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.

Claire Bishop

I can understand why this article upset a lot of people. Bishop calls out the new media, saying that it still contains old media like projectors and film. However the part of it, that is new media, everything has become digitized and has become cheap and easily accessible. Because of this, digital media doesn't have the feels of the analog medium. Programs, cameras, and apps are easily used with a click of a button to create instant results that we no longer take the time to think of the process of creation in between.With old media, it was a long drawn out process, usually expensive too, so it took real dedication to use, however now it is only used for nostalgia. After experimenting with the film camera I can say that it makes me appreciate digital medium a lot more. It takes quite a bit more work and dedication and patience to have to work with. Having a good amount of knowledge and experience beforehand would also help. I really like the part where she ties in research and google, how it's kind of destroyed the physical value of objects

cats also destroy physical value of objects

Claire Bishop

Claire Bishop's article said a lot about how it seems that New Media art really has not come to be. So much so that only a few like Frances Stark and Thomas Hirschhorn may have broken through. Most of the actual works that I have seen do not even use the same principles of art that I see in traditional works which might be why you do not see new media in the mainstream art world.

To say the least, I think she might be right in saying that New Media Art has not arrived yet. I think we are still experimenting with the media from the past like analog films. Many works that I see are seem to be unfinished in some ways, not in concept but creation. I think that once we find a way to merge the art world with what is now the New Media world, we might see ourselves more prominently.

i wish i hadn't deleted my xanga :(

Clare Bishop makes a reasonable point in her contribution to the discourse on digital art.

As artists, we are individuals responding to the technological revolution as it is happening around us.

This response is not always acknowledging of the way that perceptions and actions have changed, because these changes in habit and form are gradual and become quotidian. 

These everyday practices seep into are art making, but in our expression, Clare Bishop feels (and I agree to a certain extent) that there is a glazing if not ignorance of the why (if not also the what and the how).

In our experience, it is crucial in critical thinking to acknowledge thought.

-To ask "Why am I thinking what I think?"

-To ask "Why am I feeling the way I feel?"

and by extension here

-To ask "Why do I/we do the things that I/we do?"

Bishop sees a lack in the acknowledgment of active thinking and making about our actions in our present digital environment.

As a response to the overwhelming nature of our daily digital lives, works have turned to the analog for nostalgia, the social and public for physical contact, and in other ways dodged the elephant on the screen.

We are in a transitional period (as we always are). Is it not crucial to recognize that there is a difference between the then and the now (if not only to emphasize the now)?

We are "prosumers" that actively co-produce content on:

the Internet- our dominant social field.

I find this disconcerting to a certain extent, but also very intriguing, and believe as Bishop does, that it should be explored.

I am currently working on a piece related to this subject, and it isn't easy.

I feel that the difficulty may lie in the failure of my group members to fully grasp the concept which has been illuminated here.

Any complete portrait of an individual in the present day must represent two personas, the online (digital) and the actual (physical).

In reality these personas may conflict (or in our case both be totally banal).

It is difficult to address the fact that how we exist online, is different that how we exist IRL.

Our presentation of self online is active, interesting, and multiple.

Our actual presentation of self may be active, interesting, and multiple- but in completely different interpretations of the words.

Now we exist as data as much as in real life to others (potentially). 

This digital code, as Bishop points out, is inherently alien to human perception.

Yet we must go beyond the mere understanding of clicking buttons, and reevaluate or function in the matter.

Digital divide

While reading it, I stumbled about the author’s question of “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?”. I came with the bottom question of “does she really mean it?”. Many think, and re-think the medium they want to portray. artist would know the limitation and choose the best. Sometimes, the subject matter is more important than the medium itself. I will agree that medium matters, but somehow, the way she says it, seems… clueless. It started to worry me more when she said that “on one hand” seems to matter this theme. It worries me that she says that “K-Corea Inc.K, section a” is a good example of mattering media. I will argue that is common sense that as this “technological revolution that we are undergoing”, will bring new consequences/results. She seems angry/dislike toward the experimentation. It starts very apparent when she comments about the email account. Sadly for her, I do not recall any “pervasive sense”. I am too young to recall it.

 

Surprisingly, she touches almost every stereotype of an artist: foggy, indirect, lazy, unsure, doesn’t-care, it-is-what-it-is, empty concept. I am not surprised that she got bad criticism from people of the art world. Knowing toward where she was shooting, I took patience. She has a valid point that she wants to make, but her examples and adjectives seem not to be helping her. she also argues how we, humans of this time, are separating the medium from social interaction; that digital is replacing performances. She seems to be going to a theme, that many people of the art world, does not care. It is not in the priority list. If you don’t get the art world, do not become part of it: you will get nowhere if you don’t get it. However, she touched many interesting points such as “can communication between users become the subject of an aesthetic?” and actually… I will let you think about it.