There have been exactly two "series" of video games that I've actually enjoyed in my life. One: I really, really like Guitar Hero. Two: Pokemon. Pokemon is life (I actually did dress as Misty for Halloween this year). I've played Pokemon games from many different generations, both on Gameboy Advanced and Nintendo DS. With these two gaming consoles being handheld, stellar graphics aren't generally an attainable goal for them. However, I think that the all video game graphics should be considered art. A successful video game has graphics that may not be ultra realistic, but they do succeed in putting the player into the respective video game reality.
Something that's important to realize is that the graphics of a video game aren't everything. There are some video games that users have given terrible ratings too, but that also have beautiful graphic design. So while a video game artist is responsible for making the game visually appealing to players, he or she is not held accountable for the overall quality of the video game. Take Star Wars Battlefront - many of the reviews on Amazon are negative, claiming that there is not enough game play for the game to be good. However, a good majority of these critics also give acknowledgement to the fact that the graphic design for the game is beautifully done. So, it's still a work of art.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Homework 4
"Is Richard Prince a genius, or does Richard Prince suck?"
Richard Prince is a con man - "a man who cheats". The thing about con men, it that to get away with their scheming and their heists, they must be geniuses. But the difference between a con man and Albert Einstein is that Einstein used his genius for good (well, the Manhattan Project is a touchy subject...). In order to collect the photographs for his book Yes, Rasta, Cariou spent six years in Jamaica for the project. By January 2010, the total profit that Cariou had earned from his book was $8,000. Yes, that's a lot of money...but for six years? Not only that, but given that Prince earned $100,000 from appropriation of these images - the amount looks even more pale for comparison.
The way that I perceive this scenario is that Richard Prince let Cariou go out and do the dirty work - he was the one who spent endless time and money collecting the photographs - and then swooped in to exploit Cariou's labor for his own profit. In nature, this type of creature is called a parasite. If Prince had appropriated images for nonprofit purposes (like many students have done in this AVT class), it would be a different story. If my memory serves me correctly, "profit" is not one of the acceptable circumstances for fair use. Money is absolutely a matter here. Making a living as an artist is difficult, and Richard Prince essentially screwed over someone in the same boat. Given the immense profits that Prince was able to earn from his appropriation, he should have worked out some type of commission deal with Cariou.
In my own life, I've never been too concerned with issues of copyright. But that's because I haven't really created anything that's worth stealing. My field of interest (career-wise) is in writing, and that field is more difficult to "appropriate" in any way. Because of this, I predict that I'll have little trouble with copyright infringement in the future.
Richard Prince is a con man - "a man who cheats". The thing about con men, it that to get away with their scheming and their heists, they must be geniuses. But the difference between a con man and Albert Einstein is that Einstein used his genius for good (well, the Manhattan Project is a touchy subject...). In order to collect the photographs for his book Yes, Rasta, Cariou spent six years in Jamaica for the project. By January 2010, the total profit that Cariou had earned from his book was $8,000. Yes, that's a lot of money...but for six years? Not only that, but given that Prince earned $100,000 from appropriation of these images - the amount looks even more pale for comparison.
The way that I perceive this scenario is that Richard Prince let Cariou go out and do the dirty work - he was the one who spent endless time and money collecting the photographs - and then swooped in to exploit Cariou's labor for his own profit. In nature, this type of creature is called a parasite. If Prince had appropriated images for nonprofit purposes (like many students have done in this AVT class), it would be a different story. If my memory serves me correctly, "profit" is not one of the acceptable circumstances for fair use. Money is absolutely a matter here. Making a living as an artist is difficult, and Richard Prince essentially screwed over someone in the same boat. Given the immense profits that Prince was able to earn from his appropriation, he should have worked out some type of commission deal with Cariou.
In my own life, I've never been too concerned with issues of copyright. But that's because I haven't really created anything that's worth stealing. My field of interest (career-wise) is in writing, and that field is more difficult to "appropriate" in any way. Because of this, I predict that I'll have little trouble with copyright infringement in the future.
Homework 2
The numerous articles concerning GIFs discuss (and sometimes answer) several questions related to the file format. For me, the question that stands out as being the most interesting and heuristic is: Are GIFs art? I believe that the answer depends on three different factors - the intention of the creator, the use of the GIF, and the general interpretation of it by the audience. In class, we have discussed that responsibility in art falls not only on the artist to create, but also on the viewer to perceive; I believe that the matter of whether or not GIFs are art is also dependent on these two roles.
