The Red Project
The Red Project refers to the practice of “redlining” which was once a common practice where mortgage companies would refuse to invest in certain sections considered to be poor, mostly of minority based populations. This created segregation in the US for many years, and was deemed to be “good business”
This project, with its red design for the areas of wireless access, resonates this idea. The interesting thing about this project is the interactive embedded map in which the viewer can look up any area in the world as see the amount of WiFi networks (I have it set right now on Milwaukee). I was disappointed, however, to read that this is not an accurate rendering of WiFi networks but only a estimation (a very well researched one, however, as a team of students traveled around for almost a year collected data from various places).
I don’t know yet what to make of this project in the Milwaukee area. I’m looking at the map right now, seeing the vast amounts of red all throughout the city, not really knowing what to make of the information. I guess this isn’t really my field – geography and cartography and anthropology, so the actual information does not really interest or make sense to me. But the concept is interesting, and I think this is information that should be documented and researched by someone more interested in this field than I am. These artists are pioneers, being the first to create a map like this. Hopefully there will be more to come, and more people to interpret this data.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Deliberative Democracy and Difference
Deliberative Democracy and Difference
This project, I feel, doesn’t really fit in or belong in this site. Not that I think that it is poorly made or didn’t like the project. On the contrary – I think this is brilliantly created and very easy to use and helpful. What has been created with this project is a brilliant way to navigate text on the web very easily (much easier than most HTML webpages). I truly love this project and how they created everything very easy to read and navigate.
I do not agree with the Designer’s Statement (Alessandro Ceglia) when he refers to the project as a “relatively sophisticated system of interaction,” however. I do not believe this project is any more interactive then a book is. The ability to click on a link does not make something “interactive.” In the case of this project, it makes it convenient. Instead of having to turn the page of a book to a certain chapter or look up a reference inside the text is very convenient, and I believe this project is very well structured. But interactivity must engage the viewer in the medium. The project, on the other hand, gives the viewer less of a sense of the medium in its ability to navigate so easily.
In the Designer’s Statement, he also talks about how the project is loosely based on “Dungeons and Dragons,” and refers to the project as a “simulation.” Though I am not a huge fan of Dungeons and Dragons, I do not see the similarity, or how this project could be described as a “simulation.” I feel the designer has tried to make this project more than it is – which is a brilliantly easy way to navigate text – in his attempt to simplify it as well as to make it like a “choose your own adventure style simulation.”
I’m not discussing the text in this project for the fact that it has nothing to do with media of any kind – and is really about the philosophy of democracy – as interesting as that is. Fascinating article that I suggest reading. I do believe that the way it is presented is great. The design definitely compliments the article, and I’m glad the designer did not go through lengths to make the piece “interactive,” though I wish he would not have presented it like such, because it is not. Reading and navigation through the piece in this format rather than through adobe reader or a tradition webpage was much easier and more enjoyable, but as the liquid crystals in my flat-screen monitor strain my eyes, I would still rather read this article in a book than the way it is presented. But fascinating article and fascinating design. I plan on reading more of this 45 page masterpiece when it is not so near the end of the semester.
This project, I feel, doesn’t really fit in or belong in this site. Not that I think that it is poorly made or didn’t like the project. On the contrary – I think this is brilliantly created and very easy to use and helpful. What has been created with this project is a brilliant way to navigate text on the web very easily (much easier than most HTML webpages). I truly love this project and how they created everything very easy to read and navigate.
I do not agree with the Designer’s Statement (Alessandro Ceglia) when he refers to the project as a “relatively sophisticated system of interaction,” however. I do not believe this project is any more interactive then a book is. The ability to click on a link does not make something “interactive.” In the case of this project, it makes it convenient. Instead of having to turn the page of a book to a certain chapter or look up a reference inside the text is very convenient, and I believe this project is very well structured. But interactivity must engage the viewer in the medium. The project, on the other hand, gives the viewer less of a sense of the medium in its ability to navigate so easily.
