- Steve Bono
not talking to you.
This is video isn't it?
I'm not talking to You.
enjoy sins this size? synthesize?)
Don't be afraid I may be among you
I'm not talking to You.
video, don't you know.
name is Ron.
Elect me and you need not be afraid.
What you are seeing is not me,
is just my coating.
me, it's just Ron and its coating.
see I intend to make light of
This Light (such matters).
This is what I reely am.
Do you see? Do you hear?
Let us cut through to such matters
cut it out.
I am not here to .
make a Drama out of
such a matter
Or to psych myself out
(Psych this Drama)
THIS is drama or
dharma or mama.
There is nothing else except what you are
seeing or hearing.
THIS is not drama except that you
saw it and heard it.
(Let this tape worm its way into
you cannot see me,
can you see what I mean?
For you are
not seeing me,
this is video, remember?
You can barely see the shadow
I once was.
don't mean to be subjective,
or subject you to the subject matter,
for it isn't the subject that matters.
Let's decode the coating, throw off
premises and continue.
you prefer sins this size?
ask me what I have realized.
There is no context.
There is no contest.
There is no reason to contest
what I have real eyes.)
of you may ask, "what is this worth?
is it worth anything to me?"
I'm not sitting here, you are.
can leave if you like.
If you are waiting for a sign,
some sudden flash,
You may as well leave.
not even Me. I'm not here
and you are free to do as you like.
I have shown you that I am not
my picture, nor in my voice.
it's within you.
(do you find this
me say that I
have not come to
God the Father
the Video (man).
is no center
What you are seeing is a
residue of consciousness.
What you ,are seeing exists in a place
where there is no ES,
There is no BS, there is not anything,
except Ron and Coating.
will have to do it
from now on,
you haven't already left.
Go ahead. GO! I won't care.
I'm not even here.
You are. What are you waiting for?
Bono is a filmmaker and art stu-
dent at the Art Institute of Chicago.
He has worked in half-inch with Philip
|THE HALF- INCH "INVASION FROM
by Kaye Miller
"Foole, saide my muse to mee, looke in thy heart and
It is always a pleasant fantasy to imagine that one is playing some
part in the discovery of a new Muse--of a mode of expression whose
properties differ so radically from others that it ceases to be a mere
medium and becomes instead a guide and inspiration.
Maybe, but the fantasy is usually indulged to the disregard of probability
and of history, as well as outside of any context of self-criticism.
Certainly, even new media seldom prove to be more than novel ways of
refracting messages, and the most that command over the properties of
videotape can do in itself is to make one into an engineer. Similarly,
command over systems of ideas is usually called sophistry. In neither case
is the relevant Muse especially nice; it is a tenth Muse, named Power. (The key to this, in the sentences above, is the word
I want to talk about three rather important half-inch videotapes, with
an eye to saying something about the properties of the
medium as they distinguish tape from other means of refracting reality.
All three tapes handle political material. But all
are really about the possibilities of the medium. Two make implicit but
unsubstantiated assertions about how we best can
understand social reality through half-inch; the third offers a persuasive
demonstration that half-inch may not be intrinsically very different in
its possibilities than any of our accustomed media. The first two are Top
Value Television's 1972 convention pieces, The. World's Biggest TV Studio
(Democratic) and Four More Years. The third is Sit-In, made by Steve
Landsman at Humvideo, the University of Chicago.
The convention tapes, being probably the most widely seen half-inch
pieces ever made, are commonly regarded as models of what
VTR can do in its mode of direct recording. Also, by virtue of being right
there on top of audience ratings, they are logical prey for
criticism. Sit-In, on the other hand, is, like most tapes, unseen by all
but a mostly small, local audience, and so neither
has had its image tarnished by success, nor has it become widely seen
enough to pose a competitive threat to other tapemakers. (There is, after
all, a political logic in any of these businesses. One cannot succeed
without the aid of others, yet current versions of success also
tend to dissolve collegiality.) Audiences or not, though, Sit-In's
achievement is indisputable, in so far as it shows an understanding
of its own language sufficient to use the language to make a statement
(not a suggestion but a statement) about itself. No mean accomplishment,
particularly when that is what tape has been all about for so many people,
after all: the Master Medium that could outframe all other media--that
could even outframe the television technology our fathers enslaved us
with, rendering Roger Mudd, in Four More Years, an absolutely
speechless catatonic. But those are little ticklings (both technical and
social); they titillate the Muse of Power, but we never quite get past the
excitement, and so never quite speak our intentions toward this medium,
and so keep rediscovering what has already been discovered and fail to
invent what is ours to dispose of. At a time when the most frequently
heard claims for any one tape amount to either
"It's a groovy tape" (that is, watch it stoned) or "It's been
shown on cable" ("Man, did we blow their minds!"), some
closer examination of half-inch's claims seems worthwhile.
Arguing from its properties, the principal claim for half-inch
videotape recording seems to be that it tells the truth better than
the other media we use:
|1) It sustains a concreteness
of reference that verbal language lacks.
2) It does less violence to the syntax of everyday life than verbal
language because it simply records what is there-- and does so in rather
long takes-- rather than imposing form from a linguistic structure.
3) Because of its mobility and great sensitivity to light, half-inch
is superior to film and television in the telling of truth because it gets
closer to what is actually happening, rather than erecting a wall of sound
stages, lights, and production values between the consumer and his object.
4) Because of its cheapness, availability, and simplicity, half-inch
makes possible the decentralization of that power usually so closely
associated with the arbitration of fact (more important, it is thought,
than the power of the arbitration of taste or opinion).
5) Because of the cheapness of the raw stock and labor (after all,
anyone can-- and will-- shoot tape) with half-inch, realities can be
represented that would ordinarily be beneath the attention of anyone who
had to take substantial risks of time or money in order to make a
statement, either in a book or a film.
6) Because of the ease of playback possible with tape, not only can
it be used to raise levels of self-consciousness in personally cathartic
and socially therapeutic ways (and vice versa), but that awareness can
itself be incorporated into finished tapes as reflexive data, that
relieves the otherwise boring recapitulation of vast quantities of surface
These are the properties of videotape and, taken together, it is
asserted, they comprise not simply an evolution
of some existing technologies, but actually a quantum leap into something
like thermosensory fusion, a sort of reverse hydrogen bomb that, instead
of fusing particles in order to release energy to blow things apart,
actually liberates and decentralizes energy in order to recreate the
central nervous system of humankind--returning Man to his condition before
the Fall. This is, of course, one of the purely hyperbolic assertions of
the half-inch techno-idealists.
What the argument really comes down to is far more elementary--namely,
Is reality its appearance? If it is, reality can best be represented by the
closest~ most thorough kind of recording of surface--thorough both
technically, with as little refraction as possible, and socially (or
economically), in as widespread, pluralistic a fashion as possible. The
critique that half-inch people--and, implicitly, those doing ciné-vérité--level
against the ordinary perception of reality is that too much media
intervention stands between the perceived and the percipient. A variation on the argument is that ordinary appearances are misleading (partly
because influenced by the media) and that the task of the new media is to
get at the true appearance that is somewhere just behind the apparently
And, we might add, the political assertion that usually follows is that
any man of good will who sees things, including himself, "as they
actually are" wil1 act toward them either out of his good will, or
from its obverse, the embarrassment that accompanies painful truths. These
are the two sides of the "feedback" coin. The coin was somewhat
devalued by the response to the crystal-sync, in-your-dining-room-at
coverage of the Vietnam war or of the 1968 Democratic Convention.
Nevertheless, we all remember those first charity telethons in the Golden
Age. Things seemed to be what they seemed to be (and we cared!); but who
could really be sure? The same channel, after all, broadcast Wrestling
live from the Olympic Auditorium on Wednesday nights, and I remember
endless arguments with my father in 1949 and 1950 about whether or not
Baron Michel Leone and Antonino Argentina Rocca were really hurting one another. Pop loved
it as pure horseshit; I resented his impiety. But the plain fact was there
to be discovered: that the only thing being hurt was my childish assumption that things
are simply what they seem to be.
Nor can we easily find out what things are in themselves by making
facile juxtapositions with other things whose signs are clearer to us.
Thus, for example, one of the early scenes in TVTV's tape of the
Republican Convention features a tight traveling shot of adolescent girls
with pimples shouting "Four more years!!! But the shot, with its
implied irony, no more reveals the "contradictions of the
system" than it tells us anything important either about the girls'
experience of what they are doing or the actual social meanings of
|what's happening. The shot makes
no assertion, but only sets up a sure-fire joke that gets lost in the
I want to question one of the fundamental structural effects of the
ciné-vérité, half-inch method--namely, the tendency of the author to shift
responsibility for the assertions made onto the reality represented,
rather than taking the responsibility himself. This, I would argue, is due
in large part to the nature of the photographic medium itself, and to the
kind of internal structuring it encourages. In ordinary language, we
assume great responsibility for verbal expression, principally because we
work with rather small expressive units--words or even phonemes--that have
limited meanings when they stand alone. The construction of any utterance
involves the deliberate combination of large numbers of these units. In
direct photographic representation, however, our expressive units become
substantially larger and more complete--veritable pictures of
reality--with relatively fewer of them required to form an utterance.