In case you aren't familiar with this weird man making a weird face (if you aren't, I HIGHLY recommend that you go and watch The Office), this is a fictional character named Jim Halpert, who is known for often making memorable faces, such as this one. GIFs that are appropriated from TV shows, such as this one, are not art. While this GIF may be used by someone to convey his or her facial expression through social media (or something), they're not giving the GIF any new meaning, and in making the GIF they did not produce express artistic intent. So to me, GIFs that have been appropriated with no perceivable change are not art. However, as I said before, I believe that overall it's a matter of intention and perception.
For example, take the GIF Super Mario Clouds, created by Cory Arcangel. According to the Artnet article, when Arcangel produced Super Mario Clouds, his work was significant to himself as a reminder of his days of hacking Nintendo games. If I were to see this GIF with no prior knowledge of it or its creator, I may have just thought to myself "huh, clouds. That looks nice." However, since I viewed this GIF accompanied by background information, I understand the intentions of the GIF and appreciate it as "art". Others may appropriate this GIF, and give it their own personal meaning - but the fact that it was created with an express, artistic intention and is further used in other artistic circumstances means that this GIF is a piece of art - at least, in my opinion.
Another example of a GIF, one not taken from the articles is shown below:
In case you aren't familiar with this weird man making a weird face (if you aren't, I HIGHLY recommend that you go and watch The Office), this is a fictional character named Jim Halpert, who is known for often making memorable faces, such as this one. GIFs that are appropriated from TV shows, such as this one, are not art. While this GIF may be used by someone to convey his or her facial expression through social media (or something), they're not giving the GIF any new meaning, and in making the GIF they did not produce express artistic intent. So to me, GIFs that have been appropriated with no perceivable change are not art. However, as I said before, I believe that overall it's a matter of intention and perception.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Homework 8
The thing that immediately strikes me, concerning zines, is the lack of commercialism to them. This course is actually the first place I've heard anything of them, but I'm quite intrigued. One of my pastimes is blogging. I write for my own movie blog, as well as a rather large site based in the UK called ScreenRelish. The ScreenRelish gig doesn't pay anything, which is fine with me; because it's something I enjoy. However, the site still has advertisements, even though these ads turn up minimal profits for the editor. The idea that there's a type of magazine free from advertising, a magazine in which each page is 100% dedicated to the project, is heartwarming. Also, I like the fact that zines are almost like collectible comic books for people who aren't infatuated with superheroes.
One of my blog pages is called "Cinematic Wisdom", and it's a small growing collection of quotations from films that have either inspired me or just made me think. I think it would be cool to make an altered version of this page for the class zine. I'm going to use quotations that have been inspirational for me, and also include an image of the speaker with each quote.
One of my blog pages is called "Cinematic Wisdom", and it's a small growing collection of quotations from films that have either inspired me or just made me think. I think it would be cool to make an altered version of this page for the class zine. I'm going to use quotations that have been inspirational for me, and also include an image of the speaker with each quote.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Homework 6
Sondra Perry developed the idea for her piece Young Women Sitting and Standing and Talking and Stuff from her interest in using digital imagery to show "slippages of identity". That's about all that I was able to find regarding this piece, background wise. The performance piece lasted for two hours, with three young women (each with a screen showing a pair of eyes looking upwards on top of their own) conversing idly. I think it's very fitting that the eyes are the element of the face that Perry has chosen; eyes show so much about people. Something I don't like about the performance piece is that the digital eyes on each woman's face give their countenances a look of exasperation and disinterest. I see this as Perry making a statement about women - that they don't care. However, I could also picture this piece being representative of how many people perceive young women, and not necessarily suggestive of how women actually are. It's certainly a creative piece, and very intriguing to observe and think about.
Ryoji Ikeda's Test Pattern
On the artist's web site, it's stated that the piece "aims to examine the relationship between critical points of device performance and the threshold of human perception." Flashing the barcodes of the digital elements in daily life is an interesting choice. To me, it seems that the artist is saying "today, you'll experience life in a different medium." The effect of the black and white colors and the rapid movement of the barcodes is quite disorienting. I think Ikeda is using this disorienting feeling make a point about the amount of digital data a person in this society deals with on a daily basis. Perhaps he's supplying a warning for the future - because sure, it looks really cool, but too much of that dizzying feeling leads to worse things. I also really like what Ikeda has done with the music; it somehow makes the speed feel even faster and more intense.
