Gene Youngblood assorted passages

There are some issues with Gene Youngblood’s interpretation of the computer as a medium. While it’s true that to some extent, computers can be a creative collaborator when it comes to art, computers are NOT free from error, as we’ve seen exploited with glitch art. Glitch art embraces the unpredictable and the unconventional, but definitely in a different way than Youngblood intended for – neither the computer nor the artist can predict what will always happen, and how, and this lack of control makes the computer less a collaborator and more a generative tool. It is NOT an active participant, because it has no control over its own mechanical failures, and the artist selects from its glitching what he wants and what he does not want.

I think in a lot of ways, for Gene Youngblood, the concept of the sensorium is a utopian one. The language he uses, primitive and complex, base and vulgar, to describe what is new and what is populist or general (like Disneyland) is in a lot of ways a sort of patronizing sneer at anyone who thinks dressing up like it was the Age of Aquarius and putting shit on your face is probably not the most constructive use of your time. Personally, I think his ideas about intermedia and stimulating the human senses in a deliberate way are cogent, but I wish, as with a lot of this written work in this selection, that it would see farther than it did. It’s a bit of a letdown, really.

More Projectz

The Black and the White Gods from Ben Russell on Vimeo.

Live Cinema Summit presentation - jonCates (2010) from jonCates on Vimeo.

http://mattpyke.com/exhibitions/super-computer-romantics

Tekken Torture???

W3FI from Chris Coleman on Vimeo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFFN1nu5MYk

expanded cinema performances

NoiseFold - from a distance from David Stout on Vimeo.

Response to "as we may think"

"Knowledge evolves and endures for the life of a race but not an individual" goes along with the author's thoughts about research analysis. Scientists spend so much time writing and book-keeping with their cures and thoughts, that during the same time they could have actually been helping someone. Because of the fixation with recording everything, the ill person is never helped. The society as a whole is helped, eventually reading these recordings and learning from them, but that is long after the people who were being written about are gone. The author mentions that this is to be expected when we live in a world of "cheap complex devices that are reliable," so it seems like he is almost against technology in a way? Maybe I misinterpreted his words. Like when he references the stenotype and how words are recorded in short little phrases and then afterwards turned into actual speech/story, but why not make a language to begin with, that easily follows such a recording device (or vice versa) ?

I like when he says "for mature thought there is no mechanical substitute," which always makes me think he has a problem with our dependence on  technology. Scientists can always make machines and devices to make things easier, that may even be able to get a lot of work done without the aid of a human being; but you need that human being, with mature thought and intellect, if you really want to accomplish something.

RESPONSE TO MEDIA HOT COLD

Maybe it's because I read both of these within the same hour, but this just hurt my brain and I didn't have much patience to keep re-reading to finally get it. I understand the main point, and it's definitely interesting to break down media into "hot" or "cold." Hot medium, like the radio, heavily focuses on one sense, while cold is includes a few more, like TV. What I dont get is how a movie is hot, but TV is cold. Or radio is hot, but telephone is cold. The telephone only relies one sense as well as the radio..your hearing. I personally don't see the difference. Or a movie and TV? Both require both visual and oral. I can't decide whether I consider speech to be "low" definition or not, either. I mean a friend can tell you a story about their weekend and you can follow every little bit without the aid of anything but your eyes and ears. But I guess hearing something and seeing the person speaking wouldn't stick in your head as much as having those senses, along with, say, writing it down. Is that why he thinks it's low definition then? Because an un-recorded speech isn't as long lasting or informative?  Either way though I appreciate the unique way of describing media...

Response to Media Hot and Cold

I do agree with the Hot medium and Cold medium. It is saying that a Hot medium is a high definition while Cold is a low definition. Also, the examples like the telephone or a speech would give less information while the radio and a movie would give more information. I also agree that th Hot media would give low participation while Cold media would give high participation. An examle would be a radio to a telephone.

rubby tubby

I hope everyone is having a good weekend.

A list of some basic HTML tags

Hey guys, so we'll be going over Dreamweaver on Monday, but here is a link to a site with a list of basic html tags. While Dreamweaver will give us a (relatively) user-friendly interface that builds the code for us, it's good to have a basic idea of what code it might be constructing and what results they have when the browser reads them. So just take a quick look at this, and you can also refer back to it later if needed: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_quick.asp

Reponse to "As We May Think"

When I was reading this article, it didn't get my attention in any way. In the beginning of the article, it talks about biologists and physicists leaving their old ways and into something dangerous. The person who wrote this article is leading a few thousand from the application of science to warfare. I think each profession would have it's changes and change from something that is similar to something that is not. Science also found some new ways to communicate and to make things much easier.

Useful Web Tool

Found this toolbar as part of my crazy search engine job, but it could be really useful for this project. This toolbar allows you to do lots of things with existing websites but most importantly it will display all java, css and html code. This allows you wise sirs to copy and past styles and codes of websites you like. Enjoy watching the codes...

Code Watching

PUREDATATATATATATATATa

Musicality and elsewhere...

purerer data
dental floss in case you get all that data stuck in your teethies
physical computing basic tutorials
flex sensor
A very good site... cloth + electronics + magic

internet fun!!!!

