Reading Numero 1

Questions of identity can surface among communities which experience a change in media. Primarily oral cultures, which over time transformed into primarily literate cultures, questioned how the change from the spoken word to the written word would affect their lives. In what ways would their identity be altered; perceptions of tradition, uses of documentation, implementation of reading skills, etc -- the very structure of  culture. Writing is also considered an extension of oneself because a person only knows by the very words (and meanings) she or he knows. To write words down is to transfer the meaning of oneself.

Today, new media are being utilized. Computers have types and texts; cameras have photographs; and videos have film and motion-pictures. We are progressing into a digital age, whether we like it or not. The same was true for those enduring the transition from oral cultures to literate cultures: these changes occur. The essay, "After the Death of Film: Writing the Natural World in the Digital Age," sparked some thought about this matter. In discussing the take on celluloid filmmaking and digital videos, I became interested in how an artist might see these different motion-picture production procedures in relation to the work being an extension of oneself.

If an artist has the ability to create a video by physically tampering with the tangible filmstrips and the procedures thereof, the artist has full freedom to create a film that is one-of-a-kind, simply because the exact chemical balance or film clippings may never be exactly reproduced. Surely, this can be viewed as an extension of the artist: to establish meaning through images physically crafted by hand. However, the artist must account for possible accidents, like strange mixtures of chemicals, that will affect the films end result.

But, as discussed, avant-garde critics seems to be impressed and focused on the process, not the end result. Therefore, an artist who punches keys on a computer or hits buttons on an electronic device to create a video may be at loss. In this case, the artist is not physically handling the film, but utilizing the intelligence and swiftness of a machine to labor the picture. Thus, the artist is distanced from the production process and the end result because of the digital apparatus -- similar to how an author scribbling notes in a journal is compared to an author typing a story on a laptop; the pen flows from the hands instinctive movements and makes a personal letter while the computer gives distinctive structure with font, size, and format.

... some pending questions:
What does this mean for artists in the 21st century?
Does it matter which procedure is utilized to create a video?
How important is it for our artwork to be an extension of ourselves?
How can we digitally create an extension of ourselves through video?