Untitled (For The Sun) - This project presents a new way of viewing time. An electronic display, whose numbers vary from 0.000 to 99.999, counts the percentage of the day that has passed, recieving this information from a light sensor at the top of a building. The most interesting aspect of this piece is that, depending on the time of the year, "time" will run differently, because the work "displays 'sun time' and not 'clock time'."
Monday, May 4, 2009
Jim Campbell
Untitled (For The Sun) - This project presents a new way of viewing time. An electronic display, whose numbers vary from 0.000 to 99.999, counts the percentage of the day that has passed, recieving this information from a light sensor at the top of a building. The most interesting aspect of this piece is that, depending on the time of the year, "time" will run differently, because the work "displays 'sun time' and not 'clock time'."
John Haddock
Internet Sex Photos- This project doesn't have much of a description, just "P0rnography, with the people removed." It is really crazy how different these photos must seem than the original one's, now that the main focus has been removed. The photos inherit a completely new identity, composed of the scenery that once was in the background... way in the background.
Daniel Shiffman
Reactive- Also called "Super Happy Particles," Daniel Schiffman's piece explores the way a digital image can behave. A video camera records a viewer's movements and translates this movements into an interactive world of exploding particles. He says that he developed the program in C.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Art 21
Sally Mann- I like her use of "ambiguity in art." When a work is less straightforward, that presents an opportunity for the viewer (and the artist, too) to spend more time with the piece and to gain a stronger connection with it. She says that art sometimes doesn't need some profound meaning; I agree with this.
Mel Chin- "Art in the 21st century is the same as it's always been; it is never the same." This is a very interesting, and also very true statement. Art is always evolving, and if it wasn't then we would surely lose interest in it. I like his art of "restoration."
James Turrell- His works with light are fascinating to me. He says that we use light, but often don't think of just light. I would love to go into the light hallway that he constructed, it seems like it would be an amazing thing to see. His level of investment in his work is astounding, costing him 2 marriages and a relationship; not many people have that sort of dedication to anything, but it must be so rewarding for him. I feel as if becoming part of the art makes the experience stronger.
Gabriel Orozco- He says that he doesn't use a studio because a studio is isolated, like a bubble which separates you from reality. This is an interesting point, and I admire how dedicated he is to keeping with reality and becoming intimate with his work. I thought that all of his work that was shown in the video was incredible and I really like the perspective he has on his pieces.
Mel Chin- "Art in the 21st century is the same as it's always been; it is never the same." This is a very interesting, and also very true statement. Art is always evolving, and if it wasn't then we would surely lose interest in it. I like his art of "restoration."
James Turrell- His works with light are fascinating to me. He says that we use light, but often don't think of just light. I would love to go into the light hallway that he constructed, it seems like it would be an amazing thing to see. His level of investment in his work is astounding, costing him 2 marriages and a relationship; not many people have that sort of dedication to anything, but it must be so rewarding for him. I feel as if becoming part of the art makes the experience stronger.
Gabriel Orozco- He says that he doesn't use a studio because a studio is isolated, like a bubble which separates you from reality. This is an interesting point, and I admire how dedicated he is to keeping with reality and becoming intimate with his work. I thought that all of his work that was shown in the video was incredible and I really like the perspective he has on his pieces.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Daniel Rozin- Wooden mirrors
"This piece explores the line between digital and physical"The wooden mirrors that Daniel Rozin created seem impossible at first; a viewer stands in front of the piece and their image becomes reflected on a generally non-reflective surface. The pieces, not all made out of wood, use hundreds of tiny rotating squares that spin according to a computer program receiving information from a tiny camera. The tiny squares then function as pixels to create the image. I am not sure exactly how the squares change color; it could be with carefully engineered shadows, or perhaps each one has several sides with different shades. Either way, this is unlike anything I have ever seen before.
Jon Haddock- RGB Grid
Jon Haddock's work with the RGB grid is a really cool concept. Basically, he takes an image and takes each pixel and changes to it's literal RBG value, which can range from 0 to 255. What's really interesting is that with each value spelled out, an image still comes out, since the numbers themselves actually vary in their size. You can see the result above, the source being the cover of Disney's "The Air Pirates." It's a clever process that I think is definitely worth taking a look at.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Thoughts on Digital Pictionary
I liked how this project worked out. It was thought provoking and interactive and just fun in general. I really enjoyed it for several reasons, the first being that it was done pretty much all in photoshop. I'm am not even close to knowing the ins and outs of photoshop, but I do have a lot of experience using it and other imaging software for many projects, so this was cool to use it in another way. I've always enjoyed doing photo-manipulations, but they have almost always been more for fun rather than a specific purpose. Where my original intention usually gets warped and twisted to come out completely different in it's meaning, this project forced me to stick to a definite plan: express my word.