Keith and Mendi Obadike

Predator always wins...

 

dump 

 

youtube as subject and more 

Toward Project 3...

Hi everyone,

While I'm sorry that the critiques for Project 2 have been going long, I'm so pleased with the work you guys are producing. I hope you've all documented your pieces for the portfolio review. If not, I recommend re-staging them outside of class time if you need photos or videos. If you don't have a decent still camera, we do have some Nikons in the cage...

Here is the working description I've been using for project 3:

Project 3 – Web/Imaging
You will build a webpage that can serve as the basis for a critical art project. This can take the form of a public performance (considering virtual space as a kind of public space), an interactive project inviting participants, an image based narrative, or some other imaginative re-contextualization of the “home page” you propose.

Within this description, you can build your own webpage using dreamweaver, or use some online wiziwig (a template kind of like wordpress, blogger, myspace, etc...). Furthermore, I'm willing to expand the parameters from building your own webpage to staging some kind of performance or intervention within an existing web framework such as ebay, facebook, amazon, etc. Below are some examples of work that might fit these parameters:

I Sorry I Havn’t Posted – by Cory Arcangel
"A new reblog I started which re-posts posts of people apologizing for not posting. Tag line: “Inspiring Apologies From Today’s World Wide Web”. Sounds kinda dumb, but I sift through about 50 of these posts a day, … there are some really touching ones out there. Enjoy!"

Working At Youtube by Cory Arcangel

Punk Rock 101 by Cory Arcangel

Wikipedia Art by Nathaniel Stern

http://wwwwwwwww.jodi.org/

Animated GIFs by Jon Cates

Time As Money by Shane Mecklenburger

You're Not My Father by Paul Slocum

I can think of a few more, but we'll start with these. If some of you have some you would like to take a look at in class, or that you would like to post for others to see here, please do so.

As far as demos toward this project, we will do a quick overview of HTML and dreamweaver, and a basic intro/refresher to photoshop for various applications. If there are other things you would like to cover, please bring this up in class as well and feel free to post here with any questions.

Mike

Factitiousness- Art is not the world of the suspended will (Schopenhauer), or of the disappearance of contingency (Sartre), but a space emptied of the factitious. It in no way clashes with authenticity (an absurd value where art is concerned) but replaces coherences, even phoney ones, with the illusory world of "truth". It is the bad lie that betrays the hack, whose at best touching sincerity inevitably ends up as a forked tongue.
-the sci-fi artist Nicolas Bourriaud, on art "lies" and "truth"

sound art podcast

some great sound recordings ...plate techtonics, cell division, electronic signals, dreams, cookies, chincillas ...

Reich, Trecartin

Reich-
I'd figure most others don't have this issue as bad as I do but most of the readings this year have been diffucult to get through (because of a combination of my low attention span, the conceptual and theoretical topics, and the tone the articles are written). However this was easy to fallow and engaging. Though I have never really been interested in music, writing music or the processes, I found this guy interesting. I could understand what sounds and feelings he was describing when talking about the loops and music running down the sides of his body through the headphones. I liked how he kept switching back and forth from absolutely no tech to a tech based song the next year. I understand after using a computer for too long you want a break, I have done the same thing several times.

Trecartin-
Wow, after reading what the article has to say about Trecartin I can see him now more than ever as an artist, as well as even more crazy. It seems to me that the art really is the creation of the videos, before they are filmed and are still on paper. Trecartin uses language as if it was the art material, splattering it in to stratigized shapes in what looks like to every one else as chaotic accidents. To me it seems like "its not he destination, but the journey" for Trecartin. But now that I think back to the first video we watched the Koreas did all speak in a way that if written out would look like “Yaw,,,,,,”, or “IT is not |You|,,, IT IS WE!” Trecartin is a artist/poet of modern times using what new media he has to work with. Though I'm not crazy about the videos I have seen, with explanation I appreciate them differently.

Response to Riech, DJ Spooky, and Trecarten

I like how both Riech and DJ Spooky's articles were suggesting and acknowledging the importance of everyday sounds, to the point that it is, in itself, music. You can talk to a person and have a certain phrase or word stick out to you, and it plays over and over in your head, which is where Riech comes in. I notice my surroundings and little sounds, but I don't think I ever thought of them as music. But to take these remembered words and loop them creates a flow, a rhythm, and therefore...music. DJ Spooky takes this concept further by using more than just words, but every single sound you hear. I thought it was interesting when he was talking about finding a "Blankness in flow," and how we will naturally put that blankness into context, despite its emptiness. I think its like the audible version of drawing a circle, but not all the way; your mind will connect the rest.

