There are the two categories of creators: those who use technology as a vehicle, those to whom offers itself as a poetic source. “Only after the computer became the companion to my work did I realize that the personal dimensions for technology might have limits, that the work with computers is a participatory task, immense in its own dimension.” In looking at film from the vantage point of video we can see the dual nature of the filmic performance, as the machinery of an “image delivery system”. Each medium develops its own idiosyncratic environment, the specificity of the medium has a decisive say in the aesthetic formulation. However, the experience of film has positioned all the “new” works of moving images in a competitive cultural environment; “new media” is seen an accumulative discipline.
Before any image can appear before our eyes, the concept of the image has to be formulated for the machine in a specific way. In case of film camera, the artifact of a pinhole is confined into a frame. The digital medium enables model coming from internal source: “the system itself is employed to participate in formulating the image through a video or a system feedback or a combination of both.” The ultimate challenge to the dominance of camera comes from a computer where the images come from a numerical formulation. The positioning of the frame is achieved differently in each medium, but all moving image media rely on frames. The computer itself is an empty stage, which develops through the process of using the archetype, and tends to growing personalization. (Summary by L.D.)
medium specificity, concept, internal model, numerical formulation, frame