Favorite topics? Least favorite? Explain yourself
In looking back over the topics discussed in this class, I would like to think I learned something new about each one. Some granted I took more away from than others, but I think that each was important.
In terms of my most favorable topic, I would have to say blogging. GASP! The topic that many people found to be disposable, or a grade check, I found extremely interesting. The way that authoritative roles are broken down when writing a blog post is fascinating when compared to the real-world counterpart. I don't understand why people feel more free to express themselves via blog post. Is that inherent to asynchronous communication? Or is it the written communication that offers this freedom over verbal?
I think in the future there should be some type of feedback system implemented into the blogging aspect of the course. As the course progressed, blog posts seemed to fall off from students. I imagine a utopian scenario where a student posts a blog comment, and receives feedback within a day either agreeing or disagreeing. Questioning beliefs or giving backing to ideas. Similar to a forum or bulletin board, a mashup of multimedia and textual information. There seemed to be confusion initially about what the purpose of the blog was, and I imagine some students refrained to avoid embarassment from a "wrong" post. Ironically there is not such thing as a "wrong" post, but rather only a lack of communication.
In terms of least favorable topic, I would have to say Cyber Feminism. I say this because it is obvious my own lack of knowledge on feminism topics occluded my perception of the big picture. Even after reading the piece several times I do not feel I have a strong understanding of the underlying intent. I would like to revisit this piece outside of an art class, to focus more on the literary meanings. I think once I understand what the piece is trying to say, I will be able to better interpret.
This class has been very rewarding for me. As a computer scientist so much of my reading is spent on algorithm exploration or new methods. My heart is in art and music, and the fact that 2.5 hours a week (4.5 if you count office hours) in class time was dedicated to this class has given me a great perspective on how art and technology interact.
I look forward to the final project presentations. I am very excited to see what everyone has come up with.
-Bobby
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
week 13 pt ii - Cory and Lauren's presentation
I think Melissa hit on a key point in regards to law and digital ownership here. Current laws are far behind the technological advancements that have been made in the last few decades, and we're reaching a point where society is noticing it.
Remember the recent writer's strike over dvd sales? Should writers be paid for dvds of their material that are sold? Aren't they already paid for it once? What about other distributions? iTunes sales or network website streams? What about podcasts of episodes? Where does the line get drawn for ownership and compensation?
This is the return of the art and money conflict. What is it to be a successful starving artist? In this sense does the term artist redefine successful? To be successful at being a starving artist, don't you have to not succeed by conventional terminology, ie monetary success?
People will always want to be paid in some form. Recognition or salary have similar values depending on the culture.
It's funny when people say that the law is a living thing, yet it's so far behind technology trends. I don't know what the answer is to make everyone happy. I honestly don't think everyone will ever be happy. It's a conflict of interest, doing something you love, and people making money off it. Two very important, yet distinct things.
Remember the recent writer's strike over dvd sales? Should writers be paid for dvds of their material that are sold? Aren't they already paid for it once? What about other distributions? iTunes sales or network website streams? What about podcasts of episodes? Where does the line get drawn for ownership and compensation?
This is the return of the art and money conflict. What is it to be a successful starving artist? In this sense does the term artist redefine successful? To be successful at being a starving artist, don't you have to not succeed by conventional terminology, ie monetary success?
People will always want to be paid in some form. Recognition or salary have similar values depending on the culture.
It's funny when people say that the law is a living thing, yet it's so far behind technology trends. I don't know what the answer is to make everyone happy. I honestly don't think everyone will ever be happy. It's a conflict of interest, doing something you love, and people making money off it. Two very important, yet distinct things.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Week 13 pt i - Kay's Presentation
Design a successful activism strategy based on any kind of information technology and your own new media art skill!
One of the strongest tools you can play off of when dealing with people is vanity. If you make them feel unique, special, righteous, etc you can hold their attention. Along those lines, a new media art skill should play off of something that is flashy. Flashy in terms of getting public attention, and also flashy in the sense of holding an individual's attention.
Right now the latest and greatest toy is the iPhone. Consumer-grade enough that everyone knows what it is, but geeky enough to have lots of potential. Below I'll list a theoretical scenario.
An issue that has taken mainstage on college campuses is drinking. Underage drinking, drunk driving, drunk dialing, etc. Alcohol is cool to most undergraduate students. As a statement about drinking, there could be an iphone application that estimates your BAC. You would enter your weight, and press the start button when you had your first drink. Every time you wanted a new drink, you could wave the iphone in the air to signal a waitress. that gesture movement would trigger the iphone to increment a drink counter, and based off of your weight and the overall time, the iPhone could estimate your BAC. After a certain BAC level, the iPhone could limit the phone numbers you were allowed to dial, to avoid drunken phone calls. You would be able to call a designated driver, 911, and local taxi services based around you. The taxi services would be determined off of the GPS device in the iPhone.
In that way the iPhone application would encourage alcohol education. The importance of the program would be that it would have a simple fun factor to show off, but also have a useful feature set that would not become unintentionally intrusive as the participant became more inebriated.
One of the strongest tools you can play off of when dealing with people is vanity. If you make them feel unique, special, righteous, etc you can hold their attention. Along those lines, a new media art skill should play off of something that is flashy. Flashy in terms of getting public attention, and also flashy in the sense of holding an individual's attention.
Right now the latest and greatest toy is the iPhone. Consumer-grade enough that everyone knows what it is, but geeky enough to have lots of potential. Below I'll list a theoretical scenario.
