Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Time Project
The sources I have used complement each other very well. Umberto Eco's article is about the perception of television and how that affects the would around it. Written in the seventies, the article is still interesting in relation to how the world is still today affected in the manner he speaks about. Instances that are video documented are changed by the mere presence of the camera. Soccer balls are now black and white instead of brown leather due to being televised. The power of the camera to form a new world is demonstrated and it is intriguing.
While researching videos I was interested by Chris Rock. His humor is dependent on changing structures by implementing new rules. I was originally more interested in George Carlin. Carlin's humor is even more dependent on restructuring language and rules that govern perception, but his material was not emotional enough. Enter Chris Rock, his humor mimics Carlin's but is of the MTV generation, it's quicker, less intellectual, and a has a stronger punch which I could easily contrast.
The common motif they share is how the world is changed by the mere presence of self. The use of the appropriated video was intended from the start, juxtaposing clips to loosely illustrate a feeling of space and time. Simple views were selected to enhance the focus of the relationships between the scenes. While listening to NPR, after creating the video, Laurie Anderson was speaking and mentioned that her lyrical style lately employs the use of jump cuts to create imagery instead of straight narratives. Which, brought to a higher level my awareness of what I was doing in the film.
Sources:
Never Scared. Dir. Joel Gallen, Keith Truesdell. Perfs. Chris Rock. Video Stream. HBO Home Video, 2004.
Umberto Eco, "Event as Mise en scéne and Life as Scene-setting," in Robert Lumley, ed. ,Apocalypse Postponed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), 103-107.
While researching videos I was interested by Chris Rock. His humor is dependent on changing structures by implementing new rules. I was originally more interested in George Carlin. Carlin's humor is even more dependent on restructuring language and rules that govern perception, but his material was not emotional enough. Enter Chris Rock, his humor mimics Carlin's but is of the MTV generation, it's quicker, less intellectual, and a has a stronger punch which I could easily contrast.
The common motif they share is how the world is changed by the mere presence of self. The use of the appropriated video was intended from the start, juxtaposing clips to loosely illustrate a feeling of space and time. Simple views were selected to enhance the focus of the relationships between the scenes. While listening to NPR, after creating the video, Laurie Anderson was speaking and mentioned that her lyrical style lately employs the use of jump cuts to create imagery instead of straight narratives. Which, brought to a higher level my awareness of what I was doing in the film.
Sources:
Never Scared. Dir. Joel Gallen, Keith Truesdell. Perfs. Chris Rock. Video Stream. HBO Home Video, 2004.
Umberto Eco, "Event as Mise en scéne and Life as Scene-setting," in Robert Lumley, ed. ,Apocalypse Postponed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), 103-107.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Accumulation: Week #8
Perhaps what is most evident now is the feeling that it is difficult to collect every week. It is stale in my mind. This wasn't expected but it is clearly how collecting things out of my way will lead. Gathering materials for projects is always a mundane task and I believe this has fallen into that category. I lose attention quickly.
Besides that, I have this angel in my office and never look at it. In fact, I had forgotten that I put it there. At the time I placed it there I also put the captain's hat with the sarcastic/cliché thought
of retirement. I also store my 6" ruler there. My job is not a fulltime. So, it's a rather ridiculous thought. Kind of morbid with ideas of death.
Besides that, I have this angel in my office and never look at it. In fact, I had forgotten that I put it there. At the time I placed it there I also put the captain's hat with the sarcastic/cliché thought
of retirement. I also store my 6" ruler there. My job is not a fulltime. So, it's a rather ridiculous thought. Kind of morbid with ideas of death.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Artist: Arnaldo Morales
1. How does his ethnicity or place of origin affect his work?
2. How do the machines relate to the content?
3. Are his pieces interactive or are they inaccessible?
1. His place of origin doesn't seem to integrate directly into the content of the pieces or into the active process of viewing the piece. The initial conception of the idea behind his pieces do relate to the rather traumatic experience of someone holding a gun to his head. He also researched in a community that had a significant problem with violence. It seems reasonable though that his work could easily be influenced by other locations; the work is more informed by experiences which are common to many places than by the specialty of a place.
