From assessing "Cabinet" I am drawn further and further to the idea that it alludes and promotes the historical aspects of media, but connects those concepts to more futuristic or contemporary ideas that we find today. The article "The Origins of Cybex Space," (Carolyn De La Peña) and its inquiries in the idea of the first gym being a mechanical horse type contraption is a great example of how this blending and mixture of historic ideas are tied to a more contemporary concept (I.E. working out on a personal gym contraption). It also in my opinion, ties in a very scientific outlook upon the art or media exemplified. Nearly every article (if not all) has some sort of scientific relation or backing. This portrayal leads me to believe there is a great connection between both with art and science and that art is simply a branched out version of scientific concepts. If you consider filmmaking for example, it makes sense. The camera technology such as lenses and chemical exposures is directly reliant on a scientific discovery or background that was molded in an artistic fashion. "Cabinet" examines these relations and brings out the scientific roots to a more historic art/media.
Most of what is being brought forth is in the form of articles. The recipient reads the article and connects via the mind. However, there are other multimedia formats such as still images, sound files, and web movies. These short web movies are small tastes (or in some cases entireties) of pieces of artwork. An example is “Untitled” by Bigert & Bergström + CM von Hausswolff, in which three guys use a string/fuse and cup to play telephone. One guy lights the fuse and all three wait in horror of the approaching fire, until one (and eventually all) drop the contraption. This intimate web movie is a small little gem that can provoke highly philosophical concepts from something very simple. For example, in my mind I viewed this as “the danger of a child’s game” or “how danger/violence are in essence only a child’s game.” Did the artist intend this to be a statement on war/violence? I’m not sure but it was highly thought provoking.
For me, seeing them online or reading in a publication is an international way of having a personal connection to the piece presented. While the publication may not be international, the online portions definitely are. This online presentation also enables greater interaction with the viewer. In many cases the articles (or parts to the site) can have off-shooting links that give the viewer more information (or higher detailed) and even blueprints to artwork they can complete at home or in a studio. One off site link takes the viewer to a site that has downloadable printouts of objects that the viewer can print out and build. (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/download-print.html)
Other higher detailed parts to the article such as “The Museum of the Dead” by Robert Harbison; can follow the article with a photograph to better illustrate things for the viewer. There is one great line from the article that captured my attention: “In Palermo, however, corpses are treated as characters in a play.” This relation to seeing humanoid corpses (a real life bodied work of art) comparable to theatrical characters (a different more imaginary type art form) is somewhat hard for me to grasp. However, the photograph (and it’s “doll on a shelf” quality) help to better relate this concept to me and make things far more interesting.
-Lydell Peterson
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Field Reports #3 (2nd Go-round) pt 2
2. "Deep Walls"
Experiencing this piece made me think of a security guard in a casino watching the public from the "eyes in the sky." It many ways this piece was a sensory overload. There were so many boxes continually playing and changing that I had a hard time focusing on them all. I seemed to pick out one or two and focus purely on their movements/silhouettes until I felt I had gained as much information from it as possible. The hard part was that people would walk up and do a motion and then the boxes changed. This made the gaining of information from it never-ending.
I found this piece to be the most interactive in my opinion. The concept of using silhouettes I think made people feel more comfortable with acting goofy or unique in front of the camera. As McKinnon put it, "anonymous shadows = safety." This in turn makes it a more interesting interaction between the public to the screen and then from the screen to new people just walking in. They will see these wild actions and no-identification (except on a personal level, as you can identify yourself in silhouette) and feel more prone to acting zany themselves, thus continuing the pattern and making this a wheel of interaction and physical communication with others.
This non-verbal communication illustrates the very basics of human interaction with each other. Certain motions can be viewed by others and their interpretation can be seen as "happy, bored, etc." With the group I went with, one girl did a back flip into the camera and immediately the screen showed the results with gasps of amazing by the surrounding crowd. This act of physical movement was gratifying to all who watched just as if people were watching a sports highlight on espn of an amazing baseball catch. Even if it was a simple gesture people could relate. This also made me think of polaroid instant pictures or photo booths and amusement parks. The action and immediate reaction by the technology add in a level of spontaneity and fun.
Experiencing this piece made me think of a security guard in a casino watching the public from the "eyes in the sky." It many ways this piece was a sensory overload. There were so many boxes continually playing and changing that I had a hard time focusing on them all. I seemed to pick out one or two and focus purely on their movements/silhouettes until I felt I had gained as much information from it as possible. The hard part was that people would walk up and do a motion and then the boxes changed. This made the gaining of information from it never-ending.
