Nam Jun Paik

The Question: Nam June Paik innovated the use of video, should this type of medium (video) be considered art or simply just an advancement in technology? Why?
What influence do you think Nam June Paik's work had on the development of new media art today?

Video is an art form. Why? because it is. If it wasn't I'd be wasting my time taking Video Art classes.
Nam June Paik's work definitely had a very strange style that I think massively influenced some of the main stream pop culture we saw in the late 70's, early 80's. Some of his cheesy filters and effects became mainstream staples of that bright and colorful time period for video. His innovations in manipulating video tech to create art pieces also had an influence on artists at the time. He was changing people's paradigms and understandings about how video could be used. In more recent times, it could be said that he set in motion a new mindset that various forms of presenting and manipulating video could be considered art.

Reasearch, Presentations, and Art

The CAUS research symposium had a wide range of presentations, many on personal research of the faculty into artistic mediums. However the one that drew me in the most was the presentation on the future of Graphic Design classes. The entire presentation centered around new technology and teaching techniques that Ben, Troy, and Somaya have been pushing. There was an interesting contrast between the challenges and benefits of 4 design versus freelance work. Both seemed to be positive options to prepare VCD students for the real work world. The real world for the computer artist often alternates between freelance and employed jobs. I'd love to see this idea expanded on across other art dept. such as creative Tech. During my time here I've both worked for Tech as a normal job, and done some free-lance work as well. Unfortunately my experience was varied, working for tech yielded very few hours and most free lance jobs were unpaid. It would be useful to have an option like VCD students have to learn about the best ways to approach these issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Viola new how to pick powerful locations. As zoo as they showed the interior of the silo he had chosen for 5 Angels, the aesthetic was immediately obvious. His choice of raw, industrial, metallic, and inhuman setting was the perfect frame for his projection piece. The video had an immediate effect, mostly utilizing a common color across them. This sort of contrast of colors is an aim of my senior studio. Although I'd like to have more subtle contrast, I do want the stark dramatic effect of lighting the was apparent both in Bill's videos and in his setting. The sound must correlate with the mood that the lighting is trying to convey. His art piece was more than just a narrative, it really was about creating moods.

Rights and Obligations

What right does an artist have to their own artwork? Once an artwork is bought, should the artist have any say to how it should be presented or kept? What legal responsibility does an artist have to society?


An artist has the full right to their work, however to protect it from the rest of the world (whether through variants, re-mixes, copiers etc.) you have to go through the proper legal channels for copyrighting. Luckily the passage of Creative Commons 2.0 makes this a fairly easy means of protecting your work. As a new media artist, very little of my work manifests itself in the physical realm. So I am quite used to not have the ability to sell my work, as it is usually produced with a group for pay. However, in the instances where this applies, the terms should be agreed upon at the point of purchase. If the artist had special request for how the piece was to be displayed and where, then he/she should ensure that it is included in the contract.

The Pepsi-Cola incident at The Pavilion is indeed unfortunate, but immediately made clear that the artist must lay down terms of their work at the point of purchase. Once the money is laid down, I believe the power the artist can have over their art quickly diminishes. Not to mention how much these options vary by country's law.

The legal responsibility is naught for the artist. I think we have an obligation, if the artist is exploring new frontiers, to break laws. The only real limit of an artist should be their own moral boundaries. Of course this is a dangerous idea, as morality is relative to individual people. However art is often dangerous, all new things are. We have an obligation to society to forge new territory and ideas. A responsible artist would know how to bend the rules and expose new truths and viewpoints without endangering anyone. Because of the fluid nature of law, considering it often varies from state to country, it can't be an ultimate reference point for where artists should stop. I think there is at least a certain degree of common sense that an artist must employ when making and showing art. It would be desirable to be libertarian about this, and set this limits to whatever doesn't disturb others. However the power of art lies in it's ability to expose people to concepts, ideas, and aesthetics they haven't seen before.