Joe Mckay

Joe Mckay is a Canadian artist. His works address the idea of digital culture and he is currently an assistant professor of New Media. The project Sunset Solitaire is an interactive exercise where Mckay tries to approximate the color of a sunset using a computer program that works with gradients of blue, yellow and red. He projects the image onto a wall (in this case, a garage) and then changes the gradients to match those of the sunset as the sunset progresses. He invites an audience to watch his "symphony" and so there is an element of public display involved.

 

Mckay's interaction with nature is really interesting. He is using digital technology to approximate a natural event--in particular, a very beautiful and artistic event. He is "painting" the sky in the sense that he is trying to copy its colors and blending in a digital manner and reproducing it in a way that, alongside the natural subject, blends in and becomes a part of the real thing. By simulating nature, Mckay is provactively saying that the beauty of nature, something long-established to be one of its biggest contributions to humanity, can be replicated by digital means. Revealing this, one might wonder why nature is necessary or why it should be preserved if it can so easily be replaced by a computer-generated image. 

I think it would be a slightly better final product if the image was projected on a flatter surface than a garage door since this takes away from the blend of digital and natural. However, it also reminds us that one image is digital which can be a good thing for the artist so the viewer is never fully able to join digital and natural and is always aware of the separation between the two. In any case, I think this is a very interesting project and would love to see it develop into more.

Evan Roth

Evan Roth is an artist and graffiti aficionado born in the US in 1978. Roth received an MFA at Parsons School for Design where he now teaches controversial courses on viral media. He has studied the metrics and patterns in graffiti around the world and his art makes connections between the uses of technology, popular culture and the urban environment. His project 9 to 5 Paintings utilizes a "double mouse" which he created. It is one mouse connected by two separate cables to two separate computers. This allows the user to conduct routine computer activity (checking e-mails, browsing the internet, etc) on one computer while tracking mouse movement and clicks on another. What results is an interesting map of mouse activity which serve as "visual representations of your daily computing routines." The idea is that you get to create art while you work, hence the name 9 to 5 Paintings.

The idea of making art out of daily, routine activity is very interesting. Roth seems to be suggesting that digital activity and the patterns we make in our activity can express something all by themselves. The patterns created by making mouse clicks and drags create the shapes and lines of the art. Normal computer activity like answering emails, browsing the internet, playing a game or making a PowerPoint presentation become the essence of the art piece. By re-envisioning normal computer tasks in a visually artistic way, a person can think about how they use the mouse and interact with the computer and digital data. The use of two screens while making the piece allows the artist some control over the piece if they want it but it takes away from the organic authenticity of the product.

The one thing I think these pieces are missing is incorporation of typing in some way. The program, at the moment, only tracks mouse movement (clicks, drags, etc) but I think keyboard activity would add a compelling second data source that could add a new element to the pieces. Perhaps the mouse and keyboard activity could be shown in different colors. I think adding keyboard activity would help create a more complete picture of a person's computer activity since writing is a very important part of computer usage and is not captured in these pieces as they are now. Aside from this, though, I think the simplicity of the pieces is beautiful and accessible and really interesting--no need for a social agenda, simple self-analysis is all that's really needed to make a compelling art piece!

Self Portrait

Aram Bartholl

Aram Bartholl is a German artist who is currently serving a artist residency in New York at the Eyebeam Art and Technology Center. Aram deals mainly with the connection between digital space and public space. In one of his most recent works, Dead Drops, Aram plainly makes the two spaces one. He carves out niches in walls around New York (5 locations so far) and places USB drives in them so they stick out into the public space. The USB drives contain a readme file that explain the project. You are meant to find the USB drives and connect your computer to them and use them as a free file-sharing "drop box." Since the locations are semi-secret, Aram has adopted the name "dead drops" for these USB drives, pulling from the idea of a secret location used to pass messages between people.

Aram's Dead Drops are a way to join digital and public space. The digital space becomes a message board for the people, out in the public space but in digital form. The digital space becomes part of the public space through its presence in the USB drive and the public space becomes part of the digital space through the sharing of files, almost like graffiti. Aram says that the idea behind this project is to create a free file-sharing environment, meant to be used for people to upload and download files they wish to share with each other. As technology becomes an increasingly large part of our daily lives, it is only a matter of time, Aram seems to be saying, before digital space and public, everyday space become completely combined. With the use of any public space, though, there is some danger. Humans are human and, as such, there is always a malicious use of a seemingly great thing. Right away on Aram's blog showcasing his new project, there was backlash against his idea for a variety of reasons. People worried about security, saying that, because the data is public and anyone can post, they will naturally become infested with viruses and hacks meant to hurt anyone who connects to them. People also were worried about the USB drives poking out of walls either because they could "poke a five-year-old in the eye" or because they could easily be damaged or damage the compute they connect to.

However, I think the people worrying about these things are missing the point--any public space has these same dangers. When dealing with people, you must learn to protect yourself (aka private space. In this case, yourself and your computer). As in any use of public space, one should use these dead drops with caution after protecting your computer to react to any harmful data that might be on them. The digital space, in this way, is no different from public space. We have programs in place to protect our public and private space (police, government, judicial system, etc) so it only makes sense to put programs in place to protect our digital space (virus scanners, etc.). These common threats just serve to draw more connections between digital and public space as well as reveal a very dark nature to humanity. We cannot appreciate a good idea and let it alone to play out its intent: what was meant to be a place for sharing interesting and enjoyable things has now come to be (if only theoretically) a place for the sharing of malicious and devious things. Hooray for the modern world!