An issue that has taken mainstage on college campuses is drinking. Underage drinking, drunk driving, drunk dialing, etc. Alcohol is cool to most undergraduate students. As a statement about drinking, there could be an iphone application that estimates your BAC. You would enter your weight, and press the start button when you had your first drink. Every time you wanted a new drink, you could wave the iphone in the air to signal a waitress. that gesture movement would trigger the iphone to increment a drink counter, and based off of your weight and the overall time, the iPhone could estimate your BAC. After a certain BAC level, the iPhone could limit the phone numbers you were allowed to dial, to avoid drunken phone calls. You would be able to call a designated driver, 911, and local taxi services based around you. The taxi services would be determined off of the GPS device in the iPhone.
In that way the iPhone application would encourage alcohol education. The importance of the program would be that it would have a simple fun factor to show off, but also have a useful feature set that would not become unintentionally intrusive as the participant became more inebriated.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Week 13: Empowerment via internet
Do you feel empowered by the internet?
Discuss in relation to the recent federal election in USA
I think that empowerment is a natural reaction that many feel as they cope with the internet. I say that because the internet, like losing a loved one, has an emotional work flow that people go through. Initially, people are scared of the internet (like many are with new technology in general). There is a common fear of doing something irreversible, or detrimental to the internet. This comes from an individualistic experiential view. As people become more accustomed to using Google, and yahoo news, eventually they discover blogs or social networking sites. Here they realize the next stage in the internet, socialization. Their computer is connected to others computers, and they can see the same things! AMAZING. Now everyone can watch the perplexed ground hog at the same time!
In terms of feeling empowered, I think that many people will naturally transition from recognizing a social internet community, to trying to communicate with it. For example, in the early 2000's mySpace.com saw an explosion of mediocre bands spamming individual users for "friend" status. These bands would actually use these relationships as a bargaining tool when booking shows. The internet itself was a communication tool used to gain fans. The bands saw this as a way to increase their public footprint.
Realistically the internet in it's current form is a communication tool. Video, audio, or a combination of the two. This is similar to the hippie movement of Haight Ashbury. Pamphleteer and soap boxing were analogous to blogging, twittering, or even trolling. Websites like blogger and twitter.com offered live updates of posts, which can be grouped by tags. As a means of communication, the internet has the ability to empower anyone who chooses to use it to spread their message. Along with the power to spread "the word" is also the power to spread the image. This past election, president elect Obama was able to secure a trendy middle-upper class vote by putting out an iphone application. This allowed him to communicate with people using the internet, but also show that he is tech-savvy and on the cutting edge of technology. Besides spreading opinion and image, what else can the internet project about/onto an individual/group?
Discuss in relation to the recent federal election in USA
I think that empowerment is a natural reaction that many feel as they cope with the internet. I say that because the internet, like losing a loved one, has an emotional work flow that people go through. Initially, people are scared of the internet (like many are with new technology in general). There is a common fear of doing something irreversible, or detrimental to the internet. This comes from an individualistic experiential view. As people become more accustomed to using Google, and yahoo news, eventually they discover blogs or social networking sites. Here they realize the next stage in the internet, socialization. Their computer is connected to others computers, and they can see the same things! AMAZING. Now everyone can watch the perplexed ground hog at the same time!
In terms of feeling empowered, I think that many people will naturally transition from recognizing a social internet community, to trying to communicate with it. For example, in the early 2000's mySpace.com saw an explosion of mediocre bands spamming individual users for "friend" status. These bands would actually use these relationships as a bargaining tool when booking shows. The internet itself was a communication tool used to gain fans. The bands saw this as a way to increase their public footprint.
Realistically the internet in it's current form is a communication tool. Video, audio, or a combination of the two. This is similar to the hippie movement of Haight Ashbury. Pamphleteer and soap boxing were analogous to blogging, twittering, or even trolling. Websites like blogger and twitter.com offered live updates of posts, which can be grouped by tags. As a means of communication, the internet has the ability to empower anyone who chooses to use it to spread their message. Along with the power to spread "the word" is also the power to spread the image. This past election, president elect Obama was able to secure a trendy middle-upper class vote by putting out an iphone application. This allowed him to communicate with people using the internet, but also show that he is tech-savvy and on the cutting edge of technology. Besides spreading opinion and image, what else can the internet project about/onto an individual/group?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Week 12: Blogging worth dying for?
Absolutely! well in the right context anyway. Blogging is a medium of communication. Is that medium specifically worth dying for?
Communication, freedom of expression certainly is. The increase of populous knowledge is directly related to freedom of mass speech. It doesn't matter if what I have to say is relevant to a specific topic or not, because relevancy is the perspective of the user. I would not go so far as to say that what I have to say is worth dying for, but my ability to do such allows me a voice, and a participatory role in society. Defining norms and social constructs through various expressed opinions.
The obvious rebuttal to all of this is to question the importance of a blog post. No, we don't need hundreds of posts about the last drink Jessica Simpson had before leaving Le Deux on Thursday night. At least not from a micro-scoped view (more on that in a minute). I argue that it's not that this has nothing to do with the medium of blogging, but with the content. For example, teen people, tiger beat, seventeen... are each of these magazines making a positive contribution to knowledge in this country? More so than the New York Times or Boston Globe? In terms of serious news, pre-teen magazines are far from relevant. In a state where information is free, it's hard to look past content. But what about in China, a place where photography is limited, and electronics can be confiscated for national security at any moment. The entire internet (which most Americans view as an equal free place) is completely monitored and censored. What if you had to get information to the rest of the world about a horrible act your government was committing? Would you trust CNN? In a situation where your world is upside down, why would you trust an intermediary to spread your story when you had access to the tools to do so?
So content is taken out of the equation in terms of micro-view of importance. But when we want to analyze societal shifts of interest, viewpoints, opinion, then these blogs become windows into the minds of its authors. In times where so much is written about people (facebook, friendfeed, okarut) blogs provide a view of a person from that person.
