Re: [-empyre-] bandwidth aesthetics

[jonCates <joncates@criticalartware.net>]

hi Henry + all

Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  >With online video - one naturally assumes the quality is going to suck
>  >horribly, and so one looks to other qualia for understanding.

'one' shouldnt assume the quality of online video to be low just b/c 
the video is web-based. it is easy to compress badly but takes time + 
patience to work through the process in a manner which values 
[sound/image] fidelity or high levels of correspondence to source 
materials.

>  >allows for a video viewing for what the video can say rather than for what
>  >it is doing.

i ask myself about [concept/techne/execution/form/context/referents] 
in all viewing situations.

>  >I *completely* and TOTALLY agree that one doesn't need high tech gear to
> > make compelling cinema (the long rich history of 8mm film and pixelvision
>  >and portapak video attest to that

historically, it is important to remember that the portapak 
absolutely was 'high tech gear' when first [used/introduced]. Henry, 
it is only now, in retrospect, that you could position the portapak 
as not 'high tech'. i suppose an exception would be if you were only 
talking in the context of cinema, but you arent limiting yourself to 
that [discourse/framework].

>  >In fact, I would humbly submit that one big problem with a lot of 
> the new media
>  >I've seen lately is that the technology has become a kind of content,

that situation is problematic in mini technologically inflected 
theorypractices + is intimately related to the ongoing social 
[construction/performance] of the 'technological'.
--
jonCates
 ---> criticalartware coreDeveloper
http://www.criticalartware.net
 ---> Film, Video + New Media Instructor School of the Art Institute of Chicago
http://www.artic.edu/~jcates