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.

Self-Portraits (in the most literal sense)

 

Lines

 

Benji

The GreenScreen

French (or maybe Belgian?) artist, Benji, has a very interesting project called the ExtrActor(GreenScreen) (2005). The project in an installation--a greenscreen made out of hydroponically-watered grass. The idea is a pretty simple yet cool one: grow a platformed wall of grass and then use the green backdrop as a greenscreen to "extract" people into different settings. Like a greenscreen in the movies (hence the "ExtrActor"), a person standing on the lush, green platform can be placed into a digital setting by replacing all the green in the image with a pre-selected digital image. When exhibited in galleries, participants can use the GreenScreen themselves, selecting a background with a remote.

Extracted participant in a bowling alley.

Benji says that the project was born from the discovery that "a natural environment could be used as a 'greenscreen.' We, as a rule, have no green pixels in our skin so we are easily separated from nature and included into other digital environments." By this statement, I think Benji is making a comment on how humans are sort of unnatural. There is no green in our skin and, since green is the color most easily associated with nature, it could be interpreted that we are "easily separated from nature," especially when given the context of a natural GreenScreen like in this project. Because we are separate from nature (in this case both the color green and the green grass of the GreenScreen), we can be easily extracted from the image and placed into a "digital environment" of a fabricated setting. In the picture above, the participant is standing on the GreenScreen platform and her image is captured by a movie camera. The camera replaces all areas of green with a pre-selected background of a bowling alley, making it seem as though the participant is really in a bowling alley instead of in a gallery, standing on a platform of grass. As all of the backgrounds available are man-made, artificial places, it emphasizes the idea that humans are easily extracted into from natural environments to "digital environments."

In looking at the gallery of extractions, I saw that many of the resultant images didn't turn out quite as well as with a true greenscreen. In most of the extractions, some pixels of the participant's image were missing or green pixels would show up in the background (as seen below). For some reason, it seems as though the program used to select the participant and separate them from the GreenScreen was not completely successful. This might be because of the texture of the grass, the color variation in the grass, or even spots in the GreenScreen where grass was missing (it is, after all, real grass and prone to dying). I think that if Benji were to try to do this project again, there would be, as in most second "drafts," many improvements he could make to ensure the second round is much better than the first.

Extracted participant on a city street.

Jeff Baij

Triceratops/Tapir/Red Panda

Jeff Baij is a young digital artist who lives in Venice, California. There isn't much biographical information on him either as a person or an artist but some things can be inferred from his website. A lot of his artwork seems to have a lot of humor in it--his Shitty Food in a Gallery is a Photoshop experiment where he takes pictures of supposedly "shitty" food and puts a spotlight on them as if they were in a gallery. A lot of his work also uses .gif files as the medium. .gifs are somewhere between images and movies--they are animated images that show a couple frames of movement. One piece of his in particular, though it didn't use .gifs, caught my eye. Baij's ANIMALMIXUP! is an interactive media piece where the user can choose from the head, body and tail of twenty different animals (including a human baby, triceratops, woolly mammoth and red panda) to make different combinations of animals.

Rabbit/Zebra/Cat

By allowing the user to make their own combinations, Baij leaves his art in the hands of others. His real work, then, is selection of the animals, separation of the body parts, and creating the framework for the interaction (the website). The animals he chooses are very diverse--many are common animals (cat, dog, rabbit, hamster) and many are uncommon (triceratops, woolly mammoth, tapir). By putting these different types of animals together in one place and, potentially, together in one new "animal," Baij gets allows the user to play God. The way in which Baij makes the animal parts, though, is interesting. The framework is not flawless--the pictures do not all line up and the image does not take up the whole frame but, instead, starts to repeat, creating a disconnect in the finished "animal." I think Baij may be making a veiled statement about cloning and cross-breeding between species. Today, there are many new combinations of animals like the liger and the zorse. Perhaps, through this digital creation of a new animal, Baij is trying to show people how absurd it is to mess with and alter animals. Sometimes, the combinations don't even work and the parts don't line up. In addition, every finished "animal" is flawed by the slivers that are repeated when the image does take up the whole frame. Even if this is not his intended concept, there is definitely a statement being made about how digital image manipulation can change and alter nature's form--the program Baij creates is not meant for the user to make "real" animals but new, unnatural ones comprised of many different combinations.