In the Designer’s Statement, he also talks about how the project is loosely based on “Dungeons and Dragons,” and refers to the project as a “simulation.” Though I am not a huge fan of Dungeons and Dragons, I do not see the similarity, or how this project could be described as a “simulation.” I feel the designer has tried to make this project more than it is – which is a brilliantly easy way to navigate text – in his attempt to simplify it as well as to make it like a “choose your own adventure style simulation.”
I’m not discussing the text in this project for the fact that it has nothing to do with media of any kind – and is really about the philosophy of democracy – as interesting as that is. Fascinating article that I suggest reading. I do believe that the way it is presented is great. The design definitely compliments the article, and I’m glad the designer did not go through lengths to make the piece “interactive,” though I wish he would not have presented it like such, because it is not. Reading and navigation through the piece in this format rather than through adobe reader or a tradition webpage was much easier and more enjoyable, but as the liquid crystals in my flat-screen monitor strain my eyes, I would still rather read this article in a book than the way it is presented. But fascinating article and fascinating design. I plan on reading more of this 45 page masterpiece when it is not so near the end of the semester.
Journal Responses
Just as a disclaimer of sorts, because of the comments of my journal responses from the last session I will go less into a summary of the journal and dive more into my reaction and bias and opinion of the journal. This said, I will be assuming that the reader of this blog is viewing the projects I am writing about, or at least has viewed it, so as to know what I am talking about.
Break in the Chain of Light
I went to the Experimental Tuesday of December 2nd, 2008. I will be commenting on all the showings briefly, then go more in depth into two of the showings.
The first show was Three Hours, Fifteen Minutes Before the Hurricane Struck, a silent 35mm film with still images and text. The next was Elements of Nothing, a 35mm film of assembled layers of imagery with very music over it (piano, bells, and other like instruments), captivating the audience with its imagery. Third was The Breath, a silent film of various shots of bamboo plants. Fourth was Brilliant Noise, a 16mm film that mixes NASA footage mixed with ambient sound (if you can call it “ambient”). Fifth was Observando el Cielo, which mixes seven years of field recordings of the sky with various sounds. Sixth was What the Water Said 4-6, which we saw in class.
Brilliant Noise was my favorite of the films we saw. The sound, as I said before, could be described as “ambient,” although that description falls sadly short from what it actually sounded like (though, like most ambient sounds, it is hard to describe the actual sound in much more specific terms). The sounds of the film I would describe as the sounds of the sun, if the sun did in fact have a “sound.” The film was very grainy and, exposing energetic particles and solar wind, which appeared as white noise on the screen. Interestingly enough, this footage was unaltered in this aspect, exposing what images look like before cleaned up by NASA. The sound fit the white noise-graininess of the film, using a lot of the same kind of sounds that would come from a television set that was not getting reception very well.
The sounds of this film had a lot of the same raw aesthetic feel to them as Aaron Ximm’s did when he presented his sounds in class. Glenn, though not really specifically addressing the issue of authenticity, is very important to him. The sound in this film could definitely be described as authentic, though it also has the feel of distortion to it. I think its very interesting that author of this piece chose to call it “Brilliant Noise.” The program for this showing says that the soundtrack was created by “directly translating the intensity of the brightness into audio manipulation.” It’s not completely clear to me what that means (or how you directly transfer brightness into sound), but the concept is very interesting. Obviously, sound is not an afterthought in this piece but is truly one with the images of the piece as the author goes through lengths to try to create sounds of the sun.
Three Hours, Fifteen Minutes Before the Hurricane Struck was a silent film. This film, and other silent films during this showing, reminded me of John Cage’s 4’33” piece from 1952 (in which Cage wrote a piece which informed the musician to play nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds). What I realized while I watched these films in silence in the Union theatre is that there is never really true silence unless you plug your ears. The sounds of the fans in the room, the sounds of people shuffling in their seats, and the sounds of my own breathing were only amplified in this environment. It became the symphony of the piece. I became very aware of the sounds (and self conscious of my own as I watched) while this piece was being shown. Glenn Bach talked about this in his lecture (and in the readings posted), about how we go through life numb to many of the sounds we hear because we filter them out, and that is really the point of sound art and the concept behind what Aaron Ximm does. Sound artists are trying to get the rest of the world to realize the sounds around them that they have grown numb to, to focus on the everyday mundane noises and find beauty in them.
