Television is a mass medium; video, a private one. As television is treasured for its credibility, especially when bringing the day’s news into our homes, video should be valued for its incredibility. Literary video is destined for an audience that is ideally both visually sensitive and literate; television for an audience that is neither.

—“Literary Video” (1975, 1987)

Literary video differs from video literary-reportage in which, typically, a poet is interviewed or is seen reading aloud; for in literary video, the author becomes an artist, exploiting the indigenous possibilities of the new medium—instant playback, overdubbing, selective vision, synthesis of both images or letters/words/sentences in live time, image distortion and so forth. In literary video, the screen is intelligently active, the author-artist visually enhancing his own language; in video reportage, by contrast, the camera’s eye is visually dumb.

—“Literary Video” (1975, 1987)

Once I had these [video] syntheses, I discovered what was not obvious at the beginning--that they were seen best not on standard small screens but on two-piece projection televisions that resemble film in having images that are looked at (not through, thus without fear of cathode-ray-tube-damage), but differ from film in having a blurred surface and rougher edges. Indeed, there is every reason to regard projection television as a reproduction medium quite different from the book-like smallscreen television on one hand and film on the other.

“Language-Based Videotapes & Audiovideotapes” (1995)