I don't know if the incomplete frames are intentionally flawed but I think they detract from the piece. The slivers on the right-side of each frame that start to repeat the image make it harder for the three body parts of the animals to combine seamlessly. In addition, the way Baij cuts the images of each animal into three parts sometimes does not match well with the division of another animal. I think if this was better executed, the interaction, creation and concept would be clearer and more successful. However, most of Baij's work seems to be done in a hasty, quick-witted manner that speaks more for a volume of work rather than quality. This is a casual piece with a light-heart to it, not a serious work of art and I think it works for Baij--someone needs to have a sense of humor!

Human Baby/Rabbit/Woolly Mammoth

Project 1 Draft

This is my first draft of Project 1. I am stumped on how to make it better so please leave some comments to help me! I'm going for realism so keep that in mind. Thanks!

Artist Talk: Karley Klopfenstein

Carpet Bomb

Karley is our new Artist in Residence and is a graduate of St. Mary's (1997) with a degree in Art and Anthropology. She attempted a Master's degree at Virginia Commonwealth but was asked to leave because, despite her earnest attempt, her work was not enough to satisfy her probationary terms. It was here that she developed a "religious" studio practice while working on her sculptures. After leaving Virginia, Karley made her way to Key West, FL where she became involved in Sculpture Key West, a non-profit organization which brings sculpture into the public sphere. Working with Sculpture Key West, Karley was able to solve her conundrum of a lack of studio space to work in (because it is expensive) and was introduced to the joys of public art. She watched her fellow artists and began to appreciate how public art is transient, only existing in photos after it is finished. Public exhibition allowed for the work to be displayed for free and the work space was free as well. Karley eventually rose to the top of Sculpture Key West. As she did, she was able to start her studio practice again and worked on politically-charged sculptures involving war, craft and carpets.

Macrame M16

Her most recent works are carpet-covered weapons such as bombs, guns and tanks. These are responses to the wars going on in the world and are inspired by Afgani war rugs. She covers dangerous, violent items in carpets made in a variety of methods and the result is a weapon covered with cultural meaning and artistic beauty. The contrast of the fluffy, cuddly yarn of the carpets with the dangerous nature of the weapons is a compelling statement--you want to touch the items but know that they are dangerous. The rug patterns also introduce a contrast between the foreign and the domestic that is mirrored in the item itself--the patterns are foreign but are made domestically just as the bombs are made domestically and are bound for foreign destinations. Karley says that creating her work (more specifically her "Camouflage Tank") is a subversive act because it is a direct response to the production and use of real tanks. Where real, American tanks are made on an assembly line and no one person has the responsibility for the item's use and purpose resting on their shoulders, Karley is solely responsible for her piece. Made entirely (almost) by her hands, she is contributing to its creation but also directs its purpose--not for war but for political comment.

Sketch for Camouflage Tank

I don't know too much about Karley's work as I have not seen it in person and her lecture did not cover everything I would have liked to know. I don't know how she exhibits her studio pieces, for example. My suggestion, if she does not already do this, is that she provide some sort of context or information about the specific patterns she uses. The symbolism, the cultural source, etc. should be included when the pieces are shown. By this means, the viewer will be able to fully comprehend the meaning that Karley imbues in her pieces as she makes them. On top of this, it is interesting! Karley told us that she does a lot of research for her pieces and why not share that research with the viewer? That extra information can create a deeper level of  comprehension in the viewer and would add to the experience of the piece.

After hearing her lecture, I am excited to see more of Karley's work.She told us much about her struggle to finish the tank and I feel invested in her work--I want to see her finish it and to experience the piece for myself because I know all the work and struggle that has gone into it. I can't wait!