So the question posed, what is the importance of blogging? Is it worth dying for? Absolutely. The positive aspects of information spread and analysis out weigh the fabricated negative of content. To say that blogging isn't important is like saying that news papers aren't important. As many mediums as possible, as long as they're well maintained, should be available to people for communication. Each medium offers unique characteristics. Blogging is the evolution of an editorial section. instead of having one-way communication, blogging enables a-synchronous communication with limited censorship (topic for another discussion).
On a side note, I think the administrative role is important to recognize, as well as the break down of roles in general. That break down normally only occurs in one direction though. For example, when reading a blog, the average user feels equality towards all other posters and responds to them as equals. This could be in response to doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. The point is to that person everyone is equal. But in the eyes of the doctor/lawyer/... they are being talked down to, their social role in the real world has not carried over to hold the same level of recognition in the virtual. This can lead to feelings of disrespect and foster hostility. How dare you talk to your superior like that?! This is where medium is outweighed by relations. Even though the virtual world offers an augmented communication method, the roles in the real world do not go away. This was exhibited in the early 90s-2000s in corporate emails, where co-workers would send informal emails back and forth. The emails did not retain the same level of respect that formal analog voice communication carried, so tensions built and interaction in the real world broke down because of it. This is an example of where the medium is secondary to the roles of the participants.
Communication, freedom of expression certainly is. The increase of populous knowledge is directly related to freedom of mass speech. It doesn't matter if what I have to say is relevant to a specific topic or not, because relevancy is the perspective of the user. I would not go so far as to say that what I have to say is worth dying for, but my ability to do such allows me a voice, and a participatory role in society. Defining norms and social constructs through various expressed opinions.
The obvious rebuttal to all of this is to question the importance of a blog post. No, we don't need hundreds of posts about the last drink Jessica Simpson had before leaving Le Deux on Thursday night. At least not from a micro-scoped view (more on that in a minute). I argue that it's not that this has nothing to do with the medium of blogging, but with the content. For example, teen people, tiger beat, seventeen... are each of these magazines making a positive contribution to knowledge in this country? More so than the New York Times or Boston Globe? In terms of serious news, pre-teen magazines are far from relevant. In a state where information is free, it's hard to look past content. But what about in China, a place where photography is limited, and electronics can be confiscated for national security at any moment. The entire internet (which most Americans view as an equal free place) is completely monitored and censored. What if you had to get information to the rest of the world about a horrible act your government was committing? Would you trust CNN? In a situation where your world is upside down, why would you trust an intermediary to spread your story when you had access to the tools to do so?
So content is taken out of the equation in terms of micro-view of importance. But when we want to analyze societal shifts of interest, viewpoints, opinion, then these blogs become windows into the minds of its authors. In times where so much is written about people (facebook, friendfeed, okarut) blogs provide a view of a person from that person.
So the question posed, what is the importance of blogging? Is it worth dying for? Absolutely. The positive aspects of information spread and analysis out weigh the fabricated negative of content. To say that blogging isn't important is like saying that news papers aren't important. As many mediums as possible, as long as they're well maintained, should be available to people for communication. Each medium offers unique characteristics. Blogging is the evolution of an editorial section. instead of having one-way communication, blogging enables a-synchronous communication with limited censorship (topic for another discussion).
On a side note, I think the administrative role is important to recognize, as well as the break down of roles in general. That break down normally only occurs in one direction though. For example, when reading a blog, the average user feels equality towards all other posters and responds to them as equals. This could be in response to doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. The point is to that person everyone is equal. But in the eyes of the doctor/lawyer/... they are being talked down to, their social role in the real world has not carried over to hold the same level of recognition in the virtual. This can lead to feelings of disrespect and foster hostility. How dare you talk to your superior like that?! This is where medium is outweighed by relations. Even though the virtual world offers an augmented communication method, the roles in the real world do not go away. This was exhibited in the early 90s-2000s in corporate emails, where co-workers would send informal emails back and forth. The emails did not retain the same level of respect that formal analog voice communication carried, so tensions built and interaction in the real world broke down because of it. This is an example of where the medium is secondary to the roles of the participants.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
week 12: INSTRUCTIONS FOR CLASS
• Download review sheet @ learn.vt.edu under "Course Documents" >> Blog Review
• Review each peron's blog individually the review sheet
•Email blog owner copy of the sheet (See projection for email addresses)
•CC Simone on each email sent
If time... read over comments from your classmates and make corrections/updates
• Review each peron's blog individually the review sheet
•Email blog owner copy of the sheet (See projection for email addresses)
•CC Simone on each email sent
If time... read over comments from your classmates and make corrections/updates
Week 11: Theo Jansen
AMAZING!
Simply wonderful.
I think the concept of evolution is being recreated through Jansen's work. Evolution in a biological sense occurs as natural selection occurs, over hundreds of years. Species are permitted to live and die out naturally. Jansen set's a time limit to his creatures life cycles. The next jump in the evolutionary chain occurs at his whim, not at the point of natural advancement. Also, evolution is a continuum, what is being deemed evolution in his work is discreet advancement. The argument could be made about the granularity of steps required to be deemed advancement, but either way you're dealing with distinct types of measurements (think integers and floating point values).
The choice of material to build the creatures out of makes a wonderful statement about reusability and sustainability. What types of materials in the US are used for building that could easily be forged into art? I remember when I was younger taking scraps of plywood and 2x4s from construction rubbish bins and building skate ramps and rails. Not quite the same as art, but still a solid reuse factor.
I would like to see this taken to a more meta level. The reuse of representations of animals that evolve out of the creation of new ideas. OOooo that gives me tingles.
Simply wonderful.