Master Debaters

Last Tuesday, during the Art Week events, four Art professors (the Master Debaters) gathered for a throwdown via debate. Professor Calwell, Professor Lucchesi, Professor Sheer and Professer Friebele worked independently, in teams and against each other to debate questions about art and its place and purpose in society. There were four rounds: 2 rounds of 1-on-1 debating, 1 round of tag team debating and a deathmatch round to end the throwdown with a decorated Master Debater. Each round consisted of 2 minutes for each debater's opening statement, 2 minutes each for a rebuttal, and 1 minute each for a closing remark. At the end of the event, Professor Sheer was Lucchesi was decorated with a medal as this year's Master Debator.

For the second 1-on-1 round of debating, Professor Caldwell and Professor Lucchesi debated about whether gun or art were the stronger force in society. Professor Lucchesi spoke first and argued that art is the stronger of the two. As the last frontier of imagination and creativity, art is and must be stronger than guns--its message is more powerful because it is the only outlet for these strong human forces. Professor Lucchesi also argued that art is infinite because it lives on after the artist, thus giving great power to any artist whose art remains after him. Professor Caldwell then opened his argument of guns as stronger than art by pointing out that the reality of capitalism and the marketplace (which were brought up in the first 1-on-1 round of debating between Professor Sheer and Professor Friebele) drives society. As guns have become a means of gaining and controlling the forces of capitalism and the marketplace, Professor Caldwell opened his argument by mentioning the devastating effects of guns on society, slightly widening the scope of the definition to include weapons of mass destruction. He argued that weapons create art--they inspire artistic reactions to their conflicts and impact on society. The "aesthetic of power" is what guns create and what art seeks to represent, thus placing guns (and weapons) as the cause of art's inspiration. In an interesting and coincidental rebuttal, Professor Lucchesi used visiting artist Karley Klopfenstein's work as an example of how the power of art exceeds the power of guns and weapons and allows the viewer (and the artist) to re-imagine weapons through art. Through art, people can see the effect of weapons in a different light and this enlightenment, Professor Lucchesi argued, is more powerful than the weapons themselves. To end the debate, Professor Caldwell used the fact that the budget (which comes from taxes) for defense (guns) is greater than the budget for art education. Using this, Professor Caldwell argued that society, which votes representatives who set tax rates and allocate money, values guns and protection more than the "touchy feely" expression art education provides. He said, "We have put our money where our mouth is, not where our heart is," revealing that he budget reflects the practical more vocal needs of society (protection) rather than the emotional needs (art).

I'm a pretty big cynic. Additionally, I don't have too much faith in humanity, especially Americans. I have to admit, Professor Caldwell's arguments spoke to me and I thought his ending quote was very effective. I think that it would be nice to think that art is more powerful than the crass concerns of weapons and protection. However, I think we would be lying to ourselves if this is what we truly saw as reality. No war is fought over art but over money, land and ideology. These are the strongest things and the battles for them are fought with guns. Art is certainly powerful but I just don't think that humanity regards it high enough or is even fully capable of becoming enlightened enough by art to change its ways and stop fighting. Because of that, I don't think it will ever be a stronger force than guns and the endless need to be more prepared and better protected than your neighbor. Bleak, I know, but I am not going to hide myself from the truth I can see.

Music

Inspired by a re-mixed mix.

Project 2: Digital Self-Portrait

 This is the photo I've chosen to turn into a digital self-portrait. Though I didn't take the picture myself, I think it is the picture of me that best captures who I am. Though my eyes, my favorite part of my body, aren't really well captured, my personality is. There is a certain feistiness and attitude to the picture that I think expresses me well and the way my head is turned and my hair lays is very flattering and beautiful. Coupled with the vivid colors and the nice color-blocked background, I think the picture is captivating and will be challenging to turn into a digital portrait (the hair especially).

I'm a perfectionist--I'll admit it. Being so, a digital self-portrait enables me to become a perfectionist about myself, my appearance and my physical features. If there's a blemish or other undesirable physical trait that I don't like, I can easily remove it in my digital self-portrait. You can also even out skin tone and even slightly alter hair color to match the hue you always wished it was (redder!). Of course, that takes away a bit from it being a true self-portrait but the editing power is there all the same. I think creating a digital self-portrait allows the artist to accentuate all the features they like best about themselves. I can pay more attention to my hair since it is the element I like best in this picture and pay less attention to something like my face (my chin is huge and I don't really like it) and thereby draw attention away from the face and direct to toward the intricately-digitized hair.

I intend to make a flat image--I love them and how they play with depth and perspective in ways other than shading and gradient. Most of my depth will come from differences in color. I think this will be like compressing myself, flattening my image to a flat computer screen where it will be viewed. In this way my portrait becomes digital because the shapes are made by digital information and because I will become a flattened image, rather than a 3-D image that mimics reality.