As for Ryan Trecarten...I just saw the picture when I opened it was instantly turned off. I cannot begin to explain how uncomfortable that video made me. However I see how this is still relevant to the other articles, in the sense that Trecarten has taken certain phrases and sounds, and then emphasized them. Also, this whole topic of audio/sound/music reminds me of the beginning of the song "counting bodies like sheep" by A Perfect Circle.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g9AxVoG04ng" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some other sound pieces to consider

Inigo Manglano-Ovalle - Sonambulo Blue





The Murder of Crows by Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller



"This large installation, ‘The Murder of Crows’, continues Cardiff Miller’s explorations in creating sculptural and physical sound. Ninety-eight audio speakers are mounted around the space on stands, chairs and the wall creating a minimalist flocking of speakers. The structure of the piece tries to mirror that of the illogical but connected juxtapositions that we experience in the dream world. One soundscape moves into another with an electronic dreamscape composition shifting into sound effects such as factory noises, crashing waves or birds wings and then into a guitar and strings composition then into a choir sequence and marching band.

The title for the installation is ‘The Murder of Crows’, which means a grouping of crows. Sometimes when a crow dies, many other crows flock to the area around the dead bird and caw for over 24 hours, creating a ‘crow funeral’. The title also provides a thematic entry into the installation; a basis to create a work that becomes a metaphor for our political situation today.

Another central theme for the piece is Goya’s “Sleep of Reason Brings False Monsters” from the etching series "Los Caprichos.” In this particular one Goya shows a man asleep, his head resting on his folded arms. Owls and bats fly menacingly around his head; at his feet, a lynx sits motionless, alert and staring.

At the centre of our installation there is one physical element that echoes Goya’s etching, a small desk with a megaphone speaker lying on its side. Janet’s voice comes out of the speaker occasionally, telling a sequence of dreams. The sounds and music in Cardiff Miller’s work act like the owls and bats that envelope the sleeping man in Goya’s etching. Janet’s voice, like Goya’s dreamer is helpless to escape from her apocalyptic dreams."

Bill Viola - Room for St. John of the Cross



"In Room for St. John of the Cross, the rear wall of a dark gallery features jittery black-and-white video footage of snow-capped mountains accompanied by the cacophonous sound of wind. In the center of the gallery sits a small earth-covered structure containing a water-filled pitcher and a four-inch monitor displaying color video of a mountain. Peering inside the single window-like opening, one can hear a soft voice reciting the poetry of 16th-century Spanish mystic Juan de Yepes, who was imprisoned for nine months in a cell the size of the structure. Though he endured great suffering, St. John (as he was later canonized) wrote of the spiritual freedom he achieved through his love for God. Visitors to the work may experience it spatially, physically, emotionally, psychologically, or intellectually as part of a transformative process. "

Reponse to Steve Reich and In Through The Out Door

This is like the only thing that really got my attention and I was interested in reading. It was interested to read about his life with the technology especially music and the instruments he used to do for his tape loops. When I was reading this, I thought it seems like he was talking about you could make music with anything if you know how to do it well like the tape loops of the people voices.

I don't agree with DJ Spooky and i don't how civilization isolates all of us if it keeps us in A civilization and there is nature all around us. He may believe what he thinks but when he say We, don't think he has my opinion of what nature talk to us.

Death of the Author

What I took from this article is that the author is dead because after he is done writing it no longer matters what he believes about the he has written. To me, it’s like artist and there artwork. Once a piece is done, it’s no longer theirs. It’s now public domain for an audience to critique, explore or take what they want from it and analyze it in there own way. He writes, “Author is supposed to feed the book — that is, he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child.” Like a child that grows up and becomes his own person, art and books have the ability to grow and become something bigger than what they once were through captivation of and audience and how they receive the work. The question is do you as the artist/author care what the audience thinks and if so why?

Walter Benjamin –Work of art

The one thing that stood out the most in this article was when Walter Benjamin writes,  “Artistic production begins with figures in the service of magic. What is important for these figures is that they are present, not seen.” I agree with this statement in that, I personally don’t create my art to be judged by the masses but create it because it needs to be and because I can. It doesn’t need to be seen but only to exist because it’s something that has been done. Also a point to be made is that most people have not seen the actual Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel but can still appreciate the art through today’s technology. 

Sound Pieces

John Cage's Sonata No. 5 for Prepared Piano


John Cage's Indeterminacy (part 1 of 3)



Alvin Lucier's I am Sitting in a Room

A little mini doc on the art of Christian Marclay

Robert Hughes "The Shock of the New"

I thought this might be a relevant video: it's from Robert Hughes' "The Shock of The New" way back in the day, and he's criticizing modernism as a philosophy. Keep in mind when I embed this I'm playing in part devil's advocate because I think in a lot of ways Hughes is a miserable blubbering grouch, and his views on timelessness are (in my express opinion) stupid. Proof positive he's stuck in the mud is his more recent production for BBC4 "The New Shock of The New" whose title I think says everything about his thought process or rather, his thought sedentary stillness (after YEARS!). Still, he has a point here.

Roland Barthes and John Cage

With Death of the Author, Roland Barthes suggests that literature/writings contain a multidimensional space and that a limit is superimposed on that space when authorship is present. I agree with this statement and really enjoy the idea of divorcing the text from the author because the reader is no longer given a boundary, but instead is free to interpret and explore the multiple layers of a sentence or passage and it's illimitable multiple meanings. If we were to take a writing for it's author's definitive interpretation then we become forced to adhere to a singular viewpoint with no room for creative extension. We are bound to whatever the author wishes; "Author-God" is what Barthes refers to it as or rather a "tyranny": "... literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions." Creativity is then stifled.