I think the concept of evolution is being recreated through Jansen's work. Evolution in a biological sense occurs as natural selection occurs, over hundreds of years. Species are permitted to live and die out naturally. Jansen set's a time limit to his creatures life cycles. The next jump in the evolutionary chain occurs at his whim, not at the point of natural advancement. Also, evolution is a continuum, what is being deemed evolution in his work is discreet advancement. The argument could be made about the granularity of steps required to be deemed advancement, but either way you're dealing with distinct types of measurements (think integers and floating point values).
The choice of material to build the creatures out of makes a wonderful statement about reusability and sustainability. What types of materials in the US are used for building that could easily be forged into art? I remember when I was younger taking scraps of plywood and 2x4s from construction rubbish bins and building skate ramps and rails. Not quite the same as art, but still a solid reuse factor.
I would like to see this taken to a more meta level. The reuse of representations of animals that evolve out of the creation of new ideas. OOooo that gives me tingles.
Week 10: Cyberfeminism
If I understand cyberfeminism correctly, it is feminism focused around a specific medium. Same divisions within feminism exist in sub-countercultures, but the core values are the same.
In the manifesto I agree with my colleagues that the goal seems to be equality at the root level. By stripping down social implications of the analog state we can become equal. I question the possibility of total equality, and instead introduce the structure of scope to the debate. Equality to what degree? Even within the digital realm there are ...
At 1:43PM an announcement just came out on vt.edu saying police responding to reports of gunfire at Pritchard Hall
I say that to document my attention shift.
Um, so I was talking about equality. The sense of equality does exist but to what degree. Even in the digital realm there are system adminstrators, super users, users, and guests. The digital realm is not compliant to feminist goals at this time, at least not in the sense of global equality. I think a more reachable goal is to ask for user class equality, but isn't that similar to what is in place in the real world? Maybe I'm reading too much into this statement, or being too literal in my interpretation of a digital (assuming online) world.
In the manifesto I agree with my colleagues that the goal seems to be equality at the root level. By stripping down social implications of the analog state we can become equal. I question the possibility of total equality, and instead introduce the structure of scope to the debate. Equality to what degree? Even within the digital realm there are ...
At 1:43PM an announcement just came out on vt.edu saying police responding to reports of gunfire at Pritchard Hall
I say that to document my attention shift.
Um, so I was talking about equality. The sense of equality does exist but to what degree. Even in the digital realm there are system adminstrators, super users, users, and guests. The digital realm is not compliant to feminist goals at this time, at least not in the sense of global equality. I think a more reachable goal is to ask for user class equality, but isn't that similar to what is in place in the real world? Maybe I'm reading too much into this statement, or being too literal in my interpretation of a digital (assuming online) world.
Week 9: Cyberpunk and Neuromancer
I think that human computer interaction is the soft jazz to Neuromancer's garage punk. So much of the work between the two fields are the same, but instead of exploring creative lines and ubiquity, HCI tends to shy more on the analytical side. The cyber artists, the seem to push the boundary more, but at what cost? This is similar to the NASA paradox from Kennedy times. Kennedy said we're going to the moon, many said why? He said why not? The "why?" was not a point of questioning the journey (for some it was actually), but a statement about exploration of our world, and exploration of self. There are places on this planet that man has and will never see, leaving now to explore somewhere else is like finishing half of a cookie and then getting a sandwich. (I haven't had lunch yet)
This is not to invalidate the work of the new media artist, but rather to provide counter point. Just because you can is not always reason enough to do something, but just because you can't validate it is certainly no reason to do something as well. That's the beauty of academics. Art + theory = creativity + rationale.
In terms of the story line of Neuromancer, I agree with Melissa. The essence of the commercial punk movement (dark and dirty), mixed with technology did a great job of getting at the essence of the rebellion. To truly rebel against everything, to be anarchist to the point of a system of random chaos, is to desire to be destroyed on an physical level. Art that destroys itself comes to mind. The idea of being successful from being a brooding artist also plays a paradoxical role.
This is not to invalidate the work of the new media artist, but rather to provide counter point. Just because you can is not always reason enough to do something, but just because you can't validate it is certainly no reason to do something as well. That's the beauty of academics. Art + theory = creativity + rationale.
In terms of the story line of Neuromancer, I agree with Melissa. The essence of the commercial punk movement (dark and dirty), mixed with technology did a great job of getting at the essence of the rebellion. To truly rebel against everything, to be anarchist to the point of a system of random chaos, is to desire to be destroyed on an physical level. Art that destroys itself comes to mind. The idea of being successful from being a brooding artist also plays a paradoxical role.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Week 8: Post Human
Cyborgs exist only in the imagination of writers and artists. Comment
Another dictionary quote (New Oxford American dictionary/Apple Dictionary): a fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body.
By that definition, there does not need to be a significant transformation, but merely an implant. Completely possible. It seems unnecessary though. What is gained by building into the body? The body is weak and prone to high failure rates. Wireless transmission and monitoring would accomplish the same tasks.
@Melissa: I'm not sure I totally agree with your point about technology and free will.
"For example, if you know about surveillance camera locations and purposely avoid routes that would encounter these devices, then you limit your experience of your environment."
Is this really a limitation of the environment that is only relative with technology and free will? I would argue that this is a reaction of participants to their environment. Reacting to an object in the environment occurs with analog and digital objects. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this, as my view is assuming that analog and digital elements are of equal importance in said environment.
Another dictionary quote (New Oxford American dictionary/Apple Dictionary): a fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body.
By that definition, there does not need to be a significant transformation, but merely an implant. Completely possible. It seems unnecessary though. What is gained by building into the body? The body is weak and prone to high failure rates. Wireless transmission and monitoring would accomplish the same tasks.
@Melissa: I'm not sure I totally agree with your point about technology and free will.
"For example, if you know about surveillance camera locations and purposely avoid routes that would encounter these devices, then you limit your experience of your environment."