2. The content of the work appears to focus on violence and anxiety in various areas of life. Creation of Morales' machines distills the experience down to a small, seemingly controlled object. Giving the viewer a sense of control over the anxiety sets the viewer somewhat at ease with the trigger of the stress.
3. In a way his pieces are interactive. Going back to the triggering of anxiety, there is a type of somatic response that is as primal as one can get as far as communication. There is also a larger cognitive response that one has that tries to decipher the experience and than create an understanding of the experience. Which is where his pieces deviate from a real life response. There is the opportunity that he brings together that further dialogue is then able to take place.
1. Is this a one trick pony?
2. Is there or can there be more content be introduced?
3. Does the aesthetics of his pieces ultimately hurt them from being viewed by a larger audience?
2. How do the machines relate to the content?
3. Are his pieces interactive or are they inaccessible?
1. His place of origin doesn't seem to integrate directly into the content of the pieces or into the active process of viewing the piece. The initial conception of the idea behind his pieces do relate to the rather traumatic experience of someone holding a gun to his head. He also researched in a community that had a significant problem with violence. It seems reasonable though that his work could easily be influenced by other locations; the work is more informed by experiences which are common to many places than by the specialty of a place.
2. The content of the work appears to focus on violence and anxiety in various areas of life. Creation of Morales' machines distills the experience down to a small, seemingly controlled object. Giving the viewer a sense of control over the anxiety sets the viewer somewhat at ease with the trigger of the stress.
3. In a way his pieces are interactive. Going back to the triggering of anxiety, there is a type of somatic response that is as primal as one can get as far as communication. There is also a larger cognitive response that one has that tries to decipher the experience and than create an understanding of the experience. Which is where his pieces deviate from a real life response. There is the opportunity that he brings together that further dialogue is then able to take place.
1. Is this a one trick pony?
2. Is there or can there be more content be introduced?
3. Does the aesthetics of his pieces ultimately hurt them from being viewed by a larger audience?
Unicorns
Pictures I have taken of unicorns.
Signs + Unicorns = Oddly more common than I thought
Animal Kingdom- Orlando, Fla
Renaissance Festival- somewhere near Huntersville, NC
On Ugliness, Umberto Eco. Tells how to hunt a unicorn, read it.
Signs + Unicorns = Oddly more common than I thought
Animal Kingdom- Orlando, Fla
Renaissance Festival- somewhere near Huntersville, NC
On Ugliness, Umberto Eco. Tells how to hunt a unicorn, read it.
Artist: Daniel Joseph Martinez
1. Is Martinez's work political or just socially dissentient?
2. Is he preaching to the choir?
3. Is his motivation just dissent or for the better and/or the bettering of the world?
1. This is fairly clearly answered by Martinez, "It is about power, but not activist based." While the political world around his work is affected it is not his goal to transmit the ideas of change into politics. It seems that Martinez has a natural lean toward dissent, most likely just making art as a means to announce his dissent. Part of what he calculates as being successful is "the disruption of the status quo." He has used tactics of Hannibal and Sun Tzu to help him in his advancement to the opposition, which is the status quo. Obviously he sees what he does as conflict with an enemy and his works are driven by this.
2. Apparently not, otherwise he wouldn't get such strong negative reactions. The imperative of his work is that it be experienced by unsuspecting viewers and become the part of a dialogue. Considering the overt purpose of his work it is a wonder that he has been able to create public pieces that are condoned by the authority. It appears that he takes every chance he gets to display works of dissent.
3. I guess this is really answered by the first part. His motivation is mainly dissent. Bettering the world is just a consequence of his actions and not the purpose.
Three more:
1.Through all his actions of dissent is it still possible for him to be able to create sanctioned works?
2. How do his photographs, which I've not seen, relate?
3. Does his work change any viewpoints?
2. Is he preaching to the choir?
3. Is his motivation just dissent or for the better and/or the bettering of the world?
1. This is fairly clearly answered by Martinez, "It is about power, but not activist based." While the political world around his work is affected it is not his goal to transmit the ideas of change into politics. It seems that Martinez has a natural lean toward dissent, most likely just making art as a means to announce his dissent. Part of what he calculates as being successful is "the disruption of the status quo." He has used tactics of Hannibal and Sun Tzu to help him in his advancement to the opposition, which is the status quo. Obviously he sees what he does as conflict with an enemy and his works are driven by this.
2. Apparently not, otherwise he wouldn't get such strong negative reactions. The imperative of his work is that it be experienced by unsuspecting viewers and become the part of a dialogue. Considering the overt purpose of his work it is a wonder that he has been able to create public pieces that are condoned by the authority. It appears that he takes every chance he gets to display works of dissent.
3. I guess this is really answered by the first part. His motivation is mainly dissent. Bettering the world is just a consequence of his actions and not the purpose.
Three more:
1.Through all his actions of dissent is it still possible for him to be able to create sanctioned works?
2. How do his photographs, which I've not seen, relate?
3. Does his work change any viewpoints?
Artist:Julian LaVerdiere
1. What do his monuments do?
2. Nostalgia, how does his work address it?
3. Is the signified by the artist observed by the viewer?
1. LaVerdiere's monuments are used to create a sense of drama and importance. Creation of altered more inspirational historical narratives are conducted by substitution or other methods to make a "false" reality. This false reality is more like a historical fiction than reality. Emotional responses are acquired rather than the dry response text on the historical subject matter he is covering would invoke. They are made to inspire, to make the unknown seem exciting.
2. I am not sure. The text uses the word nostalgia to explain ideas counter to LaVerdiere's. But it could be interpreted as LaVerdiere's work tries to counter the short span of memory in society today by showing there is a greater more mysterious and mystical world where we come from. He uses the emotional aspect of nostalgia to help create his "romantic propaganda to help continue the march of progress.
3. The artist goal is to transmit inspiration in the audience. It appears that he effectively conveys that which he planned to convey. Eternally falling, the safe seems to send the same idea. Its success is due to an understanding of simple psychological reactions that humans have to the unknown. The filling in of the gaps by the imagination is more powerful than anything that could simply be stated. creation of the meaning is created inside the viewers mind rather than drilled into it. The works are simply catalyst for the viewers own mental responses with a small amount of subject matter to influence some idea construction.
It's harder to say something about work that is agreeable to my own thoughts.
Three more:
1. Could history be rewritten to accommodate an inspirational aspect?
2. Is it necessary for works to be awe inspiring to be successful?
3. Could inspirational effects be seen in works that are similar but lack the use of largely identifiable imagery?
2. Nostalgia, how does his work address it?
3. Is the signified by the artist observed by the viewer?
1. LaVerdiere's monuments are used to create a sense of drama and importance. Creation of altered more inspirational historical narratives are conducted by substitution or other methods to make a "false" reality. This false reality is more like a historical fiction than reality. Emotional responses are acquired rather than the dry response text on the historical subject matter he is covering would invoke. They are made to inspire, to make the unknown seem exciting.
2. I am not sure. The text uses the word nostalgia to explain ideas counter to LaVerdiere's. But it could be interpreted as LaVerdiere's work tries to counter the short span of memory in society today by showing there is a greater more mysterious and mystical world where we come from. He uses the emotional aspect of nostalgia to help create his "romantic propaganda to help continue the march of progress.
3. The artist goal is to transmit inspiration in the audience. It appears that he effectively conveys that which he planned to convey. Eternally falling, the safe seems to send the same idea. Its success is due to an understanding of simple psychological reactions that humans have to the unknown. The filling in of the gaps by the imagination is more powerful than anything that could simply be stated. creation of the meaning is created inside the viewers mind rather than drilled into it. The works are simply catalyst for the viewers own mental responses with a small amount of subject matter to influence some idea construction.
It's harder to say something about work that is agreeable to my own thoughts.
