been only an "organization" as you imagine,
deleting it saying "too much about one organization" is ridiculous
I mean what happened?
you wrote a book and forgot to mention the 80's? and now you try to erease it from anywhere you get access to?
so: If you worked for a company I'd talk to your boss now and as for you I'd suggest that you go and study the field a little bit before going wild deleting collective stuff (I can't beleive you did this)
my contribution also did introduce the 80's and the 90's which would only not make sense to someone who - I don't know .. who's just kidding?? Are you?
one thing you can take for granted:
80's will finally be in this page
Infermental will be in this page
90's will be in this page
prominent video artist's section will be edited - and some 50 more names will surely appear - and will appear properly - not like this - this "history in nutshell" style ...
and you know why? not because 80's need it, not because 90's need it - but because WIKI needs it - because people need it
I'm not gonna repost what you just deleted .... cause I believe in WIKI but I'm gonna call some art historians to watch this page and hopefully the work of many will overcome the distructions by a few Jepe-cspv (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn Charlie Chaplin was making video art back in 1915, but this article says it started in 1970! I don't know what you call all video before then. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Facts vs mythology
I know that one of the myths is (as this article also states) that video art started when Paik recorded the Pope arriving in New York, using a Sony Portapak. The problem with this story is one of accuracy: the papal visit happened in October 1965, the Portapak was not released until 1967. So the question is: if it wasn't a Portapak that Paik used, then what was it? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)