Is this really a limitation of the environment that is only relative with technology and free will? I would argue that this is a reaction of participants to their environment. Reacting to an object in the environment occurs with analog and digital objects. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this, as my view is assuming that analog and digital elements are of equal importance in said environment.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Comment on ways that the film Blade Runner predicted the future.
I agree with what Jonathan said about the societal views portrayed in the movie Blade Runner. I would like to take it a step further though, and look at the portrayal of the future in most film.
In Bladrunner, we saw a run down environment. There were the super wealthy (aka the creator) who lived above the pollution and had sunlight, and the common people who had spotlights and rain. There was a strict industrialized theme throughout the city, similar to the big city stereotype. This movie was made in 1982.
Prior to Blade Runner was Metropolis, a film made in 1927. Although made 55 years prior, the two share very similar characteristics. Again we see a strong class system. This is represented symbolically via the upper class living above ground, and the worker class living in the catacombs below. The future is represented as dependency to technology. For example, if someone were not to operate the clock underground, then the machines would fail and horrible things would happen. We see this dependency to technology fear appear time and time again. Again we have a movie where the antagonist is a computer agent, but represented under the guise of flesh. Is the fear representational of technology, or of ubiquitous/ambient technology.
In modern day we see Pixar Studio's animation Wall•E. In this movie we see the aftermath of non-sustainable societal practices. In this film the technology is represented inversely to the established prescience. In prior films, technological agents resembled human form, but lacked emotion. In Wall•E, the characters exhibit emotional attributes while retaining a technological appearance. In this movie we see the human characters being assisted by robot technology to create a nirvana state, but eventually the established fear is realized when the technology gains control of the humans and develops individual rationale.
The underlying plot is technology taking over mankind, mankind fighting back to once again hold administrative position. Is this a media fear or an actual scientific fear? At what point do everyday technological components become competitors instead of utilities? Is it the actual technology or the idea of artificial knowledge/reasoning that induces fear?
In terms of artificial knowledge, the primary barrier used is to develop human implemented limitations to technology. Whether it's life spans, or kill switches (most robots in movies media have kill switches/self destruct codes) there seems to be some limitation to the technology. What makes this technology so dangerous? Is it the fear that we might create something smarter than us? If that's the case, what makes us so sure they can't reverse engineer itself through recursive analysis to counteract the limitations? If humans can reverse engineer software/restrictions (see CCS and DRM algorithms), how hard would it be to create a synthetic date at runtime to overwrite age value checks? Or simulate communication between components to spoof data transactions?
I agree with what Jonathan said about the societal views portrayed in the movie Blade Runner. I would like to take it a step further though, and look at the portrayal of the future in most film.
In Bladrunner, we saw a run down environment. There were the super wealthy (aka the creator) who lived above the pollution and had sunlight, and the common people who had spotlights and rain. There was a strict industrialized theme throughout the city, similar to the big city stereotype. This movie was made in 1982.
Prior to Blade Runner was Metropolis, a film made in 1927. Although made 55 years prior, the two share very similar characteristics. Again we see a strong class system. This is represented symbolically via the upper class living above ground, and the worker class living in the catacombs below. The future is represented as dependency to technology. For example, if someone were not to operate the clock underground, then the machines would fail and horrible things would happen. We see this dependency to technology fear appear time and time again. Again we have a movie where the antagonist is a computer agent, but represented under the guise of flesh. Is the fear representational of technology, or of ubiquitous/ambient technology.
In modern day we see Pixar Studio's animation Wall•E. In this movie we see the aftermath of non-sustainable societal practices. In this film the technology is represented inversely to the established prescience. In prior films, technological agents resembled human form, but lacked emotion. In Wall•E, the characters exhibit emotional attributes while retaining a technological appearance. In this movie we see the human characters being assisted by robot technology to create a nirvana state, but eventually the established fear is realized when the technology gains control of the humans and develops individual rationale.
The underlying plot is technology taking over mankind, mankind fighting back to once again hold administrative position. Is this a media fear or an actual scientific fear? At what point do everyday technological components become competitors instead of utilities? Is it the actual technology or the idea of artificial knowledge/reasoning that induces fear?
In terms of artificial knowledge, the primary barrier used is to develop human implemented limitations to technology. Whether it's life spans, or kill switches (most robots in movies media have kill switches/self destruct codes) there seems to be some limitation to the technology. What makes this technology so dangerous? Is it the fear that we might create something smarter than us? If that's the case, what makes us so sure they can't reverse engineer itself through recursive analysis to counteract the limitations? If humans can reverse engineer software/restrictions (see CCS and DRM algorithms), how hard would it be to create a synthetic date at runtime to overwrite age value checks? Or simulate communication between components to spoof data transactions?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Response: Week 6 Performance Art
The idea of interaction associated with performance art has had a direct effect on new media art, comment.
This story had police and a chimpanzee. What more could you ask for?
After watching this storytelling, I question the actual interaction @ happenings. A happening does not have to have interaction from the crowd, but how important is an audience to performance art? Can there be passive happenings as well as active? The way the event was described portrayed several artists working at the same time, but with mutually exclusive intentions. Were happenings done to this degree with a more collaborate goal?
In response to Melissa's post about the audience. What does the audience contribute/limit with it's presence/absence in terms of new media art? It seems that because of interactive technologies (CAVE environments, spatial sound, gesture/haptic devices) that the audience is able to take on a more active, and more spontaneous role.
This story had police and a chimpanzee. What more could you ask for?
After watching this storytelling, I question the actual interaction @ happenings. A happening does not have to have interaction from the crowd, but how important is an audience to performance art? Can there be passive happenings as well as active? The way the event was described portrayed several artists working at the same time, but with mutually exclusive intentions. Were happenings done to this degree with a more collaborate goal?