The first show was Three Hours, Fifteen Minutes Before the Hurricane Struck, a silent 35mm film with still images and text. The next was Elements of Nothing, a 35mm film of assembled layers of imagery with very music over it (piano, bells, and other like instruments), captivating the audience with its imagery. Third was The Breath, a silent film of various shots of bamboo plants. Fourth was Brilliant Noise, a 16mm film that mixes NASA footage mixed with ambient sound (if you can call it “ambient”). Fifth was Observando el Cielo, which mixes seven years of field recordings of the sky with various sounds. Sixth was What the Water Said 4-6, which we saw in class.
Brilliant Noise was my favorite of the films we saw. The sound, as I said before, could be described as “ambient,” although that description falls sadly short from what it actually sounded like (though, like most ambient sounds, it is hard to describe the actual sound in much more specific terms). The sounds of the film I would describe as the sounds of the sun, if the sun did in fact have a “sound.” The film was very grainy and, exposing energetic particles and solar wind, which appeared as white noise on the screen. Interestingly enough, this footage was unaltered in this aspect, exposing what images look like before cleaned up by NASA. The sound fit the white noise-graininess of the film, using a lot of the same kind of sounds that would come from a television set that was not getting reception very well.
The sounds of this film had a lot of the same raw aesthetic feel to them as Aaron Ximm’s did when he presented his sounds in class. Glenn, though not really specifically addressing the issue of authenticity, is very important to him. The sound in this film could definitely be described as authentic, though it also has the feel of distortion to it. I think its very interesting that author of this piece chose to call it “Brilliant Noise.” The program for this showing says that the soundtrack was created by “directly translating the intensity of the brightness into audio manipulation.” It’s not completely clear to me what that means (or how you directly transfer brightness into sound), but the concept is very interesting. Obviously, sound is not an afterthought in this piece but is truly one with the images of the piece as the author goes through lengths to try to create sounds of the sun.
Three Hours, Fifteen Minutes Before the Hurricane Struck was a silent film. This film, and other silent films during this showing, reminded me of John Cage’s 4’33” piece from 1952 (in which Cage wrote a piece which informed the musician to play nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds). What I realized while I watched these films in silence in the Union theatre is that there is never really true silence unless you plug your ears. The sounds of the fans in the room, the sounds of people shuffling in their seats, and the sounds of my own breathing were only amplified in this environment. It became the symphony of the piece. I became very aware of the sounds (and self conscious of my own as I watched) while this piece was being shown. Glenn Bach talked about this in his lecture (and in the readings posted), about how we go through life numb to many of the sounds we hear because we filter them out, and that is really the point of sound art and the concept behind what Aaron Ximm does. Sound artists are trying to get the rest of the world to realize the sounds around them that they have grown numb to, to focus on the everyday mundane noises and find beauty in them.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Killer Entertainments
Project: Killer Entertainments : By Jennifer Terry : Designed By Raegan Kelly
You can view Killer Entertainments Here
This project is composed of three different screens in which clips are played on. The viewer decides when to view these clips and if they want to view them or just skip to the next one. There are also a series of dots around the screen in which content is written about various topics related to the clips. At random while playing the clips they will stop and certain words will come up on the screen, sometimes leading to longer descriptions, and other times simply fading off the screen when your mouse scrolls over.
The whole project is about the war in Iraq, and the video clip are various clips taken by soldiers, mostly from hand held cameras taped to their helmets. The clips are mostly of different firefights, and there is a disclaimer as the viewer enters the site explaining that they are disturbing.
The aesthetics of the three video screens is very interesting. It gives the viewer the option to play more than one video at a time. It gives the viewer a sense of surveillance. The information around the screen can be read while watching the videos. It is a very interesting project that would take a lifetime to go through everything.
You can view Killer Entertainments Here
This project is composed of three different screens in which clips are played on. The viewer decides when to view these clips and if they want to view them or just skip to the next one. There are also a series of dots around the screen in which content is written about various topics related to the clips. At random while playing the clips they will stop and certain words will come up on the screen, sometimes leading to longer descriptions, and other times simply fading off the screen when your mouse scrolls over.
