[…]Video usualy is presented on dvd or DV tapes, or on youtube, vimeo… All of these mediums are kind of vocabulary but digital video is like virus existing in diferrent media. This specific kind of image is connected with device and time of popularity of it. Digital video is something more than that. Digital image is simulating those effects of devices and this simulation is FAKE! As in my work MANDALA from 2001 where i had explored bad half images synchronisation, and codec errors mixed with small resolution of image.

But it was just part of creative process and all of these errors was my way to find special kind of effects, and finaly it was burned in DVD. So every DVD player makes fake because it is not creating errors, he is plaing his role in perfect way, but we see failure. As many other kinds of ERROR music those video was fake. It is unusual to see the cellular phone video in cellular phone device. Usualy we can see it in the cinema or on the wall of gallery in HD resolution monitors or projected from good beamers. This viral migration of image, triumph of failure of technology is faked. All other sampled noices, technics of failure aesthetic, or simulations of 16mm or 8mm films are the same in the digital video vocabulary. Does not matter if you are using old film effect or effect of pixelisation. All this vocabulary is vocabulary of fakes. Fake needs failure to extend his vocabulary. But video is Fake like any other kind of language. […]

Earl Lyan April 10 2009 11:12Reply

Im sure you'll find a way to sort it out. My friend had pretty much the same experience too, it was a couple of months ago.

Lucid Dreaming Techniques -

Lucid Dream Tips -

Rafael Abreu-Canedo April 11 2009 15:03Reply

Interesting poetics Steven. I enjoyed reading it…mostly the first 5 sentences. But there's something very real about emotions and feelings. In addition, there seems to also be something very real about the data we intake from our environment.

Is it important to communicate these things (sensory data, feelings and emotions) to others? That is, after all, how we build a communal conceptual map of our world, and by extention, build community. While I can agree with you, surely there's a role for mediums of communication that stand-in for reality.

If not for these primitive, yet gratifying attempts at representing the very real things you've mentioned, then what? Until we can practice effective alchemy on a galactic scale, keep having thoughts, and keep making music and paintings and books about your thoughts, feelings and emotions, so that we can further strengthen our bonds and networks toward whatever goal each of us may have in mind.

And Michael…very interesting. I wonder what is the boundary between the real and the fake. Is the real error the effect or the cause. Just because the instructions for the error effect are pre-coded to the set of instructions that your playback device is receiving from the media, does that make it fake? Unintentional scratches on a DVD, may or may not produce an error effect. And if it doesn't produce an error effect, is that then a fake scratch?

What I am trying to get at is that you seem to be talking about intentionality because the visual effects caused by damages to media can be employed as styles to be synthesized, without damage to the actual media. As to say, the error was intentional, whether by intentional damage to the media, or via coding. Which brings me to another question: is a tomato produced under laboratory conditions less real than a tomato grown in dirt, even though they have they manifest the same molecular structure? Sorry for the cheesy metapho

(Not that I'm for or against genetic engineering per say, but it's just that I'm curious to know where to draw the line between real and fake.)

-My best, Rafa