In response to Melissa's post about the audience. What does the audience contribute/limit with it's presence/absence in terms of new media art? It seems that because of interactive technologies (CAVE environments, spatial sound, gesture/haptic devices) that the audience is able to take on a more active, and more spontaneous role.
Presentation Response:Happenings
what would kaprow have thought about recreations of the happenings? keep in mind the d.i.y. attitude with directions so that anyone can create the art piece, versus the spontaneity and impermanence of happenings.
also, what are the consequences of merging life and art? if everything we did was perceived as art, would value of art in our world diminish or grow?
I think it's safe to assume Kaprow would have been very proud. The idea of happenings being scripted seemed to invite reenactment. I think that recreation would have been favorable as well, because it could be viewed as a variant or evolution of the original happening. Later on it seemed that Kaprow was more concerned with the intricacies of life, "And the work itself, the action, the kind of participation, was as remote from anything artistic as the site was."-Kaprow.
I don't know how the Kaprow concerned with small parts would have felt about these being recreated. It seemed that the concept of space was important to Kaprow's work. Very few of his Happenings were actually recorded. They exist only in that specific moment. This is different from other art, say a painting, where the space and emotion are tied to a tangible artifact.
In terms of merging art and life, I don't think the two are separate to begin with. There are distinct ties between the two that offer symbiotic assistance. In the "what-if" scenario of everything being art, it is hard to say what would happen. The initial answer is everything would be diminished, but is that true? Value isn't assigned to art in a specific way, so it's hard to say that value would drop because of a certain thing. Humans crave unique and individual "things." There was an episode of a Nickelodeon TV show called "Fairly Odd Parents" in which everyone was turned into monochrome blobs, completely indistinguishable from each other visually. Even then, characters in the show defined themselves as being "the grayest" or "slightly less gray." I can not imagine a scenario where every thing created is valued at the same level as "art." Not to say that everything doesn't have value, but even now within the classification of "art" there are different dimensions and facets to each piece.
also, what are the consequences of merging life and art? if everything we did was perceived as art, would value of art in our world diminish or grow?
I think it's safe to assume Kaprow would have been very proud. The idea of happenings being scripted seemed to invite reenactment. I think that recreation would have been favorable as well, because it could be viewed as a variant or evolution of the original happening. Later on it seemed that Kaprow was more concerned with the intricacies of life, "And the work itself, the action, the kind of participation, was as remote from anything artistic as the site was."-Kaprow.
I don't know how the Kaprow concerned with small parts would have felt about these being recreated. It seemed that the concept of space was important to Kaprow's work. Very few of his Happenings were actually recorded. They exist only in that specific moment. This is different from other art, say a painting, where the space and emotion are tied to a tangible artifact.
In terms of merging art and life, I don't think the two are separate to begin with. There are distinct ties between the two that offer symbiotic assistance. In the "what-if" scenario of everything being art, it is hard to say what would happen. The initial answer is everything would be diminished, but is that true? Value isn't assigned to art in a specific way, so it's hard to say that value would drop because of a certain thing. Humans crave unique and individual "things." There was an episode of a Nickelodeon TV show called "Fairly Odd Parents" in which everyone was turned into monochrome blobs, completely indistinguishable from each other visually. Even then, characters in the show defined themselves as being "the grayest" or "slightly less gray." I can not imagine a scenario where every thing created is valued at the same level as "art." Not to say that everything doesn't have value, but even now within the classification of "art" there are different dimensions and facets to each piece.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Week 5
Unfortunately I was not able to attend the class viewing of the new Digital Art Research Collective (no more acronyms!!). From what experience I do have with the project though I think I can still offer insight. At first sight the name is cyclical. Very important to realize, as well as the slash distinction. "Revo / Over" notice the direction of the slash. In musical notation this represents an increase in tone, or a resetting of bass tone. For example, E / F could be taken as increasing from E to F, but in chordal terms E/F refers to an E chord with an F in the bass. At the same time the term "over" is at the end. Is this representing a terminal point? I doubt this is the intention of the title, but one take could be a redefinition of art with a terminal state. More likely though is the symbolism of the palindrome, Revo & Over. Notice the ordering though. Revo is garbage in terms of an english word, but Over is a strong term. Does this relate to the creative process? Does inspiration of art come from the unformed section pre-fixing termination?
In terms of questions to the artist: What inspired the use of technology for your exhibit? Was technology a limiting factor? An inspiring factor? Was technology just a a utility or was it an active medium?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Week 4 Presentation Discussion
"In reference to the Pavilion, Klüver states that “the ability of the contemporary artist to participate in a project of this scale is an outstanding achievement and radically expands the social possibilities of art.” (quoted in Noah Wardrip-Fruin, p. 226)
Q: How does the new media artist expand the social possibilities of art and science?"-Mel
The social aspects of new media are extremely inclusive and inviting to public participation. The scale of this question is very broad, and allows for many interpretations. From a creation perspective, how does new media expand the social possibilities of art and science? From an observation perspective, how does the new media expand...? From a cultural perspective, how does the new media...? This blog will focus on the observation perspective and its ramifications.
In terms of observation and social possibilities, the new media artist is able to produce intriguing pieces. With the mutually beneficial relationship of art and science, each field was able to push the boundaries of the other. Art was able to be expressed in new ways. Exhibits could be shows similar to engineering demonstrations. Innovation bled from art to science technology as new projects pushed the boundaries of current implementations. New exhibits changed the way people thought about art, and consequentially the way art was observed. Art could (and should) be expressed through manipulation of all senses, from spatial sound to touch sensitivity. Noah Wardrip-Fruin warns of flash in the pan exhibits in his article in the New Media Reader (2003). The issue of "gee-whiz technology" being used to prop up art is a valid concern, but that is always the case with new technology. The bigger issue is that the new "gee-whiz technology" exists and is being used for a reason. Humans are very curious, and buy using bleeding-edge technology the artist can draw in a certain crowd. It's up to the artist at that point to display depth to a piece. The new media artist can create more interactive events, pushing today's convictions about what art is.