I think that John Cage understands this as well, although he refers to it as "Zen". One of the examples he gives of this phenomena is called Lecture on Nothing ( which consisted of him repeating the sentence: "If anyone is sleepy let him go to sleep.") It was literally a lecture of nothing. Even the Q&A section of it was constructed of previously prepared answers regardless of what was asked of him. But because it was the same rhythmic structure he had employed at the time in his musical compositions, he was able to create something of poetic substance. He himself said, "It is not poetry by reason of its content or ambiguity but by reason of its allowing musical elements (time, sound) to be introduced into the world of words. Thus, traditionally, information no matter how stuffy (e. g., the sutras and shastras of India) was transmitted in poetry." The audience is then free to interpret as they wish.

But how are these two readings relevant to our Media class? I mean, this isn't an English class after all. Well, I think both of these can be perfectly carried over when looking at a piece of art. Should we limit ourselves to the "Author-God"s interpretation of a piece? No! That is not to say that the author's meaning is invalid but rather allowing ourselves to create a broader view upon a subject. We should take the piece in it's entirety and examine every plane that it has to offer, whatever meaning it may hold to us. This sets us free from constraints and artistic restraints.

Or maybe it's just the postmodernist in me......

Paul thinks that Barthes is an idiot

Is it too childish to say "I don't get it"?

I know that might sound cliche, or trite, but the fact is I don't see how it is possible for the author to be extinct simply because his text exists to the reader. This seems like total pontification without reason. How can a text be without a source? Did the writing write itself from the vast sources of wisdom that solidified itself into a written work to be enjoyed by any random reader? No. The author is the voice, the text is the vehicle and the reader is the destination of the authors voice. If the author decides to remove his or her name from their written piece, they are still the source of the thoughts and intents that are put into print, even though they may wish otherwise. If the author is dead at the time of the reading, then the author is not extinct, but comes back alive to deliver the message that was once written. The text does not in anyway forgo the author, but in fact reincarnates the authors mind when the reader decides to become an audience for the words of the author.

I am not convinced that a writing comes from so many sources that identification of a single source is impossible. Even in a group writing, there are several unique voices that join to make the groups joined perspective understandable.

All these ideas and events that penetrate this world are impossible to be perceived by a single entity, and those who have the fortune of witnessing the same spectacle each have their own lens of understanding based on their unique history. This frames the individual as a vessel who holds a very unique perspective from every other person before or after them in the world. When this individual decides to share their views in writing, the writing itself may transcend the persons life, but it will never obliviate the author such as Barthes suggested.

Pipilotti Rist - Mutaflor

Because everyone needs more Pipilotti Rist in their lives....... enjoy.

Adoringly,

Monica

Leigh Bowery

I dont know if I am cluttering things up on the blog with all these videos, but I am just so thankful that my friend showed me this, it is just gold. I hope you like it my animal friends. Things are going great over here. I had a good day. I am probably going to go to bed early, love you guys

Clapping music - Steve Reich

I found this cool remix blog... http://kottke.org/tag/remix. This video was on it, I have been watching for a while, thought it may be useful. Love Alex, your class mate and friend.

Death of the Author

I find it a matter of pragmatism that authorship and a cult of the author, with its satellite critics, still exist today. Humans are living creatures and while the disembodied voice Roland Barthes describes is a dead thing, an artifact of communication that has come and gone and sacrificed its context and speaker in order to be read, exactly what selflessness are the "collective" entitled to, to waste a single second of this author's penning or breath by not furnishing him bread and water?

It seems to me that the quandry of the commune has never been more apparent than in Barthes' writing, in that other than artificial value that we ourselves determine, what is an individual worth but nothing who writes without limiting their text? The loss of context may be an important, enabling, and empowering phenomenon, but as anyone who has spent a moment on the internet knows that anonymity is not the gateway to a utopian discourse. Rather, it encourages stupidity, violence, and the suspension of reason, more often than not. When are those who work allowed to claim ownership and their right to benefit from their toils if we remove ownership through authorship?

That said, I don't want to advocate for either. I can see the full value of both sides of the argument and haven't squarely landed in either camp. I do know that it is worth considering, discussing and critiquing. I wrote this without knowing anything about Barthes' the man, and I didn't research him either. I felt that was the best credit that I could give to him to avoid that and write this.

Response to "Death of the Author" and John Cage

In this essay, Barthes demonstrates that an author is not simply a person but a socially and historically constituted subject instead. I agree with this because is part of history and isn't just a normal person in the street that won't be remembered. The author is someone that is socially and historically constituted because that author would be remember as a part of something bigger than being just one person.

I wish that the sounds and the reading of the stories would go well together. There were hardly any sounds at the beginning and it just felt like noise and could be done without them.

Hip, hip, hurrah!