I found this piece to be the most interactive in my opinion. The concept of using silhouettes I think made people feel more comfortable with acting goofy or unique in front of the camera. As McKinnon put it, "anonymous shadows = safety." This in turn makes it a more interesting interaction between the public to the screen and then from the screen to new people just walking in. They will see these wild actions and no-identification (except on a personal level, as you can identify yourself in silhouette) and feel more prone to acting zany themselves, thus continuing the pattern and making this a wheel of interaction and physical communication with others.
This non-verbal communication illustrates the very basics of human interaction with each other. Certain motions can be viewed by others and their interpretation can be seen as "happy, bored, etc." With the group I went with, one girl did a back flip into the camera and immediately the screen showed the results with gasps of amazing by the surrounding crowd. This act of physical movement was gratifying to all who watched just as if people were watching a sports highlight on espn of an amazing baseball catch. Even if it was a simple gesture people could relate. This also made me think of polaroid instant pictures or photo booths and amusement parks. The action and immediate reaction by the technology add in a level of spontaneity and fun.
Field Report #3 (2nd Go-round) pt 1
1. "Untitled 5"
Experiencing this interactive piece is like becoming the brush in a painting. As I stepped on to the floor mat/sensor I immediately felt as if i were apart of a typical abstract painting with the exception that it was ever-changing because of my movements. My mind continued to sort out how my particular movements affected the visual aspect of the painting on screen. I wanted to be able to control my movements and have them reflect what I wanted interpreted on screen. To do this I had to discover the boundaries of the piece and the cause and effect of my movements.
This was not so easily accomplished. McKinnon suggested, "that there are no immediate clear perimeters" and that "it had no likeness of yourself to help guide." This made it take longer to figure out. After figuring out how to move my body and how the "on screen" brush correlated with me, the brush strokes changed shape and pattern and added a new variable to what was being drawn. It was as if a painter started painting yellow and then dipped his brush in red and altered the pattern with a new twist. The same basic guidelines remained intake (movement of my body to what happens on screen) but the variable of the stroke had changed. This spontaneous change was very welcomed and added a sense of wonder of what would next happen? Do I really have complete control of what is being painted on screen? I may be able to make the stroke, but I have no choice in what color or pattern it displays. While it is very interactive in a mobile/movement sense, I feel like the computer programed into it prevented me from having complete control as if a standard brush with paint on canvas would have.
Someday... I think that this approach will be an alternative to hanging static paintings as decor in one's house. Instead, guests at a dinner party will walk into a room and see a screen hanging on a wall interpreting their movements, making a unique painting every second. This ever-changing venue will provide a different experience every time, thus making the room more exciting than having the same non-changing painting hanging. I can see it now... the future of paintings.
Experiencing this interactive piece is like becoming the brush in a painting. As I stepped on to the floor mat/sensor I immediately felt as if i were apart of a typical abstract painting with the exception that it was ever-changing because of my movements. My mind continued to sort out how my particular movements affected the visual aspect of the painting on screen. I wanted to be able to control my movements and have them reflect what I wanted interpreted on screen. To do this I had to discover the boundaries of the piece and the cause and effect of my movements.
This was not so easily accomplished. McKinnon suggested, "that there are no immediate clear perimeters" and that "it had no likeness of yourself to help guide." This made it take longer to figure out. After figuring out how to move my body and how the "on screen" brush correlated with me, the brush strokes changed shape and pattern and added a new variable to what was being drawn. It was as if a painter started painting yellow and then dipped his brush in red and altered the pattern with a new twist. The same basic guidelines remained intake (movement of my body to what happens on screen) but the variable of the stroke had changed. This spontaneous change was very welcomed and added a sense of wonder of what would next happen? Do I really have complete control of what is being painted on screen? I may be able to make the stroke, but I have no choice in what color or pattern it displays. While it is very interactive in a mobile/movement sense, I feel like the computer programed into it prevented me from having complete control as if a standard brush with paint on canvas would have.
Someday... I think that this approach will be an alternative to hanging static paintings as decor in one's house. Instead, guests at a dinner party will walk into a room and see a screen hanging on a wall interpreting their movements, making a unique painting every second. This ever-changing venue will provide a different experience every time, thus making the room more exciting than having the same non-changing painting hanging. I can see it now... the future of paintings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)