(Although a ten-minute film run at sound speed contains over 14,000
separate photographs, the actual number of pictures --i.e. shots--may be
as few as one. In videotape, this is frequently the case, with internal
movement actually developing the meaning of the simple photograph in front
The style of montage, however, differs in that it recapitulates the
difficulties of verbal language, and places responsibility for what is
said once again upon the author of the work. This is so simply because it
is the combination, rather than the individual
images (whether they have much duration or not) that carries the meaning,
and the combination is wrought in order to render the invisible and
intangible open to experiencing from outside itself and its own immediate
field. The long take, on the other hand--so characteristic of direct cinéma and half-inch--purports to make the surfaces widely accessible to
any number of interpretations as to meaning or, more arrogantly, to the
single set of meanings that should be obvious to any
observer. The difference in editing style and technology between film and
tape, of course, is obvious, but even more than anything in film,
half-inch video technology encourages the direct style of the long
take, and makes it very difficult to experiment with other ways of telling
the truth comparable to what has been done with
film. The mechanics of the style are identified by Brian Henderson in
"The. Long Take" (Film Comment, Summer 1971, pp 8-9):
.the crucial cut between related long takes might be
called the selective cut or even mise-en-scene cutting. It must be
carefully differentiated from montage. Montage is the connection or
relation of two or more shots--of entire film pieces--in some overall
format. Montage treats or arranges the whole piece, not just the end of
one and the beginning of another. The intra-sequence
cut does not relate, arrange or govern the whole of "the pieces it
joins; it merely has a local relationship to the beginnings and ends of
the connecting shots, at the place they are joined."
But for too long, half-inch people coming to video from film (or from
film aspirations) have decried the shortcomings in the technology that
make it unable to duplicate the language of film, and have ignored the
lessons of the grand-daddy of long takes--early live television--with its
implicit assumption that, unless the actors were in bad faith, the
meanings of things, just as the things themselves, coalesced in their
appearances. The lesson was that live television, most expressive after
all of the essential difference between television and other media, had
nowhere near the durability of the older, less obviously veridical medium
of film (including the adaptation of film editing to the creation of
television "shows"). But then, of course, film--precisely
because it is expressive rather than representational--has always rung
truer in a funny way than live television with its appearance of
refracting only space. And film itself has succeeded not especially
because of montage, but because most practitioners have realized that a
film, in order to reproduce meaning and motive - i.e. the inside of the
surface of human action--must use either montage or mise-en-scene
to intersect the rather barren surfaces that most real-time events present
|The problem in videotape has
usually been that the background is accidental, and thus only occasionally reveals those general conditions in which action
is embedded. Otherwise, for the most part, the embedding occurs inside of
the actors; in their histories and their understandings of their
own activities. It is no little wonder that frequently the
most interesting tapes and ciné-vérité films are those shot in
circumstances that are highly regularised and thus manifest a
adequately represents its own inside--as ethnic communities, social
rituals, games, and so on--or in those events, such as riots, where the inside seems to
break right through to the surface. Otherwise, half-inch, without the
economic constraints of film, searches through the world, camera
running, looking for those moments containing the dense revelation of
meaning that we have learned to associate with "art". But art,
of course, without its artifice: that is, to find that which both is laden
with meaning and can be reproduced automatically. What else, after all, do
we mean when we say "That would be a good piece of half-inch" but that appearance and meaning
happen to coincide spontaneously in the world, and that the only
intervention necessary to render the congruence apparent would be simple
recording. Craig Gilbert, producer of An American Family, said, in an
interview with Global Village's John Reilly:
If my premise is correct, there is no family you
could cover for
seven months without something dramatic or revealing happening. If you stay
long enough with a family those things will surface, and that' s what the series is
in part about.
--TUBE, May-June 1973, p 18.
What is most apparent in An American Family, however, is not so much a
lack of meaning as a lack of art. It should be clear that half-inch and
its parent, ciné-vérité, assert a definite theory of the use of film,
revolving around the notion that film fulfills itself best when its chief
properties are taken to be its capabilities for photographic
representation and for reproducing actual duration.
And, let's face it: besides all that has been said so far, the
applications of half-inch that we are most familiar with have not emerged
out of real theory, but rather out of the concrete experiences of shooting
and looking at videotape. While a favorite editing motif may be
infolding, or the
feedback tape [see Terry Moyemont, this issue], a common shooting and
viewing motif is suggested by the Mobius strip or the Klein bottle. Here,
the assumption is that the surface, if you follow it long enough, leads to
the inside. That inside, of course, is also a
surface--the same one, in fact--and there is no leap
to be made to the inside, no inferences to commit yourself to. Very
really, then, there is no inside, but only
accessible surfaces, which one must have the patience to keep looking at
in order to draw the whole together and thus distinguish the real
appearance from the false. (Interestingly, until Craig Gilbert's $l
million-plus budget, no filmmaker ever had the opportunity that everyone in
half-inch has had to test the Kleinian hypothesis for the representation
of social reality.)
With this philosophical commitment implicit in half-inch work, it is no
surprise that no special efforts are made to combine the long take with
what has always been taken in film to be its necessary concomitant--namely, the
mise-en-scene, that density of background that
establishes the meaning of the action. And certainly, then, it is not just
an oversight that practically no fiction work has been done with tape,
none of that complex editorial manipulation that characterized most
experimental film (based usually on hand-cranked Bolexes with their
non-sync and short takes of less than thirty seconds). Rather, half-inch,
based on sync, long takes, and little scarcity of materiel implicitly
asserts that reality should take responsibility for itself, rather than
being taken onto his shoulders by some world-suffering Jewish artist. All
put, I suppose, in the doctrine that reality can speak for itself, and
But our problem (and partly our problem of
finding audiences) has been that neither has half-inch, with its infinite
possibilities for the reproduction of surfaces, helped satisfy our
curiosity about the world, nor has it told us very much about what makes
the world go around. To relax from the discipline of tedium laid on
us by tape, we still chase out to a movie when we can, just to get
|One small genre of film has,
however, done something about exploring the shadows between fiction and
documentary, with the assertion that truth hides in the shadows, that
the "facts of the matter" are to be found in its human
understanding, rather than in the matter itself.
Peter Watkins' films (The War Game, Privilege, The Battle 0f
Culloden, Punishment Park) all play in a realm where the document
provides the information that authenticates the fiction but where,
equally, the fiction transforms the document into what Cocteau meant by
"truth beyond truth." Thus, Privilege, which is about a
pop singer in England sometime in the near future, gains its veracity not
simply from its duplication of many shots and situations from the National
Film Board's Lonely Boy, but from the fantasy
it indulges that converts a maybe-funny, maybe-sad Paul Anka into Stephen
Shorter, whose insides can be revealed to us precisely because he is a
fiction, and whose social meanings we can be led to intentionally and
directly, without resorting either to academic narrative or to cheap
juxtaposition. Privilege stands at an interesting edge of film: on the one
hand, things always seem utterly more real than real, just
because they are on a screen; yet, just because they are on a screen, they
also seem less probable because our usual expectation of the movie screen
is that it communicates fictions. The edge is the place where we are not
sure whether what we see is the case or not. It has
the earmarks of the real thing; it also has the earmarks of fiction. What
tells us that The Battle of Culloden is not
direct documentary is that we know there was no film in 1745. What tells
us that Punishment Park isn't
true is that no one else in the audience seems to have heard independently
of the events it presents. (This latter is a poor indicator, as I will
What it comes down to is that a substantial difference between
television and videotape can be understood in terms of what we expect to
see on the screen. We all remember the gadgets advertised in comic books
that would enable any jerk kid with a dollar to speak through the family
radio set, and to say any made-up thing that he wanted. Or the ads in True
for rifles that any kid with $22 could use to shoot a president. Or the
VTR, with which any of us can put onto the family TV (if only the family
could watch!) that which we know to be the truth
("Man, did we blow their minds!"). But what would happen to our
sensibilities if we were to astonish even ourselves, by violating our own
expectations of what comes out the barrel of a Sony?
Response to Steve Landsman's tape, Sit-In, is interesting in
this context. A few people (but not many) called Robert Kramer
wrong-headed when he made Ice because, they claimed, he
had exploited an established mass agitation documentary technique in order
to indulge a politically adventurist fantasy. But not many people minded
because film, with Godard, Pontecorvo, Watkins, had already established
the possibility of finding truth best where it is actually located, rather
than necessarily under a street light. ("What are you doing?"
"Looking for a quarter I lost." "Did you lose it
here?" "No, across the street." "Why don't you look
there?" "Because the light's better over here.")
With tape, though, the possibility of truth-in-fantasy is still greeted
with considerable derision. Briefly, SIT-IN deals with the University of
Chicago sit-in of 1969. Mostly, the event is
reconstructed using still photos from the time, and most of the actual
motion video-tape consists of interviews with "survivors." The tape is all in all pretty straightforward and, in the
manner of much half-inch, not very interesting unless one is especially
interested in that particular sit-in. Participants proceed with their
narration, someone mentions the State's Attorney Hanrahan coming,
"which I (the viewer) sort of remember,"
then the police (again I remember), then a fire extinguisher released
("I think I heard about that"), then a gun
shot ("Oh!"), then several more ("I didn't know
that"), then people falling, someone telling about a person next to
him who fell to the floor with blood pouring from his head ("My God!