Walter Benjamin

The invention of the camera completely altered the way humanity saw the world and everything in it. The uniqueness of every painting (or aura) is said to be diminished with every reproduction of its original. However, I see it differently. With every reproduction the meaning of the piece fragments and multiple new ones are born. Is it in your living room? Your bedroom? Your office? Wherever they may land, the context of the piece changes to the atmosphere of it's new home. A million new insights of the piece are created, expanding the size of the aura exponentially. And because millions of reproductions can be made of the original, this places much more significance to the original itself. It is the starting point, the authentic piece. Thus the meaning of the original piece itself is altered as a result of mechanical reproduction and in my opinion, expanding it's aura exponentially. It not only still contains it's original message but new ones have been applied to it and its reproductions.

Benjamin promotes the emancipation of art production. He wishes for the masses to become a sort of dilettante, eliminating the gap between academic classes, and in a way taking away any authoritative power an art piece might hold.

"Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer."

On Walter Benjamin's much cited article

I think this concept of the aura and authority of artists being destroyed by technology and the abilities of mass distribution is a valid one. So do a lot of other serious thinkers when it comes to this widely regarded piece. There is no centralized place to view unique works of art and as a result, it brings down the mystery and the value of art as a whole. However, there was one thing that Benjamin wasn't counting on, and that was the arbitrary effects of the speculative market on maintaining that aura. It persists to this day.

It seems to me that any time something new is coming out people freak about how different it's going to make things. The thing that I've seen so far is how yes, minor things change, but in reality it seems like all the major things stay the same. I think people in the time this article was written were far more utopian that people are now. This might just be the people I hang around, but it seems to me as though people are more pragmatic than they used to be. I really don't think the role of art with the inclusion of new forms of technology is going to change in giant structural ways. I think the changes that occur will seem massive at first, but really when we look back at the time period we're in people will be able to just label it like they've labeled everything else. It might just be me, but it seems like things tend to come in circles. I feel as though with new mediums that pieces are being demonstrated with are just going through their abstract phase of the circle. Maybe if Hollywood wasn't making so many formulaic remakes this wouldn't be the case. It seems like art always has to be rebelling from what the main flow of things are showing.

Response to "work of art..."

    Benjamin's discussion about cinematography and its relevance to the audience sticks out most to me. He makes a good point mentioning how in a movie, you cannot (or are not meant to) see the lighting and other equipment used to film. While this is expected in a movie, it also takes away from the realism and piece as whole and makes it more superficial. Watching something in theater, the presence of stage equipments adds an extra awareness of what is happening.
     I thought it was interesting how Benjamin mentioned that film is like a better version of looking at yourself in the mirror; how it's transportable and a way to show yourself to the masses. He also compares a magician to a surgeon, a painter to a cinematographer. I understand the comparison between surgeon and cinematographer, as both delve into their subject, however I don't see how painting doesn't do the same. While the artist cannot physically go into the painting, the medium used still has a tactile quality and has the ability to interact and touch the artist, therefore giving a "real" quality to it as well. But I guess I see what he's saying if you're going to get really technical...

Shawna Murray's response to Technological Reproducibility

I can understand how he explains art forms to come from ritualism to politics even though it leaves me with an empty feeling inside my head. To be honest I wish all art forms didn't become what it is now, but then again with cultural changes and upbringings with technology, all of our processes within our minds become obviously different and we think about enormously different things then what they did when art forms were for spiritual and religious purposes.

Signers Suitcase (Sleeping)

Scorpion King Dumbell's Christmas Ham

This was saying a lot. "just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long historical periods, so too does their mode of perception." There are a lot of good quotes that I had to stop and dwell on. It is going to take technology a long time to come up with the equation that explains why man needs and makes art.

"A man climbs a mountain because it is there. An artist makes a work of art because it is not there." -Carl Andre.

How long will authenticity be important when technology builds on it self fast enough to prove most "important things" not so important in the wake of the new adoption of ideas. just like the readings said, inventions progress exponentially; each idea leads to more advanced and revised ideas, and all this information is building and the woodcut was yesterdays lithograph, which was yesterdays camera lens, which was yesterdays mind reading satellite. Everything will be tested by time, and art is getting really funny! look at this little car pushing around the chairs! http://youtu.be/Vhp8LD3y3Lc

Response to "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

I agree with the statement of when he said about Marx and the capitalist mode was at its infancy. Also, that the transformation was slowly proceeding and it took over half a century for the conditions to be manifested. I also agree with that the work of art been reproducible, that it was made by human and can be copied also.

Medea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_id0MME4kUA&feature=feedrec_grec_index

Sloane's Response to: Line Describing a Cone and Related Films

Anthony McCall's examination of the presentation and structure of film and video works unveils yet again the subjective nature of art. McCall aims to blur the distinction between time based works (film, video, dance) with "temporal" works (painting, sculpture). He does this by creating spaces in which the viewer does not interact with his films in a conventional sense. Rather than watching the films on a wall while they are project from behind, McCall sets up spaces in which the viewer is surrounded by the actual projected light. This creates a scenario where a film is being screened but it is also participating as a three-dimensional element in an overall installation of light. Because these works fall into the realm of both sculpture and film, McCall comes to the conclusion that his work sits right on the threshold of what is to be considered time-based art, and non time-based art.