Q: How does the new media artist expand the social possibilities of art and science?"-Mel
The social aspects of new media are extremely inclusive and inviting to public participation. The scale of this question is very broad, and allows for many interpretations. From a creation perspective, how does new media expand the social possibilities of art and science? From an observation perspective, how does the new media expand...? From a cultural perspective, how does the new media...? This blog will focus on the observation perspective and its ramifications.
In terms of observation and social possibilities, the new media artist is able to produce intriguing pieces. With the mutually beneficial relationship of art and science, each field was able to push the boundaries of the other. Art was able to be expressed in new ways. Exhibits could be shows similar to engineering demonstrations. Innovation bled from art to science technology as new projects pushed the boundaries of current implementations. New exhibits changed the way people thought about art, and consequentially the way art was observed. Art could (and should) be expressed through manipulation of all senses, from spatial sound to touch sensitivity. Noah Wardrip-Fruin warns of flash in the pan exhibits in his article in the New Media Reader (2003). The issue of "gee-whiz technology" being used to prop up art is a valid concern, but that is always the case with new technology. The bigger issue is that the new "gee-whiz technology" exists and is being used for a reason. Humans are very curious, and buy using bleeding-edge technology the artist can draw in a certain crowd. It's up to the artist at that point to display depth to a piece. The new media artist can create more interactive events, pushing today's convictions about what art is.
The new media artist is really no different than artists before. The n.m.a. has the ability to reach more people though through the attachment to a science. Before we talked about artists as being counter-culture, and computer scientists as being straight tied individuals. N.m.a. can gain general authenticity through funding by MIT or Bell Labs, organizations that are known to produce practical and useful objects. Technology in art needs to provide more than a means to an end. Technology needs to provide inspiration and innovation.
In terms of social possibilities, art and technology can be very synergistic. Technology can provide new audiences while art can provide new demonstrations. Could other fields be melded with art? How could mathematics and art be brought together? Or chemistry and art? Many mathematicians say a good proof is like a piece of art, could that play into it? How social is art by itself?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Week 3 Response to article
Has mechanical reproduction changed the way we view arts authenticity as well as the value we place on the original?
I think mechanical reproduction has changed the way we view the value of an art piece, but I don't know if the actual authenticity has been changed. It's important to recognize what the difference between replication and reproduction are when considering the question.
Reproduce-produce again; create something very similar to
Replicate-Make an exact copy of
definitions from Webster's Dictionary
When considering a piece or art, there is more to it than the material existence. The history of the object, pre and post creation also define it's existence. To replicate an object would be to create an exact copy. But is that even possible? By making a copy you define a new creation history, which creates a reproduction instead.
So replication is impossible, but what does reproduction do? When examining a reproduction, there seems to be a less important value placed on it. It may stem from psychology and a person's sense of self. Everyone wants to be different and unique. But when you create thousands of objects that physically look identical, there is nothing special about that in the traditional sense. The initial pice of work was forged from emotion/inspiration/etc but the reproduction came from something different. Maybe that something was wholesome, like admiration, or maybe it came from greed.
I don't think the creation of reproductions has changed our value of art. If anything it has just drawn a line in the sand. Original pieces are cherished, much the same they were before the age of reproductions. The only difference is that reproduction pieces can also be valued, but not in the same way. That's not to say that reproductions don't have their place, but they weren't created with the same intention/emotion as the original, so their impact on the audience can not have the same impact.
I think mechanical reproduction has changed the way we view the value of an art piece, but I don't know if the actual authenticity has been changed. It's important to recognize what the difference between replication and reproduction are when considering the question.
Reproduce-produce again; create something very similar to
Replicate-Make an exact copy of
definitions from Webster's Dictionary
When considering a piece or art, there is more to it than the material existence. The history of the object, pre and post creation also define it's existence. To replicate an object would be to create an exact copy. But is that even possible? By making a copy you define a new creation history, which creates a reproduction instead.
So replication is impossible, but what does reproduction do? When examining a reproduction, there seems to be a less important value placed on it. It may stem from psychology and a person's sense of self. Everyone wants to be different and unique. But when you create thousands of objects that physically look identical, there is nothing special about that in the traditional sense. The initial pice of work was forged from emotion/inspiration/etc but the reproduction came from something different. Maybe that something was wholesome, like admiration, or maybe it came from greed.
I don't think the creation of reproductions has changed our value of art. If anything it has just drawn a line in the sand. Original pieces are cherished, much the same they were before the age of reproductions. The only difference is that reproduction pieces can also be valued, but not in the same way. That's not to say that reproductions don't have their place, but they weren't created with the same intention/emotion as the original, so their impact on the audience can not have the same impact.
Week 3: MMUVA
It's taken a while for me to get to this post, but hopefully I can add some insight to the topic at hand.
Does MMUVA offer a real learning opportunity to school aged children?
I would say so. At this time art and music classes are first on the chopping block when it comes to school funding. This may be the way of the future, combining curriculums to create new ones. Here we see music, art, and technology presented in a fun and entertaining package. One of the big rules that Disney developers follow is that attractions have to be visually appealing and fun right off the bat, otherwise why would people waste their time with it? This project attracts people of all ages because of it's interaction, and then has the capacity to entertain once they're paying attention. What better way to represent a mode change or key change in music, than by adding a video representation as well. As the key changes the colors could change. At the same time different art styles could be substituted for the interaction, so it could be used as an art history tool as well. The clever interface creates a fun user experience.
In what way is the interaction important to the piece and could that interaction be changed or limited in some way?
