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

Ken Phaxay Response to Claire Bishop

Claire needs to chill out. I am confused if she hates new media or not. I understand where she's coming from when she speaks of the fascination of analog media. As someone who has the technology for VR, a upcoming new media. I also invest in analog media and vintage technology. I have two polaroid cameras that I use to capture moments. I have a record player and numerous vinyls. These are things that I appreciate and things that I am fascinated with. They show a photo with emotion and tangible material that can not be reproduced with today's technology. The vinyls give a sound and that could be replicable but the tangible feel of the vinyl and the sight of it, is something that is fascinating.
I have no idea what she's talking about. I get it, but I have no idea what the point is. She does say her point on page 3 but I have no answer to her question. I have no idea why contemporary art hates the digital revolution. I am nor an artist or someone who has studied art. (I don't even know if I know what contemporary art is)

Candi's Digital Divide Response

I find it interesting how digital art isn’t as big of a trend in contemporary are and is instead a specialized field of its own. Its kind of weird because new media is a constant in people’s lives. We are constantly using new digital technology and if art doesn’t use the same technology it ignores part of the human condition. In a quasi-hipster way, I do feel the same nostalgia for media that fell out of use years before I was born. Therefore, I can understand how artists are drawn to create with old media. At the same time, it’s weird that there isn’t a huge drive to use new media as well.

Madison Boniface Project

https://vimeo.com/186521964

Amanda Esposito's Response on Vertov/Brakhage

I agree that with Dziga Vertov when he is telling us to use cameras in different ways.  Ever single image is a different perspective on an object. Since the loss of innocence we are taught to view the world in the same way as everyone else. Suppose a class is suppose to take a picture of a chair. Everyone in the class will have similar pictures, because that is how we are taught to look at a chair. A chair is just a chair. We accept this without questions. A chair is just a chair by name and that its use is for sitting. We do not think to ourselves what could that chair could be. We rarely challenge what we are told, but how are to we know what is the truth or not if we have never seen it. Like it would be interesting to see what humans would come up with if we weren’t all taught the same things. This creates a bias vision of the world and we are all taught to look at the world in the same lenses. Like how in the article Brakhage says “How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of “Green”?” I feel like this innocence is rarely or never captured on film. It would be interesting to use cinema to challenge this bias view of the world and to show things in uses that are accepted as. 

Dziga Vertov's "Kino-Eye" gave me flashbacks to the Futurist Manifesto in both its language and its philosophy. I highly doubt that this was unintentional. One particular sentence that struck me as something straight from a futurist writer was "How can one not admire the automobile?" which today also strikes me as an extremely outdated sentiment. Humans have become able to coexist along analog devices for so long that we are no longer fascinated with them and that's honestly sad. We need to keep pushing forward and keep being fascinated. I really liked the idea that Vertov put forth that we are not going far enough with cameras. To attempt to replicate the human eye is stopping ourselves short. We need to figure out what the camera can do that the eye can't and push it beyond what we can even imagine. The camera's function is not to imitate reality but to enhance it.

I enjoyed the Brakhage reading but felt like it went a little bit over my head. It was talking about media and sex and love and I feel like those are very interesting and poignant connections but I wasn't given enough context or detail in the short reading.

Jessica Reply to Vertov

SOOOOO, am I correct in thinking that this article is basically a philosophical comparison of the human eye and the "eye" of a camera? The wording is very visceral, almost to the count of losing context. I've once again missed the purpose of the article. I'm confuse about what the writer is trying to convey.

http://www.elitereaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/confused-cat.gif

Raymond's Response (Vertov & Brakhage)

I found Dziga Vertov's article to be quite interesting.  I love how he explained the kino-eye and how sometimes technology is becoming better than our natural senses.  Think about an insect for example.. we cant possible zoom in and look closely at the detail and inspect the life of something so small. However, camera lenses are able to zoom in and see what we are unable to see without disturbing the natural habitat. For that, I can appreciate the technology. The camera also has the ability to show us things from multiple angles, faster than we could naturally.

I liked the article and loved his take on how mankind has essentially perfected God's work.

I also liked Brakhage, I have always been fascinated with how the mind works and the visions we keep in our memory. So even in dreams we see things, though our eyes are closed.

Amanda Esposito's Response to "The Life and Death of Media"

As a student studying creative computation, this article really made me think about how my art will one day be obsolete. As technology progresses, we become accustomed and expect a higher standard that we impose on media and art. For example, many video games back in the day were considered so cutting edge and were great at the time, but they cannot hold up to the current standard of what we expect from video games of today. All the work that went into making those game is no longer valued, because no one plays those games anymore. Some games are still popular today even with the poor graphics, but many of them are lost. New consoles are always coming out whether we like it or not; Technology is moving faster than us.  Even though technology is evolving, many people still appreciate the old. Not everything is "dead" because many people still have old consoles and play the old games, but many are forgotten and left behind. Many of these old games are deemed to be classics and stick out among the endless sea of growing media. 