The whole project is about the war in Iraq, and the video clip are various clips taken by soldiers, mostly from hand held cameras taped to their helmets. The clips are mostly of different firefights, and there is a disclaimer as the viewer enters the site explaining that they are disturbing.
The aesthetics of the three video screens is very interesting. It gives the viewer the option to play more than one video at a time. It gives the viewer a sense of surveillance. The information around the screen can be read while watching the videos. It is a very interesting project that would take a lifetime to go through everything.
Act/REact Exhibit
Scott Snibbe’s Deep Walls (2003)
Camilla Utterback, Untitled 5 & 6 (2003)
Deep Walls is an interactive display that, at first glance, is 16 loops arranged in a grid, constantly playing. Once the viewer steps into a certain area, they find that one of the boxes in the grid is a video of themselves, doing whatever they are doing. Once they step out of the area, they find themselves as a constant loop on one of the 16 boxes.
While I was at the museum, I observed a couple for a while and their reaction to this. They were hesitant to even step in the frame at first, slowly testing out the grounds, not really fully understanding what was happening. When they realized how the apparatus worked, they started experimenting. One of them would walk into the frame and fall over once they hit the “edge” of the frame, as if it were a solid wall. They had a mock fist fight in one frame. And, my personal favorite, the guy grabs the girl and kisses her and, after about five seconds, the girl pushes him away and walks out of the frame.
What this array of loops soon became is an anonymous diary of this couples time in this museum, up for everyone who passed by it to see. This interactive piece differed greatly from Camille Utterback’s Untitled pieces. The Untitled pieces were like huge canves in which the viewer interacted with in many complex ways, creating a kind of “wake” that eventually made an image. After the viewer leaves, however, there is not much evidence of the viewer being there, as the pattern on the “canvas” is much too complex to understand. The artist, Utterback’s pieces, is more important and more evident than the viewer.
With Deep Walls, though, the viewer becomes more important than the original artist. Since the concept is a very simple concept, easy for anyone to understand quickly, the artist is forgotten quickly, as the people up on the screen are more important than the person who set up the display. The phenomenon I’m trying to get at is that the viewer’s become the artists. That is exactly what happened with the couple I was observing. They were attracted to this piece because the piece was not simply just reacting to them – they were creating the piece. More than just being fun, because everything the viewer does is recorded and looped forever, the viewer puts his or her own stamp on the piece.
Utterback’s Untitled pieces lack this recording aspect to them. They instead just react to the viewer. The viewer, however, is able to experiment much more with the media because of its extreme complexity. As I was playing with one of these pieces, I started noticing the subtleties of how certain movements I made destroyed certain aspects of the piece and how it, at the same time, created others. It gives the viewer the sense that they are “painting”, which is Camille’s intention behind these interactive pieces. I’m not sure how it gives this impression, but something about the background of the piece (or, I should say, the slow healing process) gives it a sense of brush strokes and paint. This piece, instead of being a diary, is more like a poem. A very complex poem that not even the poet understands (the poet being the viewer).
In connecting the arguments I gave to guest John McKinnon’s lecture on Monday, October 13th, he talked about a lot of the same aspects. He compared Utterback’s Untilted pieces to a painting that the viewer creates, and showed us an interview of Utterback in which she explained how she had to make the piece simple enough so that the user could easily understand that they were interacting with the media, and yet complex and subtle enough to interest the viewer for a long time. This is exactly what happened to me as I was interacting with the piece. I began trying to figure out how to manipulate the piece in certain ways and to see how it really functioned.
John McKinnon also talked about the Deep Walls piece, showing another video with a Scott Snibe voice over. Snibe described the viewer’s reaction to the piece, talking about how they were usually hesitant at first, not at first understanding how they interacted with the piece, until they discovered themselves in one of the boxes. Once they realized more about the piece, that it loops after the viewer steps out, the viewer becomes more comfortable with it and with the anonymity of the silhouettes. This is exactly what I observed with the couple at the museum.
