Week 9 and 10

In this blog I'm going to discuss week 9 and 10. As you will read, Week 9 was about VJ-ing and we had a 3^rd year speaker in so it wouldn't be that long, and Week 10, the final week, Paul just showed us John Maeda's 10 laws of simplicity and then let us go early because it was the last week. Hence forth this is just going to be a blog about these two weeks. Starting with week 9; this week in the lecture was focused on explaining about the visual arts mainly the art of VJ-ing (Video Jockey), and how it is growing. I already knew what VJ-ing was and had done a bit before using Quartz composer and Ableton live. It was basic, all I did was sync the music with the image via a midi keyboard, and using the mod wheel and keys as triggers, made it go crazy, and did some visual effects in Quartz. The lecture was mainly just about explaining how big it was getting and Paul showed us a few artists’ work. What he mainly was trying to get across, was how going to see a DJ now is just as much about the live visuals as the music because they create more of show and are more interesting than watching a guy mix for 2/3 hours. Paul also had a speaker for us, a 3^rd year student who showed us his business plan and how the art of VJ inspired and help him create this and make some money. I personally was scared during the whole thing because he was a creative technology student, as am I and I was like “Oh crap I have to do something like this in 3^rd year, this guy is amazing”. I was also impressed by his business, but what stuck with me the most was how he stressed how important programming was to get to the stage he was at. This really made me think as I am useless at it but really need to do it so it inspired me to start looking into programming a lot more. I think that was pretty much that week summed up, I know it's not exactly a great blog about that week however I have learnt from it and have taken away things such as where I could go and what I need to do to achieve it. On to Week 10 now and also the last week of writing blogs, this week was about John Meadea's 10 laws of simplicity. Paul showed and explained these laws to us and was trying to explain that if we stick to these laws when creating or working on something then it will help it to be successful. All depending of course, on how good the piece is as well. That was pretty much it and I think going into each law and explaining it is just going to be a boring read for you; however I’ve learnt from it, bringing me to the end of week 10 but also leading me to my next topic.

Call this a summary if you wish, overall throughout this module I think I have learnt a lot and taken away a lot of thoughts and new discoveries. I have learnt a lot through doing these blogs, mainly the importance of how the visual arts can actually be useful to me and my path choice. Not only that, but Paul has kind of drilled into us to be daring, different and provocative in our work to make people think what the heck is this. I like to think that you can see how my understanding and my knowledge of the topics has grown. I know that if I want to be successful in what I do I have to create some off the wall, out there stuff and blend different things together, like VJ-ing for example - the audio and visual world combined. I think if anything this module and Paul has made me think a lot about how to go about things and give me some ideas of things I could do in the near future with a better understanding of the subjects.

Week 8

This week in the lecture we talked about 4D space and Internet art. Internet art started in the 1990's and has been growing ever since. I found this concept quite interesting. Paul told us about the festival they had had in the university, and how that when they showed it on the web, the numbers dropped in the live lectures. This brought up the interesting discussion of Micro, Macro and personal space on the web. He brought up the point that students would rather watch it on the web than go to the lecture because of the simple fact in the lecture it is rude to talk and you can't really do it. This is true even in lectures that I have, you find that it is kind of an unwritten rule that you can’t speak. I think that watching it would benefit you more as you can share thoughts and debate with others around you, instead of sitting for 2 hours and slowly drifting off without learning much. In fact, if you watch it online, you will listen more. The myth of transparency is a rather scary yet truthful fact that we don't actually see the computer as it is, we just see this world of wide web that we explore daily. In fact we see it as part of our lives now, it's something we feel the need to do every day for even an hour, even more so now that technology has grown into the creation of mobile systems such as smart phones. As Paul said it's not a phone now it's a tiny computer with a phone in it and we can access and do pretty much the same things on our phones, as we can on desktops and laptops. Another interesting thing Paul brought up is the interface, such as new interface technology, for example the Apple TV that has been announced. It is expected to use voice recognition, so you won’t even need a remote. This is also happening with the Xbox Kinnect, that people are hacking into it and creating new interface technology whether it may be to improve the existing system or as a creative way to produce art of some sort. I think that technology movement like this is great and soon it will be in like movie's where you say a command like “computer create a new file called art” and it will do it all for you and respond with more options. It is a while off before this may be possible but at least we’re on the right path for this to be developed, anyway back to internet art.