This can also be applied to films and music as well. When I tried to introduce my little sisters to the original Star Wars trilogy, they talked about how dated it looked. Even when we switched from VHS to DVD, many movies that were on the VHS never made it to DVD. Now as DVDs and CDs die out there is not many forms left of physical media. Some people collect it, but the main market for physical media is dying out. There is more media out there than we can ever process in our lifetime. Some of the media has to die for others to get their time in the spotlight, but that is just the way of life. As these old forms die out they still shape the media today and live on through them. Just like how individuals will die and be forgotten in at most five generations; the same goes for media. These deaths are not in vain; they shape the future. 

Zach Biehl's Vertov/Brakhage response

I found both of these articles interesting, but were just a hair off-target for me. It is not the eye itself that is so biased towards out societal preferences, but the viewer's perspective and preconceptions of what film as a medium can be. Viewers interested in forward-thinking work are not bothered by departures from the depiction of real life as viewed from a single human lens; I for one am eager for any kind of distortion/departure from the norm in terms of the image presented. However, for the time it was published I'm certain this conception was not held by many. Vertov's final assertions to cease psychological/detective drama, theatre productions, Dostoyevsky/Nat Pinkerton, and the concept of the "newsreel" is a bit short sighted as well. Unfortunately, the majority of the film world is concerned with making money, and while people are still so fascinated by these topics/productions, they will be produced forever. A commercial world will always tower over the avant garde. Brakhage seemed to have a more matured grasp on essentially the same concept. His comment that "you are not only influenced by the visual phenomenon which you are focused upon and attempt to sound the depths of all visual influence," really resonated with me, because I've always observed other students' as well as my own choreography being directly influenced by whatever work it is that we're performing at the time. Imitation is not only deliberate but subconscious at its core, as our pattern-centric brains grab onto anything they can categorize.

Ultimately, I enjoyed the thoughts provoked by the articles (Brakhage especially), but Vertov was a bit too literal with his approach to his piece.

A response and a rejection.

I found Vertov's piece particularly interesting. He speaks of how the camera and the human eye tell the same story completely differently. I have often in projects or even in just taking some pictures found it annoying when I cannot get it to look like what I'm seeing with my own eyes. Vertov makes me think about that more. It does not always have o be a hindrance. The fact that we can "endlessly perfect the camera" is an asset, and it can also open our mind to approaching a subject in a new perspective that cannot be captured by live viewing with our own eyes. This ability makes creative filmmakers and photographers "builders," not just recorders or imitators. As with most of these creative quasi-manifestos, I found Vertov arrogant. His claim to "create a man more perfect than Adam" and overall pride in being kino-eye is offputting to me, and like most of these manifestos, it makes me discount it somewhat. But unlike most, I think he has some real substance.
And on the other end of the "BS Spectrum" for me is Stan Brakhage's writing. Filled with convoluted and yet somehow still vague prose, I find it hard to take his idea seriously. I frankly found it needlessly complicated and hard to follow. It reminded me of the video we watched after discussing the futurist manifesto. It was about 10 minutes long and featured the human filled with electronics and the computerized voice. It rejects massive figure and projects some sort of new world society with little more reasoning than someone thinking they know better without any attempt at proof. I find these pieces are overly convoluted and full of jargon just to make them sound smarter than the reader. All it does for me is make me think they don't have an argument whatsoever.

Daniel Shteremberg's Response to Kino-eye and Metaphors

I really enjoyed these readings specifically Kino-eye. I thought it was well written and its arguments were strong, I also heavily agree that we need to use cameras in more creative ways than we normally do. That being said through this article was written in 1923 and we have definitely made improvements on our camera work partly because of new tech like go pros and drones but also because cameras have grown smaller and better thus allowing us to create really cool shots that are vastly different than what Dziga Vertov would've ever seen in his life time. Another thing he mentions is the editing of film together to create something new and that is something we have started to apply as well since the writing of this article going so far as to put characters like Forrest Gump into actual historical events that were filmed. I think he would love the progress that we have made on that front but would still want more to come out in main stream cinema instead of the art house scene that it does now.

Metaphors was an article i didn't really understand but I loved some of the questions he posed like how does a child know what green is without ever learning what it is. With that said however i didn't get a lot of it as i don't really understand the point he is trying to make however I did love the language that he uses to describe this medium.

