A Rough Guide to Analog Video Synthesis:
READ this ARTICLE and comment on It within the comment section on this post for (20 Points): The Computer: A Tool for Thought-Experiments <<<< PDF: ONLY read the 1. Physical-Sensual-Mental 315-318 pg. and Machine Vision: Looking Through Machine Eyes 321-322 pg. Comments should be posted by WED. Sept. 28th. Come to class ready to discuss. (If everyone doesn't post a comment of quality, there will be a Quiz on the 28th TESTING topics in the reading.)
MORE - WATCH ALL OF THESE:
Sums & Difference by Gary Hill
Devils Circuit by Ito Takashi
Form Data Form by Jason Bernagozzi
C-Trend by Woody Vasulka
Black or White by Marisa Olson
BEATLES ELECTRONIQUES by Nam June Paik
READ this ARTICLE and comment on It within the comment section on this post for (20 Points): The Computer: A Tool for Thought-Experiments <<<< PDF: ONLY read the 1. Physical-Sensual-Mental 315-318 pg. and Machine Vision: Looking Through Machine Eyes 321-322 pg. Comments should be posted by WED. Sept. 28th. Come to class ready to discuss. (If everyone doesn't post a comment of quality, there will be a Quiz on the 28th TESTING topics in the reading.)
MORE - WATCH ALL OF THESE:
Sums & Difference by Gary Hill
Devils Circuit by Ito Takashi
Form Data Form by Jason Bernagozzi
C-Trend by Woody Vasulka
Black or White by Marisa Olson
BEATLES ELECTRONIQUES by Nam June Paik
After reading the article I never thought about how video and science are similar to each other. It was interesting to view these two subjects based on experiments. In both subjects you have to experiment to find out the best outcome. Also I thought it was relatable when Malina considered “art and science equally as testing grounds for the unknown differing only in their subject matters.” I agree with Malina. In the creation of art there are so many possibilities and directions you can go with in your work. It’s all unknown where your experiments will lead you. Also I thought it was interesting in articles when it said, “digital artist is not limited to making art objects but can create dynamic art subjects.” As artist we do not have a limit in our video creations. We can add a variety of tools and machines to build our creations.
ReplyDeleteTESTING GOUNDS FOR THE UKNOWN!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to pretend to have understood all of the technical jargon withing "Physical-Sensual-Mental," even after reading it several times. I did however enjoy the different correlations made between Science and Art, especially the importance of experimentation in both fields. What was especially interesting with regards to experimentation was the usage of computer simulation as a means of providing both science and art the ability to experience a paradigm shift by experimenting from a mental rather than physical standpoint.
ReplyDelete"Machine Vision" begins with an explanation of how images appear on screen via electrical energy in a way that I could only think of as beautifully sad. The image of electrons striking the phosphor of the screen "only to be consumed a few nanoseconds later by the next electronic wave." This article then goes on to discuss another shift in how we perceive images; rather than sticking to the traditional "camera obscura" form, artist Woody Vasulka challenged himself to create a totally dynamic way of creating and perceiving images. I was very fascinated with the concept of "logical motion," but I feel like I would need it explained in simpler terms for me to fully grasp.
I like the author's use of the word experiment to compare art and science. Whenever an artist makes work, they do experiments for days, months, sometimes even years. When we think of experiments we usually think of science. This is how the author sees similarities between science and art. Experimentation is what lead to new forms of art. In Woody Vasulka's case, he wanted to experiment with video by having a constant image charged with different voltages. And there are new types of art out there waiting to be discovered and experimented with. Speaking of which, today I saw a video on youtube where someone created an image using salt. Just by experimenting with salt this person was able to create an extraordinary image in a few hours. Experiments can sometimes lead to failure and sometimes success. But in order to be successful at art, the artist needs to experiment over and over till they create something amazing.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very interesting to think of video art as subjects in a grand scheme of experiments rather than just individual pieces/objects. I'm studying the history of photography right now and the way this author talks about digital/computer art is similar to the way people thought of photography back when it first came about. Because it was produced by a camera (a mark of 'industry'), many artists like Charles Baudelaire felt that it was not an art form, while Rejlander and Fox Talbot embraced it as art. The author of the article seems to be attached to the idea of computer art/video as science, which it certainly can be, as one can try various "experiments" and "formulas" to create the best product (especially with the assignment we're currently working on). However, I don't think that the 'science' part needs to take away from the 'art' part, which can be at risk if one forgets that video is not just a process or an experiment, but also an expression.