Paul showed us an artist called Stelarc who is probably one of the craziest artists that I have seen. The fact that he got a 3^rd ear implanted into his arm so he could listen to his iPod is hard to believe. I find the question behind it even more strange, “What is our relationship with technology?” So pretty much to me from what Paul said and what I've looked at, this piece of art (if you wish to call it that), sums up our relationship with technology in that today, technology is a 3^rd part of us. I do believe this is 100% true and I do see the meaning behind his ear, but I just don't think it's that good. Yes, it is strange, out there and provocative, and I think he got a huge lump sum of money to do this. Yes the meaning and the ear is smart, but I believe it's a waste of money and just pointless. Saying that, I believe his other work is very impressive and captures internet art in a very creative and interesting manner. Stelarc had connected all these wires to each nerve in his body and they were then controlled by code. People could go onto a site, type these codes in and the commands would then run through the computer and into him, making him move uncontrollably. I found this crazy but I could understand the reason this time that computers will soon run our lives, which he demonstrated by letting people on the web control him. I think this is a good example of internet art, something that is being created in a personal space by someone at home and is still personal to others that are involved as well, yet it's not it's being broadcast all over the web.

The final thing I want to talk about is the exercise that we were made to do with secrets. Paul wanted us to create a piece of internet art in class, by writing a secret on a post it note then sticking them on the board. He would then take a picture of this and stick it up on the web; I had seen this sort of thing before in a music video for The All American Rejects- Dirty Little Secret. They got fans to write down on a bit of card a dirty secret of theirs and they based the video around that. When Paul said this you could tell everyone in the class was like “oh crap, what am I going to write”, “I don't have any secret's”, “ I don't know what to write”, when really we all did know deep down. We were either scared or not taking it seriously, although some did. I personally didn't, mainly because I was scared to be truthful in case one of the people either side of me seen it and then my class would know. This is again being provocative by making people be “out there” or not, I choose not to, which I kind of regret now. This piece that we created is a good example of micro and macro, in that it has some personal and serious things included but no matter what once it was uploaded it became impersonal and straight away it was being judged. We humans are judgmental people whether we want to admit it or not. Deep down it's a natural reaction and we tend to be more judgmental on the web. However if someone writes something personal, and it is uploaded to their personal space, if someone comments on it or passes it on, and it becomes available to everyone and anyone, is it still personal? Someone may judge you for sending them something and think “What is this weirdo sending me?” So anything we view and then send leaves the personal space. Overall I think internet art is an interesting thing but only when used in a creative way like Stelarc's dance piece, finally I would like to create one by saying that I wasn't truthful in the lecture so here is my real one now. “My biggest fear in life is failing and not being able to live a life that I know my abilities can allow me to”

Week 7

This week was all about moving image, how moving image affects us and what is so special about it. The first video that Paul showed us was of a past pupil who had based his film around his love for his drum kit. During the piece, about half way though, it started to get repetitive, but I still enjoyed the way he had shot it and the blue lighting effect he had running through out it. I don't think anyone apart from the guy who made it will understand the true meaning behind it, but to me, the only thing I really liked was the way it was shot and the effects he had used. I guess I did suffer from the visceral effect of the piece but the story behind it didn't really bother or interest me at all, it was more of a personal thing for him and I don't think the people who commented on it really appreciated it either. We were then shown this guy called Christian Muarry, who was the first to invent scratching. I never knew who invented it but I was then even more amazed at how well he was doing and how it has grown into what it has become today. He was creating this crazy sound art by scratching the records and taking sounds other people didn't want and gluing them together to scratch and play about with them. Which I think was pretty creative and smart for back then. He also must be the first sound artist or DJ to use scratching and sampling together, which was years ahead of his time. The piece I found most interesting was the guitar being dragged behind the van and the point he was trying to make with it. I think this proves that not all of America has overcome its racial divide. The fact that people were outraged that he destroyed a classic piece of American manufacturing is ridiculous, yet saying that, he did this in a more modern time as well. Most Americans have moved away from segregation but if he had been from a strong white southern state, this may have helped sparked the uproar. To me, it is a very smart piece of art and I didn't catch on to the meaning behind it until Paul told us, and something that Christian said has stuck with me the past week. I don't remember it word for word but I think It was along the lines of this “Make the visual like a puzzle”. He did this extremely well because people either thought he was making a statement against modern music, just smashing up a guitar or some weird crazy thing that they had no clue about. And generally, no one understood it or was able to guess the true meaning behind the piece. I'm guessing he thought most of America, never mind who else would see it would be able to see the meaning.