David Arias Response to Vertog and Brakhage

It was about two years ago that I first saw "Man With A Movie Camera". What Vertog was trying to achieve might not seem like much today but back in the day it was completely revolutionary because it changed the perception of what Cinema could be. For Vertog, truth was in fact stranger and more interesting than fiction. "Cinema Verite" made famous by the Maysles brothers is completely influenced by the work of kinoks.

Brakhage on the other hand is more experimental, at least from the films that I have seen.In  "Mothlight" he showed us insects and plants to create truly mystic imagery. I agree with him in that artists are obsessed with death and the search of God. God being salvation and not a mystical being on itself. The best art, or the one that gets to me the most, is melancholic in nature. Brakhage presents us with this melancholy in his work.

Paige's Response

I found in reading the article by Stan Brakhage that I found myself wishing to have this eye "unruled by man made laws." The thought of having the ability to see things unobjectively and through an untainted vision is something that is actually quite stimulating to think about. Everything we see, we identify right away or search for an answer that can help us identify to the best of our ability. The "Metaphor on Vision" is actually something that I can really relate to and want to learn more about in the sense that from birth we are constantly being told to grow up and to start to drastically remove our creativity and desire to explore, we begin to settle for what we have been told, and as a culture that becomes dangerous for our souls.

In the article by Dziga Vertov I wasn't as emotionally charged when reading it. The idea of a kino-eye or that film has the ability to see things in an unfiltered sense I found to be exciting but also somewhat contradicting. Isn't the filmographer looking through a filtered sense of objectivity? How can it be so pure? I found this article to be intriguing in the sense of learning about something I had no knowledge of in the past but I also felt like it didn't really strike any cords with me in the way that the reading by Stan Brakhage did.

Ken's response on metaphors and kino-eye.

I have no idea what is going in the metaphors on vision article. I thought I did, but I don’t. First paragraph is was easy to understand but then it gets weird. I think I know what its trying to say but then I’m unsure. I understand it would be cool to experience everything visually without the knowledge knowing what the object or light is. But then goes into death and sexual things. Which is like a "wait what" moment. So weird, artists are so weird. 

I did enjoy the kino-eye article. I like how it references camera technology and how we were developing cameras to mimic the eye. It wasn’t until we used the camera as a “superior eye” to create images and ideas of things our eyes normally doesn’t see. The kino-eye can take us to places we would have never imagined of going. It makes me wonder what visual aspect or new emotions I can create with my camera. I’m not very good with montages and think it would be a cool area to explore. With my current project plans, I don’t know how I would be able to explore a montage with what I am trying to achieve. We shall see how it goes.

Overall, pretty cool article, its lit.

Candi's Response to Kino Eye by Dziga Vertov and Stan Brakhage's Metaphors on Vision

I think it was really insightful to see vision as slowly losing innocence in Metaphors on Vision. Visual communication is important and is definitely different than language though it shares some similarities. Sometimes vision does cause people to ignore other realms of perceptions and blind people to the external reality. Motion pictures and the act of showing things through sight creates a new world not just a new language.

In Dziga Vertov’s work I think it was interesting to see the camera as a kino eye. When you watch a film you see the direction and the focus of what the director wants you to see but in reality you can chose what to look at. The shot has a focus but unlike literature you choose how to interpret the image given and what the image exactly is. And unlike theater, the camera choses which part of the scene you must look at. It takes the audience out of the perspective of the spectator and allows the director to make the viewer see the action as a person participating in the action. Since cameras are constantly changing we can portray things better at each point.

When you look at it the great film makers usually are building things with the image and spaces that are shown. I really appreciate the comparison of filmmakers to Creators. When I see something that was made well it is like seeing a newly built world. 

Candi's Response to Death of Media

Bruce Sterling’s ideas at the beginning of Death of Media really connected to me. I believe media helps people define social interactions and connects people with knowledge that people have agreed on. Media evolves with time and even though money can affect which form of media gets endorsed; popularity and user ability is still most important.

If you look at the development of cinema yes, sound was experimented with earlier and failed to be implemented. But it’s because these developments weren’t the best for the direction film wanted to go. With the computers, we don’t just leave and give up on certain computers because the names aren’t as pretty as new ones but because newer computers are more updated and work better. Looking specifically at the iPhone, it’s evident that the iPhone has killed some of its smart phone competitors by better financing despite not having as many abilities as other phones. But the phone did lose customers by refusing to enlarge, not being water proof, and also other technical issues. This didn’t allow people the iPhone to just take over but the competitors to create a type of media that doesn’t have the iPhone’s problems as well as making people have a different choice.

