Reading Response 2

This reading discussed the differences between older and new mediums of art. Though it did not discuss such recent mediums as computer software and other purely digital methods, it did cover art techniques up to the invention of film.

I found the tone of this reading to be slightly difficult to interpret, as in one section the 'newness' of newer mediums, particularly motion pictures, was described as unfeeling and mechanical, and in another it might be described as being a better medium than painting and other traditional art methods when paired with a modern day audience. Regardless of the overall tone of the piece though, the message was fairly clear: The modern audience interfaces with modern "art" in a different way than traditional "art". The piece referred to the 'essence' of a piece of art, of any medium, as its 'aura', and defined it as the effect distance has in the relationship between art and observed. The greater the distance, and I suppose the mystery, the greater the aura, and I suppose by extension the more open the piece is to various interpretations. In this way, film and photography could be said to have less of an 'aura' than paintings or sculpture. Film, whether stationary or moving, does not allow for the same type of open interpretation that a more abstract piece, whether pictures or words, does. Whether this is a bad thing or not though, I believe, is open for debate. While a film cannot provide an open arena for interpretation as easily as a painting, it can provide a more complete sense of immersion, telling the story it means to tell more vividly than could be provided by a painting or a sculpture.

While this medium was not covered in the piece itself, I cannot help but give and honorable mention to video games as art. Whether video games are, on the whole, considered art is still a hot debate in some communities, but I have found in recent years that video games can tell a story in ways that other mediums of art could never hope to achieve, specifically in the way of immersion. Video games also have an advantage over film in that stories can be open ended, allowing for that sort of open interpretation that critics of film say is lost. A game need not even have a story, allowing the player to make up their own story as they go should they choose to (If you want an example of largely story-less gaming as art, look up a game called Proteus.).

Section Review: Section VIII

While this section is fairly short, it gives an interesting insight into the differences between film and live acting, which could be considered a disconnect between the old and the new. Live acting, the section states, provides a personal link between the actor and the audience, allowing adaptation to the audience and portrayal of cult values, or values which are not necessarily meant to be seen by the masses but to be experienced by those they have intrinsic meaning to. On the other hand, in film there is a connection not between the actor and the audience but the actor and the camera. This results in a more static performance, which may be argued to be a less feeling and personal performance. In addition, what the viewer sees on film is not the result of one piece but of many shorter pieces cobbled together to make the finished product. Film, it is argued, is not a medium with which to present values to the few but rather to present a story to the many.