In both these pieces, to different degrees, the viewer becomes the artist. This differs greatly from virtually every other form of media, in which there is a sharp distinction between the viewer and the artist. With these pieces, this line becomes more blurred. I think that is the purpose behind interactive artwork: to inspire. By making the viewer become a part of the work, and by making them, to some extent, the artists, these pieces inspire the viewer to create their own art.
Camilla Utterback, Untitled 5 & 6 (2003)
Deep Walls is an interactive display that, at first glance, is 16 loops arranged in a grid, constantly playing. Once the viewer steps into a certain area, they find that one of the boxes in the grid is a video of themselves, doing whatever they are doing. Once they step out of the area, they find themselves as a constant loop on one of the 16 boxes.
While I was at the museum, I observed a couple for a while and their reaction to this. They were hesitant to even step in the frame at first, slowly testing out the grounds, not really fully understanding what was happening. When they realized how the apparatus worked, they started experimenting. One of them would walk into the frame and fall over once they hit the “edge” of the frame, as if it were a solid wall. They had a mock fist fight in one frame. And, my personal favorite, the guy grabs the girl and kisses her and, after about five seconds, the girl pushes him away and walks out of the frame.
What this array of loops soon became is an anonymous diary of this couples time in this museum, up for everyone who passed by it to see. This interactive piece differed greatly from Camille Utterback’s Untitled pieces. The Untitled pieces were like huge canves in which the viewer interacted with in many complex ways, creating a kind of “wake” that eventually made an image. After the viewer leaves, however, there is not much evidence of the viewer being there, as the pattern on the “canvas” is much too complex to understand. The artist, Utterback’s pieces, is more important and more evident than the viewer.
With Deep Walls, though, the viewer becomes more important than the original artist. Since the concept is a very simple concept, easy for anyone to understand quickly, the artist is forgotten quickly, as the people up on the screen are more important than the person who set up the display. The phenomenon I’m trying to get at is that the viewer’s become the artists. That is exactly what happened with the couple I was observing. They were attracted to this piece because the piece was not simply just reacting to them – they were creating the piece. More than just being fun, because everything the viewer does is recorded and looped forever, the viewer puts his or her own stamp on the piece.
Utterback’s Untitled pieces lack this recording aspect to them. They instead just react to the viewer. The viewer, however, is able to experiment much more with the media because of its extreme complexity. As I was playing with one of these pieces, I started noticing the subtleties of how certain movements I made destroyed certain aspects of the piece and how it, at the same time, created others. It gives the viewer the sense that they are “painting”, which is Camille’s intention behind these interactive pieces. I’m not sure how it gives this impression, but something about the background of the piece (or, I should say, the slow healing process) gives it a sense of brush strokes and paint. This piece, instead of being a diary, is more like a poem. A very complex poem that not even the poet understands (the poet being the viewer).
In connecting the arguments I gave to guest John McKinnon’s lecture on Monday, October 13th, he talked about a lot of the same aspects. He compared Utterback’s Untilted pieces to a painting that the viewer creates, and showed us an interview of Utterback in which she explained how she had to make the piece simple enough so that the user could easily understand that they were interacting with the media, and yet complex and subtle enough to interest the viewer for a long time. This is exactly what happened to me as I was interacting with the piece. I began trying to figure out how to manipulate the piece in certain ways and to see how it really functioned.
John McKinnon also talked about the Deep Walls piece, showing another video with a Scott Snibe voice over. Snibe described the viewer’s reaction to the piece, talking about how they were usually hesitant at first, not at first understanding how they interacted with the piece, until they discovered themselves in one of the boxes. Once they realized more about the piece, that it loops after the viewer steps out, the viewer becomes more comfortable with it and with the anonymity of the silhouettes. This is exactly what I observed with the couple at the museum.
In both these pieces, to different degrees, the viewer becomes the artist. This differs greatly from virtually every other form of media, in which there is a sharp distinction between the viewer and the artist. With these pieces, this line becomes more blurred. I think that is the purpose behind interactive artwork: to inspire. By making the viewer become a part of the work, and by making them, to some extent, the artists, these pieces inspire the viewer to create their own art.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Blue Velvet Project
Instead of discussing “articles”, I am going to discuss “projects”, since that is what my journal is really about (refer to the previous post).