Why hadn't we heard about that?"), then to someone in a surgical coat
next to an operating table talking about how 200 bodies were brought in,
most dead on arrival ("Hey! Wait a minute. Did
this really happen?") to more of the same while
one realizes that it's all a joke, a fiction, that
it didn't really happen, right to the end, where the narrator says,
"All I know is that, when I looked around me after it was all over,
there are 123 fewer students at the University of Chicago." And then
the viewer realizes that those things didn't
|"really" happen except
in the minds of the participants and that, in a sense, the real meaning of
the sit-in's outcome was more fully realized in the fiction than in any
straight representation of what had objectively happened. In certain ways,
Orson Welles Invasion From Mars rang truer than most radio
programs, though it had no discernible ethical purpose. Certainly, it
moved people to immediate action in a way few radio
or television broadcasts (except the telethons) ever have. Especially
pointed was showing of Sit-In to a seminar sponsored by the Screen
Educators Society. I ran the tape without any special introduction. A few
people gasped a little when the blood and the 200 bodies were mentioned,
but mostly there were no ripples in the audience. When the showing was
over, everyone agreed that they wanted to know why I had bothered showing
them this, after all, rather mundanely produced tape. So, all those people
had been killed; but, they complained, because the tape had not shown the
actual killing and the bodies, the audience had not learned any more about
that kind of violence than they already knew. Actually, not one person
present questioned whether or not 200 people had actually been gunned
down. Afterwards, a few admitted that they had had some doubts, "but,
as long as no one else in the audience expressed any doubts, I figured
maybe my memory was a little off. There's so much of this stuff going on
these days that it's hard to keep it all straight."
The violation of conventional expectations --even when done by we whose
specialty as youth has been the violation of other
persons' expectations--evokes strong, censorial reactions. Landsman's
producer at Humvideo (Yes, there is a half-inch Front Office) insisted on
attaching to the title, Sit-In, the qualifier, --A Docufantasy,
just as the German film studio, UFA, had insisted that the
central anti-authority story in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari be
framed by another story which places the action in an insane asylum. One
other Chicago half-inch person condemned the tape flatly, with the comment
that it is not true and therefore is not half-inch.
Not just that it's not true, of course, but that it allows a fiction to be
carried on the back of what is supposed always to
ring true--poor shooting, herringbone editing, bad sound ("With all
this going against you, Steve, do you have to lie, too?"). But of
course the point the critic misses is that Sit-In is not a lie.
Socially and politically, it is truer than merely objectively true; the
inside of the event, in fact, is put right out into view,
an inside that one would never arrive at no matter how far he followed the
surface. The inside never became an event, it never "happened."
Therefore, it was never recorded, so is to be found
nowhere on the visible surface; this is, after all,
the fundamental limitation of recording. So, given the two statements: (1)
that the tape lies and is, therefore, not half-inch, and (2) that the tape
is half-inch, we are left with the interesting conclusion that (1)
half-inch might not be so unique after all and (2) we might be able to do more with it than we thought.
Sit-In almost has a quality of revolutionary
"camp" to it, in
comparison with the TVTV tapes. The convention tapes
put a media frame right around broadcast TV, and so· turn TV--just as TV
has turned the conventions--into camp artifacts, framed for our
appreciation. And we do appreciate it, remaining comfortably in the stance
of consumer. Sit-In is revolutionary camp, though,
precisely because it frames the claims and pretensions of its own medium,
and suggests that the viewer might have to take some more active part in
the determination of fact. TVTV outframes the other media,
but in its commitment to state-of the-art technology and broadcast (Which
means that it is infinitely slicker than Sit-In, and infinitely easier to
just plain see), it seeks to imitate the standards
of "good" television. With Sit-In, although we know better, it
is almost as if they deliberately did half-inch edits in order to recreate
that state of the art so characteristic of early half-inch (that is, a few
months ago) when what one saw on half-inch held one's attention because,
at least, it didn't substitute artifice for truth.
And so the joke the tape makes in its deadpan camp fashion is all the more
hilarious because it shakes even the comfortable perch of the laughter.
It is, of course, a dangerous tape, unlike the TVTV tapes, whose
structure and style, like that of most all journalism, supports the status
quo, regardless of any superficial changes that are effected. This is
|always the case so long as work
proceeds from a light-headed sensibility rather than from a basic
analysis. In the case of the two political conventions, the real material
is political, but TVTV came to its task primarily out of an interest in
the events as media events, or what Daniel Boorstin calls
"pseudo-events." What is missed in this is the fact that at
least two things are going on at once: (1) the media event and (2) the
principal business of the gathering. Just as, in a trial, justice is being
seen to be done, in some instances it may actually be being done as well.
What TVTV does have to say about the world is that events have frames. END
MESSAGE. Interviews with TV reporters dissolve to the same interviewers
with TV reporters on a TV screen within a TV screen. That dissolve and the
multiple framing is the tape's content, because all
the rest is simply a repetition of what they already know about the world,
learned from TV (and from that part of TV they most attend to, "The
The opportunity for actually getting close to things, and understanding
them closely, is usually missed. One example of the tapes'
essential conservatism is the potentially interesting segment of The
World's Biggest TV Studio titled "The California
Challenge." Willie Brown explains to the California delegates the
strategy of the planned challenge, and does so at length and in a very
complicated fashion. So long and so intricate, in fact, that it becomes
extraordinarily difficult to follow. At the end, an off-screen voice, with
that mellow-stone, half-inch timbre, asks "Do you understand what he
said?" Now, this is a valuable question, because regular TV never
suggests that you might have to be really inside of something to
understand it. (TV as a mass product is based on the premise that one
customer's money is as good as another's, even if it's information that's
being sold, and that, just as with a Cadillac, it doesn't take any special
qualities to consume the very best.) And one does realize that perhaps he,
the viewer, was not alone in beginning to think that
Willie Brown's rap sounded like so much jive, and that perhaps even fairly
radical politicians could be seen to be a lot like the others. But all
TVTV does with it is to make a small joke out of the
complications of otherness, and thus misses the same thing that broadcast
TV does-namely, the need for sustained analysis, rather
than for a good laugh. When we are done laughing, we can get right back to
business, with the satisfaction of having gotten a little more distance
from our act than we had before we laughed. Just as with the bepimpled
girls in Four More Years, we are left with a keen sense of the
absurdity of a political process that uses pimples in this way, but
without any more analysis than is given by a simple series of images,
regardless of how memorable each image might be.
Nor could it be argued that the analysis occurs in the editing
structure of the tape. The dominant style of most tape editing is still
that of the long take, but without the story-telling
or analytic capabilities that make the technique work in fiction, where
the content of the shot can be controlled in ways other than merely
pointing the camera and choosing the appropriate focal length. One of the
section-titles of the Democratic Convention tape sort of tells the whole
editing principle: "Miami Scrapbook," the stringing together of
more or less interesting and somewhat thematically related shots. At one
point in Four More Years, for example, the viewer assumes the tape is in
its final shot. The scene is a sun-drenched, vacant sidewalk. A very old
man enters the frame, carrying that T.S. Eliot feeling, but without the
crispness. He is asked his reaction to what's going on, responds "I'm
not interested in the convention," turns and walks away, leaving only
the head of the microphone in one corner of the frame. A great little
scene for a closer! But then the tape goes on, just like the world but not
just like a movie and not like anything that structures experience any
more than a mirror structures the world.
The convention tapes are thus perfectly expressive of the tapers'
attitude that tape should come nearer to the reflection of life than
fiction film does. Just as, in one's life--here his experience of the
convention--the conclusion is not necessarily reached temporally at the
same time that it is dramatically. The encounter
|with the old man on the street
might be the dramatic conclusion, but life is not like that; it goes on.
It is not a movie. But this is to ignore the effect of a movie in moving
us into an understanding of life that life itself, with its infinite
surface, seldom allows us. The mirror representation, then, becomes a
series of vignettes, any one of which might trigger trips into his own
personal history by a viewer. But neither the vignettes, nor their
organization, contain their own insides or point of view, except
the attitude that everyone is entitled to his own history and is free to
dispose of it mentally as he likes. Certainly, the history of my own
experience of videotape (especially viewing it at length, late at night) is one that is strongly marked by the particularism of my
own experience, rather than by my appreciation of
meanings that someone else has already formed the material into. It is raw
and its possibilities are thus infinite. Looking at tape is frequently
like being "the first white man to look at North America;" you can
never be sure that anyone else has even looked at what is before you, much
less seen it, cameras being the ultimate automatism.
The intended audience response (mostly realized), as in so much editing
which proceeds from cut to cut, is a series of laughs or groans at each
juxtaposition, with one giant summary laugh or groan at the end, which
magically leads to analysis and understanding where there has been none
before. But, because the whole thing is like the news, the summary
understanding has the same dead weight as the feeling one has after
reading The New York Times. One
more big laugh or groan--one among so many others in your life. (To borrow
a caption from Four More Years, "0ne of 250,000.") The
social result is the development of a particular sensibility, but
certainly not of clear, shared understandings. It is therefore surprising
that the same old political claims for half-inch continue to be asserted.
By and large, the lack of political utility stems from a half-inch
sensibility that would rather talk about things (and their frames) than to
deal with their substance. Partly, that tendency comes from the
combination of a lack of talent and experience, and of the expectation
that one is, himself, somehow an avatar of the Future. The result is a
certain disdain for doing things oneself. One's mind
moves more quickly than he can act, and so it is
better to let others act and to make tape about them. Videotape comes at a
remarkable time, then, in the history of the widespread diffusion of the
stance of academic distance among those who are not otherwise inclined to
academic pursuits. With tape (as with film, but less expensively, and
therefore with less commitment to taking the risks that making a product
involves), one can watch, analyze, understand, even edit, but never
actually touch the world or exercise the violence over its elements that
is necessary to make something or to establish some condition that did not
previously exist. This is the case even in most instances of using tape
for consciousness-raising or organizing. What happens is that watching
tape is sold as activity to more people. TVTV sells hardware. It
prophesies the future. It does little for the development of language.
