Response to "Video Art" Pages 1-38

         Michael Rush describes television as the breakthrough invention on the road to video art.  The ability to spread news around the technologically modern world was a chance revolutionists, politicians, and artist alike couldn’t resist.  Rush goes so far as to say that the invention of the television paired with the big anti-war riots and feminist revolution in the 1960s is the entire reason video art became a success as a modern art form in today’s society.  However, I would like to know if the political scene of the 1960s had not been so media-filled, would video art still have made it into the hearts of so many artists to date? 

            Rush also points out that one of the main reasons video became so popular with the common person so quickly was that it provided immediate gratification to be able to see one’s self on the tape instantly after shooting.  However, not all artists viewed this attention to the self in videos as a good thing.  American critic Rosalind Krauss thought that this type of video was merely an exploitation of an artist ‘s ego rather than an actual new art form.  She proposed a question, which I would like to now propose to all of you: “Does photographing the self constitute pathological narcissism?”  And even if it does constitute narcissism, does this prevent video art from actually being art? Where should the line be drawn between home videos and self-obsessed video “art”?