Tuesday, January 29, 2013
monday january 28 2013
8:40 - woken up by alarm on phone
9:00 - woken up again by alarm on phone
9:02 - get refridgerated arizona can out of fridge
check email and tumblr on phone
9:20 - arrive at ichthyology class; view slides and images on projector that displays laptop running powerpoint
10:45 - return to PG, open door with ID card
10:46 - buy some chips from the vending machine
10:50 - plug in laptop and ethernet cord, listen to streaming music, save and organize art files, talk to friends and strangers on tumblr and gmail
10:55 - text roommate
11:30 - shower. note to self i need to buy more shampoo
11:55 - consider doing laundry and decide against it
12:00 - check messages and news sites
12:30 - read pdfs for class
12:40 - take some serious advil because this flu is not going away
12:50 - turn off lights for headache and play braid
13:40 - stop playing braid because it's hard and i dont like how the main character looks (bad haircut)
14:00 - reply to a text and recharge my phone
14:20 - feeling hungry and tired but can't sleep. mope
14:30 - watch new adventure time eps and some NGE
16:15 - long convo with friend; try to vidchat with her but her new computer can't run the software
17:35 - buy wrap from upper deck with meal plans on card
18:40 - go to library to do work on laptop/tablet
use wifi to check blogs/email and watch some youtube
do digital art collage with photoshop/tablet
20:20 - finish editing job with word and email it in
22:00 - talk to friends on gmail, do some sketches in sai
23:15 - watch part of terrible spanish dubbed cgi garfield movie on youtube with friend
23:50 - walk to monty to finish art poster project
0:00 - fuss with temperature controls because it is freeezing (it doesnt work)
0:10 - plug in portable heater from drawing class to continue working
1:20 - head back to dorm
2:00 - set alarm for 9:30
2:10 - try to fall asleep amidst the glow of my roommates clock and about 5 other blinking devices
??? - probably dreamed about like robots or something
Monday, January 28, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Christiane Paul discusses both the shifting terms used to describe digital or computer-based art and the implications of it as a new "type" of art -- after all, digital painting and even 3D modeling rely on age old techniques and standards. She defines digital art as "art that employs [digital technologies] as its very own medium, being produced, stored, and presented exclusively in the digital format and making use of its interactive or participatory features." This definition immediately makes me question whether digitally created art is still "digital" if printed. She introduces the term "bitmapping", which I've never heard defined before, and her claim that digital art was influenced by Dadaism and similar movements is interesting, especially in regards to the ideas of "randomness" and "control". The examples she pulls are mechanical installations and kinetic sculptures -- both of which require a working, controlled technical framework to support conceptual randomness, although I wouldn't say that "control" is a prevailing theme in the Dadaist movement at all, but it did expand the grounds of what can be considered art, and what "readymade" material is acceptable -- if paints, brushes, and canvases are factory made as well as Duchamp's Fountain, then digital art must be accepted similarly despite its reliance on technologies produced elsewhere.
Nam June Paik's "Random Access" was especially intriguing to me, as was the hypertext concept/system "xanadu" which has a remarkably humble (yet cryptic) site.
It seems funny today that, in 1977, recordings of what were essentially prototypes of mundane webcam interactions were wild enough to be considered art -- though as Duchamp proved, what we regard as cheap or mundane can always be retooled through an artistic lens to great (or greatly critical) effect.
What amuses me about Paul's thinking on the difficulties of exhibiting digital art in real-world public spaces is that, today, physical paintings and drawings have also be converted into digital art, and the vast majority of people will only experience famous paintings in that medium. She acknowledges this inevitable "integration" of internet technology and daily life, as well as its upheaval of "scarcity" as a concept (which, of course, is equally as fraught a topic in film and gaming industries).
CHAPTER 1: Digital Technologies as a Tool
I have a hard time envisioning what a "digital art installation" entails, as digital art -- in my mind -- represents 2D computer paintings or animations, while video games occupy another area of computer generated art. Thus I can only envision a computer program as fitting Paul's concept of "digital art", one which runs with little to no outside interaction. She remarks on the confusion of the concept herself, mentioning art installations that do (or don't) use digital technologies, but seem not to (or to). I can understand "digital" as a new era of art, but not as a category, as more and more digital technologies become more fundamental and integrated into our creative processes. We wouldn't call all work that relies on camera work "camera art", nor all work that uses industrial spray foam "industrial spray foam art".
I had no idea that facial overlaying was even possible in 1982, so Nancy Burson's "Beauty Composite" and Lillian Schwartz' "Mona/Leo" are exciting to learn about. I'm also interested in Annu Palakunnathu Matthew's art, which parodies (Indian) movie posters (I'm taking poster design this semester) with a focus on gender and politics.
I tried to find Craig Kalpakjian's "Corridor" online, and failed -- his name brings up only ONE result on youtube, which is ridiculous considering his digital and video artwork (which, from the photo, looks impressive for its time). Some of his stuff is currently on exhibit at the Met, which is only more upsetting to learn, because someone should be recording it so I can see it.
Now I found this Peter Campus movie and it's totally fantastic. I got pretty distracted from the reading.
Anyway, William Latham's fractal art, which Paul describes as based on genetic programming, brings to mind Conway's Game of Life, and the seeming limitlessness of a digital plane in which complex images can grow and reproduce endlessly according to simple code. I love Casey Williams' decision to use a cheap inkjet printer on a professional canvas and Joseph Nechvatal's deliberate degradation of his own art via corruption and remote execution.