The Project I am Discussing is Blue Velvet, By David Theo Goldberg & Stefka Hristova -
Design by Erik Loyer
You can view Blue Velvet Here.
Blue Velvet is one of the projects in the Difference article of this journal. It is a flash animation that I feel is the best of all I’ve seen so far in this journal. It is about Hurricane Katrina and discusses in the introduction how it dives into the history of New Orleans, making the viewer aware that the disaster of Katrina was not just an act of nature but a complex web of political and social histories.
The actual project Blue Velvet captivates the viewer from the beginning with a well made static image of a cityscape, with a red button in the lower right corner with the word “begin.” Once you click it, text starts falling from the sky and going in and out of focus as it moves around the screen. There are very peaceful sounds of the ocean.
If you click on one of the words, everything changes. The word falls through the cityscape, turning it shades of gray instead of shades of blue and green, while the sound instantly changes to what sounds like an African drum circle. To explain everything else that happens in this complex transition would take a while, but basically the whole point of view of the screen lowers, so that the viewer feels that he is in the earth, and a short article is given relating loosely to the word that was originally clicked.
The evidence that this project points out refers mostly to how segregated New Orleans was before the hurricane and how this has come to be over the years. Because of this segregation, there was more hazards and less assistance or safety measures taken in the poorer areas like the 9th Ward.
The Project I am Discussing is Blue Velvet, By David Theo Goldberg & Stefka Hristova -
Design by Erik Loyer
You can view Blue Velvet Here.
Blue Velvet is one of the projects in the Difference article of this journal. It is a flash animation that I feel is the best of all I’ve seen so far in this journal. It is about Hurricane Katrina and discusses in the introduction how it dives into the history of New Orleans, making the viewer aware that the disaster of Katrina was not just an act of nature but a complex web of political and social histories.
The actual project Blue Velvet captivates the viewer from the beginning with a well made static image of a cityscape, with a red button in the lower right corner with the word “begin.” Once you click it, text starts falling from the sky and going in and out of focus as it moves around the screen. There are very peaceful sounds of the ocean.
If you click on one of the words, everything changes. The word falls through the cityscape, turning it shades of gray instead of shades of blue and green, while the sound instantly changes to what sounds like an African drum circle. To explain everything else that happens in this complex transition would take a while, but basically the whole point of view of the screen lowers, so that the viewer feels that he is in the earth, and a short article is given relating loosely to the word that was originally clicked.
The evidence that this project points out refers mostly to how segregated New Orleans was before the hurricane and how this has come to be over the years. Because of this segregation, there was more hazards and less assistance or safety measures taken in the poorer areas like the 9th Ward.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
On Vectors Journal...
I have been following an online journal named Vectors Journal. A link to it is here.
My journal is actually very interesting. It took me a while to realize how to work with its structure, but now that I’ve gotten into it, I really enjoy it (unfortunately they only seem to come out with one article a year).
It starts out with a main title and has an introduction to this month’s article. Then it has a group of links to the right that link to different “Projects” (which is really what this online journal is all about). Once you click on the link, you are brought to another page in which you’re given another introduction for the project, an author’s statement, a designer’s statement, Peer responses, Credits, and a link to view the actual “Project.” There are five of these projects for each article. The “Project” usually consists of a flash based page and, in most cases, interactive. They usually focus in on one current issue and orient the project around all aspects of it. Most of the projects I’ve looked at do not make concise arguments as one might usually see in articles, but instead present evidence in a somewhat bias way. The interactivity aspect of it, however, captivates the viewer, making them want to dig deeper and deeper into the project in order to discover some sort of “evidence.” The evidence is placed there by the author, but the viewer has the feeling they are discovering it for themselves (and I guess, in a way, they are).
Because of the way this journal is set up, I will be writing not about the entire articles in the blog but about the specific projects. It would be very difficult to write about the articles in their entirety, and makes a lot more sense to write about the individual projects, which are much more specific to one issue and easier to draw conclusions from. Because of this, I will be writing about the projects in this journal.
