Margaret Lovejoy, Transaesthetics
Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: the Basics: Challenging the Literal
Claire Bishop, Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics
Margaret Lovejoy, Transaesthetics
With every new advancement in technology- change is scary, new things are scary... or should I say exciting.
It's new. It's shiny. I want it.
Lovejoy's states:It's new. It's shiny. I want it.
“because the tools are ever more
complex, no longer innocent, but rather implicated with larger issues, their
use is associated also with their inherent possibilities of good or evil, as in
the use of all technology.”
Now
if we were talking about tools as in art making, take Microsoft Paint
vs Adobe Photoshop. You could say Photoshop is no longer "innocent". It
has extended out from the simple brush tool you get in MSpaint.
Photopshop is more complex. With programs being more complex, it does
not necessarily mean it is better. I choose TextEdit over MicrosoftWord
any day simply because it is cleaner, smaller, and loads faster. With
more complicated programs, comes more issues. You have to always be on
or ahead of the learning curve.
But with newer advancements, comes greater possibilities. Artists today can learn Max/Msp/Jitter to expand their possibilities. (example) You could open this program and think to yourself that you're going to break it and the entirety of the computer. But the outcome is far worth it.
The levels of trust in technology vary from :
The levels of trust in technology vary from :
"they so deeply distrust
technology and the losses it will bring in the future that they do not often
want to look at an art that uses it as a means of representation”
to
“faith in technology (or more accurately
in the future as promised by technology)”
Having faith in the future the product will bring, rather than in the actual product. Are our lives more organized with the synced calendars between our phone and email. If this product glitches, closes, or malfunctions would we still faith because we never had faith in the technology, but the future and convenience it brought us? No, we throw it across the room or button mash against its surface. Just like if we messed up writing a word on a piece of paper and scratched it out till the paper gave away.
I am not only interested in technology and the development of it, but I work with it in my art. Old and new generations of video games inform my work. I keep the "fine art" in my work, like Lovejoy states, but try to balance that quality with this newish idea of alternate realities and pixelated graphics. I am interested in drawing and painting aesthetic and the immediacy of pen on paper. The sketchbook quality of images, and the reveal of personalities in them. I think of the places, the environments, the countries, the homes, the stays I have been. The games I've played on the airlines, the games I've played in hotel rooms, the games I've played in the car. The passing of time in an environment in which I am stationary. These all inform me into creating these collections of dysfunctional maps, grids, and events.
As artists we are always re-contextualizing things. Whether from past artists ideas in our work or technology changing the mediums in which we work in. I want to think pen and paper won't die, but when I see Origo, for example, I see technology complimenting fine art like drawing. When I see things like 3D animation taking over and 2D animation, it's kind of unsettling that traditional drawing has been taking out movies. That couldn't happen to fine arts too, could it?
I accept it, work with it, choose to take and pull from, or simply just ignore it and open up my sketchbook... or laptop.
notes:
Having faith in the future the product will bring, rather than in the actual product. Are our lives more organized with the synced calendars between our phone and email. If this product glitches, closes, or malfunctions would we still faith because we never had faith in the technology, but the future and convenience it brought us? No, we throw it across the room or button mash against its surface. Just like if we messed up writing a word on a piece of paper and scratched it out till the paper gave away.
I am not only interested in technology and the development of it, but I work with it in my art. Old and new generations of video games inform my work. I keep the "fine art" in my work, like Lovejoy states, but try to balance that quality with this newish idea of alternate realities and pixelated graphics. I am interested in drawing and painting aesthetic and the immediacy of pen on paper. The sketchbook quality of images, and the reveal of personalities in them. I think of the places, the environments, the countries, the homes, the stays I have been. The games I've played on the airlines, the games I've played in hotel rooms, the games I've played in the car. The passing of time in an environment in which I am stationary. These all inform me into creating these collections of dysfunctional maps, grids, and events.
As artists we are always re-contextualizing things. Whether from past artists ideas in our work or technology changing the mediums in which we work in. I want to think pen and paper won't die, but when I see Origo, for example, I see technology complimenting fine art like drawing. When I see things like 3D animation taking over and 2D animation, it's kind of unsettling that traditional drawing has been taking out movies. That couldn't happen to fine arts too, could it?
I accept it, work with it, choose to take and pull from, or simply just ignore it and open up my sketchbook... or laptop.
notes:
Example: Theater before film
“faith in technology (or more accurately
in the future as promised by technology)”
“All traditional media have been re-contextualized as a result of dramatic developments in electronic technology.
Can all the media of the past find their place within the same essential
individual relationship to image making?”
… “others seek to use the computer as a medium to create an alternative reality which could be achieved in no other way”
Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: the Basics: Challenging the Literal
Some things that I thought that were really interesting in this article were that Chandler states that "form and content are inseparable". Can form just exist by itself? If I ask an interior designer about the couch he/she put in their new room, would they say it's just a couch or a couch of some time period that infers this mood with this color. Can a painting just be about paint? I think the artist can try to separate the two, but the viewer has the ultimate say... as they will be looking at the piece without the artist.
The whole entire article was kind of a mind-fuck.
"Reality is framed within systems of analogy"
It reminded me of critique, metaphors are used a lot in critique. Is it possible to just describe...or STATE the way something is. My favorite parts in this article were the tables about the four master tropes... metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony.
Claire Bishop, Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics
"Does this work permit me to enter into a dialogue?" states Bourriaud
"the structure is the subject matter"
"a constantly changing portrait of the heterogeneity of everyday life" Gillick
Audience.
… “others seek to use the computer as a medium to create an alternative reality which could be achieved in no other way”
Daniel Chandler, Semiotics: the Basics: Challenging the Literal
Some things that I thought that were really interesting in this article were that Chandler states that "form and content are inseparable". Can form just exist by itself? If I ask an interior designer about the couch he/she put in their new room, would they say it's just a couch or a couch of some time period that infers this mood with this color. Can a painting just be about paint? I think the artist can try to separate the two, but the viewer has the ultimate say... as they will be looking at the piece without the artist.
The whole entire article was kind of a mind-fuck.
"Reality is framed within systems of analogy"
It reminded me of critique, metaphors are used a lot in critique. Is it possible to just describe...or STATE the way something is. My favorite parts in this article were the tables about the four master tropes... metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony.
Claire Bishop, Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics
"Does this work permit me to enter into a dialogue?" states Bourriaud
"the structure is the subject matter"
"a constantly changing portrait of the heterogeneity of everyday life" Gillick
Audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment