I need to write on this more often…

What value is there in memories when everything you’ve done has been documented? Do we edit our memories through its documentation?

memories 1

memories 2

I woke up thinking about this – no idea what I was dreaming about though…

In and Out of Time: Video Art Symposium.

The Symposium which took place on Saturday at Atlas in regards to the Video art exhibition currently going on at the BMOCA brought some interesting speakers and topics. To my misfortune I missed the lecture on Jeremy Blake which supposedly was very interesting. Instead I made it for the lecture on “Looking at Music” (currently an exhibition at the Moma) from Barbara London who is the Associate Curator of the Department of Media at the Moma. Then Chip Lord who was of the 60’s and 70’s video/media group Ant Farm, Gary Emrich who is a former CU grad working in video art and teaching at RMCAD, followed by video artists and CU professors Dan Boord and Luis Valdivino, and finally Steve Seid who worked with the San Francisco Center for Experimental Television in the 60s. It was interesting to attend the symposium for me to begin to get an idea of the history of video art but also to see the aesthetic differences occurring within its world; ultimately I felt I was trying to understand other aesthetic ideals rather than relating to them from my own.

Of the different speakers, I was very intrigued by what Barbara London had been working to curate and the aspects of early music videos as being video art or the reverse video art as the music video (and walked out with an extreme urge to remix Laurie Anderson’s ‘O Superman’). Although she was not an incredibly strong speaker she brought some interesting ideas to the table to define video art as a medium but also helped firm my understanding of its history. The same falls in line for Chip lord, but in regards to the work which Ant Farm was producing this is where I first began questioning the aesthetics of video art – both of my own personal aesthetics for what I appreciate in video but also theirs. Time is a factor here though, that being that they were working in the 60s and 70s on the forefront of video as art, but still I felt uneasy as to whether what they had done was video art or maybe performance… and was it good or were they just there during its start. To counter my thoughts on this maybe I do not have a fully developed aesthetic for video art and am to warped by our modern media culture which for video art, as they say, stands on the shoulders of giants… if you would in any way refer to them as giants. Then comes Gary Emrich, who I was not impressed by but I must admit to being annoyed by his attitude in the presentation which I felt was, oh, rather cocky. So, I was turned off by this man who seemed to think of himself as something ‘hot’ (my perception/outside opinion – he could be a wonderful person… in person) but I was also turned off by his work at BMOCA even before seeing him and couldn’t help but think of it as being a Nam June Pak rip off – but (I’ll try to justify him) really I suppose it is hard not to draw upon the one superstar and the pioneer of video art as a medium – and by this I’m referring specifically to his display at BMOCA, that of 3 small televisions lined up next to one another. Ok, but the guy has an obvious background in video art with his father having been a cinematographer and him currently being the video art prof at RMCAD – and he’s using video art as a method for storytelling and activism which are both rarely incorporated in my own work, so again we’re back to the question of aesthetics. His work at BMOCA is quite different than his other work and to me it had a much greater feeling of composition than did any of his other pieces, and in terms of video as collage his new piece began relating to me but there was something missing… something very unfulfilling in the end. We then moved onto Dan Boord and Luis Valdivino, who were entertaining to watch introduce their films even though they hardly did that – they seemed like an odd performance act. With them though, my aesthetic taste was really called into question but also opened up and elaborated upon (am I apart of a group of new video artists being born who just want to make video art an offshoot of Hollywood cinema? Am I so shallow and diluted that production value is the basis for my judgement? I’m not saying that production value is not important to consider but as the defining point of aesthetic appeal, I’m hoping not…). Maybe it was the humor in their first piece that broke the bad taste in my mouth, but it was the piece regarding Jack Kerouac that made me appreciate their kind of documentary-esque approach to video art and their incorporation of the small production aspects into their work that I began to appreciate. Reflecting back to Emrich, I may have taken in his work a little more harshly than I thought but he still didn’t bring an aesthetic pleasure to his video work like these two. None the less, all of the aesthetics as to what the content of video art is to be had been very different than my own, but my aesthetic for video is still developing – I know I do not share the same tastes as these artists but now have them to consider in the creation of my own work – no more overly abstracted strictly collage based pieces… The final speaker was Steve Seid, who brought with him a typed essay to read to us while flipping through a powerpoint… a Symposium on video art and all he has is an essay and powerpoint… He spoke of some very interesting things which occurred in video art in the 60s and 70s but they were ultimately rather obscure. They did present me with an idea of the shoulder which I stand on though – hand built synthesizers and the beginning of live video performance – that being video manipulated as it went out on the air (even though he made it sound as if most likely no one was watching it). His images did spark my curiosity but I was disappointed not to be able to see a version of their video work or even hear some of the effects created by these hand made synths…

