But Why?

Every once in a while, I will stop and think about why I do what I do. It's a hard question and I don't really have a well-defined answer. But it is a nice thought experiment.

Why Not

Sometimes when figuring out the "why", it's helpful to articulate the "why not", so let's start there. I don't need to make video to support myself and my family. I'm fortunate enough to have a day job as a software developer. So it's not financial. In some ways I wonder how my art would be different if finances were a motivator. Would I enjoy it less? Would I be "better" at it (whatever that means)?

Speaking of finances, video art, and modular video synthesis specifically, are not cheap. That small live performance rig I spec'd out a couple weeks ago? That retails for $2300, probably closer to $3000 with case and cables. And that's entry level. Compare this with more traditional art mediums: you could get started with watercolor for 1% of that cost.

For some, that video synthesis is a small, financially gate-kept medium is a draw. It's not my draw, though. Part of why I write these blog posts is to spread the information about this niche of a niche around so that it can also be applied in other contexts. But, if you're trying to be unique and stand out in a very democratized art world, going with the medium that's got its own look–but one you can't have without expensive gear–can be a strategy.

The funny thing about that strategy is that the gallery art world is not really embracing video art at the moment. I went to the 58th Carnegie International this morning–an exhibition of contemporary art from around the world–and I think I saw four pieces that incorporated video. Of those four, three of them would best be described as documentation of some other art practice. Independent galleries are similarly more comfortable with sculpture and "things that hang on walls" (which don't include video screens, I guess). The safest haven for stand-alone video art amongst the art establishment is the experimental film wing of film festivals.

And it's not like the world is devoid of video. If anything, we have more video now than ever before. Entire platforms of media are focused on sharing via video. Motion graphics are everywhere, zipping around in ads and fast food menu screens.

It's not really my aesthetic, though. MTV used to be wall-to-wall video experimentation, even well into the 2000s. They've since ceded that ground to Adult Swim. But having a single cable channel be okay with getting a little freaky isn't enough, especially in the choose-your-own-adventure streaming era. Even the commercial applications seem to be drying up.

Why

Okay, so if it's not financial, or a cheap hobby, or gate-keepy bullshit, or acceptance by the capital-A art world, or acceptance by the commercial art world, what is it, then?

Well, for one, I like the process. When I sit down to patch, it clears my brain in a way that few other things do. I can end up with flashy, jarring, tearing visuals that hurt your corneas, but believe me, I was the calmest I've ever been while making it.

I also like the aesthetics of it. I'm not sure I would stick with a process for over a decade if I didn't appreciate the end result. I know it's not to everyone's taste. I haven't quite pinned down why exactly it's my taste (that's a topic for about five other blog posts), but it does seem a little nostalgic. I didn't grow up with motion-smoothed 4k HDTVs. I grew up with CRTs and scrambled pay cable channels and snow. I don't know how to be un-nostalgic when it comes to video. I like showing people something they've never seen before but have it feel somehow familiar.

There's an element of conceptual simplicity in my video synth work that I'm really fond of. I'm not working the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into a video and forcing people to deal with it (as is the case with the balloon sculpture in the image above). I like animation and colors and geometry. I like putting work out in the world that is pleasant and intriguing rather than confrontational and challenging.

Stepping back from myself for a second, when anthropologists and sociologists try to define why humans make art, it breaks down into things like:
• to record history
• to tell a story
• to express oneself
• to provoke thought
• to depict the beauty of nature

Yeah, I don't know that I'm strictly doing any of those things. The closest I get is maybe "expressing myself", but every time, in every piece the expression is, "I like this. Do you like it, too?"

Conclusion

Like I said at the top, this is a thought experiment. I haven't covered all of the possible bases and likely never will; no matter how many times I revisit this question. Will I feel differently about this tomorrow? Probably.