Ok, I've spoken a little about McLuhan earlier in this blog. It was merely an accident that I was exposed to him and read his white paper: The Medium is the Massage. I was so inspired by that white paper that I went to the library and checked out the only book of his that was on the shelf: The Guttenberg Galaxy. In it he expounds on the central thesis of his life's work: that the tool of communication communicates as powerfully as the communication suspended within it. Sometimes he's a little obnoxious, going on and on with all these double negatives that obscure his meaning beyond any rational use of the English language. Then there are other times that he writes eloquently and wields the medium very effectively.
Bruce Wands' concludes his book with a short little ditty about how the digital medium has changed the world of art irreversibly, yet in the future it will be normal maybe even standard for all art to weave in and out of digital space. He also briefly discusses the ephemeral nature of art that is instantly in an aging medium. Basically, when you create a new piece of art that is intended to be experienced through digital technology you are surrendering the immortality of the artifact to the whims of the economy. If you tape your magnum opus on Beta Max, then you might as well burn it, and if you only supported internet explorer in your net art during the '90s, then you probably had two to three months of good solid viewing before it was unviable. But I think that the digital medium is starting to flatten out to some extent. Many really good formats have won the battle, and they're not going away anytime soon.
This stability of digital technology will soon yield an overarching epoch of a few centuries or more, where the formats change and improve yet the devices will still have reverse compatibility. At least, I think so, and I think that McLuhan develops that idea as he describes that transition between spoken and printed word in his book Guttenberg Galaxy. What seems to really bother McLuhan is that once the printed word became the lingua franca of trans-generational communication, we lost some of the skills associated with oral tradition and developed a handicap when coming to comprehend the thoughts of our forefathers.
I think that you can really see that in the nostalgia of the 2016 election cycle, with many politicians claiming to be just like one or the other previously successful candidate in their party. Except that none of the candidates are really like their predecessors. Hillary Clinton for example, is quite a bit like Barry Goldwater. Pro-choice, pro-business, anti-all-other-countries in foreign policy. Meanwhile Cruz and Trump couldn't be further away from Reagan and Nixon's policies on immigration or the environment. I mean, Richard Nixon actually started the EPA. Yet, all of the candidates freely quote their heroes as if they were friends, or their villains as if they were enemies. Nothing could be further from the truth, these characters from our past would never be our friends in the world that we live now. They were people of their time, and their words were words of their time. Instead it is probably better to view all of those old political characters more like family, like ancestors whose mistakes and successes we have now inherited but whose motivations are alien to us now.
Personally, I don't mind that my words won't mean the same thing a hundred years from now. By then my audience will probably, literally taste my words in their own mouths if they experience them at all. While for now, we'll just have to settle for reading them through a dull pane of glass and a searing beam of light. That future audience will likely be totally mystified by the attitudes and vocabulary of today, puzzling over the archaic tags that abut our every italicized, emboldened, and linked idea. But I still think that they will experience our thoughts in some way, and I tend to agree with Bruce Wands when he describes a future where art is created yet the interface with the digital is not even acknowledged.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Art of the Digital Age Chapter 7
Machines can make art, like robots printing out digital manifestations or driving interactive sculpture, but sometimes the machines themselves are the art. Sometimes the artistic expression is the instrument that could be used to create or experience. This is the case with net art, or art that is created for the interwebs. But before you even create a website you can create a database or a piece of software, better yet you can create a full fledged video game. I have often thought about the possibilities in video games, a medium that takes all of the story telling of a film and transposes it into an interactive experience. You have the freedom to give your audience freedom in their experience of a video game while also constricting the parameters of that freedom to show them only what is in the frame.
This makes sense as the pre-amble to the chapter on net art, but in some ways in the modern context it needs to be seen after you consider net art. The internet is everywhere, all things are contained in it and it is contained in all of the things that we know and use today. When you take something out of that interconnected context, you can actually see something new manifest itself. Take the idea of a Database art project for example: any data set that naturally collects and evolves can be correlated with the art of your choosing.
Waves Documentation from Matt Roberts on Vimeo.
Above you can see an art installation that uses the information from a database to drive the performance of the artifact. There are many projects just like this one, but as you will quickly see the lines between net art and database or software are fuzzy at best. Much of the artwork and technology that uses computers today relies heavily on the infrastructure of the internet.
For this reason, it is a sort of fools errand to try to differentiate between the forms of art that utilize the different aspects of technology. Instead, I think that Bruce Wands and other art theorists should focus on finding the stylistic heritage and the tropes that are used in the digital medium. Like the surrealists, the afro-latin-political muralists, or perhaps the impressionist movement, in each of those genres you can see many mediums formats and techniques applied, but there is a tenuous string holding them together and defining their expression.