We should be content merely to invent, and to let ourselves be
surprised just like people always have been, rather than trying to
discover what will be there, and boring ourselves and others in the mode of prophecy. So, let us talk about the properties of tape,
rather than about its pretensions, and make it do what we want by
understanding its language and possibilities, rather than predicting where
it will inevitably (in one official, and two or
three thousand private, versions of inevitability) carry us. Surely, just
because tape helps us to get outside of ourselves, it does not necessarily
stand outside of us and give meaning. We still have that task.
Copyright 1973 by Kaye Miller
THE WORLD'S BIGGEST TV STUDIO and FOUR MORE YEARS.
Produced by Top Value Television. Sony AV. SIT-IN. Produced by Humvideo, Box L, The
University of Chicago, Steve Landsman, tapemaker.
TALKING ABOUT A TAPE:
BARRY SCHWARTZ'S "DON'T WALK"
by Terry Moyemont
Terry Moyemont might be called the Gyro Gearloose of half-inch
video method. Working in the village of Dwight, Illinois, he has
probably done more than anyone else in the Midwest for the development of
method and of coherent ways of thinking about half-inch. His work with
retarded and disturbed children in Illinois, London and Ukiah is
noteworthy, as are his efforts as an associate of the Loch Ness
Investigation Bureau. His film, STEREOPTICON, has been hailed by conventional
critics as "totally lacking in human values." Using a Sony RF
converter and a wire coat hanger, Terry and his grandmother achieved the
first air broadcast from a portapak over a
distance of thirty feet in their back yard.
I've had an odd feeling, which I suspect others writing in this issue
may share, that reviewing a tape is either an entirely novel kind of art
or at least a newly ambiguous variation on some old arts. I say this
because a tape need not have a plot or characters or spoken lines or music
or any of the other things taken from the other arts. These qualities
aren't essential to video work, but this position ignores devices whose
origins and developments range from literature, sociology and music to
mathematics. In fact without these devices and the criticisms which make
them evident and prepare them for further adaptation and use, we would not
really be able to construct a video work, much less understand what a tape
is when we face it.
DON'T WALK uses a number of procedures taken from the
conventional arts. The arts can be treated as a domain of varied devices
used to structure a wide range of recorded or "formed"
materials, which are themselves records or demonstrations of art
forms or genres. Although this is an important function for video if we
are interested in organizing and relating the arts, the structure alone of
a video product is not sufficient to tell us why reviewing a tape is such
a strange activity.
The problem remains. Most video is seen by a
private audience, that is by a small audience whose composition is usually
determined by the applications of the tape. But it's still the case that a
good amount of film is given similar exhibition and
finds like applications. For instance, one could show ZABRISKIE POINT
in order to test or establish tenets of aesthetics, formulate political
commonplaces, or gain psychological insights. Many academics do in fact
use film this way. Again, both film and video reviews will be read by many
who will never see the work reviewed, simply because of distribution
problems. This does not mean, however, that the art of reviewing each is
Here some distinctions can be made that may open
up a way into the reviewer's art: First, the distinction between broadcast
television and tape. Since its earliest use, TV has been enthused in and
at by many in and out of the cinématic arts because of its capability to
transmit real-time images of events. This "live" function has
even led to a current thesis that television is the intelligence of the
earth. Videotapes, too, have a liveliness, but a kind that further
restricts the one-way live presentation and speech of the maker(s) to the
audience, itself a restriction of two-way television in which the audience
and artist are not always separable as they conduct their lives. We can
make the following comparisons:
Two-way television is to One-way broadcast as it is to Videotape as it
is to Film, just as:
Life is to Live as it is to Lively as it is to Life-like.
Videotape is not anyone speaking or anything happening,
in the strict sense. Or,
|put differently: chance,
fortune, and nature tend to be ruled out--as they tend not to be in
broadcast--and so the stuff must be an end of some art(s).
Second, since the reviewer will be primarily interested in how the
maker puts video together and presents it, he will immediately distinguish
between the lively satirizing, copying and mixing of contemporary genres,
particularly video itself, and the "family life" of many tapes
which appear as generations and variations re-edited under many criteria
for exhibition to many different audiences. So now it is the case that the
viewer may have missed the work being reviewed but may have seen something
that both is and is not the work. This articulates the problem but
complicates it. The reviewer will have to constantly invent or restructure
devices and methods for dealing with each new member
of a family of tapes as well as each new family. This is related to some
problems in the criticism of improvised music. Nonetheless, reliance on
varying uses and the wide range of what can be called subject matter makes
the problems sufficiently different.
What can we do with DON'T WALK? The difficulty is not that it is
a very dense work, combining many images and sounds in an almost constant
flow. This is only a problem of description and depends upon an adequate
system of notation. There is a paradox in that the work seems to be about
a number of events and speeches which we must either have some previous
factual knowledge of when viewing the tape, or that we must gain from the
viewing. But the strict presentation of events, particularly the battles
between video artists and the New York State Council of the Arts is too
fragmented and sparse for an adequate literal understanding. And the many
speeches and conversations, particularly those of Buckminster Fuller, are
not so much complete passages or recordings as they are repeated
significant lines or parabolic snatches tagged on to the ends of different
Yet if we begin not from the adequacy or inadequacy of the tape, or the
truth or falsity of its presentation of facts, but from the method or way
in which the work structures the facts, the paradox dissolves. The
questions of the meaning of DON'T WALK and the nature of video become
questions of semantics. First, to fix a univocal
meaning we judge whether the work is good or bad in accordance with some
established criteria for intelligible reference or some canon, symbol, or
percept manipulation. For the second, more general question we construct a
theory which both distinguishes video unambiguously from the other art
forms and refutes other theories of video (no matter how well or poorly
thought out) in the light of existing video works. We must separate these
from the questions proper to art: how does DON'T WALK do what it
does? And how do video arts proceed? We are asking here how a work, or the
kind of art of which it is a product, uses formed materials of the arts
(as genres) to produce new structures and how it adapts and uses
the methods or devices of the arts. This is to treat video as an art of
editing, whether with deck or camera. Art, then, is both the form
of the materials and the form of the materials. This generalizes art to
cover all processes and products; and not only the fine arts but all
arts by which anything is made, thought, done, or said.
Let's hold to this way and open up the first section of DON'T WALK:
The tape starts with a variation of the device of presenting the work
before it "really begins" or of letting the work "come
together" (e.g. Bergman's PERSONA where the projector is first turned
on and threaded, or the early Grateful Dead's use of disconnected riffs
and tunings to begin a selection). We see a dark screen and hear a loud
hum; then the screen becomes snow with horizontal roll; next the silent
out-of-focus image of moving car and street lights (with poor tracking for
the first few seconds); sound returns as a harsh, static-covered voice
coming through an unshielded mike; finally a cut to and focus in on a
"DON'T WALK" crossing light.
The screen goes snowy again for a moment. Then we hear two speeches and
get to see behind the works. Academician Bernard Schweitzer is seen at a
seminar-type situation telling the audience that people who want pollution
are paying for it, that "...if you drive a car or live in an oil-heated home, you are paying for pollution." While his voice
continues, another image is superimposed and then replaces his--the studio
where Barry Schwartz and friends are watching many monitors (including one
of Schweitzer), turning cameras on them, and seemingly mixing the tape
|we are watching. In a voice-over
we hear Buckminster Fuller saying "... come to enough knowledge about
how to do so much with so little, to understand enough about our great
universe and man's place in that universe to realize that his function is
the mind's ability to bring great order... etc." During the completion
of Fuller's speech the image of an ordered product of his mind, a rising
geodesic dome, is supered. This superimpositioning and assembly of the two
speeches as parts of a whole sequence is an adaptation of a device which
ranges from thematic counterpoint in music to audio lap-dissolves (Fellini's
8˝) to quasi-systematic conversational fragments used by some modern
novelists (William Gaddis' RECOGNITIONS) to present parties and other social spaces. The shot of the mixing
location, the "process within the product" or the related "real
within the fictive" is a variation on the device used in such modern
forms as the movie-within-the-movie (again 8˝ or Robert Frank's ME AND
MY BROTHER or the I AM CURIOUS...films), the fictions of Borges, and some of Escher's
360-degree graphics. It also has its antecedents in a history which
includes the early English novel (TRISTRAM SHANDY), the arts of exemplary
biography, and those dialogues of Plato where a story of Socrates is
re-told to an audience by someone who was present himself or heard it from
The scene of the tape now cuts to a meeting in progress between area
video artists and representatives of the New York State Council of the
Arts. The passage is an edit of some straight vérité stuff, complete with
crappy sound, which was shot by someone(s) from Raindance. The camera is sometimes on the speaker,
sometimes on the listeners. Barry Schwartz's voice comments from time to
time. A participating artist talks about how the Council is making it a
hassle to cooperate with them, while the image is cutting back and forth
from the mixing studio to the meeting. ALSO SPRACH ZARATHUSTRA comes up
and dominates the sound. It seems to be coming from a transistor radio
being held up to a mike in the studio. And so the
story infolds. .. .
What are the transformations which the devices work on the material?
The coming together of the tape's beginning from seemingly unintentional
audio and video noise first reads like a transition from Nature --in this
case the nature of the machines --to art (or the
intentional use of machines). And really this electronic trope gives quite
a bit of the initial "life" to the tape precisely because it
looks so unintentional, even though you are sure it is intended. (I must
admit that since I had a third-generation copy, I wasn't sure at first
that it was intended; but I knew it should make a difference.) But this is
also the appearance of a theme which recurs throughout the tape,
particularly through the use of feedback patterns and superimpositions:
the source of image as internal or external. Or to put it into an analogy
or proportion: Noise, or feedback, demonstrates or exhibits the video
system as the video system demonstrates or exhibits the world. Further, it
is one more case which indicates that the feedback tape is rapidly
becoming a new genre and not just a technique. Or at
the least, it is a new variety of the genre opened up by abstract
animation and the computer-generated film.