One of the last video's Paul showed us was probably the most interesting and debated video of the day. Bill Vilola- The Passing. This piece is meant to be shown on three screens but there was no chance of that happening so we were shown an edited version which was blended into one and shown on one screen which lost a fair bit of its effect, but the bits he did show were still pretty effective. The idea of the piece was him traveling across America to be beside his mother as she was dying and on this journey you see the birth of his child and his life in between, oh and a drowning man. We only got to see short clips of it, but in summary, I think it is pretty much about the way of life which is we are born, grow up, deal with life's crap, try and enjoy life at the same time and then die. I think that's the main point that I learned from it, among other things. Such as the way he filmed it and how it had such an impact, the biggest being that he filmed the death of his own mother, which shocked people in the lecture but didn't really bother me. It happens in movies and TV shows all the time, you see people die, yet because this is real, it is disgusting. But is it really? I think he was showing us the facts of life that we don't really want to face or think about, he just happened to do it in an interesting and creative way. I would like to see the full thing in the proper conditions in a gallery to learn more from this piece. I would touch on Willy Doherty but I don't think we covered enough on him for me to comment however I do plan to look at videos of his as the clip of the guy in the middle of the room did look interesting.

Week 6

This week was about sound theory and how sound can affect us in many ways. The thing that stood out for me in this lecture was when Paul showed us John Cage-4'33. I have seen this before and of course I did turn off because I got bored and thought it was crap. Saying that, when it was played in the lecture it made me think more and understand the meaning behind it. I think I understood it more because I was around other people and you could kind of feel the people in the room who hadn't seen it thinking “What is this crap?” You could feel a sense of outrage that people would go and pay to sit through this when nothing is being played. John Cage would argue that something was being played because silence is still sound. But is it really? I believe he is right, I do think silence still counts as sound or music. You can take examples from today's music, silence is used a lot, for example in dance music, it is used before the music drops and kicks in and even in live music bands use it during shows. They would build and build and have a period of silence before they continue to play again and this clearly has an effect on the crowd as it builds up their expectations. This is the same kind of thing John Cage wanted to happen, for people’s expectations to be built up and for them to come to his showing and think this is going to be amazing, and then be totally outraged by what was played. It’s the shock factor that either makes people go wow, or say it is awful.

I think what Paul said is true; you do have to shock and be provocative to get people's attention nowadays. Look at most bands today, most of them are the same and hardly any stand out or make people think twice about them. It's people’s reactions that make bands big e.g. Sex Pistols music outraged most people, yet teenagers loved it and when their album started to get banned and songs got banned from being aired on TV and radio this made people want to go see and hear them even more, which in the long run made them more successful. They are now known as one of best bands of all time and they helped changed music because of two reasons. 1. They were actually good and people could relate to their music 2. It was the bad press and the outrage towards them which made people turn their heads and listen to them to see what all the fuss was about. For them this was good because it means their music was having an effect and that’s what any artist, in any field needs to do, create something that will turn people’s heads, even if it is in a good or bad way as long as they are looking at what you are doing. Because all the great artist’s whether it be music or art have become well known and great because of this provocative creativity.

Week5

This week Paul was talking about simulacra and how we live our lives through a virtual world and how our own real life has sort of become secondary to the virtual world that we live in. He also talked about the non-virtual simulacra; these lifestyles that are happening daily all over the place and Paul used women as an example. How women look at magazines and they see celebrities’ lifestyles and fashion choices and try to copy and be like them, attempting to live in a fantasy role play in a kind of a way. They think if they do this or look like this then they could have this that or the other, which seems really stupid. If you asked a group of people they would probably agree, but many continue to believe in the fantasy. It’s like it is kind of programmed into our minds that we can cross over in this simulacramatic (if that even is a word) lifestyle and think it's normal. Paul then went into more areas that are based around the simulacra such as public and private e.g. Facebook. When we use Facebook, we think that what we upload is private, but it's not because it is on a public area and everyone you have on your friend's list can see. Not only that, but depending on your privacy setting's, total strangers can go onto to Facebook and see your profile and what you have been up to. It is true what Paul said, he could probably name the things that we would go and do later and they would probably end up on Facebook. For example, the morning after a night out, there is drunken photos of us with friends doing all sorts, things we wouldn't show any of our parents, but we would show the rest of Facebook; and anyway, our parents could probably easily go and see for themselves.