This makes sense as the pre-amble to the chapter on net art, but in some ways in the modern context it needs to be seen after you consider net art. The internet is everywhere, all things are contained in it and it is contained in all of the things that we know and use today. When you take something out of that interconnected context, you can actually see something new manifest itself. Take the idea of a Database art project for example: any data set that naturally collects and evolves can be correlated with the art of your choosing.
Waves Documentation from Matt Roberts on Vimeo.
Above you can see an art installation that uses the information from a database to drive the performance of the artifact. There are many projects just like this one, but as you will quickly see the lines between net art and database or software are fuzzy at best. Much of the artwork and technology that uses computers today relies heavily on the infrastructure of the internet.
For this reason, it is a sort of fools errand to try to differentiate between the forms of art that utilize the different aspects of technology. Instead, I think that Bruce Wands and other art theorists should focus on finding the stylistic heritage and the tropes that are used in the digital medium. Like the surrealists, the afro-latin-political muralists, or perhaps the impressionist movement, in each of those genres you can see many mediums formats and techniques applied, but there is a tenuous string holding them together and defining their expression.
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Art of the Digital Age Chapter 8
I know, I know I'm starting to go a little out of order. Well that's just the way the class is designed. We wrapped up our little Blender 3d project last week, and now we're full steam ahead on to web design. We're not going too crazy just some Dreamweaver and Html action. For this very reason, my teacher chose to move us on in the text book to the chapter on Web art.
Bruce Wands begins by describing a little of the early history of internet technology. He explains how the advent of graphical browsers like Mosaic and Netscape led to a blossoming of digital art, that could be shared across space to anyone who should seek it out. Unfortunately browsers developed at such a fast pace that it was difficult for artists to keep up, by the time an artist was finished their work would often be obsolete. Since then much of the language that is used to build websites and web applications has been standardized. Even so, there are apparently museums with catalogs of older computers complete with older installations of this software to keep the old relics of Net art alive. After a bit, Bruce goes on to talk about the effect of GPS and art designed to anticipate the mobile internet.
Probably the most interesting line in the chapter to me discusses the place of Net art: "While it is apparent that net art will evolve and grow as an art form, its position in the traditional art establishment will remain in question until it finds a secure place within the broader field of contemporary art." There is no question, early art forms are always in that strange transition state between outsider art and traditional. So much of the work that is shown in Bruce Wands' book is surreal or bizarre in nature. They're like the hushed and diligent paintings of drug addled weirdos that later go on to command millions at auction. I wonder how much the world of art will just transition on it's own into this place.
Without regard for the needs and desires of bourgeoisie collectors, while shaping those needs as they parade through the market place laundering the ill gotten millions of so many. I mean, if something is worth money then it's meaning must be at least as large as it's valuation, right? So its valuation drives the exceptance of its meaning through to the conventional wisdom of contemporary art and over time the spectrum of the traditional. If that is then the case, then where do the free works of art go to live and die?
So much of the hype of the internet is based around these massive enterprises of freedom, where investors stash billions with no idea of how they will ever see a return. In many ways, we can look at any conventional tool on the internet (like Twitter, Google, or MapQuest) as an artistic instrument valued in the billions, but with no material worth. They each had to turn to selling ad space in order to figure out how to keep the lights on, but they also face hungry investors that view anything with less then a 100x yield as a failure.
Someday, someone, somewhere will make a piece of net art that transcends those international boundries. That scribbles across the folds of mentality the way all of these outsider artifacts have endeared the world of contemporary art, and it will be owned. And it will be sold. I think that it will probably own its self, but call into question everything that we believe about personhood, ownership and artistic expression. I'm just not sure if that will happen before or after all contemporary artists grow to accept and believe that it is them who is on the outside.
Bruce Wands begins by describing a little of the early history of internet technology. He explains how the advent of graphical browsers like Mosaic and Netscape led to a blossoming of digital art, that could be shared across space to anyone who should seek it out. Unfortunately browsers developed at such a fast pace that it was difficult for artists to keep up, by the time an artist was finished their work would often be obsolete. Since then much of the language that is used to build websites and web applications has been standardized. Even so, there are apparently museums with catalogs of older computers complete with older installations of this software to keep the old relics of Net art alive. After a bit, Bruce goes on to talk about the effect of GPS and art designed to anticipate the mobile internet.
Probably the most interesting line in the chapter to me discusses the place of Net art: "While it is apparent that net art will evolve and grow as an art form, its position in the traditional art establishment will remain in question until it finds a secure place within the broader field of contemporary art." There is no question, early art forms are always in that strange transition state between outsider art and traditional. So much of the work that is shown in Bruce Wands' book is surreal or bizarre in nature. They're like the hushed and diligent paintings of drug addled weirdos that later go on to command millions at auction. I wonder how much the world of art will just transition on it's own into this place.
Without regard for the needs and desires of bourgeoisie collectors, while shaping those needs as they parade through the market place laundering the ill gotten millions of so many. I mean, if something is worth money then it's meaning must be at least as large as it's valuation, right? So its valuation drives the exceptance of its meaning through to the conventional wisdom of contemporary art and over time the spectrum of the traditional. If that is then the case, then where do the free works of art go to live and die?
