Austin Machine Vison

Everyone missed out on some really cool pieces last Wednesday (and extra credit..). They showed four pieces.
first was a piece called A lecture by Hollis Frampton. It described the basics of what film is while you stare mainly and a white square. She changed the screen to pink and said that pink was actually less appealing to us then white. that white even though it has less is really more cause more can happen to it.
Next they showed Shutter Interface by Paul Sharits which I dont know if I like it more or less then the flicker. It meant to have four projections they said but we only saw it with two. they had two projection with a small overlap as they flew through diffrent colors and mixing in the middle for 24 min. It was hypnotic to me as the speed of each side change never staying constant and the noise of clicking as each one went by just drew me in more.
Next was my least favorite piece Urban Episodes by Steina Vasulka. it was just one of her contraption in citys shooting video. I would prefer to see the contraption then see the video. though some of the effects she used was cool it just didn't really fit with the other pieces we were watching.
Last we watched The Flicker by Tony Conrad. This piece was also hypnotic as you watched the screen go through black and white screens pretty fast for 30 min. They gave us a warning for about 3 min saying a physician should be present and i understood why about half way through as it started to give me a head ac. it was interesting to me when the people next to me moved up and i could see them in the corner of my eye and they flickered in and out of view of the corner of my eye.
overall these pieces show that simple can some times be best and have really cool effects. So you all missed out!

Digital Divide Response

     The failure of artists, in Claire Bishop's view, to address how digital technology and the advent of the internet affect our lives and surroundings, or conversely, the trend of using "retro" technologies and objects in works of art, is in my view a temporary one. As each generation reaches adulthood, there exists a de facto cultural vacuum which this generation has not yet been able to fill with cultural productions and the discourses that surround them. As the eldest members of this generation begin producing art, music, films, essays, novels, etc..., they are necessarily influenced by what their societies have produced in the past. Many of these older artists, looking at what is considered "cutting edge" at the moment, inevitably end up producing something which has its roots in the practice of artists of the former generation. However, as time progresses, and younger (creatively inclined) members of a generational cohort reach maturity and begin to produce work, they are less likely to look to the same artists and technologies as their immediate predecessors. What happens instead is a gradual shift of the source of inspiration from the previous generation and their technologies, to the beginning of the present generation and the technologies which have accompanied the emerging artists throughout their lives.
    This relationship between generations is present in many other areas of western, industrialized societies. In the realm of politics, the generational shift generally happens much later in the life of the members of the generations involved, and a strong generational cohort may produce several administrations, which can last many years (the Clinton and Bush administrations, both Baby Boomers, lasted for a total of 16 years). One reason why this relationship may seem skewed when considering the art world can be found when we examine art's relationship to the art market. Over the past 30 years, the prices commanded by the most popular artists have risen dramatically. People buying the art, who because they are rich also wield power, have an interest in, and the means to keep their art relevant. This can be achieved through coordinated sales to artificially increase the price of works (see Damien Hirst, http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/37270/), or by buying up media outlets in order to secure undue societal influence (see Rupert Murdoch, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/rupert-murdoch-australian-election-2013).
     The apparent lack of response to digital technologies may of course have its roots in other issues as well. The extremely rapid pace at which these technologies are being developed far exceeds the creative output of most, if not all artists, and the lack of availability of these technologies in many parts of the world obviously hinders many artists working there from employing them. But if change appears to be happening slowly here, it can almost certainly be chalked up to nostalgia and strategic investment banking.

Interesting book on generations:

Generations: the history of America's future, 1584 to 2069
Authors	William Strauss, Neil Howe

Digital Divide

I feel like the opinion that digital art isn't around the same way it may have been promised a few decades ago is an archaic point of view, however I am not familiar enough with the contemporary art world to really criticize anyones opinion on it. I feel as if digital media is still so early in its development, especially compared to other mediums. I think the genre of digital art needs more time to mature into its full potential, like a fine wine. There is so much possibility in digital technologies that we have yet to understand, and change is a scary thing to artists set in traditional ways. When you find success doing things a particular change, why fix what isn't broken? Give digital a half century and see the amazing things they create. There are plenty of digital artists, you just have to look.

The Clair Bishop article

It's interesting to see this put into thought. It seems that digital art is a bit finicky when it comes to describing what part of it really is "art". With the technology we have today, it enables us to create all forms of work that can be considered a piece. Considering the fact that now most handheld devices have apps that allow some kind of drawing/movie program to be used on it, almost anyone can create something and call it their own "art". Though, with this convenience, we might tend to forget about the traditional style of how an art work was made. Like the article stated, the techniques and time used in making a piece of work is no longer really looked at; instead, it's the meaning of what the artist was wanting to state. We've begun to over look the effort put into a digital work, and only see it for its meaning most likely because of this easy access to its creation. Perhaps when working traditionally such as with analog and paint/canvas then those ideas pushed away can be brought back up again.

Claire Bishop

This is an excellent article. I don't find it to be such a shock that there aren't many artists creating work that questions the effect of the digital age on art or perception. I think mainstream art will always embrace its marketability, and therefore unique and/or limited objects will continue to reign supreme. The situation is kind of sad though. At one time, art stood for the cutting edge, or at least this is what the avant garde artists were after. But rarely today do people seek experiences with art to find out what's cutting edge. I think that's because modern user technology is the new cutting edge. Interacting directly with new devices or software can be more entertaining and thought provoking than experiencing an art object. Heck, why not just experience art objects on your phone? saves you time and you can view greater quantities at your leisure. So then if art is no longer cutting edge, what is it? What is it's function? It seems to be mostly for novelty sake. This might be why analog media is so readily absorbed by mainstream art, because in a digital world, analog is arcane: it's rare and fancy. Analog looks good, and it's object based, and let's face it, it's cool. And if something is cool, it's marketable. Perhaps the few artists Bishop mentions, who are truly absorbed in questioning our digital paradigm, are the present cutting edge avant garde. So what if there are only a few artists in this category? Does art have to present an idea about its place in time to be important?

Andrew McCall

The thing that I think that is most interesting about Andrew McCalls Line Describing a Cone, is that McCall started to think about the medium in a different way. He started to think about more than just the image on the film screen by light, but the light alone. I think that it is really interesting when artists take their medium and approach it in a unique manner. However despite the difference in his approach, he thinks about aspects of film that other more "traditional" film artists think of as well. Such as the space that his work will exist in. How long the piece will be. Who will be watching the piece, and will they be alone? What is the scale of the piece? What is the relationship between the viewers and the work? What kind of camera, projector, lens, and film will be used?

Basically, I think art is just a constant re-evaluation and about trying to find a place to live.

after reading the Anthony McCall work i have more of a perspective on what it means to articulate a piece involving an audience or to be interactive. When dealing with people coming and going to view a piece, there is a lot to consider that i had never really thought about like, the necessary size of the projection in proportion to people, just thinking more sculpturally, rather than the usual 2-D mind i have. He also made me think about looping and how long the work stays on if it runs all day or just for a couple of hours, or just once, and how this affects how people will see it. McCall also made me think about visibility, like actually how well people can  see the work, he said he was amazed at how the people gathered around his pieces to get a glimpse. I like to think in this big sense, like thinking of the space that we have to work in as well, like a big wall or just simply a overhead screen, and to take them into consideration when trying to get your point across and make people see your work the way that you intend.