I myself have experienced this before with my dad seeing one of my photos on Facebook and then him having a go at me for it. This led me to changing my privacy settings, but saying that we still think that the pictures of us on drunken nights out are fine to put up because “only my friends can see it”. This brings me back to a point Paul made last week, about how Facebook sells our info on to other companies. We assume it's private and safe but god knows who is viewing or is able to. It's like how he mentioned CCTV and crime. Today, CCTV cameras are everywhere and we are being watched 24/7 in this sort of real life big brother simulacra, yet crime hasn't decreased that much. To be honest I think it just makes it more thrilling for the criminal doing the crime as it gives it more of that movie like feel if you get me. That sense that they know they are being watched but they will be able to get away with it because by the time it is picked up on camera and reported they will be gone. Another thing Paul talked about was that how we go about daily things such as reading papers and magazines has changed as well, instead of going to the shop and buying it you can just go on your computer, mac, iPad etc. and just download it at a click of a button. Personally when this was being discussed I thought that yeah it is pointless however when he mentioned about kids and how they can interact with them, I did think that was a new way forward. It would be far more exciting for a kid to read and be able to touch and move things rather than just a book sitting in front of them. Yes if it is a story you may not be able to move things about but this technology could allow you to if something was created, and this would make reading more interactive, especially for kids and it would be a great way to learn, never mind the massive market the companies would have. In summary we are technology, we live with it, work with it, use it, create and build it and we do all this in real life but at the same time still living in virtual simulacra.

Week 4

What I learnt from today’s lecture was how technology has grown so fast, yet the growth of it could possibly be dangerous. From what was discussed in the lecture it is actually hard to believe that we have came from seeing crazy futuristic devices that were shown in Thunderbirds, to now being able to do them with our phones. It is true that our generation don't really understand and don’t appreciate how it has grown, but it does make you think how fast technology has grown within the last 40 years and how it has changed people’s lives. Back then to talk to someone you actually had to speak to them face to face but now we can text, email, chat online, video call and fax them which shows you the amount of available choices we have now and how much progress has been made over the past 40 years. It is crazy to think what technology will be like when I'm older, like if the new I-phone 5 really does have a laser keyboard and hologram technology? What will the next 5 to 10 years bring? Holograms like in Star Wars? Will we be able to have video chat like in Star Wars when Obi Wan talks to the Jedi council? Technology is moving faster than we think. Even now something is happening or being developed or an idea is brewing. It is the speed at which it is growing at that is making past technology (that may only be a few years old and still useful), undated and incompatible with the new and faster developments being released. It's kind of like we’re always learning or catching up with both software and hardware technology.

Another issue that was brought up in the lecture was are the internet and social networks dangerous? and is it dangerous for us to be uploading so much information. Sometimes I do think people upload a bit too much, but then again, they have the power to take it down and edit what people can see. Saying that, Paul did bring up the issue of companies looking at your profile or anything else you have up on the web. Now unless that content has privacy settings, is this not a case of invasion of privacy? We have signed up to Facebook which is meant to be free, yet our information is being sold for profit. The development of technology makes it easier for our data to be found and sold. For example any I- phone or smart phone that synchronises with your address book and Facebook means that companies which are able to retrieve this information are also able to get all your friends in your address book if their phone is synced too. Is this an invasion of privacy? Is the speed of technology helping this invasion or is it stopping it? Will be interesting to hear what else has to be said about this in the next lecture and hopefully I can come up with better theories to improve these comments.

Week 3

This week was about contemporary art and how art is presented. It even brought up a debate about what is art? To me, art can be an image or sound, created or natural. Saying that, I also have to believe it is good to be called art for example in the lecture, Paul showed us a piece of work by Gem Finer. I think it was good and very creative and a nice idea that represents nature. However the fact he got 75k to create it, and I'm guessing not much money will be generated out of it unless it's a national park (which even if it is it will take a while to make a profit on). Going back to the money point, I think 75k for that is ridiculous. We are in a recession and the money could clearly be spent on much better things than that. I still think it's a good piece but for 75k I think that’s a bit of a joke. I think the piece Paul showed us by R..Mutt is a lot better, as basic as it may be, and it will probably be worth 75k in years to come. I think the other Gem Finer piece Paul showed us of the lough was actually a lot better. People would get more out of because it is part of local history and although local people may have liked, disliked or even hated it, they did seem appreciate the piece Paul and Gem created. The idea of contemporary art is kind of a sketchy and confusing area to me, for example, someone’s life in photos could be presented as contemporary art. Then does that not mean that everyone’s life in general could be contemporary art if present in the right interesting manner?

This brings me to my last points “how is art presented?” and “what is art?” Well in my opinion the answers to these questions are down to our own opinions. Art can be presented in many ways and yes, if a work is creative, most people will agree that it is art, but that doesn't mean people will like it. It is down to personal opinion and preferences, for example in class some people liked Gem Finer's piece and others didn't. The majority of people thought it was creative but they just didn't class it as art and that’s just down to what they like and dislike. I think art is similar to taste in music either you like it, or you don't, and there is not right or wrong choice.

“In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.”
Ernst Fischer