While I fell this is a valid conclusion, his examination begs the question of, what can truly be considered non time-based art. When McCall produced his final piece of this series Long Film from Ambient Light. He comments on how "The shifts that occurred within it, ... were too gradual to see happening." Sculpture, and painting based works also go through changes which are impossible to perceive over short amounts of time. There is a deterioration, or change in shape that happens naturally and gradually over time. There for I feel, particularly when considering his final piece, it should be considered to be in the realm of "non-time based work" or that the distinction between both realms be dismissed.

-Sloane

Shawna Murray's response to Line Describing a Cone

Trying to convey an artistic feeling through technicalities and projectors I find it an interesting way to display it. The artist was thinking not only of the way the projector was portraying the light but also how the room was. All aspects of the room were just as important as the next, even regarding a piece of wall vs. the light the projector shows. When considering installations for art pieces, this article almost seems like the right piece of reading for a first timer within the installation process such as myself if I was to do one.

Lines and Cones and Stuff

I think it's interesting how much thought goes into the purity of this artwork. Also it's interesting to me to think about how the philosophy of this piece is so debated over. I read the article before watching what the pieces actually looked like in motion, and I was very much wondering what the big deal was. Especially when they were questioning how pure the artwork needed to be for it to still be considered the original. I can understand that the philosophy behind an artwork is an important part of why people like it, but sometimes I also think that people just think things because they're cool and haven't been done before. I was on the side of being less purist before watching the videos that Evan(I think Evan) posted. After watching the works of art in motion I was even less purist. I don't care if he uses film or digital because it seems like the philosophy behind the piece is not pushed forward by the medium as much as it's pushed forward by the idea that this film is taking up a 3D space.

Line Describing A Cone

     I like in the article where McCall talks about time affecting perception on art. He mentions how most traditional art has a "perceivable beginning and end, with boundaries..." An interesting point, as his artworks repeat and last for hours on end. It's not something you see everyday, to go into an exhibit and have a completely different reaction to it depending on the time of day. McCall's article kind of corresponds with our previous reading, about an infant's eye, free of bias or personal experience.
     While I find this all interesting and a good way to stretch your brain, I also disagree with mocking traditional art for its "boundaries" or "perceivable beginning and end." Everyone experiences are in their own way, and this could include something as stationary as a statue or painting. This article seems to go with the concept that art doesn't have to be pretty or appealing, or pleasing to the eye. To an extent I understand that idea, as the idea or meaning of an artwork is incredibly important. However I personally appreciate traditional art forms that are aesthetically pleasing. These videos are great to open up your mind and expand your horizons, but sometimes they're extremely difficult to relate to or understand.

On Anthony McCall's Line Describing a Cone and Other Films

Our latest reading had us examining the work of Anthony McCall's work with light projection, which is a distinct departure from the content of even our most abstract of films. The premise of the work is to treat the light from the projector as a quasi-sculptural object in an installed space (though there are other ways to distribute this piece and a museum setting, as McCall writes, is only one of many). The light itself, projected though either fog, smoke or heavy dust particles, is at once a film , a sculpture, and a performance.

McCall, in the reading available here in the August archives of the blog, clinically details the many variables that are in play when performing the piece. The relationship with film is a curious one, as it does not code light information onto a flat surface and instead, due to its changing and ephemeral nature, encourages the audience to interact with it.

Simple? Definitely. But sometimes the most eloquent works are. Modern artists had been using smooth, simple and solid forms for years before this series of films. This, in my opinion, is a quirky, fun change in media for the tradition. It begs some new questions, such as how an audience is supposed to have a relationship with a piece in a museum. All elements that we'll need to be considering for our second project.

Metaphors and Kino-eye

I really have no idea how to use this website so I hope this post is in the right place... :)

Metaphors
I dont know if anyone else got this feeling but Metaphors on Vision seemed very negative. It mentioned things like "never going back" and "loss of innocents", as if we will never see the true world and all it's color and beauty because of our eyes. Though it was mostly good and interesting info and truths, it was a little over dramatic and categorized artists too loosly (into one big pile of trying to "reach" god) . Its ideas and metaphors were at times spot-on and then near the end it seemed to lighten up and lift our hopes. It said we (this generation ) have new medias and topics to work with, as well as the old themes.

Kino-eye
I dont know what is wrong here but Kino-eye seemed to be also very negative! It was telling us what has been over done then flat-out saying these things are unnecessary and should "never needed or should ever be on screen. Things have been done, i understand but to say we should never again use cinema to show any of these topics again feels like a little much. it read as if i was listening to the teachings of a cult. Again this writing had some great ideas and wonderful thoughts but felt a little intense.

I hope I understood this reading, though somehow I doubt it...

This reading brought to mind several artists for various reasons. The first being Richard Sarah, second, Bas Jan Ader, and third and most relevant, Olafur Eliasson.

