Why Video

The Operable Window, from its inception in 2008, has presented a great deal of content in the form of short films and video. This is no accident or coincident. In fact, a great deal of discussion has happened between the contributors about video's roll on the blog and in the greater creative world.

At the Operable Window our general belief is that the video, of all other forms of the graphic arts, is the most suitable for viewing on computers. This is not to say that this is the best way to view video, but rather it is better viewed on the computer screen than, say, photography or the illustrated arts. With this said there is more and more, especially in the graphic design world, art that is made specifically to be viewed on a monitor.

But why? Why do we feel that the internet, and the means by which we access it, are so conducive for viewing video. It is rather simple actually. As a hardware medium argument, the computer screen is great for watching video because of its fairly high resolution and the fact that it is back-lit. As high as screen resolution is though, it is not high enough or have the color depth that a print of a photograph would have. We would also rather look at illustrations done with pen and ink on a nice Bristol, or a screen print on a heavy stock.

Simply put, the computer is the medium of video. Not the only one, but a good one. This is not to say that we don't spend a great deal of time enjoying other arts on the computer, but rather we enjoy them a great deal more in their respected, intended, mediums.

This discussion leads to others about the internet's roll and impact on the arts and the creative fields. With the proliferation of video sharing websites and "share" buttons, for the first time access to the motion picture medium is open to the masses. Think 35mm compact camera of another time, or the more recent drop in digital camera prices. Now anyone can make short videos and make them accessible to the world, for better or for worse.

Personally I would discourage the dismissal of this power. One might argue that for ever One well made, creative film, there are 100,000 horrible videos of teens lip-sinking to the Black Eyed Peas. True. Remember though, that ratio is exaggerated by thousands in the case of photography. There have been so many horrific images taken since the introduction of the consumer camera that it is unthinkable. With that though came the few good images and more importantly the forwarding of the field by those that would not have normally had access to the medium a generation before. So artist could start younger and take their cameras more places and practice more. This is exactly the case of Video today.

We would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

Proof of the point...
An excellent young Director/producer/editor/graphics artist Ninian Doff. Here is a fun little ditty...



http://www.niniandoff.com/