When I first got my word, I was a little overwhelmed. I wasn't sure how I was going to be able to communicate "bold" effectively to the class. I thought about it and started getting ideas. As I did, I became a little more comfortable and realized that I didn't need to make everybody absolutely "get it," but rather express it somehow. I think that I did this effectively. I wanted to put in a few literal examples of the word bold, but more so I wanted to communicate the feeling. I think I did both of these effectively.
I thought it was interesting that Adam interpreted my word as "danger" or something similar. I didn't really have that in mind at all when creating the images, but now that I think about it, I can see a possible "danger" theme running through all my images. What I like about that assertion is that even though the images could be interpreted as danger, the way that the message is communicated is through use of "boldness." The hand communicates danger or "stop" because it is bold. Mozart's expression looks scary or intense possibly because of the bold contrast in his face. The meteorite stands out and is glowing red. Obviously it is potentially dangerous, but what really accentuates it's level of intensity is how it stands out against the black-and-white (and mostly boring) town in the background. Also he said at the beginning that there wasn't much going, at least initially; I'm glad he mentioned this, because I knew from the start I didn't want my images to be too busy. If there were too many things going on at once, it would be more difficult to make a single image really stand out.
I was also happy when somebody commented that all of images fit together really well and worked as scenes. That was a big thing I wanted to go for. It wasn't absolutely crucial for the meaning of the work, but I did want my images to have at least a somewhat polished look to them. I feel proud of how all my images turned out.
As for everyone else's projects, I enjoyed picking apart and analyzing their work just about as much as I enjoyed working on mine. I made sure to look at each picture and maybe take a few stabs at what the word could be, but I didn't really delve too deep into analyzing any of the images except for mine. I wish I had looked more closely at each one before the discussion, because I feel like finding out things about an image for yourself is a lot more enjoyable than having them described to you.
My favorite sets were Mike Virga's and Jackson's. I think that they communicated their meaning very well without blatantly expressing their literal meanings. It might be that the nature of the word dictates somewhat how it could be presented- some words of the words are inherently literal while others are inherently abstract- but I think that they had a clear vision of what they wanted to do when they started instead of just making it up along the way. If they didn't know exactly what they wanted to put into the collages, then I think that they at least had a clear sense of their words and their meanings and connotations.
What I like about Mike's pictures, especially the first one, is the sense of a story. Even in the last one, where a lot of the images are unrelated in their content, everything was coherent; The images flow and fit together nicely.
Jackson's collages are great because, like Pat mentioned, they convey a clear sense of a message. Although the actual meaning may be hidden somewhat, there is without a doubt something being said. The fact that the viewer has to dig into the work is not a bad thing- in fact I think it ultimately makes te message more effective. If he had just put up the declaration of independence or something kind of obvious like that, then, sure, the viewer would "get" it more quickly, but probably wouldn't care about it a whole lot. With these images, the time spent analyzing and picking apart the work builds more of an emotional connection to the content, thus making the image, ultimately, more effective. I also really liked, in the third collage, how the figures holding hands and Che's face were used as a mask for the background image.
Looking at some of the other works, I prefer the ones that aren't so literal and obvious. A lot of people just took a bunch of images that define, or are definitions, of their word and kind of threw them together. Some of them, like inorganic, are kind of forced to do this, but I think some of the other one's could have done more to really convey a meaning. One of the sets that shows a lot of literal images, yet manages to use the word in it's overall composition and form is Michelle's. In the top one, all of the images are pretty much obtuse shapes, but I like how they mostly all interact with each other and form a bit of a bigger picture. I also thought it was really cool how in the second one, she used a different meaning of "obtuse," as in something that is unclear. I didn't know of the meaning for obtuse, but when I first saw the picture, one of my first thoughts was something along the lines of "most of this one is really unclear."
I am interested how Sam's collages get analyzed. I know her word, so I can see how all of her images work well, but to someone who doesn't know the word, a lot of different things could be being communicated.
I am also excited to see Koko's work get presented. I used to know her word, but I forgot it and can't figure it out. I read Allison's analysis and she takes a guess that the word might be "uniqueness," which I think is a good guess. They seem very expressive of something, like Jackson's collages, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Either way, I really like them.