The Anthony McCall piece spoke to me in a way that was full of emotion, and completely void of it; the calm before the storm, if you will. The vortex of light before you die. And when McCall came up with the idea on the sail boat in 1973, it reminded me of this artists, Bas Jan Ader, who sent out post cards to all of his friends and family. On the card was of a picture of him crying that read "I'm too sad to tell you." The greatest part about this person was that in 1975, "as part of his project, In Search of the Miraculous, Ader set out from Cape Cod in a tiny yacht for a two-month voyage across the Atlantic. His boat capsized and he was never seen again."

I thought of Richard Sarah because of how he conceives of his sculptures is very similar to the way McCall created the Between You and I piece, using drawings techniques to create something with light. The same way Sarah uses drawings to create huge metal sculptures.

Third, and more obviously, Olafur Eliasson really plays with light and trickery of the retina. His show at the Dallas Museum of Art was unreal. I spent hours in that exhibition and I could see how McCalls pieces will for sure put you in a trance. You are already in a designated space for art, which I usually define as "Holy Sanctuary of Art", or "Museums," and being able to go to this designated refuge and transcend into a vortex of light would be... not too much less than an enlightening experience.

Line Describing a Cone

I’m glad that Mike posted the video because it gave me a better idea what the reader was describing. I like that this artwork is interactive and that the experience of the viewer is different each time it is seen.  Depending on where one is standing and how many people are viewing it, the experience is different and I agree with the artist when he says, “The film exist only in the present, the moment of projection.,” which is cool because it’s ever changing, which to me makes it timeless. With most of the film we’ve watched , they’ve dealt with issues that are going on and in the future they will be come historical videos and the only way you’ll be able to discuss them is by talking about what events were happening at that time where as them projection doesn’t have a narrative and therefore you can’t put it in a discussion of what’s going on here because it is always changing and interactive.

Metaphors of Vision and Kino-eye

Metaphors of Vision places great importance of what the human eye sees.

Brakhage writes, “Elimination of all fear is in sight –which mist be aimed for.” He‘s saying that through sight we gain knowledge and understanding, therefore there’s no fear of the unknown. Brakhage writes, “Imagine a world before the ‘beginning was the word.”  The reader is trying to get the audience to try and imagine things by not classifying and generalizing which is a hard thing to do. 

I think the The Kino-eye counters that and suggest that humans are imperfect and this manmade creation: the camera, is a perfect tool that capture reality better than the human can see it. When I first began reading the Kino-eye, I agreed with the writer and what he was saying made since to me. However when Vertov says, “I am the kino-eye, I create a man more perfect than Adam,” I immediately took this as arrogance and didn’t want to listen anymore.  I then realized that he was speaking in the voice of the camera and was less offended but still question people’s want for perfectness. Is it silly of me to think that because I know nothing is absolutely perfect, so why strive for it? I find it unsettling, some people’s desire for “perfection”.  There is beauty in what is natural.

Futurist Manifesto

To me, it seems that Marinetti is obviously an anarchist against Academic art and social structure in general. It seems to me that artist, creators and many people in general are always striving for the something new and different in trying to move forward. I can see where he’s coming from when he compares museums to cemeteries. People do go to cemeteries to pay there respects and remember things from the past. However, he does have a negative tone and disrespect for those great artist that set the bar pretty high. I liked that he recognizes those behind him might do the same and find it interesting that he wants it to be so. We should question art and what art is and what art is not.

Anthony McCall's pieces in action

Hi everyone. I'm sure that many of your first impulses were to look on google or youtube to see what these pieces were like. But in the case that you were up to something else and didn't sniff these out, here are a couple documentations of his pieces installed and screened with a little input by the artist.

Response to Line Describing a Cone and Related Films

I get what he was saying about the cone as being the light beam and about the projected light. I also agree with him that visibility is an issue and the picture shows a cone by the light that is going through. The picture actually shows depth and three-dimensional quality. In this picture you can see the line on the left going through to give it that quality.

Kill The Moonlight (Steve Hanft) - I'm the driver, i'm the winner.mpg

Further; Delayed Response to Metaphors on Vision

I have said for years that color is my favorite thing in this universe, (so far.) Growing up my parents were very spiritual, and from this I remember them telling me what heaven is supposed to be like, and the one thing that interested me the most was that there are colors we have never seen before. I am extremely interested in tapping into other realms and finding things I have not seen before, dreams are a great way to do this. This class is going along great with another class I have called The Supernatural: Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion, things are getting real weird around here for sure. Metaphors on Vision is so beautiful, it words things so powerfully. But the whole time I am reading it, I keep thinking about what it would be like if you were blind. The infant would still have a 'vision', just in a completely different way. When it says "... and it is an age which lives in fear and total annihilation." I can't help but to think that we are too comfortable. Going from talking about our "current times" juxtaposed with the mention of cave paintings, I can't help but to think that we have culturally created a cocoon for ourselves. That is why I try to go camping as much as I can afford to, to remind me that this is temporary and that what is most important today, has been here all along. It sounds as if Metaphors on Vision was written after a profound hallucinogenic journey.

