Boniface Reading Response

The use of coding is a new concept to me, and something that I did not know anything about upon entering in this class. In this article, it calls on the reader to ask why if technology is so prevalent in our every day lives, have we not evolved into making more digital art? Though I have found the pieces we have looked at in class to be very interesting, this type of art is somewhat foreign to me as I am also new to the digital world of art. I believe that it is becoming more relevant but is having a slower process towards being recognized by the masses. This may be because we have conditioned ourselves to only see art in its most traditional form, or if people simply are not educated enough to understand the new technology and how it can be used to create art. I personally was unaware that you could create audio through coding, and I believe that a large portion of the population would also be unaware to this ability to make audio through coding.

Response to Digital Divide

This reading I found to be incredibly relatable as my second major focuses so highly on media and the computer as an essence of design and of art. One of the things brought up in this reading was the question of if digital media has gone as far as it could. I think something that I really cant relate to is that people get very overwhelmed with the idea of interactive performances and with using the computer as a mode of creativity as I feel like through the years we have been taught to view the computer as a machine not as a creative outlet. It was interesting to see how Bishop was blunt is describing this divide.

"Acknowledged or not, the research responsibilities afforded by the internet have made themselves felt in other aspects of contemporary art, too."
That sentence to me really embodied what I feel like Claire was trying to get across. We have a responsibility as artists, as people with the skills to explore the facility of the computer, to delve deeper and to create.

Claire Bishop's "Digital Divide" begins with a request: "Cast your mind back to the late 1990s, when we got our first e-mail accounts." Who is "we"? Certainly not me. In the late 1990s I could barely articulate, let alone sign up for an email address. Instantly I know that this article is not for me. I grew up with technology--I made my first neopets account when I was 7. I even had my parents fax in a permission slip for me to join. My digital footprint is 13 years old out of my 20, meaning it's existed for 65% of my life.

When I read the descriptions of the artworks that Bishop seems to think address digital media  in the second paragraph because these ideas seem so obvious to me. In fact Touching Reality sounds a lot like my own video "👅💦" which addresses the divide that the internet creates between people and is also critical of digital pornography. Please see the NSFW video at https://vimeo.com/165390423.

I also love the discussion of the fetish for analog media. I worked at Urban Outfitters for a while and thought it was so weird and interesting that they were selling tape players. There's this weird self-hatred that I feel is associated with our rejection of digital technology. Personally I prefer to completely reject old technology, in a futurist kind of way but maybe less sexist.

Digital Divide Response- Jess

When you introduce something new too a culture, there is typically a surge of novelty and then it settles. During that time of novelty, the new item (like technology) can appear to be taking over everything. According to the article, the 1990s was that time but now technology seems to have disappeared from the main stream of art culture. That's not necessarily true. it's just been assimilated. an equilibrium has been found in art culture that utilizes technology but doesn't give up the mediums it already has. This equilibrium can seem like a huge shift to those who had there eyes on technology in the 90s.

On another note. those of us who were growing up in the 90s had a unique childhood that changing around us at a lighting pace. we entered the world firmly settled in analog. tech was there but still very much kinetic and tactile. Then, before we could reach the age to fully experiment with the medium, digital swooped in and took over. we found ourselves having to speedily adapt to the new technology coming at us. Once the transition was complete we were left with a completely new world but our memories still reminded us of the old one. we missed what we were never given enough time to play with. this could explain why there is a surge of the archaic in art and culture. we're giving ourselves time to enjoy what was prematurely taken away from us. Overall, this poses the question of can knowledge and technology advance too quickly?

Raymond's Digital Divide Response

Claire Bishop's  article, "Digital Divide" on contemporary art and new media was an interesting read.  There is a part of me that will always appreciate authentic art like painting and sculpting, writing music etc.  Things done with the bare minimum.

In a new world of digital art, such as photo shop, 3D printing, using computers to make music.. I do feel like the art is a bit less compelling when the art is created using less physicality and more technology.

I guess I can best express my opinion by using an example of what I consider art:

I've expressed time and time again my love of horror movies - so my example is that of special effects.  In the early days of horror there was an art in the special effects. A scene could not be done, or a monster could not be created without the actual blood (pun intended), sweat and tears of making a mold, or actually building the creature. Nowadays the use of CGI and computer technology has taken away from the realistic, authentic art that was special effects. When I watch old horror movies today, there are times when the effects look so realistic and then of course times when it looks silly.
But that is the beauty of it! Art isn't perfection, the beauty is in the uniqueness. I feel like technology is looking to perfect art.

Zach Biehl's Digital Divide Response

Something that really bothered me was how the author compares digital art to linguistics in contrast to photography/film being compared to an image-based art form, and how that somehow discounts digital art and makes it more alien to the viewer. Just because there is code beneath an image in digital art doesn't mean that the image is any less tangible or real. It's real because you brain is interpreting light your eyes catch, not because it's an actual material thing. If we put art into some kind of tangible/physical box we're doing ourselves a great disservice. Bishop really just needs to take a deep breath and realize that it's all going to be okay and art isn't going to come crashing to the ground. Optimism is much more helpful in the pioneering in the formative years of a medium rather than dwelling over it seeming obsolete in comparison to other mediums.

VR

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYh6PQTbbo&feature=youtu.be