As a communication major, I learned that communication is constantly changing so of course the way that we choose to communicate has to change as well. Media does die and maybe other media helps speed along the death but it may just be the fate of each media source.

Life & Death of Media - Raymond Valencia

The Life & Death of Media by Bruce Sterling got me thinking about just how quickly media evolves and how much some media is taken for granted.  Earlier in the semester we put together contact mics, and as I read this article I remembered how tedious the process was, but had an appreciation that at some point someone out there had to figure all this out in order to have the media we have today.

Though at times it does seem like technology is evolving and media is getting stronger and stronger - as the article says, outliving the creator; I feel like with popularity of vinyl right now - there can be an appreciation for old forms of media.

As an Advertising minor, I know how important it is to stay on top of the upcoming trends in media - but I always feel that because I am older than the traditional college student, that I have an upper hand in appreciating my knowledge of both the old and knowledge of the new types of media.

Paige's Response

I found this reading to be very understandable and somewhat easy to grasp. I have been very interested in the thin line of media in the past and figuring out what makes something promotable and what makes it a dud. The section of this reading where is lists all the lines of what media is was very eye opening for me. It showed how heavily we are impacted by this overarching idea and theme of commercial consciousness.

The idea that Sterling brings up called media forensics was very intriguing to me. I would be very interested in delving deeper into that idea and really figuring out what it entails. Media is such a powerful tool, but it can also be an incredibly destructive tool and I am curious to learn what the separation between those two extremes usually is.

Media and culture have gone hand in hand for centuries. The idea that Sterling brings up about our currency being a medium is something that I have found to be a fabulous idea. Bringing things back to the older days of a barter system in which your skills and your talents become your ability to provide for yourself and thrive. That is what media should be, it shouldn't be a burden or a divider but it should unify and encourage.

Media Eclipse

I know that Intro to Hybrid Media is technically an art class, but Bruce Sterling's The Life and Death of Media resonated with my Creative Computing self. The ideas presented in it were very interesting, but not so much that I would like to apply them to my artwork. I have always thought artwork about technology is a little bit gimmicky; rather, I like to see technology as a medium for furthering other ideas. To me making art about technology is like making art about painting. It's kind of boring.

Now here's where my brain went shortly after reading The Life and Death of Media. Have you ever met someone over 70 who is better with technology than you are? The answer is almost certainly "no." My grandma needs help just sending a text message. But do you think that your grandma was born technologically inept? I think that the biggest lesson I got out of Sterling's essay is that my future Creative Computing BA is kind of useless. Imagine if each generation of humans was ten times more powerful than the last. That's basically how technology evolves. It's ironic how even though we propagate technology it eclipses us so quickly.

Daniel Shteremberg's Reading Response "The Life and Death of Media"

            Bruce Sterling has an interesting concept of what it means to kill a medium. For him killing a medium is a simple as moving on to something better, stronger, faster, and more portable but I believe that this is evolution not death. Evolution is a necessity in the world which without we wouldn’t be here creating art we would most like be outside trying to survive. The reason we can create art is because we have evolved into a species that can spend our days creating and not having to worry about survival as much. The evolution in medium isn’t necessarily about survival but more about helping us get work and art done faster and better. Think about it as the evolution of painting techniques going all the way back to simple cave paintings that tell the stories of the artist to today’s photorealism and abstract drawings which have gotten better as time goes on. Does that mean that cave drawings are a dead medium just because we evolved into something better and more impressive?

            He mentions the evolution of cinema as death vacuum of media specifically calling Edison’s Kinetoscope which didn’t die because of what he says is contingency, it died because it obviously impractical. In order to fill any set Edison’s production company had to move the entire set instead of the camera because it was so massive that it was obvious that a lighter more portable option like the Lumiere brothers would beat it in competition. Another example he gives is the Incan records, which I will admit didn’t die because of it being inferior but instead died because the people using it weren’t as advanced as the invading forces. However, he mentions a lot of examples of what it was used for yet also mentions that no one can read them now, which makes me question how he knows what they were used for. Somehow he plays them as better than books and that might have been the case but it seems as though it is the same just with a different delivery of it, which no longer makes it dead but rather a pre-evolved form.

Lastly he talks about all the dead computers, mainframes, and operating systems that we have created and thusly killed, which again wasn’t death but evolution. In order for evolution to work there must be a lot of failures beforehand but that doesn’t mean it’s dead but just moved on to something better or something we think will be better, like the Apple Lisa which paved the way for the GUI operating systems we have today. Also unlike species evolution with media when it evolves it doesn’t mean its unusable artist go back to the pre-evolved version of media all the time in order to create new pieces and enthusiast love getting those “dead” media.