I made it through his lecture although a good deal of people had left during it… And walked out with my aesthetic taste to consider – the work done in the 60s and 70s are the shoulders we stand upon, namely Nam June Pak, but also Ant Farm and the SF Center for Experimental Television. But content wise I do not think like the documentary type pieces nor imagine things similar to the psychedelic explorations of the Experimental Television center – and think video art is much greater than what Emrich creates; I am impressed with the direction Jeremy Blake has gone in but am not about to begin where he left off…

CODE Remix (Flusser+DISTANCE)

Ok, so I’ve finally got this up… I was really hoping to have binary information up for the images but unfornately after getting pages and pages of code it crashed dreamweaver several dozen times. After trying to do everything by hand and freezing a computer I’ve finally given up. I really don’t understand why using the code as text would still mess with everything so much but whatever, I’ll save it for later investigations. Anyway here is my alternate version, hopefully still enjoyable…
P.S. be sure to role over the images…

processing

Routing Link

Dadaism, Bauhaus, and Futurism – Influences of Contemporary Art

So I feel I must preface this entry by stating that Dadaism is one of my great loves of Art, Marcel Duchamp ranks amongst my greatest influences in art and oddly life, and romanticize of being a man as influential, passionate, and brilliant as André Breton. Pretty much, love dadaism – something which I may have concluded on my own or I may have been taught, none the less, it is a driving force of much of the art of the 20th century and into today. As for the Bauhaus, their influence on contemporary theories of art and community they created is of great inspiration. The Futurists, brought about many great impacts in art as well, actually the ruling is honestly out on the Futurists… I feel that they advanced some incredible theories in art, movement through painting being one, but Marinetti’s work never really shocked or amazed me – maybe it’s just fast violent culture we live in, sue me. With that out of the way:

–

As I was reading on Dadaism, Bauhaus, and the Futurists it is hard to not acknowledge their almost direct influence on our current state of art and it theory. This said, I started to wonder, if we admired the Dadaist so much why are we still trying to produce work like them – how not Dadaist, André Breton would certainly think we’re pathetic. I mean we’re all sitting around talking about how difficult it is to create an entirerly original work of art, so we look at the Dadaist, which is a good idea because they were incredibly original, political, and had an ability to recreate their societal influences in a way that even the street art of today is really just following under. As for art theory, we have philosophized and deconstructed and turned things upside down and inside out in our efforts to understand art, but really Post-Modernism isn’t all that advanced when we realize much of its theory is built often upon Dadaism and Futurism. And really what advances have been made in color theory that don’t make Josef Albers and the Bauhaus not look quite so brilliant? It is not much of a leap to link nearly all modern design work to the thoughts begun in the Bauhaus, either. If I was ambitious, I’d tell you architecture to but I don’t know enough in that area to touch on it, but I would not be surprised if it was just as highly influenced by these movements as well.

Now, I do not mean to say that this is a bad thing to take great inspiration from three of the great conceptual powerhouses of 20th century art and theory. Rather, it is a good thing, if we were still adapting our understanding of art just through Michelangelo or David then the variances of art would be incredibly depressing. I just feel that in our admiration for these great movements, we may depend on using their styles a little heavily and should strive to progress them rather than further popularize them. It is curious to note here that Duchamp did state at one point that he was never really creating art for people of his time but rather for those 100 years later, he felt his work would then really be understood. Maybe it was his hindsight-bias or maybe he really understood this to be true – He was not wrong though, and it hasn’t even been 100 years since Nude Descending a Stair Case, No. 2. Ultimately, we need to progress on their ideas because these three movements also died and burned our rather quickly… no timeless history paintings here. Not to mention the progression of Dadaist thought which became destructive and imploded upon itself through it’s distaste of everything. Breton was smart to leave when he did, “the 1918 Dada Manifesto seemed to open wide the doors, but we discovered that they opened onto a corridor which was leading nowhere.” Not long after in 1920 for the thirteenth issue of Littérature, the Dadaist poet Louis Aragon wrote:

No more painters, no more writers, no more musicians, no more sculptors, no more religions, no more royalists, no more republicans, nomore imperialists, no more anarchists, no more socialists, no more Bolsheviks, no more politicians, no more proletarians, no more democrats, no more armies, no more police, no more nations, no more of these idiocies, no more, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

That said, it is hard to create more art when everything is nothing.

