It seems like that at this point of our timeline a lot is already written about the object named “video”. Video in itself therefore appears as not questionable or not questioned. Video is an undiscussable companion of the everyday. It is an attachment in a variation of practices. It is a relation, a relative. Rather than an object it is an appearance, a fog, a cloud. May be it is just a definition.
Of course, these statements need to be discribed, elaborated, explored further in depth. Underlaying as a motivation is a question hardly to ask: “What is video?”. The question is closely formulated, such to speak with the eye directed to and being on the historical work of Andre Bazin and his collection of essays named under the title ‘what is cinema’. Of course, once again suggesting that cinema is an ancestor or at least a close relative of the object in question. But it is understand as just setting a direction. Object ‘video’ and the direction of the question ‘what’ creating a vector, which is traversing various kinds of environments. In other words formulated walking along a path, following a road of exploration from the moving image as electronic construct or built by code towards its cinematic forms and further to its various applications as a tool and medium … and more forward seeing video as crystallization of time. In our daily life we not only can touch video screens, we touch the video itself as the video touches us through various kinds of gadgets, smart phones, navigation devices, tablets and further more to come.
- Andreas Treske, Izmir Economy University, Izmir, Turkey