Ryoji Ikeda's Test Pattern
On the artist's web site, it's stated that the piece "aims to examine the relationship between critical points of device performance and the threshold of human perception." Flashing the barcodes of the digital elements in daily life is an interesting choice. To me, it seems that the artist is saying "today, you'll experience life in a different medium." The effect of the black and white colors and the rapid movement of the barcodes is quite disorienting. I think Ikeda is using this disorienting feeling make a point about the amount of digital data a person in this society deals with on a daily basis. Perhaps he's supplying a warning for the future - because sure, it looks really cool, but too much of that dizzying feeling leads to worse things. I also really like what Ikeda has done with the music; it somehow makes the speed feel even faster and more intense.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Homework 5
I like the way that the courts have defined appropriation art, according to Barbara Pollack in her article for ARTNews: "[transforming] the original material as a way of commenting on, satirizing, or criticizing the source." So, taking this definition into consideration I'd define an appropriation artist as one who takes another's original work and puts their own personal touch on it with the intention of creating a new message. I really don't feel that the label "appropriation artist" is an umbrella term over all contemporary artists. There must be an abundance of people who are out there creating their own messages out of thin air - photographers, painters, and the like.
I believe that it was less heard of in the 16th century to appropriate images. The tools to do so accurately (scanners, cameras, etc.) were just not yet invented. In this age, almost everyone either has a computer or has access to a computer. Not everyone has a fancy camera or painting materials - so for many people, appropriation is the most accessible way to create art. It's impossible to exclude technology when talking about this. Artists today are different than 16th century appropriation artists, simply because the way they can appropriate images or content has changed. The technological resources that have become available for appropriation artists has changed the process of how appropriation art comes into being, as well as increased the sheer number of appropriation artists there are.
To the left is an example of contemporary appropriation art, taken from Phaidon, this image was created by modern artist Marcel Duchamp. As you can see, all that he has done is given the lovely Mona Lisa a mustache and a goatee. Duchamp drew the facial hair on a post card, and this work of art has been hailed as "a landmark of postmodernism". This gets under my skin a little, as I've drawn my fair share of mustaches on pictures, and I've gotten no recognition! This is certainly the most blatant form of appropriation I've seen.
"High art" - it seems to be a takeaway from the term "high culture", which refers to the upper class of a culture. High art includes paintings, the subjects of which are generally of the upper class. As a general definition, high art is art that is appreciated by those with a "refined" taste (although that's still pretty ambiguous if you ask me). According to The Rapidian, low art is art that is easily comprehended and can be appreciated by the masses. It seems to me that appropriation would change either high or low art into low art. Appropriation is a relatively recent and growing form of art, and it seems to appeal to the masses rather than to a select audience with a (decidedly) dignified taste.
In regards to Lichtenstein: I disagree, one hundred percent. She's getting too philosophical about things. Do documentaries take events and place a specific message on them? Yes, but nobody has a copyright on events that happen in life.
The artist from the ARTNews article I have chosen is Sara VanDerBeek. I'll admit, my initial interest in her was due to her extremely cool last name, but she's actually done some admirable work. I have a lot of respect for artists in photography. In my opinion, it's a very difficult medium. Some of her work is appropriation in the simplest form: she photographs sculptures. The picture below is an example of her work. It's from the Museum of Contemporary Art in Cleveland, and the reason I think it works is because it essentially appropriates two different pieces of art and forces the viewer to examine them in the same frame. I think it's very interesting that this is how she chooses to express herself.
I believe that it was less heard of in the 16th century to appropriate images. The tools to do so accurately (scanners, cameras, etc.) were just not yet invented. In this age, almost everyone either has a computer or has access to a computer. Not everyone has a fancy camera or painting materials - so for many people, appropriation is the most accessible way to create art. It's impossible to exclude technology when talking about this. Artists today are different than 16th century appropriation artists, simply because the way they can appropriate images or content has changed. The technological resources that have become available for appropriation artists has changed the process of how appropriation art comes into being, as well as increased the sheer number of appropriation artists there are.
 |
| Titled "L.H.O.O.Q." A work by Marcel Duchamp |
To the left is an example of contemporary appropriation art, taken from Phaidon, this image was created by modern artist Marcel Duchamp. As you can see, all that he has done is given the lovely Mona Lisa a mustache and a goatee. Duchamp drew the facial hair on a post card, and this work of art has been hailed as "a landmark of postmodernism". This gets under my skin a little, as I've drawn my fair share of mustaches on pictures, and I've gotten no recognition! This is certainly the most blatant form of appropriation I've seen.