–

I do have more positive thoughts for this subject that I want to get across, but I think I’ll have to save it for a second installation and let this one sink in.

The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction + Marcel Duchamp

It is interesting that Benjamin talks about Karl Marx and how he was making a preediction about Capitalism with little to go on other than its theory, when Benjamin himself is making a rather grand prediction during what was only the beginning of a series of significant advances in the arts. He spoke and theorized of these advancements in such a way that it predicted the current dilemma we face in understanding art over half a century earlier. His incredible foresight aside, he realizes that there is are inherent issues presented to the idea of art through reproduction – namely the origin and aura of the piece. This was a serious concern at his time because prior to this reproduction was extremely difficult, today though it may be done almost instantly with little if any ways to discern a difference with out the presence of the original. Further into our ever increasingly digital age an exact copy may be produced without any visible way to tell a difference. This adds an especially curious twist, something may be created digitally and shared, meaning the exact replica is shared across possibly thousands of computers. For Benjamin, the piece is no longer of cult value and has rather entered into the political realm, it is in the possession of the masses rather than one particular owner – if you want it, you can have it but so can everyone else. Oddly it all reflects slightly back towards Benjamin’s initial introduction of Marx and Capitalism eventually creating the conditions to undermine itself, I’m thinking particularly of the RIAA scrambling to save the major music labels whose business structure simply can not adjust to a world were almost anything may be acquired for free.

Getting into the more political side of Benjamin’s essay was not my intention here, but more so to look how the idea of art is changing when the promise of money is not guaranteed as a result of reproduction. Benjamin seems to feel that although the aura of a piece may become diluted the ability to express is multiplied, speaking of a more digital world that is. Although now maybe an overused pop icon of the underground street art movements, it is interesting to consider the artist(s) Banksy, whose fame has exploded over the past 4 or 5 years. Many people are aware of a variety of his street pieces, large and daring, in your face, often critical of society, and all available over the internet for us to view. I personal know maybe 3 people who have seen his work, but everyone knows him and knows what he’s done because of the internet. Although his work exists in the real world somewhere, the true power of his work is that the same image may appear on ones computer screen across the world. He receives no money from us as we view them, but the value of his original work soars (what is more ironic of the banksy character is when he began he spoke against selling art, while now even celebrities clamor for his work to help their image). Either way, the act of reproducing his work has only helped increase his power. I cannot help but remember Dalí reproducing many of his pieces to increase his profits, and now many do not command nearly the value they had initially. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the digital age, does Banksy hold his value and make it into the realm of some sort of avant-garde or crash as the next trend of the internet generation casts him in the shadows.

The words of Marcel Duchamp are probably the most haunting for the brave new world art has begun traveling through. Having removed himself from the art world and taken a job in order to support his art and not have to depend on the sales of his work, he speaks of creating art in an effort that seems to attempt to remove all outside pressures. Art for arts sake maybe, but truly art for the people rather than the cult, he was not concerned of whether his wealthy patrons would purchase the bicycle wheel and more so of the perception and theory it presented. The art though is not art without the viewer, Duchamp was more than aware of this fact, and as Benjamin noted, he and the Dadaists wanted to outrage the public and make them question the entire notion of art – that was part of the art, the act brought forth from the viewer. Duchamp also had a curious interest and brilliance in the act of reproduction, this culminated in the Readymade works – mass produced objects elevated to the status of art – he even went so far and to create reproductions of the Readymade, essentially a reproduction of a reproduction. The brilliance in this was that the act of the reproduction was part of the art and was added on to the art of the viewers reaction.

Being in this new digital age, the capabilities of art have expanded exponentially and great controversy is still in our midst. The question of reproduction and the dilution of the aura of a work of art is only more relevant than ever before. As the act of re-appropriation and remix art becomes ever more prevalent, our understanding is only further thrown under the bus. It is without question though that reproduction, duplication, and the cut/copy method are very much a part of the artists tools; ethically though where is the line? That may already be know, for it was Marcel Duchamp who used a postcard of the Mona Lisa with added facial hair as a work of art.

Oscillated Era

This is the combination of George Maciunas’ film Artype from 1966 and was really excited about how the new NIN album, Ghosts, is under Creative Commons… thus…

In The Belly Of A Shark

“So you’re alive
in the belly of a shark.”
The Gallows

behindhand

In regards to the conclusion to Photography Reborn it is interesting to realize that the digital image is a sort of descendent to advancements in sewing production. From the initial production of images based on holes punched in cards, to ENIAC, to binary code – it is an advancement that has drawn upon many sources and continues to produce unforeseen results. The general idea though has become increasingly computer dependent, such that we see the world around us through images which are really depections of numbers. Without our true understanding, a great portion of our day is spent reading the interpretation of a series of 1’s and 0’s – from actually looking at a computer screen, to looking at a magazine, to making a quick telephone call – we are increasingly surrounded and interpreted by binary. In homage to the movie Pi – what does the binary sequence for the word god equal?