In the case of the two speeches of Schweitzer and Fuller,
the generic shifts are more obvious. They have been transformed from
persuasive wholes and statement of fact or of system into epigrammatic
maxims. As such they are the source for many of the themes, in the sense
of subject-matters, of the tape: pollution of all sorts, the Universe,
man's place in Nature, mind, and order, to name some. Then these passages,
the speakers themselves, and the themes they indicate undergo
permutations. Passages are repeated in whole or in part between different
sequences and in varying contexts (e.g., these two opening speeches also
close the tape and the Fuller segment occurs again near the middle). The
speakers, of course, reappear saying other things. Sometimes a familiar
speaker is seen with a strange voice speaking over. Subjects change as key
terms are used in different applications. Pollution in the physical sense
is varied by a later speaker who talks about "information
pollution", a transformation accomplished by widening the application
of "environment". "Order" moves from ecology to
concern with "law and order", dealt with in a speech by Dick
Gregory on black rioters and the Declaration of Independence, to the order
of the tape as a whole to a long rap at the end of entropy, divergent and
convergent aspects of the Universe, disintegration and reintegration of
society. The first two speeches then, have also been transformed into
examples for using other speeches and
A third transformation is already indicated here: parts of the tape may
be taken as instances of information pollution or the sequence of the tape
taken as an instance of order. The statements function methodologically to
tell us what to do with passages of the tape, how to view the tape as a
work, what relations can help us to understand it as a whole. This is
frequently accomplished by statements about other arts or procedures,
which create instant and unexpanded analogies. We are repeatedly reminded
not to skip over or ignore one aspect after another by which we can
consider the tape.
Barry's comments over the meeting use a variation on a set of related
devices that range from the mixed mode of narrative and direct speech of
characters in Homer to the textual commentary which make up Medieval books
of sentences (e.g., Peter Lombard or Abelard) to the description and
background which the 5 o'clock news gives us over the filmed coverage of
an event. This sequence of comments is the first appearance of the last
analogy mentioned above: story or account. It transforms the rather
restricted documentary genre of the Raindance footage into a story, in the
widest sense, of statements and of situations leading up to a problem:
"can people, given cameras, also produce exciting video?" But
this account is no more a fiction than the statements which are made at
the meeting. The museum person worries about criteria of communication in
a museum context or worries about what is the same thing, the
intelligibility of the product. His worry has little concern with the
process, which is then simplified: "...question of the museum and any
sort of dogmatic control over what will be shot..."; the statements
of the artists on either what their projects are or how to get the means
to produce or exhibit them.
But product and process must both be included in any inquiry into art,
and this is best done when they are translatable into each other and
separate only in the frozen cross-section of definition. Similarly a
device is only an empty technique until the materials are decided upon
which render it particularly effective. A device repeatedly applied to the
same materials in the same way becomes a genre. And form and matter
themselves have alike translation. Form must be the form of something. Not
just light and sound and their possible changes, but also bodies in motion
and action, recognizable objects, meaningful words, themes--anything which
is a subject matter. Again, the matter must have form. It is not just
stuff. For instance, the speakers whose speeches, statements, and
questions are part of the material of DON'T WALK use arts of persuasion,
grammar, logic, elocution to give form to what they have said. And so the
device of the documentary, using this sense of materials, restructures the
account of artists vs. Council and should also transform the resulting
problem into: "Can people, given video materials also produce
exciting video?" The restriction to a narrow sense of materials may
may not have been one source of semantic difficulty between the artists
and the Council. I just don't know the whole case. But DON'T WALK is
certainly one artist's way of clearing up the semantics and making the
problem fruitful. The tape is really a demonstration of many possible ways
to answer the question with a "yes".
But while the transformation also gives rise to ambiguity and to a
whole new range of problems, it also moves from controversy to new
inquiry into how the materials of video are formed and the formed
The Example Of Dance in DON'T WALK
Footage of dancers is assembled and superimposed to do all sorts of
things, from accompanying a Fuller talk on the brain and the Universe to
giving adoration to a giant Nixon telling us "...you won't have Nixon
to kick around anymore." But through a section which includes
"...a sentient involvement and not an intellectual narrative
continuity...," we hear a voice talking (over Fuller's) about working
with dancers. We see Fuller with the dancers fading in and out. over him.
The sounds of a rocket launch come over, and also a shot of a rocket, a
steady follow of it pointing diagonally from lower left to upper right is
superimposed. The voice says, "...the illusion. I'm not against art
as illusion. With me dance is sacred. You have a physical body. It's flesh
and bone. But the moment it makes a gesture, just then it becomes
something else, a magical kind of thing."During the last sentence
|the image of the rocket freezes
and goes negative, it makes a gesture. Here video art is not merely
making new wholes using the tape of dancers as parts. This is really a demonstration that one way in which video proceeds is
analogous to a way in which dance proceeds. We could say: Dance is to video as gesture
is to X (the device has no particular name yet). Or as a schematized
--------- :: ---------- :: ---------
Depending upon what we include as a gesture, we can demonstrate the
range of video devices that dance can help us to formulate. If we consider
gesture to be that by which we perceive anything in dance, then dance
gives us the means by which to structure all video images.
Music is used similarly. It is both played and it is talked about. It
moves from simple accompaniment of mixed images to a hand playing a Moog while the player compares the sounds with a wild
beast and talks about electronics and the sources of human behaviorism to
Frank Zappa and Mother playing on the Cavett show and talking about music
as a problem of censorship that the Constitution never envisioned to the
playing of Paik's video-breasted cello-lady. Analogies like the one with
dance could be made which might, for instance, set up music as the art of
structuring all sounds in a video work.
Actually any art exhibited in DON'T WALK can expand to uncover a wide
range of materials from all the arts and be used to give form to them in
To return to our original problem of why the art of reviewing a tape is
novel, we are left with the difficulty of writing in dead words about
something that is neither totally dead nor totally alive, neither truly
moving nor truly static, something which is not a work of art in the sense
of having a museum (and this includes movie houses), audiences of any
size, nor is it an individual who can answer one's questions. Of course,
one can still write in a style to entice others to see the tape or to
please them with an exciting description. Or pull out important topics for
discussion or find indications of a movement or a school. But turning
to a generalized art of structure, we can treat a tape as a tool box. And if
we want to say something about what video artists do and to point out some
tools that can be useful to others in this sort of activity, we should not
rely mainly on picking apart works and evaluating them
"aesthetically" just as we don't rely on the difficult method of
engaging everyone who appeared in or helped make a tape in an open-ended
dialectic about their intentions.
Our concern is with the continuities and transformations of structures
and materials, and we should treat a work before us as more than simply a
product to be interpreted. It is an example of a
living art that not only adapts old materials to produce new combinations
of sound and image, but also translates questions and problems
into tractable formulations and constitutes new arts.
DON'T WALK lends itself so well to such a treatment both because
it uses ambiguity and variation and because it works from an orientation
where video can be used as an "art of arts". My use of music
generalized to cover not only all sounds but all discourse about any
subject-matter is an example of such an art. I wished to show with it that
an art by which we get an insight into the way that an artist uses arts is
similar to the way in which he does in fact use them. Or, more compactly:
an "art of arts" is in no sense a "meta-art".
Further, I have tried to indicate that producing and using--like
process and product, device and genre, form and matter--are different
aspects of the same art. This is something that we usually see as
extremely desirable when we talk about the sciences, considered as
particular fields of knowledge and production. There we are quite
concerned about the lack of thought about destructive uses of new
inventions, the separation of facts from values, the helplessness of those
who make discoveries from a position of knowledge in relation to those who
apply discoveries from a position of power, or the many other formulations
of the separation of theory and practice. If we turn to the arts for help,
we see that the problem is not simply that people and professions that
produce are not those that use, but that the two activities are usually
considered to be totally different in their ends and to be
|pursued in different ways.
Video, as exampled by DON'T WALK, gives us a way of using all the arts
that have great philosophic adaptability. But video widened to include all
television arts also organizes the other arts. Television seems at first
glance, then, to be like what Aristotle calls a Master Art, Politics,
that "determines which branches of knowledge ought to exist in
states, which each class of citizens may learn, and to what extent."
And further, "Since this knowledge uses the rest of the branches of
knowledge, and since, moreover, it legislates what people are to do and
what they are not to do, its ends embrace the ends of the other branches of
knowledge." (NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS, 1094b) In some countries,
television does have an increasingly pervasive function of determining
what we see or hear or learn, who can do so, and to what extent, as well
as the function of a supposed forum for public debate and decision. But
television is still for other ends: of sponsors, governments, for
other arts as a display place or medium. However, both formally and materially, television is a product of, and a good
model for, a genuine Master Art which has a sufficient degree of
universalization. Technology is quite literally the science (logos) of art
(techne), which produces not only machines like the computer but also the
science and art of cybernetics, but which applications are developed and
understood with an orientation toward further discovery and application of
things, words, and arts.
If it is true that the person who invented the camera invented
photography, it is also true that the person who invents the arts of video
invents the television.
Copyright 1973 by Terry Moyemont.
DON'T WALK, 50 minutes, b/w Sony AV. Produced by Barry Schwartz and
others. Distributed by the Cultural Alternatives Network, 20199 Princeton Avenue,
Riverside, California 92507.