Overall, this was a really fun project. I hope that we have more projects similar to this. Not similar really in what we actually make, but similar in the process. I really liked being able to get inside my classmate's heads and see how they interpret things similarly yet also in a unique way.
When I first got my word, I was a little overwhelmed. I wasn't sure how I was going to be able to communicate "bold" effectively to the class. I thought about it and started getting ideas. As I did, I became a little more comfortable and realized that I didn't need to make everybody absolutely "get it," but rather express it somehow. I think that I did this effectively. I wanted to put in a few literal examples of the word bold, but more so I wanted to communicate the feeling. I think I did both of these effectively.
I thought it was interesting that Adam interpreted my word as "danger" or something similar. I didn't really have that in mind at all when creating the images, but now that I think about it, I can see a possible "danger" theme running through all my images. What I like about that assertion is that even though the images could be interpreted as danger, the way that the message is communicated is through use of "boldness." The hand communicates danger or "stop" because it is bold. Mozart's expression looks scary or intense possibly because of the bold contrast in his face. The meteorite stands out and is glowing red. Obviously it is potentially dangerous, but what really accentuates it's level of intensity is how it stands out against the black-and-white (and mostly boring) town in the background. Also he said at the beginning that there wasn't much going, at least initially; I'm glad he mentioned this, because I knew from the start I didn't want my images to be too busy. If there were too many things going on at once, it would be more difficult to make a single image really stand out.
I was also happy when somebody commented that all of images fit together really well and worked as scenes. That was a big thing I wanted to go for. It wasn't absolutely crucial for the meaning of the work, but I did want my images to have at least a somewhat polished look to them. I feel proud of how all my images turned out.
As for everyone else's projects, I enjoyed picking apart and analyzing their work just about as much as I enjoyed working on mine. I made sure to look at each picture and maybe take a few stabs at what the word could be, but I didn't really delve too deep into analyzing any of the images except for mine. I wish I had looked more closely at each one before the discussion, because I feel like finding out things about an image for yourself is a lot more enjoyable than having them described to you.
My favorite sets were Mike Virga's and Jackson's. I think that they communicated their meaning very well without blatantly expressing their literal meanings. It might be that the nature of the word dictates somewhat how it could be presented- some words of the words are inherently literal while others are inherently abstract- but I think that they had a clear vision of what they wanted to do when they started instead of just making it up along the way. If they didn't know exactly what they wanted to put into the collages, then I think that they at least had a clear sense of their words and their meanings and connotations.
What I like about Mike's pictures, especially the first one, is the sense of a story. Even in the last one, where a lot of the images are unrelated in their content, everything was coherent; The images flow and fit together nicely.
Jackson's collages are great because, like Pat mentioned, they convey a clear sense of a message. Although the actual meaning may be hidden somewhat, there is without a doubt something being said. The fact that the viewer has to dig into the work is not a bad thing- in fact I think it ultimately makes te message more effective. If he had just put up the declaration of independence or something kind of obvious like that, then, sure, the viewer would "get" it more quickly, but probably wouldn't care about it a whole lot. With these images, the time spent analyzing and picking apart the work builds more of an emotional connection to the content, thus making the image, ultimately, more effective. I also really liked, in the third collage, how the figures holding hands and Che's face were used as a mask for the background image.
Looking at some of the other works, I prefer the ones that aren't so literal and obvious. A lot of people just took a bunch of images that define, or are definitions, of their word and kind of threw them together. Some of them, like inorganic, are kind of forced to do this, but I think some of the other one's could have done more to really convey a meaning. One of the sets that shows a lot of literal images, yet manages to use the word in it's overall composition and form is Michelle's. In the top one, all of the images are pretty much obtuse shapes, but I like how they mostly all interact with each other and form a bit of a bigger picture. I also thought it was really cool how in the second one, she used a different meaning of "obtuse," as in something that is unclear. I didn't know of the meaning for obtuse, but when I first saw the picture, one of my first thoughts was something along the lines of "most of this one is really unclear."
I am interested how Sam's collages get analyzed. I know her word, so I can see how all of her images work well, but to someone who doesn't know the word, a lot of different things could be being communicated.
I am also excited to see Koko's work get presented. I used to know her word, but I forgot it and can't figure it out. I read Allison's analysis and she takes a guess that the word might be "uniqueness," which I think is a good guess. They seem very expressive of something, like Jackson's collages, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Either way, I really like them.
Overall, this was a really fun project. I hope that we have more projects similar to this. Not similar really in what we actually make, but similar in the process. I really liked being able to get inside my classmate's heads and see how they interpret things similarly yet also in a unique way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)