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.

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?

Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Enjoy!

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.

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.

MMUVA

MMUVA comments coming this evening. Sickness ensued on Tuesday and the video much be watched.

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?