So much of the hype of the internet is based around these massive enterprises of freedom, where investors stash billions with no idea of how they will ever see a return. In many ways, we can look at any conventional tool on the internet (like Twitter, Google, or MapQuest) as an artistic instrument valued in the billions, but with no material worth. They each had to turn to selling ad space in order to figure out how to keep the lights on, but they also face hungry investors that view anything with less then a 100x yield as a failure.
Someday, someone, somewhere will make a piece of net art that transcends those international boundries. That scribbles across the folds of mentality the way all of these outsider artifacts have endeared the world of contemporary art, and it will be owned. And it will be sold. I think that it will probably own its self, but call into question everything that we believe about personhood, ownership and artistic expression. I'm just not sure if that will happen before or after all contemporary artists grow to accept and believe that it is them who is on the outside.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Working in Blender 3d
I have to say, that of all the tools in digital art, Blender 3d is my favorite. Of course it can be unwieldy and difficult for many to use, like Vector Graphics software there is this very steep learning curve. Once you really get to diving into the program, you realize that it can replace almost every other program that you might use for digital art. Everything from 3d modeling to image manipulation and film editing. You can even build video games and other interactive simulations. That may be it's greatest weakness, it's overwhelming strength.
In class we had to make a 3 dimensional model for 3d printing. I have quite a bit of experience with the software, so it was pretty fun to just spit out models.
I quickly realized that I couldn't make just any old 3d model, instead I had to make something that is 3d printable.
In class we had to make a 3 dimensional model for 3d printing. I have quite a bit of experience with the software, so it was pretty fun to just spit out models.
I quickly realized that I couldn't make just any old 3d model, instead I had to make something that is 3d printable.
Here is a quick an dirty model that I made for a wine bottle rack. As you can see, there are lots of dynamic surfaces. Lots of overhang, and not to mention that this thing would have to be relatively large. Unfortunately I am limited to something that is 3in by 3in. So anything that can hold a bottle of wine is pretty much out of the question.
Here I decided to make a coaster. A really thick coaster. My idea is that the coaster is such an understated and strange concept. Like, if something needs protection from glasses of water maybe you shouldn't even have it as furniture. Since we do protect our furniture from glasses and the like, why don't we offer some real protection. one whole inch of serious coaster protection... Ok maybe you're not buying it.
Instead let's go for something with more function and less awkward swagger. Here we can see a paint brush holder and palette. My wife is a watercolorist (and a magnificent one at that) and this seems like something that she would actually use. Six brushes, and lots of little pockets to mix colors.
I could keep going, but really, half the magic of 3d printing is prototyping. Designing the thing and then actually holding it in your hand before you go back to re-design it again. Hopefully those pcokets are big enough!
Art of the digital age ch 4
I can hang a painting on my wall, mount a sculpture on a mantel piece, I can even use pieces of art as furniture, but how are we supposed to incorporate an art installation into our lives? Well, I'm sure there are some super heroes out there with Dadaist installations greeting them as they walk into their apartments, I've just never been to those house parties.
Chapter four of Bruce Wands' book discusses the incursion of digital technology into the world of installation art. It seems obvious, if you want your installation to talk back or move when you move, then just hook up an Arduino. No big deal. In one example Diane Fenster projects these images of the women working in the Irish Laundry prisons on bed sheets suspended over old timey washtubs. The installation is said to have recordings of women singing or whispering in Gaelic. Check out the video:
It's pretty haunting and powerful. Could she have pulled it off without the use of digital technology? Sure, just break out the old eight track recorder and get those voices poppin on the boom box. No big deal, just art. But we have to admit, that some digital tech just makes the whole thing a little easier to pull off.
He also shows off some work by Shih-chieh Huang Where he makes this huge interactive collage/sculpture. In the video above you can see some of Shih Chieh Huang's more recent work, using videos of eyes to control robots that do things. Pretty meta.
All joking aside, just looking through these installations and seeing how much easier digital technology has made them to exist, I feel like we should all have a little installation in our lives. Maybe in our homes, on our commutes... it should be a way of life.
It's pretty haunting and powerful. Could she have pulled it off without the use of digital technology? Sure, just break out the old eight track recorder and get those voices poppin on the boom box. No big deal, just art. But we have to admit, that some digital tech just makes the whole thing a little easier to pull off.
He also shows off some work by Shih-chieh Huang Where he makes this huge interactive collage/sculpture. In the video above you can see some of Shih Chieh Huang's more recent work, using videos of eyes to control robots that do things. Pretty meta.
All joking aside, just looking through these installations and seeing how much easier digital technology has made them to exist, I feel like we should all have a little installation in our lives. Maybe in our homes, on our commutes... it should be a way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)