ReplyDeleteI think some artists might be put off by Vasulka, then, who allows the machine to do most of the work in creating the art. And while it's true that the machine(computer/video recorder/etc.) is responsible for making the art, the artist is not completely removed. But then is the interaction more of the art form, or the data that the artist chooses for the final piece? Or both? These are the things that I'm thinking about now after reading this.
I have to agree the Jargon was a bit unnecessary, depending. If this article was intended only for a select audience, that's fine. I believe when speaking to the "masses" it should be communicated in a more direct way, i've always wondered about why people do that. Is it to sound smart?
ReplyDeleteOk, i wasted a paragraph. Back to the subject. I've always known, since i was a little girl, that art was always something intangible. And i have to agree with the over all message that even when art becomes tangible, something you can see and touch, it still returns to the viewer in an intangible form, the senses. The definition of art has definitely changed over time. The introduction of technology has been most helpful in assisting this redefinition. A person would not call a paint brush art, but they would call the painting art. But what about the person who made the paint brush, is he not an artist?
When playing with the idea of computer art, i remember as a little girl using photoshop 2.0. I may not have been manipulating video, but i was doing the same thing to pictures. I remember hearing several times, that the hideous pieces of art i was drawing thinking it was the world, wasn't quite art because it was done on a computer.
Is a computer not a work of art? What is art then? Is it something that's only stuck within the brackets of one standard form of representation? Art is just another word for creativity. The fact that a scientist can use his scientific methods to express his creative side doesn't make the work any less art, or any more science, but it's a combination of both. A mental thought, turned into a physical expression, interpreted by your senses << Art.
This is my understanding of that difficultly pleasant read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will have to admit that this article was a bit hard to read. Not my favorite thing I've read. However we can see the advancements that have been taken in the name of science and art. I believe the two fall hand in hand. I believe advancements in science and technology a like make advancements in art so much more easily achieved.
ReplyDeleteI think we can see that art isn't just about what we see in front of us. Even what we can't see is artistic in its being. And we can distort the things we can see and even bring to life the things we may only be able to imagine to create new and wonderful forms of art as well. It is the discovery or better yet the road to discovering the unknown that can make all forms of art achieve greatness.
I'm not sure what to say about the videos. I tried to watch them three different times but couldn't keep my eyes on the screen for long because they make me feel queasy and give me a headache. The audio on a few of them were unbearable, to be honest. I'm not trying to be negative or anything, it was just hard for me to get anything from them because I felt like I was too busy fighting to keep my sanity during most of them. Maybe I'm epileptic or something, I don't know, but the videos were almost like an inhumane form of punishment/torture to me. On a positive note, it was interesting to see the humble beginnings of 'video art' and how far technology has come in the past 40 years.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the article, I have a problem with the author saying science and art are similar simply because they both perform experiments. Science is objective, art is subjective. Actually, I'm not sure if the two could be more polar opposites. Science does not care about opinions at all, it concerns itself with finding absolute truths, facts, and scientific laws. Art is open to interpretation, there is no right or wrong. It's based completely on opinions. I would compare art experimentation more to toying with a recipe in the kitchen. You can add or subtract ingredients, bake/cook longer or shorter, etc.. In both cases, the final result will still be a matter of opinion based on an individual's own personal taste.
This is not meant to diminish or demean art in anyway. It is very important, maybe arguably more so than science. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I honestly fail to see any similarity between the two. Because of this, it was difficult for me to give any validity to what the author had to say. Again, this is just me stating my honest opinion. I really didn't know what else to say because these are the only things that I got from the videos and article.
When reading the article I never imagined I'd compare art and science in the same category. Personally I hate sciene I'm not good at it, but I also don't think he was saying it was the chemistry chemical part of science, but the exploration and curiousity science needs. Artists experiment all the time using the computer is just a new tool as was oil paints in the early renaissance. We are discovering new medium all the time. I also thought it was interesting that Woody Vasulka mentioned he was not only responsibile for the creativity but that he had to give credit to the machine as well. Side note but it was something that caught my eye. Using computers is a fairly new art form It is still something we are learning how to channel, but like science it is a frontier to be traveled.
ReplyDelete