“a distinct aesthetic strategy, one that is premised on a mode of relationality. According to Ursula Biemann, the video essay as a genre, situates itself between documentary film and video art. Considered too experimental, self-reflexive and subjective for documentary, the video essay stands out within the spectrum of video art as socially involved and political.” (Springgay, 2008)
Even the most experimental director will at one point be constrained by the dictates of commerce. This is especially so because video rental, sale and distribution industries are small when compared to other entertainment media. It is almost impossible to name any video artists who have actually earned their living from their work for any sustained period of time. In fact, even if one accumulates royalties from rental and sale of video art for many years it would still not even cover production costs. Only a few filmmakers are fortunate enough to find supplementary income through teaching at universities and art schools. Some others get by with administrative or curatorial jobs at media art centres. But the overall picture is pretty bleak. It is very important for the audience to understand the economic and financial structure of the video art industry. For otherwise, viewing works of art in exclusion of these factors, would give an incomplete understanding of the content itself. It is the survival instincts of the director that override all other artistic considerations. All experimentation in technique and content are limited by the economic imperative. What this means is that the director has to aim to reach a broad audience base. To this extent, his content and style cannot be too esoteric or sophisticated. In this manner, the economic necessities erect limitations on the director’s intent, and by extension the scope for audience’ imaginative interpretation. The acute economic problems of the video art industry are highlighted by this passage:
“Production grants, always scarce and usually scant, have been hard hit by recent cuts in state and federal funding. Innovations in analog technologies such as nonlinear editing, and the foreseeable obsolescence of familiar analog technologies (such as the venerable 3/4″ system), are occurring at rates far too rapid and costly for most non-corporate consumers, be they individual artists, media-access centers or educational institutions, to stay on or near the cutting edge.” (Chris, 2006)
In the era of broadband Internet, camera-enabled mobile phones and Youtube, the complexion of video making and distribution has undergone a revolution. Many pundits worry that video as an art form might be coming to an end. In conjunction, the original impulses for video-making that television enabled has also neared an end. Caught helplessly in an industry in decline, the video maker has lost the relevance he once possessed. These days, “the burdens placed on video to be topical, critical, political, even revolutionary, have superseded aesthetic development, sometimes at the expense of even moderate standards of technical quality – and this, despite the fact of poorly constructed tapes or those of substandard technique, limits access to many potential screening venues.” (Chris, 2006)