Another thing that is interesting about my journal is how little it actually talks about art or the artwork it’s showing. The art seems secondary to the social issues these projects are addressing. Because of all of this, it is hard to write about the questions posted on D2L that we are supposed to address. I guess I shouldn’t say it’s hard – it’s just not straightforward. There is no clear-cut answer to any of the questions in D2L about this journal, though it is easy to infer a lot of these answers.
So I guess this is a disclaimer then, telling you reading my blog that this discussion of Vector’s Journal is not going to concise or based on hard, concrete evidence, but instead based on my own inferences, biases, and educated guesses. Though, in my opinion, that’s all knowledge is anyway.
My journal is actually very interesting. It took me a while to realize how to work with its structure, but now that I’ve gotten into it, I really enjoy it (unfortunately they only seem to come out with one article a year).
It starts out with a main title and has an introduction to this month’s article. Then it has a group of links to the right that link to different “Projects” (which is really what this online journal is all about). Once you click on the link, you are brought to another page in which you’re given another introduction for the project, an author’s statement, a designer’s statement, Peer responses, Credits, and a link to view the actual “Project.” There are five of these projects for each article. The “Project” usually consists of a flash based page and, in most cases, interactive. They usually focus in on one current issue and orient the project around all aspects of it. Most of the projects I’ve looked at do not make concise arguments as one might usually see in articles, but instead present evidence in a somewhat bias way. The interactivity aspect of it, however, captivates the viewer, making them want to dig deeper and deeper into the project in order to discover some sort of “evidence.” The evidence is placed there by the author, but the viewer has the feeling they are discovering it for themselves (and I guess, in a way, they are).
Because of the way this journal is set up, I will be writing not about the entire articles in the blog but about the specific projects. It would be very difficult to write about the articles in their entirety, and makes a lot more sense to write about the individual projects, which are much more specific to one issue and easier to draw conclusions from. Because of this, I will be writing about the projects in this journal.
Another thing that is interesting about my journal is how little it actually talks about art or the artwork it’s showing. The art seems secondary to the social issues these projects are addressing. Because of all of this, it is hard to write about the questions posted on D2L that we are supposed to address. I guess I shouldn’t say it’s hard – it’s just not straightforward. There is no clear-cut answer to any of the questions in D2L about this journal, though it is easy to infer a lot of these answers.
So I guess this is a disclaimer then, telling you reading my blog that this discussion of Vector’s Journal is not going to concise or based on hard, concrete evidence, but instead based on my own inferences, biases, and educated guesses. Though, in my opinion, that’s all knowledge is anyway.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Creative Act
Chris Schasse
Film 202:605
10/2/08
Paper #1: The Creative Act
Bear Garden
After watching the film for the second time (and even after the first time) I get the impression that someone has died. Someone died and the lingering sense of darkness and mourning are still there. The kind of mourning that comes without crying or any kind of release. The stale darkness that stays with me, almost demonic, but a demonic force that does not captivate me completely. Like the calm before the storm, or the calm after it. Almost the feeling that I’m about to be attacked, but for now I am safe. Or maybe the attack has already been made, and the enemy has withdrawn.
This film, in my mind, plays with time. I don’t know if something is about to happen or if it already has. So while watching it I am stuck in the middle, unable to decipher what the present is. Maybe the film is trying to get the point across that time is a cycle, and that the past and the future don’t exist, and all there is is the present.
In these two paragraphs I have attempted to do what is talked about in the Marcel Duchamp quote. I (the spectator) have attempted to interpret this film’s inner qualifications to add to the contribution of the work. I realized through the process of taking notes that this film is really just meant to be experienced, and not to be analyzed into too deeply. The actual images and symbols and music and sounds do not have much meaning by themselves or in relation to each other, except as a whole experience. As the viewer experiences this film, the film puts them in a trance, much like the feeling of meditation; the feeling of Zen. It makes the viewer question the inner parts of his or her mind, and not what the actual film means or is trying to get across. It makes the viewer conscious.
