What New Media is Not Questions

1) Manovich has claims about what new media is not and argues that even thought it is perceived as being interactive it is not. He states that in contrast to old media where the order of presentation is fixed, the user can now interact with a media object. In the process of interaction the user can choose which elements to display or which paths to follow, thus generating a unique work. In this way the user becomes the co-author of the work. I don’t understand why Manovich doesn’t believe that this is true of new media because this is what has made new media so unique is that it is said to be interactive. With this though I question how quickly technology progressed and how art has gone from being considered only drawings on paper or canvas to being digital works. If what is considered to be new media continues to progress at this quick of a rate, what will be considered “new” media is in say 10 years?

2) Manovich has all these theories on what new media is not but isn’t so clear on what exactly new media is. He states the if new media is placed within a longer historical perspective then it can be seen that most of these principles are not unique to new media and can be already found in older media technologies. Is he saying that new media is only copying what old media used to do and that there is nothing unique about new media? 

Final Cut Paragraph 9

This is a full screen emulation of paragraph 9

This is a widescreen emulation of paragraph 9

Rough cut of Paragraph #9

Video Emulations

"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"

My first video is a spin on the video by Kay Rosen, ""Sisyphus". She played with the spelling of the word, but it still appeared to be spelled correctly, but wasn't until the very end. I decided to have a little fun with this and used a word out of one of my favorite movies from my childhood, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. I remember it being a big deal when I was finally able to say the word when I was younger and thought that it would be interesting to play with it and change up the spelling just like Kay Rosen did with Sisyphus. 

"Money Talks"

My second video is a spin on the video "Inflation" by Hans Richter. I wanted to out more of a modern spin on it and showed how money plays a role in the life of college students. I used video from students on campus, bills piling up, money piling up, and books. I also incorporated pictures of wants such as a cell phone, laptop, iPod, along with shoes, an Xbox, Wii, and DVD's. This video is quick, but I think that in the short amount of time I was able to get across how fast money can pile up and how school, wants, and needs can make it go away. I used the a song by AC/DC called "Money Talks" and I really think the pace of the song along with the words help get my message about money across. I decided to keep this video in black and white like the original video to show that along the wants and needs may have changed since the video was made by Hans, the way that money is there and gone is still the same. 

UBU Video Choices

My first choice is "Sisyphus" by Kay Rosen. At first it doesn't appear to be much. Just what appeared to be the same looking word popping up on screen. It is never spelled the same, but your mind makes you understand that somehow it is the same word. I was intrigued by this and the way that your mind can make something as simple as a misspelled word look right and look the same. So I am thinking about maybe either playing with the same word and having it appear in a different way, or trying to find another word like Sisyphus and play with the spelling.
http://www.ubu.com/film/rosen.html

My second choice is "Inflation" by Hans Richter. However, I really want to put my own spin on this one and show the different ways that money affects the lives of college students. Because gas prices have gone up it makes it more difficult for students to make it home to see their families. In a spin-off of this video I would want to show the different ways that money affects the lives of college students and the daily needs and wants that our money is going to. Just like in the video I would have the money pile up, along with checkbooks, and credit cards and then I would flash the things that college students spend their money on. Books, clothes, shoes, bills, baseball tickets, groceries, and just anything that we need and want. I want to put a very modern day spin on this video. http://www.ubu.com/film/richter_inflation.html

Video Art Questions

Question 1: The reading talks about how video is contemplative and distanced; it detaches the viewer from present reality and makes him a spectator. This got me thinking about whether or not any art truly allows interaction. Does a painting truly interact with the viewer or is it just like video? To what extent can a piece portray truthfulness and purpose without altering the way it interacts with the audience? If video detaches a viewer from reality and just makes them a spectator to what extent does a painting, sketch, or play do this? It just seems as though these forms of art also limit the interaction with a viewer.  How is it that just video art is seen as doing this? 

Question 2: The reading talks about how video uses artful techniques, but that it is only considered art when there is an intended expression behind it. Video is not considered art however when it has a purpose or something important to say, like the news. This made me start thinking how far does the news or something that has more than expression, but purposes behind it, have to go to be considered art?

Animation with sound