Art used to be a slow thing requiring you to look and reflect. Video art breaks the mold turning art into something faster and more transient.
Here’s a question. Is video art the future of art for a culture that doesn’t want to slow down and reflect? [see images from Times Square where they now project movies with subtitles [like “Mission to Mars” seen here] on the Sony screen]
We get our news from headlines just like we get our traffic reports and the weather. It’s all the same when you’re in a hurry. 
Is the future of art going to be video “headlines,” little chunks of art served up like sushi? And how bad would that be?
It seems that video art has the potential to be a kind of democratic art, art of the people, in the future. I mean, if education is the great democratizer, they don’t teach much real, old-fashioned art (painting, drawing, clay work) in school anymore. They do seem to teach computers and media stuff. It’s required. And while I haven’t heard of classes that teach video technology in elementary and secondary schools, teachers, in my experience, encourage students to use video in homework projects. 
And many kids with access to the equipment do. [How about that izone camera for child-friendly introduction to picture-taking? see image]
So kids — many of whom haven’t been exposed much to traditional art materials — are likely to be familiar with the technology of computers and other electronic media.
Will this familiarity breed contempt or will it perhaps lead to more people trying their hand at making art via electronic means? Will the next Picasso be a young woman whose video art you can download from the internet and project on a wall in your living room?