Andrea does an excellent job creating something extremely abstract and yet, at the same time, mixing lots of tangible sounds and images, giving the viewer the impression that they are ‘looking through’ something. She does this by the use of people in the background and overlaying images and manipulating the actual film through scratches or whatever else. An image of a man’s face appears a couple of times throughout the film, a face which is hard to decipher. It creates a gap, making the viewer have to fill in who the man is, and why he is there. The voices in the background also contribute to this gap. What is the source of the voices? What are they saying?
She uses color very well. At one point the sound of a siren is heard, and a series of red images were shown with the sounds of war in the background. At another point an inverted image of a church (at least I perceived it to be a church) came onto the screen , and after that everything was blue and dark, and she intermixed sounds of the water, and the whole experience felt very spiritual (this is the point when I had the greatest sense that someone had died).
The first scene in this film invites the viewer right away to question what is happening. As the camera goes through the yellow garden of flowers, there are voices which are hard to decipher in the background. It makes the viewer wonder what’s happening, and from the start of the film the viewer is questioning and trying to fill in the gaps. This scene gave the viewer a feeling of suspense, like something was going to happen soon. After this scene, it goes to images that give the viewer the impression that they are behind something. Everything in this next sequence is not tangible, but at the same time there is a strong light that looks like the sun in the background in relatively the same place. This image of the sun grounds the viewer in something, making him or her feel buried in this mess of scratches and non-tangible images. It makes the viewer feel lost in a sense, wanting to get out into the light and grab hold of the sun.
Andrea also sprinkles in many images of people in the background. These people, I feel, also ground the viewer in something. There are many other images of windows and of rooms, all very similar, all making the viewer wonder about the connection between them. It makes the viewer question “What is the significance of this room? Who are these people in the distance? “ The viewer, again, has to fill in the gaps that the maker (Andrea) put in there.
This movie is by far my favorite that I’ve seen in class. A lot of the films we’ve seen seem to me much more like an experiment. Like What the Water Said, Mothlight, and Suspension. These films are very interesting as experiments, and have very interesting results, but I don’t feel like there is much emotion in them. I am left thinking “that’s pretty cool.” But with Bear Garden I really felt like there was a story to it, chalked full of strong emotion. She did a good job of really rooting me in something tangible, even though the film was in many ways just as abstract as the others.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Art Encounters of Sorts : On Field Reports
Handmade Film Workshop with Robert Schaller
I encountered art here, in the darkroom on the fourth floor of the Kenilworth building. I signed up for this session with my friend Kurt because it was free and the sound of making your own film sounded interesting to us.
One thing I learned is that making film is fairly simple. There are a lot of complexities to it, and a lot of variables, but to make a light sensitive material and put it on something that can be displayed through a projector is really not that difficult.
It was interesting to go to this session, and it’s really good to know that if I have trouble getting a certain effect out of traditional film I can always go this direction. But after working with homemade film, I feel the work is not really worth it. I guess it’s not really my passion. I thought it was really cool though how the first guy who came in there exposed the homemade film through some negatives of some buildings he filmed. I think that’s a really cool concept that I may implement sometime, and I think it would have some great effects.
I like to distort things. I like to take reality and twist it a bit to get my point across (or just to make people look harder). A lot of the stuff we were doing in the workshop didn’t seem to have any kind of tangible grounding. We were exposing random things (sugar, salt, sticks, leaves, bubble wrap) to the light to get interesting images on the film. The problem I have with this is that it’s just making things look “interesting.” As an experiment though, it was very interesting. If I did the same thing and exposed it though a filmstrip I’ve already shot of something tangible, I think what I’d come up with would be something much more interesting.
All and all, I learned a lot of things I may use for the future as a media artist. A large part of me really wants to stretch the bounds of what media, especially film, can do, and I think the newfound knowledge of what I learned at this workshop, even if I didn’t see it as very practical, taught me new techniques and opened my mind to new things I never really knew much about.
I love to slide!!!
Vectors Journal
I chose it because on the website you can draw. I thought that was sweeeet. I know nothing about the journal. But I'm sure it's awesome.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