The Genre Named Anec- Document
By Tom Drysdale
Tom Drysdale sculpts, carves tombstones, teaches photography, and has
done videotape. As assistant to the director of the Minneapolis College of
Art and Design, he organized the First National Videotape Competition. He
presently teaches in the Department of Film, Radio, and Television at New
After screening ULTRA-VIOLET: 42nd STREET, submitted by
producer Joel Gold to the editors of this issue for review, I realized I
had a problem. My initial response to the work fell somewhere between
boredom and indignation at being asked to review such a work. My
difficulty was in ascertaining the appropriate responsible role for an
amateur critic who has done similar inferior work with tape in the midst
of a naive and overly romanticized alternate media culture.
After viewing many hundreds of hours of such tape, I can categorize
Joel's as being similar to most of these other works.
Happily though there are enough examples of good and excellent work
available to expose the lesser work for what it is. Consequently, I would
like to venture some observations about this genre of videotape which I
call an anec-document (that is, an anecdotal documentary, a high personal
stenographic narrative of an event or a situation). In doing so, I may be
taking unfair advantage of Joel and his work, for I will be violating the
social code of rather consistent mutual toleration, if not
admiration, which has typified the face-value image of the radical
software or hardware movement. In fact, Joel's work
|is qualitatively better than
most anec-documents. My intention is to point out the need for more
self-appraisal and consequently more constructive self-criticism.
ULTRA-VIOLET: 42nd STREET, with its Warhol Girl and its
notorious association with one of the camp focal points of the alternate,
no-longer-sub-culture, does not as a work fulfill the expectations raised
by its title. In this case, the title hails one's attention most directly.
But either the title is incidental to the work, or the work is incidental
to the title. This could be intentional hype, or simply someone struggling
to identify as well as possible, an event with a personal significance
tied to the presence of Ultraviolet.
Objectively, it is a depiction of a semiprofessional recording session,
with snatches of Ultra fawning for the camera, fits
of apologetic tap dancing from someone who resembles Harold, from HAROLD
AND MAUDE, and a good number of shots of a hard-working
piano player who, with the help and confusion of several other musicians,
tries to hammer out a funky arrangement of the tune, "42nd Street."
One assumes a flirtation is going on between Joel and a flautist, who is
the subject of several zoom-in, zoom-out sequences and far more monitor
time than the titled star. Occasional pans to
groupies and friends passing a joint, as well as some zooming close-ups of
hundred watt light bulbs occur before the tape halts. It could not be
called an ending, because the arrangement of the
song is never completed; the subject matter is not resolved. Obviously
someone ran out of tape.
On the brighter side, the tape does offer some insights into the
repetitious and difficult methods that must be undertaken to produce
music. Moments of the piece amused me because I've spent a considerable
amount of time rehearsing and screwing up music ten times in a row before
it worked out properly. One becomes aware of the delicate human
relationships and sensitivities, in terms of patience and responsiveness
to each other, from some of the references in Joel's work. It is
unfortunate that Joel does not do more to explore
this element of the event, and that he permits it to lie buried in the
There are vocal exponents of the rambling ethic caught up in the
"that it is" of video and the "that I
am associated with it" (as opposed to "what it is" and
"what can I do with it") who argue that the medium is beyond
criticism. "Everything goes! It is the critics who spoiled commercial
television, along with the mundane demands of public opinion." These are
frequently the same missionaries who sell the software/hardware
revolution, and who resist standards or relative qualifications for the
medium at any level, because the myth or prophesy is
thereby reduced by definition. Obviously, the advantage of personal tapes
is the fact that they are so personal. The point where judgment becomes
important, however, is when someone offers his work (or in some cases,
panders his work) to the public. This public could be either a packed
house at The Kitchen, or me, as a reviewer for RADICAL SOFTWARE.
During the initial years of the revolution with an audience naive about
the real potential of the medium, this was possible. It
was even defensible, given the fact that despite its
poor quality, it showed the comparable inferiority
of broadcast television. Pre-packaged and pre-digested television was just
as bad as unpackaged and unorganized videotape. Poor
or incomplete editing was blamed on faulty equipment and there were enough
good tapes around, which could be identified simply
because there was so little available material, to lend credibility to the
inflated claims of radical salesmen. What was formerly viewed as
anti-establishment video vérité, at least in terms of anec-documents, must
now be more carefully considered in terms of improved available equipment
and the impact of such tape upon the information
The political self-consciousness of the late sixties and early
seventies, with its accompanying feelings of impotence, combined with the
public embrace of McLuhan, made the emergence of the video scene a
tempting playground, particularly with its built-in credibility potential
for political and social change. Limited equipment offered the romance
of elitism, and institutions, anxious to appease militant hustlers, often
footed the bill. Marathon Warhol documentaries and stoned-out boredom
excused and licensed the first anec-documents, and their firm entrenchment
in the video scene is a matter of record. But the glut of inferior work,
as viewed by an increasingly sophisticated audience, has resulted in a
|public trust in the medium.
The difference between a Warhol documentary and most anec-documents can
be found in the subject matter, or lack of it. The limited editing and
stationary camera, as well as the absence of broadcast television
censorship, might be the same. But original material informs, and Warhol's
voyeuristic excursions into forbidden worlds succeeded despite their
length because of the degree of novelty, both for the stars seeing
themselves, as well as the subsequent paying
audiences. Similarly, documentary tapes such as TRANSSEXUALS, produced by
Global Village, work because they inform a general audience. It should be
noted, however, that the TRANSSEXUALS tape, as well as Global
Village's V.D. EPIDEMIC, were carefully edited from extensive
footage, and further, they represent a more objective group perspective.
Documentaries can succeed purely on the basis of subject matter. Great
documentaries combine style and subject matter. Without a compelling or an
entertaining subject, style is fluff. Some people, convinced of the power
of video, believe that video is style, or a style of expression. By
recording and playing back a sequence of events, the
processing itself legitimizes the occasion for some. Certainly in the
beginning of the movement, and even now, the presence of video equipment
at an affair of whatever consequence noticeably changes the atmosphere and
seems to heighten its significance. How many of us have felt the
satisfactory humility of by-standers when we carry a portapack? "put
away your Nikon, pal. This is hardware." In ULTRA-VIOLET:
42nd STREET, Joel uses the camera as an extension of his very
personal eye, as it darts about the room like a moth, lighting on this or
that image. Editing is inconsequential, for there is a
great deal of repetitive, extraneous material present in the 20-minute
tape. There is also an absence of material that the scene suggests should
be present, such as the completed rendition of the much practiced work.
Television has a personality by which it is known to each of us, as
complex as any person with whom we might spend an equal amount of time. So
powerful is the character (and McLuhan's characterization) of this
personality that we feel the frustration of its limits and, consequent to
the availability of alternate video equipment, we
discharge ourselves like Oedipus in subverting the
television's character to our egos and our uses. The equipment becomes the
Instamatic of the bourgeoisie, but there is a danger in the ease with which the half-inch hardware permits us to curse and screw
through the father screen. The catharsis is only temporary and, while we
might romanticize ourselves, we have not even begun to challenge the
Parent Television's omnipotence.
For several years, the viability of video information systems has
survived on promises more than the realization of them. Ironically, it is
the power of the medium itself that enables even the short-sighted and
inadequate utilization to succeed after a fashion. But the problems of
mass mis-communication are so great and pervasive that, from a purely
ethical basis, one might consider videotape equipment as 20th century
Golems, of which there are a certain number available, each with the power
to produce conscientious and significant work. (A Golem is a character
from Jewish mythology, created by the rabbi of an oppressed ghetto
community to save his people from an abusive king. Here, the magical
omnipotence of the powers of darkness enable the Golem, an automaton, to
save the situation. But when a young man tries to capitalize on the Golem
and his powers for personal gain, the Golem destroys him. Moral: Great
power must only be used carefully, for great
purposes, or it will destroy whoever attempts to turn it to personal
advantage.) Just as a car can be used as an ambulance or a drag racing
machine, so can the VTR be used for purposes of different relative
The equipment can be seen as a tool, and used as such; a toy, and
wasted as such; and an icon, symbolizing man's relationship with the
omnipotent television system, with the vague hint of recourse. This last
alternative seems less objectionable than the second, but is in fact
another form of cop-out. Unfortunately, there are many idol worshippers,
associated with the symbol, and not the principles and potentials it
represents. These are often the anec-documentarians, pursuing their
variations on Walter Cronkite's YOU ARE THERE routine. Here, the
theme is more appropriately: I WAS THERE, and I suspect that the
personal references in the work, which
|often obscure the subject
matter, reflect a fear of removing one's self from the tape, and
consequently, the stage.
The most practical standard of criticism in videotape, as in other
information or entertainment media, is a function of the audience for whom
the work is intended. Those persons immediate to the production of the
anec-document, or their friends and relatives, might find the statement
fascinating, much as they cherish Uncle Harry's movies of the Everglades.
Marveling at the "spontaneity" and "refreshing"
quality of the work, audiences new to the Medium are taken with the
non-packaged effect. Because of the oppressive
presence of the commercial television format, and
the predictable formulae used there, any breach of conduct or departure
from this norm may have a positive effect upon the viewers. Their
favorable reaction is frequently not to the subject of the tape, out
rather to the fact that it represents a statement against the broadcast
standard, a statement in which they would like to join. But audiences who
have become familiar with the videotape idiom are less inclined to view
hours of work in order to glean minutes of relevant material.