Three more:
1. Could history be rewritten to accommodate an inspirational aspect?
2. Is it necessary for works to be awe inspiring to be successful?
3. Could inspirational effects be seen in works that are similar but lack the use of largely identifiable imagery?
Artist: Kim Jones
1. How does Mudman manifest?
2.Is Mudman ridiculous?
3.Is Mudman a successful way to express thought?
1.Well according to the article, he seems to only be present in performance. Walking around cities and also in gallery performances. Interacting with passersby while navigating urban terrain. Carrying around a burden seems to be important, as he lugs a heavy construction on his back. It reminds me of someone that used to drag a cross down US1 in Florida when I was young. The differences being subject matter of burden and that Mudman is artificial, comparatively. In both this struggle for life is foregrounded. Both also contain spiritual connotations though of diverging ideals. There is perhaps difference of conviction. The man carrying the cross was completely consumed by his actions and did not escape his actions(he was likely homeless); the Mudman is merely a show to be enacted when the moment is right, mostly for an art audience.
2. Yes, he is. He is seemingly trying to make art by the means of non-art actions. That is what I see as perhaps what the attraction is for some viewers. He is pulling the outside world into art by being someone that is not affected by the artworld. But, thats not the case; Jones' alter ego(which I don't believe is an alter ego) is a complete construct of the world of art. Jones states, "People talk about me being a shaman, but I'm not here to heal anybody. I don't associate with primitive cultures." Clearly that is what the character alludes to being at least in part. Why does he use mud from certain locations if not to conjure mystical connections to place.
3. The walks through the cities are devoid of any point except for Jones to meet people, and I said Jones because he answers questions in the persona of Jones not as Mudman even when dressed as Mudman. Attacking himself was more successful because the actions were independent of his supposed alter ego. There was an intrinsic quality in his actions instead of just wandering without aim. How does wandering relate to his other imagery of conflict?
I think I need to study some psychology because the use of this "alter ego" just seems artificial, or rather just a performance.
Three more:
1. What is the difference between his "alter ego" and performance of a character?
2. Does the artist considering Mudman a "alter ego" just constructing his reality to how he seems fit?
3. Conflict seems to be a strong content factor, so does any other performances of Mudman exploit this?
2.Is Mudman ridiculous?
3.Is Mudman a successful way to express thought?
1.Well according to the article, he seems to only be present in performance. Walking around cities and also in gallery performances. Interacting with passersby while navigating urban terrain. Carrying around a burden seems to be important, as he lugs a heavy construction on his back. It reminds me of someone that used to drag a cross down US1 in Florida when I was young. The differences being subject matter of burden and that Mudman is artificial, comparatively. In both this struggle for life is foregrounded. Both also contain spiritual connotations though of diverging ideals. There is perhaps difference of conviction. The man carrying the cross was completely consumed by his actions and did not escape his actions(he was likely homeless); the Mudman is merely a show to be enacted when the moment is right, mostly for an art audience.
2. Yes, he is. He is seemingly trying to make art by the means of non-art actions. That is what I see as perhaps what the attraction is for some viewers. He is pulling the outside world into art by being someone that is not affected by the artworld. But, thats not the case; Jones' alter ego(which I don't believe is an alter ego) is a complete construct of the world of art. Jones states, "People talk about me being a shaman, but I'm not here to heal anybody. I don't associate with primitive cultures." Clearly that is what the character alludes to being at least in part. Why does he use mud from certain locations if not to conjure mystical connections to place.
3. The walks through the cities are devoid of any point except for Jones to meet people, and I said Jones because he answers questions in the persona of Jones not as Mudman even when dressed as Mudman. Attacking himself was more successful because the actions were independent of his supposed alter ego. There was an intrinsic quality in his actions instead of just wandering without aim. How does wandering relate to his other imagery of conflict?
I think I need to study some psychology because the use of this "alter ego" just seems artificial, or rather just a performance.
Three more:
1. What is the difference between his "alter ego" and performance of a character?
2. Does the artist considering Mudman a "alter ego" just constructing his reality to how he seems fit?
3. Conflict seems to be a strong content factor, so does any other performances of Mudman exploit this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