This is a good web site for new media nonsense. http://kottke.org/tag/remix

The Korean Video We Watched

Worst annoying thing I ever saw. The video just kept going and I wanted it to stop. They probably used this video to interrogate the guys from Enron.

response to metaphors and kino eye

As far as the vision blog goes, I think what the author is saying is pretty interesting. He makes many references, particularly in the first and second paragraphs about the vision of an infant. An infant’s mind is free and un-biased; at that age we experience everything through purely instinctual manners. I think what the author’s point is that when we get older; the way we see and form opinions becomes less based upon our own perception, and more about how we THINK we should feel. Or an even more extreme case is how we are so influenced by our surroundings and media we may not even realize we are being influenced, where as an infant is free of such influences. He has a great point on trying to keep our brains free of outside influence, but then again, that’s pretty impossible.

Kino Eye: I am confused as to whether this article is meant to be an actual advertisement to create an actual “kino eye” or is merely a fantasy. Regardless, Vertov’s article makes you imagine a world unlimited to human limits. I found his paragraph referring to the kino-eye’s “most advantageous sequence” to be particularly interesting; like how see things in an unorganized way because there is so much going on, where as a film or kino eye could tape everything in order and segments that make the most sense to the viewer.

response to Metaphores in Vision and the Kino-Eye

These writings seem to me to be a call and response to each other. Brakhage being the one to call, here for an eye unfettered by the laws of manmade physics and time, while Vertove responds with an army of publishing kinoks, each one using the technology of modernity to reach beyond time and physics to bring forward a new type of visual learning and stimulation. The kino-eye of Vertov's writings describe the output, or recording genius of the artist point of view, carefully tweaked to punctuate an emotional response from its audience. The new methods of moving picture and recorded sound together become the newsreel of the new media directors who manipulate the masses with their cunning. While the undertones of Vertovs motives may seem revolutionary, they also seem to be in opposition to the futurist movement which he even names in his prose as he promises to thwart their intentions with a flood of these kino-eye responses to any action the futurist agenda may take.

Shawna Murray's response to Metaphors on Vision and Kino Eye

Metaphors on Vision:
It's interesting how he speaks of imagining a world before what we knew and what we can see, or in his terms, before "beginning was the Word", because in reality, we can't imagine it, or at least I firmly believe that since I feel as if our minds our only a piece of what God's imagination truly is. His imagination is no comparison with ours. We can only imagine what He has let us imagine with our minds to explore. It was also quite interesting how he turned the subject into involving the moving image since our culture this day and age has created "a new language" in a sense to view things with our eyes instead of with our eyes in our own imagination.

Kino Eye:
Being a projectionist, this gives me an interesting viewpoint on how the recording of the camera could easily be viewed. To be honest, I found this article a bit more interesting then the first due to the fact of the "kino eye's" mysteriousness and how its original qualities are viewed by Dziga Vertov and I can easily understand how he can define the "kino eye" as the viewer sees a motion picture or a home video even and how each view is so called "perfect". I did find it kind of strange that when the "kino eye" was referring to certain things such as "I create a man more perfect then Adam." That phrase seemed a bit too far-fetched for me. The first man to ever walk the Earth that God created and the "kino eye" says it made a man greater? I get the terminology or metaphor being used but it seemed a bit strange that this article referred to the "kino eye" as creating something incredibly spectacular such as Adam with ease.

A Brief Reflection on Stan Brakhage's 'Metaphors on Vision' and Dziga Vertov's KINO-EYE

Stan Brakhage tackles semiotics and semantics a couple of years prior to Joseph Kosuth (but only in works like Mothlight [1963], not in writing), spinning a yarn in Metaphors on Vision where he at once memorializes of the art of seeing without classifying and melodramatically laments a world that has forsaken vision. He supplies that visual information in its purest form can be seen again by men as adults after they have lost the innocence of their youth and given in to classification and calcification of visual information as ideas and not as stimuli. This sort of thing comes on the heels of the death of the modernist art movement, describing his personal vision of the imperative of artists and art to educate the masses on the intricate and tricky nature of visual information. It’s still clutching at modernist pearls of a universality of pure visual stimuli in 1978, but I think Brakhage is being pretty mature about moving ahead into postmodern territory. Mostly, I appreciate his descriptions of burning and crackling film negatives – we’ve been talking a lot about the concept of death and how that relates to being filmed and photographed in class, and I think that metaphor speaks to me the most.

We also read KINO-EYE, The Writings of Dziga Vertov, which was edited by Annette Michelson and translated by Kevin O’Brien for the University of California Press in 1984. The excerpt starts with ‘The Council of Three’. Pardon me if I can’t help but roll my eyes sometimes at how young artists wanting to make a splash say that everyone is doing art wrong (in this case film). However, immediately thereafter, I sincerely and without batting an eye say that he is 100% correct that employing institutionalized art conventions on the camera (square frame, classic composition, etc.) is a critical limitation that art can subvert. It’s worth consideration when it comes to any new media that it doesn’t have to be as conventions dictate. In that sense, I have to share in Vertov’s glee in feeling free, because it really is exciting.