There would need to be variety in the experience to be a productive tool, and attraction for that matter. People will get bored relatively quickly with the same show over and over. In terms of variations, the core project should stay the same. It's the experience that should change. Different songs, different colors, I would go so far as to say different objects and the possibility of adding 3D objects through stereoscopic glasses.
Who is in control of the work, the author or the audience?
I think the ownership inherently belongs to the author, but control of work varies based on the author and audience. The audience has the power to influence the author, but most of the time the author's actions will be based on their own creative free will. In another sense, is the author really the creator? The author is providing input to the system, but they are not directly deciding on colors and placements. I would like to think of the work as free standing, but as a result of the author and the audience.
What qualities of new media does MMUVA employ and could it be improved in any way?
In terms of qualities, I think the introduction of technology is large part of new media. The interaction method is pushing the envelope in terms of user input. In terms of improvement, I would like to see two things: more input control, and more audience presentation. At this point the input the author provides is not directly related to the work created. While I think this stands as an expression of emotion, I would like the possibility to be there for direct input. Everything is left to interpretation at this point, which for a computer is impossible, so really everything is just following a pre-defined algorithm, so the work provided is constrained to the creativity of the programmer.
In terms of the audience experience, how could spatial audio be implemented? Could mono audio add anything to this? What about multiple projectors, or projections on different surfaces like the floor or ceiling? For that matter how could this work in a CAVE environment?
What type of support material would be useful?
I would think a project press release would be useful. Other than that it's a plug and play system. People really won't understand it until they try it, and at that point you won't know the common questions people will ask. Run a survey along with a public demo for a few weeks to gain different user's common knowledge prior to the experience, then build an informational document to fill in the gaps.
Does MMUVA offer a real learning opportunity to school aged children?
I would say so. At this time art and music classes are first on the chopping block when it comes to school funding. This may be the way of the future, combining curriculums to create new ones. Here we see music, art, and technology presented in a fun and entertaining package. One of the big rules that Disney developers follow is that attractions have to be visually appealing and fun right off the bat, otherwise why would people waste their time with it? This project attracts people of all ages because of it's interaction, and then has the capacity to entertain once they're paying attention. What better way to represent a mode change or key change in music, than by adding a video representation as well. As the key changes the colors could change. At the same time different art styles could be substituted for the interaction, so it could be used as an art history tool as well. The clever interface creates a fun user experience.
In what way is the interaction important to the piece and could that interaction be changed or limited in some way?
There would need to be variety in the experience to be a productive tool, and attraction for that matter. People will get bored relatively quickly with the same show over and over. In terms of variations, the core project should stay the same. It's the experience that should change. Different songs, different colors, I would go so far as to say different objects and the possibility of adding 3D objects through stereoscopic glasses.
Who is in control of the work, the author or the audience?
I think the ownership inherently belongs to the author, but control of work varies based on the author and audience. The audience has the power to influence the author, but most of the time the author's actions will be based on their own creative free will. In another sense, is the author really the creator? The author is providing input to the system, but they are not directly deciding on colors and placements. I would like to think of the work as free standing, but as a result of the author and the audience.
What qualities of new media does MMUVA employ and could it be improved in any way?
In terms of qualities, I think the introduction of technology is large part of new media. The interaction method is pushing the envelope in terms of user input. In terms of improvement, I would like to see two things: more input control, and more audience presentation. At this point the input the author provides is not directly related to the work created. While I think this stands as an expression of emotion, I would like the possibility to be there for direct input. Everything is left to interpretation at this point, which for a computer is impossible, so really everything is just following a pre-defined algorithm, so the work provided is constrained to the creativity of the programmer.
In terms of the audience experience, how could spatial audio be implemented? Could mono audio add anything to this? What about multiple projectors, or projections on different surfaces like the floor or ceiling? For that matter how could this work in a CAVE environment?
What type of support material would be useful?
I would think a project press release would be useful. Other than that it's a plug and play system. People really won't understand it until they try it, and at that point you won't know the common questions people will ask. Run a survey along with a public demo for a few weeks to gain different user's common knowledge prior to the experience, then build an informational document to fill in the gaps.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Week 2 Response
"The mediator between brain and hands must be the heart"
Mediator: go-between, middleman, moderator
brain: reasoning, wisdom, understanding, savvy
hands: meathooks, control, power, custody, supervision, care
This statement is very vague, in a way that can be applied to many situations. When looking at alternative words, get different phrasings:
* "The moderator between understanding and power is the heart"
* "The go-between reasoning and control is the heart"
Is this always true? No I don't think so. "Heart" implies emotion, but logic can also act as a go-between. If heart is meant to be something organic, such as a flesh based organism, then the statement has more validity, but it is still not a definitive statement. There are many times when reasoning and control are linked by logic, or understanding and power are tied to alternative affiliations. "Heart" can play a role in the bridging, but should not be looked at as a means to an end.
Week 1 Response
The myth of the artist seems to be encapsulated from new media. While computer programmers and designers have their own 'myth,' the two have yet to seamlessly blend. That is not to say that similarities can't be drawn, and the myths may come from a similar social phrasing. This topic relates to 'counter-culture' as a whole. To be different/abstract/ or even complex from a norm invokes a primitive curiosity, and that attention is free advertising/selling points. To be different is to be desired, and to be desired relates directly to a supply v. demand relationship.
Question: Have we not seen the 'myth of the new media artist' because new media art is for lack of a better term, still so new? Or is it because 'artist' and 'programmer' are already core categories, and 'new media artist' is a subcategory?
Question: Have we not seen the 'myth of the new media artist' because new media art is for lack of a better term, still so new? Or is it because 'artist' and 'programmer' are already core categories, and 'new media artist' is a subcategory?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)