Aside from fun realizations of how dependent we are on having computers interpret codes for us, it is interesting for us as artists to consider these behind the scenes ideas that make up our world as well as others. Inspiration comes to us from everything around us, each day may bring a new subconscious influence or an eagerly determined reactionary goal. Thus as an artist, I find it increasingly important to learn, see, and hear of the world around me. By chance and again shown in class I have become increasingly familiar with the videos posted online by the TED organization. These being recordings (cast in 1’s and 0’s, mind you) of some of the greatest minds brought together to lecture on their ideas and breakthroughs. As an artist, curious to all around me, I can not help but find great excitement in the education of the current ground breaking thoughts in the world – excitement for both their success and failure – c’est la vie.

Of a Surreal Sublimity

When looking at digital photography and the breadth of its use in terms as a medium it is interesting to look at how it draws on many movements within the history of art. Pushing to define itself, it draws on earlier movements, most particularly Surrealism, using such mindsets and defining new boundaries creating their own new movements and subgroups under the idea of digital. The ability to create scenes seemingly based in reality but with a certain outlandish dreamlike quality creates a tension and intrigue that is cause for a degree of introspection. We explore the reality of the world around us with a new comprehension, questioning the real as well as the possible. It is this thought of the possible that may lead us to consider our direction as a culture, value and fate, as well as our emotions, fears and aspirations. These are not new thoughts being shown to the viewer though art but thoughts that have a new extension through what may be digitally composed. Following in line with the intents of photography to view and express itself through the world around us, we continue but with a new vigor to understand ourselves, the real, and the possible; challenged to see in a new compass of direction.

Book, Loretta Lux, 2003


Bahrain 1, Andreas Gursky, 2005

dumb but fun – dalí on the sun

Dalí on the sun

n. 2. can I interest you in a drink? persuade to have, tempt to have; sell.

Improv – Grand central station

Hot Chip – Over and Over

The Return Of The Decapatator

Ze Frank – Brain Crack

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071106.html

Transforming Photography

It is curious thing to think about the early photographers who were sent out to document the world. Many would travel with an artist who would paint images of these travels while the photographer would document it in order to show the viewer that these where images of actual places. Photography was and without question is an artistic technique but, prior to the last two decades or so, the images that were produced were unquestionably real and had existed in front of the photographers eye. There was a faith in photography that a viewer could rely on its image as being part of reality. Now taking a step back to where we now are, I must admit to finding photography even more intriguing by the way it relies and plays upon our previous concepts of its truths although it may now be utterly fictitious. It is not usually deceptive in its acts but rather presents us with fantastic images from the photographers imagination, manipulated and exaggerated, morphed and merged, and yet still a photo. We may in some cases know immediately that the image simply cannot be real, but in the medium it is presented through there is an aura of reality which only heightens it affect and interest.

With the Advent of Dadaism

It is certainly interesting to consider Dadaism and their struggle to push away from everything traditional and bring about new forms within art when contemplating the digital arts. The dadaists have been one of the greatest influences upon art of the 20th century and still to this day have worked in more extremes than the majority of artists that have followed. Dada was at its base an exploration of theory on all levels – art, performance, writing – questioning the viewer into a reaction of defensive thoughts in an attempt to protect themselves from what they did not understand (i.e. the destruction of Duchamp’s Fountain before it was even exhibited). The question of what is art? had lost the answer and we could no longer define it within any sort of confined space; art was an ever maturing flux. As we progress into the digital realms of art, a newly expanding but undefined form seen on the outer edges of what might be thought of as formal, we cannot help but relate to the dadaists struggle in both creating something new and being accepted as art from the public. When Duchamp entered the company of Picabia he was headed down a spiral into the thick of dadaist theory, within his writing he often wrote of a desire to create something completely new and no longer bound by the conditions passed down in the arts since the Renaissance. Such vigor has certainly been an motivating force far into modern and post-modern art, but it is one that still excites and drives me in my own work today. Where the Dadaists found inspiration in the mass media we stand in ten times what they may have imagined with thousands of new capabilities for its use, yet they stood on a higher position in terms of theory still to this day.