"High art" - it seems to be a takeaway from the term "high culture", which refers to the upper class of a culture. High art includes paintings, the subjects of which are generally of the upper class. As a general definition, high art is art that is appreciated by those with a "refined" taste (although that's still pretty ambiguous if you ask me). According to The Rapidian, low art is art that is easily comprehended and can be appreciated by the masses. It seems to me that appropriation would change either high or low art into low art. Appropriation is a relatively recent and growing form of art, and it seems to appeal to the masses rather than to a select audience with a (decidedly) dignified taste.
In regards to Lichtenstein: I disagree, one hundred percent. She's getting too philosophical about things. Do documentaries take events and place a specific message on them? Yes, but nobody has a copyright on events that happen in life.
The artist from the ARTNews article I have chosen is Sara VanDerBeek. I'll admit, my initial interest in her was due to her extremely cool last name, but she's actually done some admirable work. I have a lot of respect for artists in photography. In my opinion, it's a very difficult medium. Some of her work is appropriation in the simplest form: she photographs sculptures. The picture below is an example of her work. It's from the Museum of Contemporary Art in Cleveland, and the reason I think it works is because it essentially appropriates two different pieces of art and forces the viewer to examine them in the same frame. I think it's very interesting that this is how she chooses to express herself.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Homework 3
New Favorite Hobby? Spotting Emoji's In Real Life.
I've been finding myself astounded at the impact of emojis has had on life for young Americans. And now, this article from The Creator's Project has me feeling even more bewildered about the concept of emojis. The article is about Daniel McKee, a London filmmaker who's put together a film entitled #emojisintheworld which is a collection of 817 different emojis represented in the real world. Below are some of the examples (credited to the site).
I've been finding myself astounded at the impact of emojis has had on life for young Americans. And now, this article from The Creator's Project has me feeling even more bewildered about the concept of emojis. The article is about Daniel McKee, a London filmmaker who's put together a film entitled #emojisintheworld which is a collection of 817 different emojis represented in the real world. Below are some of the examples (credited to the site).
I remember that in high school, on occasion (when I was being exceptionally immature) I would carry on entire conversations exclusively using emojis. And now, I'm just awestruck that they're almost being used as an art form. I guess it does make sense, given that emojis are meant to be little depictions of feelings and facial expressions, but still! I'm very interested in seeing where this trend of #emojisinthewild will be taken.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Homework 1
I’m in strong disagreement with Dr. Panera, who seems to be under the impression that young people will only view art through a screen. The way that I see these screens is that they are a helpful enhancement that allows art to become available to a larger audience. I certainly can’t afford to go the L’Ouvre and see the Mona Lisa, but thanks to my screen I can still appreciate its existence and see what it looks like. I also can’t afford to go to any U2 concerts, but thanks to my screen I can get a little taste of the experience. Just because I have the option of viewing these things through a screen doesn’t mean that I would pass up the opportunity to attend these places or events. In fact, I think I speak for a lot of people my age when I say that I only use a screen for these things because I can’t experience or see the real thing. So yes, humans do often view live things through a screen – but mainly as a substitute for the actual event.
I’m quite interested by the question as to whether or not art has a responsibility to be entertaining. My question is, should art always seek to be a source of entertainment? There are some forms of art that are quite certainly meant to be entertainment: cinema, music, and books are a few examples. But my feelings about paintings, photos, and pictures in general have always been that they’re created to inspire or to show another viewpoint on something. If an artist wants his or her art to be a source of entertainment, then I absolutely think the art has a responsibility to be entertaining. However, if an artist creates his or her piece for any other purpose, it most certainly has no accountability for being “fun”.
My general feelings towards Panera’s article is that there may be some interesting content within, but it’s buried. The language that Panera uses feels inflated, and his assertions just scratch the surface without trying to go in depth; there’s simply no commentary. I would have enjoyed the article much more had Panera revised it to include more explanation and less pretentious language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)