The upshot of this nasty review relates directly to the problem of
suicide for the radical software movement. As more and more tape is being recorded, a competitive system has
to evolve, with producers of work taking editorial responsibility and not
immature license. As for the compromises inherent in
processing work for a general audience, these must
be considered realistically and faced, if the tapemaker wishes the public
to share in his work. Tapes of varying degrees of
specialization should be reviewed in order to make them accessible to
interested parties. (As long as we are dependent on the print medium for
the simplest distribution of tape information, perhaps a segment of future
issues of this magazine could be reserved for capsule reviews by the
producers of the tapes themselves, with the understanding that a copy
would be available for more detailed consideration. This might help to make us a bit more self-conscious and reduce the
number of anec-documents that people willingly circulate.)
The larger issue is not the role of the critic or viewer, but the more
important role of the individual, as he approaches
the videotape medium. Each of us has the choice of cranking out fragments
of our or other's experiences and placing them on
the menu of mediocrity that represents so much of the available magnetic
chaff. Or, we can be a bit more careful in considering existing
communication pollution, and work to produce clearer and more coherent
statements. If, in the process of editing a work, you find that it really
does not have anything meaningful to contribute to other people's
experience, then please do not hand them your
Copyright 1973 by Thomas Drysdale.
ULTRA-VIOLET: 42nd STREET, about30 minutes b/w Sony AV Made by
Joel Gold Distributed by the Alternate Media Center 144 Bleecker Sreet New
AN EXPERIMENT IN FEEDBACK"
by R. G. Davis.
R. G. Davis. Chairman of the Theatre Department at Columbia College,
Chicago, founded the First Guerrilla Theatre group in the USA.
Filmmakers have an increasing tendency, due to maximized production and
consumption, to view life via films. By learning of Jamaica from a
documentary, or of Uruguay from a spy-mystery thriller, we are fast
developing a break with reality. These merely begin to indicate the
corruption of perception that lies underneath our eyeballs.
If filmmakers see life via film do tapemakers see
their own lives when they tape themselves? The tape LIFESTYLES
offers a three level onanistic view of the group of people who made this
tape about one blubbery New Yorker, Joe De Voto, and his pleasant-faced
wife, discussing women's liberation with their friend Nancy, who does most
of the interviewing.
Technically, this tape is in the style of most half-inch. The camera
zooms in and out trying to find focus. Close-ups dissolve into blurred
images. The camera swings, no pans, as it tries to pick up conversation
across a long table. Periodically we are forced to look at a reactive face
yet can't understand the meaning of the face since it is not reacting to
the dialogue, but rather to the camera's focus.
The videotapers are there, too. We see interviewers and microphone,
which has a mothlike quality. It floats in and out on a long stick, flying
through the air to get at the voice that is about to speak.
When the video plague (half-inch hysteria) began in earnest a few years
ago, white middle class youths purchased a portapack and a profession
with $2,000 and transformed themselves into freaks,
elevating a technological achievement into a revolution. Fortunately
history and reality erode hyperbole, and the irrational claims of total
vertical revolutionary capabilities with a portapack are declining. With
this tape, however, we still see the residue of bad camera work,
superficial preparation for investigation and self-congratulatory images.
As the camera swings from face to face, we get the impression that via
the magic of the vidicon tube we will fathom the problems of these people.
But we cannot, unless we know those faces, their history, and their moral
career. The home tape is most valuable if we know the home. Without this,
it is hard to understand the debate. If appears foreign to us and we learn
The tape is charming and humorous. It gives some insights into the
structure of the problem, yet it provides little or no information about
the entire problem of women's liberation. Nobody alludes to the spectrum
of the women's movement. There are radical lesbians and anti-imperialist
women; there are NOW reformists and Marxist theoreticians who are
struggling, along with a generally disturbed populace, to come to grips
with the family and the role of women in a capitalist society.
Nowhere in the tape do the makers interpose any knowledge or indicate
the intensity of the movement. None of us would go to a therapist who
didn't appear to know more than we about our social problems, and a good
homemade therapeutic tape
|could, if worked well, make
sense out of random data.
Ciné- vérité is a falsifying methodology. It presumes that by presenting
images we will be able to understand the historical and material process.
Just as if one goes to a demonstration and is brutalized by the police one
will become radicalized and comprehend the entire structure of society
with one clubbing. The "truth" is to be seen
in the Watergate hearings, the best home movie of the year. Senator Ervin
made it clear when he addressed John Dean: "We will understand the
veracity of your testimony by your response to the questions, how you
react to them, and corroborating evidence." This is accurate. Through
dialectical process we understand the truth, or better, we understand that
which is a good description of reality.
In LIFESTYLES, two women, one with glasses and black dress, the
other long-haired, are seen discussing the role of
women. (Later we recognize the long-haired woman as Nancy, the
friend-liberator. I didn't realize the first woman with glasses was the
wife of the blubbery New Yorker until the second viewing because away from Joe she sheds her
demure manner. A director friend said it took her three-quarters of the tape to
figure out that the woman with glasses was the blubber's wife. We did
agree, however, that Nancy looked like she was putting on a number. Those
of us who are actors and directors and know the mechanisms of performance
can see baloney more readily than those who work in sausage factories.)
The role of mother is discussed as an Old
World abstraction. No
indication is made that a mother might be a useful human being, one who is a writer and a diaper changer, a community work and a
feeder of two faces, a model of exemplary social behavior as well as the
reprimander of bad children.
Neither the husband nor wife view the role of mother as concrete:
washing, cleaning, feeding, caring are to them
abstractions. However, if her labor were viewed as a part of his
"career labor", then perhaps they might proceed to some rational
division of work and not continue this abstract ideological and
psychological discussion with no end in sight or probable.
Husband Joe is the center of focus much of the time. I suspect the
cameraman to be a man, for the total focus of the hot-air big talker
doesn't allow us to see what his wife is saying or feeling. The
questioners do not flesh out her insights nor her problems; rather, we
continually see him waving his hands and dramatically making false points:
"Listen, it's a matter of one...two...three..."
The final confrontation at the table is arbitrated by Nancy, who says:
"It will cost $100 a week to replace her; I'll help you find
Another voice: "Another nigger in the house."
Nancy in her glib number offers a solution only probable in middle
class homes. Poorer women, as oppressed as this mother, do not have the
opportunity of hiring others to do their chores. What about that? No
comment in the discussion and no thought from the camera-and-sound
Will he liberate her? Will she liberate herself? Will he help? There is
no analysis to help the viewer with these questions.
There is no special language needed to discuss videotapes, no special
methodology other than the one we use to view everything. We understand
things, as Senator Ervin says, by comparison with other evidence while
using our eyes and ears to comprehend the "facts" right in front
At the very minimum videotape cameramen and women are camera people and
should learn how to use the instrument correctly. At
|maximum, we would like to have a
more intelligent, perceptive and sensuous investigation of important
problems. We have enough soap suds on commercial
Copyright 1973, by R. G. Davis
LIFESTYLES--AN EXPERIMENT IN FEEDBACK. B/W, 39 minutes, Sony
AV-3650. Available from Global Village, 454 Broome Street~ New York, New
York 10012. Produced by John Reilly.
Review "CONFRONTATION ON 4th
by Steve Landsman
Steve Landsman, the Peter Watkins of half-inch videotape, is
associated with Humvideo, at the University of Chicago, His major credit
When I was in high school, I became a spotter in order to get to see
football games for nothing. My job was to stand there and see who made
tackles and assists on plays, and then to tell the PA announcer. On the
first play, the whole team pounced on poor old Jim Leahy. I thought that
it was probably either 14 or 27 who made the initial contact, so I told
the announcer that 27 made the tackle, with an assist by 14. Immediately,
I heard over the speakers "Ball carried by Number 18, Jim Leahy,
tackled by 27, Sewiki, assisted by 14, Sturdevant." And my first
reaction was to think "yup. I was right. They just announced
it." (That's feedback! )
Which is somewhat the position we are in with underground video. We are
used to watching a version of truth on the tube, and now we find it in our
hands; it is our illusion machine. What do we do with it? How do we
interpret what comes over the box now that the direction the signals are
coming from has changed? The problem with criticizing works of half-inch
video now is they demand a narrowness of treatment as being sui
There are few paradigms in the half-inch universe to allow more than
comment on how well the work accomplished what it set out to do.
I looked at CONFRONTATION ON 4th STREET, by Brent Sharmen of the
New York Switchboard, and distributed by the Alternate Media Center.
Briefly, the concrete situation involves the problem of overlapping
biological niches on 4th Street in Greenwich Village. The street is
claimed by both the street people and by the homedwellers/owners/renters.
Sharmen handled the situation as a media piece by first sitting the
street people on church steps and questioning them about their lives. For
half an hour, with one edit and one pan over the
turf, the camera stays on the people talking. Then, he grouped some
homedwellers on the steps of an apartment building across the street. They
spoke mainly of what a drag it was having street people on the block.
During the second part, one of the street people comes on, and is told
to leave. The street people have had their say; now it is the residents'
turn. But more street people come, and attempt to debate. It is not in the
format, they are told. An exchange takes place anyway. The tape ends,
after fifty-six minutes, with a decided difference in opinion.
So, how do you judge the tape? The problem of orientation in a new
world: what is a tape? What can be done on a tape? How well has it been
accomplished here? (So, to talk about a tape as something other than its
subject material, we do construct paradigms.
|A tape can be an expression of
personal opinion. In fact, it is almost impossible that it would not be.
Sharmen makes his prejudices visible. At the beginning of the tape, he
says that street people are looked down upon and not listened to, and it
is time that they be heard. But outside of occasional prods, he pretty
much lets both sides just talk. Outside of the framing of the situation,
it does not fall in the category of a personal tape.
A tape can be entertainment. And, for people--mostly sociologists-who
get off on other people rapping, this tape is entertaining. But most
audiences are not sociologists.
