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.