Color Correction

Before

After

Before

After

Thomson & Craighead

Decorative Newsfeeds (2010)

The artistic duo of Thomson & Craighead (Jon Thomson and Alison Craighead) is based heavily in digital "new" media. They have been working together in London since 1993 and much of their work deals with how technology interacts with and alters the world around us. Most of their recent work takes live data like news feeds and status updates and uses it in different ways. Their gallery installation and, later, public installation, Decorative Newsfeeds (2010) is particularly interesting in how it deals with real-time and real-world data and turns it into something different. The work takes news feed headlines from all over the world and presents them on a screen in lines that move according to carefully prescribed coded instructions. As the installation runs, the lines of news text run across the projected screen in hypnotic patterns and shapes that create what Thomson & Craighead refer to as "readymade sculpture or perhaps...automated drawing[s]."

Decorative Newsfeeds (2010)

The images I have posted here cannot show the movement of the lines but the video on their website shows it well--how the words move in a snake-like fashion around the screen, just urging the viewer's eye to quickly follow and read the text. The "sculptures" created by these newsfeeds are totally engaging for me. If I was in the gallery, I would stand in front of this installation for hours. It's something that reminds me of aquariums or fire, the movement and shapes are beautiful and engrossing--the viewer becomes totally hypnotized. What I think is the best part about this installation is that the materials being used are news headlines. Thomson & Craighead are creating beauty out of information that is usually unpleasant and unwelcome--war, death, crime. Instead of ignoring or hiding from these realities, Thomson & Craighead merely embrace them in a different way, presenting them to the viewer in a pleasant and soothing manner.

There is another way to interpret this, though: the hypnotic characteristics of the installation might be intentionally meant to mimic how gory and gruesome news is hypnotic to some. Though the news today is usually bleak, it is what people want to know. Almost every household watches the news, even though the message it tells is almost purposefully geared to reflect only the negative happenings of the day. Despite the dark nature of the news, people regularly tune in and watch for hours. Indeed, there are whole television channels devoted just to news all day every day. I think Thomson & Craighead might be referencing this in the way they make their "sculpture" captivating in an almost bewitching way. There is no reason to be so entranced by an image, just like there is no reason to be so obsessed with the bleakest aspects of humanity as seen through news feeds.

The lines of text also seek to organize and order the world. As the subjects of news are usually not pleasant and, indeed, typically focus on the elements which most put our lives into chaos, the orderly-coded instructions for the "sculptures" of news text are almost a way in which Thomson & Craighead can bring order to a most disorderly world. The sculptural shapes move according to careful and specific directions--in this way, the news is being manipulated. But not only is it being manipulated by Thomson & Craighead, but, through that manipulation and defined order, it is being controlled. Perhaps, through this control, and the pleasant end product, Thomson & Craighead are trying to make something new and different with news that is constantly repeating itself. But perhaps I'm pushing the themes too far.

Decorative Newsfeeds (2010) Public Installation

Because the idea of this installation is so simple and so well executed, I find it hard to find a way in which it could be made better. The installation does not stay within strictly gallery walls and the duo does have a public installation of this project (seen above), altering it slightly to take up more of the window space and making the lines of text colored to add more visual interest. The addition of color, however, I think is unnecessary. I like the simplicity of the gallery-version's black and white composition. I think the addition of color complicates the message and makes the news feeds harder to read and follow. There is too much happening in this instance and I think it might be a little overwhelming for the viewer to take in. Again, as I felt with KIDing®, this might be the point. The multitude of news sources and the overwhelming abundance of new topics, new crimes, new deaths, new horrors might be what Thomson & Craighead are trying to get closer to by adding color to their work. With this added element, the work becomes more complicated and the message less clear, just as the world becomes complicated by news events.

Scan Collage

Alternate version

Chinatown Collage

10(ish) Scans

Scan 1

Scan 2

Scan 4

Scan 4 alternate

Scan 4

Scan 5

Scan 5 alternate

Scan 6

Scan 7

Scan 8

Scan 9

Scan 10