A tape can be information. If it is for information, we must learn
something. What do we see in the tape? Pretty much the faces of those
talking. The area in which the action takes place is not explored--we get
two brief shots outside the speaking areas. After the initial impact of
meeting the people, there is nothing added. It's like a still. Visually,
it's a confined tape. The bulk of the information is in the audio--a
televised radio show, Dick Cavett in the streets, but secular now, outside
of the temple/studio. We get the situation. The landed folk make it clear
over and over that the street people are a total bummer, and cannot be
lived with. We see a clash of style, but learn little of the people. Those
from the apartments spend their half-hour in self-righteous indignation,
detailing the filth and violence surrounding the street people. The street
people tell about how raunchy, but friendly, their world is.
The people look familiar, almost stereotyped. They look like television
people. Because they are television people. They censor each other's
language, "because we're on television." They can't move as they
might, because they are operating in a fixed format.
And we see a problem with video as a pure
information medium. In the preparation of biological slides, cutting
tissues with a microtome produces artifacts: stretching of membranes,
distortion of organelles, even the apparent production of new structures.
Portapaks in the field act like a microtome cutting a slice to be viewed,
and it creates artifacts in the same say. We will see in front of it only
those who feel comfortable in front of it, only a portion of the
indigenes. It will attract crowds, it will create its own activity. It is
an application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that one cannot
observe without influencing. And those in front of a TV camera are heavily
They are on TV, and are accustomed to a certain type of behavior on TV.
Children of McLuhan, they treat it as the mother medium, and try to act
like those they see.
So, as information, it is imprecise. People are revealing themselves,
and in context. But it is a context that is as yet undefined. We don't
really know how to break the code of the behavior yet. We have a point in
space without parallax. Unless there is some attempt to pin down artifact,
which there isn't, the information received (or the social effect
achieved) is questionable.
Another way of looking at tape is in terms of its utility for
problem-solving--in effect, using the artifacts as the situation. Let the people state their views, play it back and let them see
what they look like, and let the other side see, as well. This sort of
tape may not be of much interest to those not involved, but it can be
cathartic. CONFRONTATION ON 4th STREET does not give any indication of
feedback. There are no references to the work within the work, as we might
expect of there had been the usual feedback. Did the taping increase the
participants' understanding of themselves or the others? There is no
indication of this in the body of the tape, and rumor has it that the
legal residents had the cops run
|the street people out a few days
later. Which is the effect those of us who were dealing with
confrontations in the 60's would expect.
At present, half-inch video is viewed for the most part by those close
to the source, pretty much because of the lack of distribution. But for
there to be distribution, there must be an audience. And an audience will
not stand to be told they must understand. Interest must be wooed. While
the medium may be the message, the message must be given that this is a
new medium. It is up to the mythical underground video community to
discover what it is we hold in our hands, before the other guy tells us
what it is "supposed to be." CONFRONTATION ON 4th STREET
is not much help.
Copyright 1973 by Steve Landsman.
CONFRONTATION ON 4th STREET. 55 minutes, b/w, Sony AV. Produced by
The Alternate Media Center, 144 Bleecker Street, New York, New York.
"FACES OF THE
POOR" Review By Barry Schwartz
I can think of no experience comparable to watching videotape. When I
listen to radio I am absorbed only in software; the actual technology of
radio long ago lost its visibility. When I look at a hologram I am
fascinated only by hardware; the image content is of little interest. Yet
when I watch videotape I am required to look through the eyes of novelty.
My experience with video usually consists of both an appreciation of
the software shown and the new aspects of the medium that happen to be
demonstrated in a particular tape. Unlike film or other visual arts, tape
presently lacks an articulated vocabulary. After years of film viewing,
perceptions are formed by intimacy with the medium. One becomes able to
categorize, observe familiarity, recognize influences, criticize cliches.
The qualities of the medium become known, and the aesthetic judgment
relates solely to how these qualities are enhanced, used, exploited or
undermined by a specific film. The vocabulary of film has been given to us
by a past generation that developed cinématic literacy--an
artistic/philosophic stance toward the film
Videotape is a new medium, spawning relatively few offspring and
without a history. Instead we have watched TV many years before ever
seeing video. So when I watch a tape I am not sure if I am responding to
the qualities of the medium or how well or how individually these
innovations were accomplished in the specific tape appearing on the
monitor. Similarly, I have never made a tape that did not also lead to a
discovery of the medium's possibilities.
Reviewing a tape! What does it mean? Since there are no guide lines
for the evaluation of a unique tape I am certainly not comfortable in a
"critical" posture. At this time I believe the only intelligent
action is to describe the experience of watching the tape to be reviewed.
Although I have seen a lot of tape I would not bother to describe,
|FACES OF THE POOR is
eminently worthy of discussion. Throughout it I sat mesmerized in front of
the monitor. Before me was revealed a sequence of faces,
tired faces, lined, drawn, pained faces. They were cut faces, and closed
faces. They did not smile; they were numb or defiant or imploded or urban
weather-beaten. Each face stayed before me for what became an intolerably
long time. Confronted with each face, I found myself going down, and down
lower. Looking back at me for what seemed an eternity, each face pulled
something from me, draining me. After awhile I got angry. I did not want
to look anymore. It was not pleasurable, not fun..
My eyes shifted from side to side seeking relief from the continuous
emotional sameness within the uniqueness of each face. I asked myself if I
should get up, get away, turn to some relief for the ache that was growing
inside me. At every moment I was bombarded by the pain of the multitude,
the anonymous losers, the oppressed and the afflicted. I was, at the same
time, feverishly working through my mind the morality of my position.
Yes, I was captive before a monitor. I was looking at something I did
not want to see. I was participating in an experience I did not want to
engage. At first, what kept me there was a desire to sit out the tape, to
appease those who showed it to me, to oblige the video maxim, "I'll
look at your tape and you look at mine." But then, from within me,
came the recognition that these faces, these two-dimensional spirit images
on a video screen, were also the faces I meet in offices, on the subways, in supermarkets. How unforgivable that their owners wear
these faces most of the time! Not ugly really, these faces were the faces
of the poor; not masks--faces! And the faces told of their lives, of their
days, of the wearing-out process some knew as life itself. These faces were
what people were made into. Their faces told of what was done
to them. Poverty is a plastic surgeon with evil intent.
And who was I, if I looked away? An abyss opened up before me. I sat
with an existential question, answerable only by an essential voice within
me, telling me who I am and what I believe.
FACES OF THE POOR is one of the best examples I have seen of
what I call humanist tape. Though I perceived the hardware--in this case a sophisticated use of a single camera and primitive
cut-and-tape mechanical editing, how the tape was made seemed unimportant.
Though the software could be perceived as software, I quickly became
involved in an experience of great intensity created by the impact of the
software on me. Thus, the actual experience of this reviewer has little to
do with my appreciation of or indifference to
hardware and software. FACES OF THE POOR was that rare tape which asked to
be evaluated by the experience it created rather than by its prowess in
technological muscularity or its "never before shown on the big
screen" software. It was a meaningful exception to the Flash Gordon,
light show psychedelic, abstract composition, "man-in-the-world"
documentary, radical public service type tapes I have been seeing lately. FACES
OF THE POOR created in video a major conflict between pleasure and
pain, between escape and commitment, between the desire for illusions and
a passion for the truth. It is this experience in art and life I call
humanist. It gives us the opportunity to decide, at that moment, whether
we want to live or die, submit to a conception of reality smaller than the
truth, or demand recognition within ourselves for what it is.
I have seen a lot of video used in therapy, in "new
consciousness," consciousness-raising sessions, in feedback-to-self
experiments. FACES OF THE POOR did more than I have seen before. It
made me choose. It was more than new data; it aided self-definition.
|I do not know how much of my
experience with the tape was defined by me. I do not know how often
others will have a same or similar experience with it. It doesn't matter.
I recall a past experience, months ago. I sat in a chair while my
face was taken for a thirty-minute alteration under the
skillful guidance of Nam June Paik and through the technology of his video
synthesizer. It was a fascinating experience, sometimes frightening,
sometimes joyous. My life seemed to unfold as I was led into the affective
influence of colors and the provocative manipulation of distortion. But in
the end, I was not touched within. I had a lot of new information about my
subjective states. Yet, the experience left me intact--feeling more aware
of myself, more insightful into fancies and fears--but essentially intact.
FACES OF THE POOR demanded that I identify myself. The images that
passed before me like an assembly line of monotonous deficiency insisted
on engagement with others or required that I armor myself against the
realities of other human lives. I am stronger for having chosen as I did.
I am sure that someone will see FACES OF THE POOR, and after
incorporating the techniques involved in making the tape, will produce a
faces of something or other. It may be shot more effectively, employ more
novel software, be edited more selectively, feature a better sound track.
It may be heavier or lighter, superficial or profound. I may very well
come to see it sometime. And when and if I do will remember FACES OF
THE POOR as original, effective, and one of the more important
experiences I have had sitting in front of a monitor.
Copyright 1973, by Barry Schwartz.
FACES OF THE POOR, produced by ANAGRAM PICTURES, 7328 South Euclid
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60649. b/w, 15 minutes, Sony, AV.
HUMAN CONNECTION AND THE NEW MEDIA, edited by Barry
N. Schwartz. (Prentice-Hall, 1973.) From the jacket: "The essays in
this volume examine what the new media are, what their potential is, and
how they may open avenues for human connections. . Evaluating the
revolutionary aspects of the new media are such distinguished contributors
as John Lilly, Peter Goldmark, Buckminster Fuller, and Isaac Asimov."
TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE!
TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE!