Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Yes Men Hack The World
The Yes Men exist to expose the need, and display the effects of change, with regards to public morality. Much in the same way a hacker would abstract information from its host, The Yes Men abstract information from large corporations with moral inconsistencies. McKenzie Wark explains, in his Hacker Manifesto, that “Patents and copyrights all end up in the hands, not of their creators, but of the vectoralist class that owns the means of realising the value of these abstractions.” The value of these copyrights, for the vectoralist Yes Men, is their ability to raise awareness of just how fucked up big corporations can be. While not in the film we watched Tuesday, this idea was best exemplified when the Yes Men took on DOW regarding the Bhopal India Disaster.
The Yes Men define their work not as identity theft, but rather identity correction: “Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Our targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else.” By creating a website similar to DOW’s, The Yes Men were extended an invitation to speak about the Bhopal Chemical spill on its 20th anniversary. This catastrophe killed thousands and injured hundreds of thousand. DOW took little to no responsibility for this offense that had been perpetrated by a company they absorbed (Union Carbide). By appearing on BBC News, posing as a DOW representative, The Yes Men successfully revived focus and care on an issue that had been very much forgotten. The identity correction involved telling the world what DOW should have been saying, promising relief and reparations to the citizens of Bhopal. When DOW came forth, reassuring their stockholders that no relief would be sent to Bhopal, they exposed themselves for the heartless moneygrubbers that they are.
This can very clearly be seen as a form of hacking, according to Wark’s manifesto. “The formation of the hacker class as a class comes at just this moment when freedom from necessity and from class domination appears on the horizon as a possibility.” DOW, as a financial super power, had been dominating the lower class (citizens of Bhopal and the general public) by their lack of response to the atrocities that took place in 1984. When The Yes Men received their invitation to speak on BBC, this “freedom on the horizon” had now become a possibility.
“All representation is false.” (Wark). This is the concept that fuels The Yes Men. If big corporations are going to lie to the consumer (be false), then why can’t The Yes Men lie too? At least their lies serve a higher cause. While corporations lie to cover their tracks and produce profit, The Yes Men lie to raise awareness of the corruption that takes place right in front of our faces, but is rarely seen. By “correcting” the identities of the companies, through false representation, The Yes Men use lies for the advancement of humanity rather than the advancement of the self.
Besides, even if nothing changes…it’s too much fun to finally watch someone stick it to those who were once untouchables.
The Yes Men define their work not as identity theft, but rather identity correction: “Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Our targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else.” By creating a website similar to DOW’s, The Yes Men were extended an invitation to speak about the Bhopal Chemical spill on its 20th anniversary. This catastrophe killed thousands and injured hundreds of thousand. DOW took little to no responsibility for this offense that had been perpetrated by a company they absorbed (Union Carbide). By appearing on BBC News, posing as a DOW representative, The Yes Men successfully revived focus and care on an issue that had been very much forgotten. The identity correction involved telling the world what DOW should have been saying, promising relief and reparations to the citizens of Bhopal. When DOW came forth, reassuring their stockholders that no relief would be sent to Bhopal, they exposed themselves for the heartless moneygrubbers that they are.
This can very clearly be seen as a form of hacking, according to Wark’s manifesto. “The formation of the hacker class as a class comes at just this moment when freedom from necessity and from class domination appears on the horizon as a possibility.” DOW, as a financial super power, had been dominating the lower class (citizens of Bhopal and the general public) by their lack of response to the atrocities that took place in 1984. When The Yes Men received their invitation to speak on BBC, this “freedom on the horizon” had now become a possibility.
“All representation is false.” (Wark). This is the concept that fuels The Yes Men. If big corporations are going to lie to the consumer (be false), then why can’t The Yes Men lie too? At least their lies serve a higher cause. While corporations lie to cover their tracks and produce profit, The Yes Men lie to raise awareness of the corruption that takes place right in front of our faces, but is rarely seen. By “correcting” the identities of the companies, through false representation, The Yes Men use lies for the advancement of humanity rather than the advancement of the self.
Besides, even if nothing changes…it’s too much fun to finally watch someone stick it to those who were once untouchables.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Thru-You.com: Possibly The Coolest Website On The Internet.
Thru-You.com: Possibly The Coolest Website On The Internet.
Web remixer, Kutiman, has created a site called ThruYou, and it gives new meaning to the term Video Jockey. His page, which is more like a playlist, draws from elements of classic Disc Jockeying and Video Jockey while adding his own incredible formula to the process.
Kutiman searches through You Tube (exclusively) and finds videos that regular people upload of themselves playing instruments or singing. Slowly adding in, editing, and sustaining tracks allows him to gradually build his own Internet symphony. None of these people know that what they upload will be used for this project, so the task of matching tempos, keys, and good riffs is all done by Kutiman himself.
A lot of Video Jockey work is disorienting and not something one would watch or listen to while enjoying an afternoon. Kutiman’s ThruYou remixes, however, are so good that they could easily be played on the radio, and his videos could even air on MTV. Instead of just cutting music together (DJ) or just cutting up videos (VJ), he loops the audio and visual tracks to create a synchronized, fluid masterpiece.
Then there were the other sites: Triptych.tv, Screenful.net
Triptych.tv is classic net art VJ work. Strange images and sounds flash and loop on the screen simultaneously. Visual effects, like kaleidoscope filters and three dimentional forms are added to jump cutting clips that are usually from famous movies. I know it serves an artistic purpose, but honestly I’m just not that impressed. The meaning of the pieces is far from overt, and the final product can be attained with minimal time and effort. As far as I’m concerned, Kutiman’s ThruYou blows this out of the water. The time spent scouring the internet for the videos, editing them in such a synchronic manner, and just his sheer musical ear and ability makes Triptych look like childs-play. Doodles in what might be an incredible sketchpad.
Screenful.net is very much the same as Triptych. Looping famous audio clips to say “I don’t give a damn,” “Fuck,” and “Shit.” You can also scroll down the page and look at images that are related, it appears, by skulls. I saw this webpage before I looked at ThruYou and thought “eh.” Looking at it again now, after seeing ThruYou, it’s just annoying, and in the artist’s own words, “I don’t give a damn.” Show me something musically compelling or even something that was visually technical to align. As a musician and a filmmaker, it is obvious to me that Kutiman scrutinized endlessly over both the audio and video of his product.
Blogroll and Hyper X: Galleries
Blogroll honestly just confused me. When I made my original analysis I was sure that I just did not understand something, and despite my negative reception, I was somehow being ignorant. It seemed to be just a poorly formatted blog, with lots of dead links, and nothing overly compelling. However, with a closer look, I realized that Blogroll is not about Blogroll. Like Hyper X, Blogroll is an Internet Gallery, allowing users to navigate from a homepage to various pieces of Net.Art. So I credit them both as great sources for expanding understanding of art on the web; but ThruYou.com is where it’s at.
Web remixer, Kutiman, has created a site called ThruYou, and it gives new meaning to the term Video Jockey. His page, which is more like a playlist, draws from elements of classic Disc Jockeying and Video Jockey while adding his own incredible formula to the process.
Kutiman searches through You Tube (exclusively) and finds videos that regular people upload of themselves playing instruments or singing. Slowly adding in, editing, and sustaining tracks allows him to gradually build his own Internet symphony. None of these people know that what they upload will be used for this project, so the task of matching tempos, keys, and good riffs is all done by Kutiman himself.
A lot of Video Jockey work is disorienting and not something one would watch or listen to while enjoying an afternoon. Kutiman’s ThruYou remixes, however, are so good that they could easily be played on the radio, and his videos could even air on MTV. Instead of just cutting music together (DJ) or just cutting up videos (VJ), he loops the audio and visual tracks to create a synchronized, fluid masterpiece.
Then there were the other sites: Triptych.tv, Screenful.net
Triptych.tv is classic net art VJ work. Strange images and sounds flash and loop on the screen simultaneously. Visual effects, like kaleidoscope filters and three dimentional forms are added to jump cutting clips that are usually from famous movies. I know it serves an artistic purpose, but honestly I’m just not that impressed. The meaning of the pieces is far from overt, and the final product can be attained with minimal time and effort. As far as I’m concerned, Kutiman’s ThruYou blows this out of the water. The time spent scouring the internet for the videos, editing them in such a synchronic manner, and just his sheer musical ear and ability makes Triptych look like childs-play. Doodles in what might be an incredible sketchpad.
Screenful.net is very much the same as Triptych. Looping famous audio clips to say “I don’t give a damn,” “Fuck,” and “Shit.” You can also scroll down the page and look at images that are related, it appears, by skulls. I saw this webpage before I looked at ThruYou and thought “eh.” Looking at it again now, after seeing ThruYou, it’s just annoying, and in the artist’s own words, “I don’t give a damn.” Show me something musically compelling or even something that was visually technical to align. As a musician and a filmmaker, it is obvious to me that Kutiman scrutinized endlessly over both the audio and video of his product.
Blogroll and Hyper X: Galleries
Blogroll honestly just confused me. When I made my original analysis I was sure that I just did not understand something, and despite my negative reception, I was somehow being ignorant. It seemed to be just a poorly formatted blog, with lots of dead links, and nothing overly compelling. However, with a closer look, I realized that Blogroll is not about Blogroll. Like Hyper X, Blogroll is an Internet Gallery, allowing users to navigate from a homepage to various pieces of Net.Art. So I credit them both as great sources for expanding understanding of art on the web; but ThruYou.com is where it’s at.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Belated Homage to Ryan Trecartin
The work of Ryan Trecartin can definitely be considered “on the edge” of post-modern art. His style is unsettling, using strange color, repetitive audio, crazy costumes, and odd subject matter as tools for disorientation. The viewer feels both a familiarity and a supreme detachment from the images that flash before them. Much of his work seems to address pop culture and reality television, although it is clear that the meaning is meant to be unclear. “What does it mean? What’s the significance?”
In an interview with James Franco, Trecartin speaks about his artistic origins and process. He talks about making “situations” with his childhood friends, on homemade sets with half written scripts. While these “situations” weren’t originally filmed, he later began to document his endeavors. In this interview, he also reveals that he is inspired not only by television and the Internet, but specifically the way that people interact with these medium. In other words, he is amused by the way human behavior is effected and influenced by the screens that surround them.
I find myself able to relate deeply to Trecartin’s work. I was always fascinated with film, even entering college as a film major; and, growing up with five siblings gave me an ample crew of actors. My films were much more structured, so the plot is not where I relate with Trecartin. My admiration for his work stems from my realization that he is doing some REALLY tedious and repetitive editing. K-Corea in particular looks like any film editors nightmare. Quick flashing images and repeated frames only means one thing:
Hours spent editing to make 10 seconds of product.
Many people do not understand, and are even unimpressed by Trecartin’s work. However, this would not match his institutional reception by such prestigious venues as the Whitney Biennial and the Guggenheim Museum. People who have visited these exhibits are privileged to seeing Trecartin’s work in a prescribed setting. He even says in his interview with James Franco, “If you’ve only seen it online, you haven’t seen it – you’ve only seen a version of it.”
Ryan Trecartin is seriously pushing the boundaries of digital art, while not doing anything overly technically divergent from what’s already been done. The format of his projects are simple, and could be made with a handy cam and iMovie. This said, his subject matter is completely original, poking fun at modern society, and even goes so far as to make social critique on Generations Y and Z.
In an interview with James Franco, Trecartin speaks about his artistic origins and process. He talks about making “situations” with his childhood friends, on homemade sets with half written scripts. While these “situations” weren’t originally filmed, he later began to document his endeavors. In this interview, he also reveals that he is inspired not only by television and the Internet, but specifically the way that people interact with these medium. In other words, he is amused by the way human behavior is effected and influenced by the screens that surround them.
I find myself able to relate deeply to Trecartin’s work. I was always fascinated with film, even entering college as a film major; and, growing up with five siblings gave me an ample crew of actors. My films were much more structured, so the plot is not where I relate with Trecartin. My admiration for his work stems from my realization that he is doing some REALLY tedious and repetitive editing. K-Corea in particular looks like any film editors nightmare. Quick flashing images and repeated frames only means one thing:
Hours spent editing to make 10 seconds of product.
Many people do not understand, and are even unimpressed by Trecartin’s work. However, this would not match his institutional reception by such prestigious venues as the Whitney Biennial and the Guggenheim Museum. People who have visited these exhibits are privileged to seeing Trecartin’s work in a prescribed setting. He even says in his interview with James Franco, “If you’ve only seen it online, you haven’t seen it – you’ve only seen a version of it.”
Ryan Trecartin is seriously pushing the boundaries of digital art, while not doing anything overly technically divergent from what’s already been done. The format of his projects are simple, and could be made with a handy cam and iMovie. This said, his subject matter is completely original, poking fun at modern society, and even goes so far as to make social critique on Generations Y and Z.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
¿:/\/\ 9u|\|< :) >
“I’ve never looked at so much work and understood so little."
Jim Punk is not an artist; he is art. Jim Punk is not a person; he is a persona. You will never see Jim Punk out getting coffee, not because “he” doesn’t like it, but because Jim Punk does not exist in the physical world. For the sake of clarity, we will refer to Jim Punk’s creator as “Future Artist X” (Schleiner, 2003). “This artist keeps his/her identity guarded from the public, concealing gender markers, age and physical location. He/she/it spends 99.9% of its every waking hour sitting in front of a high-grade lap top…”
Unlike many net artists, there are no interviews, biographical information, or physical spaces exhibiting the work of this Future Artist X. The majority of information can be found by interacting with work on a variety of homepages: jimpunk.com, jimpunk.net, jimpunk.com/.net, jimpunk.org, jimpunk.blogspot.com, twitter.com/jimpunk. He/she is also associated with sites such as triptych.tv and screenfull.net, examples of two collaborative projects with other net artists.
As collaborative net art does not require face to face interaction, or even exchange of personal information, Future Artist X has been able to remain an enigma. While he/she may sign these works as Jim Punk, it is only one of many methods used to build the character. Additionally, Future Artist X is known to tweet, respond to email, and blogs in his/her own variation of the English language. \ | / h:(h 1oo|<5> 1:<e +h:5. He/she also uses the persona of Jim Punk to create sub-personas, such as DR. KaSSeL Jim and Jim Tutu Kassel.
He/she works with a variety of net art based mediums including video, sound, text, hypertext, animated gifs, and browser manipulation. Their subject matter often challenges the norms of communication and visuality, critiques political agendas, and sometimes serves solely to disorient the viewer. Recurring themes include: 9/11 (Remember), George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Anti-War, Anime, Pikachu, Japanese written characters, Richard Widmark, Tom Selleck in Magnum, P.I. (or I.P. according to Punk), French, Movies, the 1920s?, Picasso, Duchamp, Joseph Beuys, Lots of artists, The word fuck, Xtranormal.com, Poetry, and Binary code.
His/her specific work, “Slam Poetry Pictures,” manipulates browser windows to echo the presentation style of a slam poet. He/she accomplishes this by rhythmically transforming windows in size, location, and color. Since there is no explicitly voiced content, the emotions of the viewer are projected onto the Jim Punk template. This effect is achieved by programming each window to stay open for a prescribed amount of time; then, when the time is up, the next window is prompted to open. The process continues in this manner until Future Artist X decides to end the piece. While “Slam Poetry Pictures” has a definite end point, many of his/her pieces do not, either looping themselves, or following a never-ending list of automatically enabled links.
On turbulence.org, one can find “DISCO-NNECT” by Abe Linkoln, with guest remixers Jim Punk and Subculture. “DISCO-NNECT RIP” by Subculture and “Y T B” and “Unicorn” by Jim Punk, as well as several other works, are posted under the header of the page. “Y T B,” a video-remix piece, is comprised of two imbedded YouTube screens side-by-side. Each screen has the same videos to choose from in the horizontal preview bar, but they are in different orders. One can choose the video they wish to play, and because of their positioning and text that reads, “click & mix here,” the viewer is prompted to play two videos at once. At the end of each video, another begins automatically, playing the series on a continuous loop. The viewer can stop any video at any time, or pick a different video to play instead of the next one in the sequence. The videos in the sequence are videos Future Artist X has manipulated, edited, and remixed; then, because of the dual screens and varying orders, the videos are further remixed. Both the visuals and sound elements are intriguing while watching one video; yet, they work most successfully, transforming into something completely new, when played in conjunction with a video on the adjacent screen.
While these two pieces are primarily based in aesthetics, Future Artist X uses other works to express his dissatisfaction with political agendas regarding the Middle East. He is especially concerned with the causes and effects surrounding the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The three pieces from his homepage that most overtly deal with this content are “Noise,” “9/11,” and “LemonSqueezer.” Utilizing browser manipulation and embedded video, Future Artist X develops Jim Punk’s identity by association with anti-war activism.
Since Jim Punk has such a large body of work, it can be assumed that one may never see all of it. These selected works can only acquaint users with Jim Punk, and by no means address all of his intricacies. Even contained on his homepage, many pieces prompt different experiences, giving viewers varied experiences based on the ways they navigate through a piece. Moving away from this site, one begins to understand the prominence of Jim Punk’s persona throughout the world of net art. He/she adds to his/her allure and mythology because of the impossibility of locating all of his/her works. Despite attempts at familiarizing oneself with Jim Punk, there will always be another piece, on another site, on another planet.
Jim Punk is not an artist; he is art. Jim Punk is not a person; he is a persona. You will never see Jim Punk out getting coffee, not because “he” doesn’t like it, but because Jim Punk does not exist in the physical world. For the sake of clarity, we will refer to Jim Punk’s creator as “Future Artist X” (Schleiner, 2003). “This artist keeps his/her identity guarded from the public, concealing gender markers, age and physical location. He/she/it spends 99.9% of its every waking hour sitting in front of a high-grade lap top…”
Unlike many net artists, there are no interviews, biographical information, or physical spaces exhibiting the work of this Future Artist X. The majority of information can be found by interacting with work on a variety of homepages: jimpunk.com, jimpunk.net, jimpunk.com/.net, jimpunk.org, jimpunk.blogspot.com, twitter.com/jimpunk. He/she is also associated with sites such as triptych.tv and screenfull.net, examples of two collaborative projects with other net artists.
As collaborative net art does not require face to face interaction, or even exchange of personal information, Future Artist X has been able to remain an enigma. While he/she may sign these works as Jim Punk, it is only one of many methods used to build the character. Additionally, Future Artist X is known to tweet, respond to email, and blogs in his/her own variation of the English language. \ | / h:(h 1oo|<5> 1:<
He/she works with a variety of net art based mediums including video, sound, text, hypertext, animated gifs, and browser manipulation. Their subject matter often challenges the norms of communication and visuality, critiques political agendas, and sometimes serves solely to disorient the viewer. Recurring themes include: 9/11 (Remember), George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Anti-War, Anime, Pikachu, Japanese written characters, Richard Widmark, Tom Selleck in Magnum, P.I. (or I.P. according to Punk), French, Movies, the 1920s?, Picasso, Duchamp, Joseph Beuys, Lots of artists, The word fuck, Xtranormal.com, Poetry, and Binary code.
His/her specific work, “Slam Poetry Pictures,” manipulates browser windows to echo the presentation style of a slam poet. He/she accomplishes this by rhythmically transforming windows in size, location, and color. Since there is no explicitly voiced content, the emotions of the viewer are projected onto the Jim Punk template. This effect is achieved by programming each window to stay open for a prescribed amount of time; then, when the time is up, the next window is prompted to open. The process continues in this manner until Future Artist X decides to end the piece. While “Slam Poetry Pictures” has a definite end point, many of his/her pieces do not, either looping themselves, or following a never-ending list of automatically enabled links.
On turbulence.org, one can find “DISCO-NNECT” by Abe Linkoln, with guest remixers Jim Punk and Subculture. “DISCO-NNECT RIP” by Subculture and “Y T B” and “Unicorn” by Jim Punk, as well as several other works, are posted under the header of the page. “Y T B,” a video-remix piece, is comprised of two imbedded YouTube screens side-by-side. Each screen has the same videos to choose from in the horizontal preview bar, but they are in different orders. One can choose the video they wish to play, and because of their positioning and text that reads, “click & mix here,” the viewer is prompted to play two videos at once. At the end of each video, another begins automatically, playing the series on a continuous loop. The viewer can stop any video at any time, or pick a different video to play instead of the next one in the sequence. The videos in the sequence are videos Future Artist X has manipulated, edited, and remixed; then, because of the dual screens and varying orders, the videos are further remixed. Both the visuals and sound elements are intriguing while watching one video; yet, they work most successfully, transforming into something completely new, when played in conjunction with a video on the adjacent screen.
While these two pieces are primarily based in aesthetics, Future Artist X uses other works to express his dissatisfaction with political agendas regarding the Middle East. He is especially concerned with the causes and effects surrounding the September 11 attacks and the war in Iraq. The three pieces from his homepage that most overtly deal with this content are “Noise,” “9/11,” and “LemonSqueezer.” Utilizing browser manipulation and embedded video, Future Artist X develops Jim Punk’s identity by association with anti-war activism.
Since Jim Punk has such a large body of work, it can be assumed that one may never see all of it. These selected works can only acquaint users with Jim Punk, and by no means address all of his intricacies. Even contained on his homepage, many pieces prompt different experiences, giving viewers varied experiences based on the ways they navigate through a piece. Moving away from this site, one begins to understand the prominence of Jim Punk’s persona throughout the world of net art. He/she adds to his/her allure and mythology because of the impossibility of locating all of his/her works. Despite attempts at familiarizing oneself with Jim Punk, there will always be another piece, on another site, on another planet.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Forks @ A Dinner Party
The 2008 article by Kevin Bewersdorf, titled Sprit Surfing, analyzes the divine relationship between the Web and its user. He begins by recounting an experience in which he has a moment of clarity regarding a piece of net art; but not while he was at a computer. Even though he was nowhere near the actual piece, its meaning suddenly dawned on him while sitting in traffic on Interstate 35. This moment reestablished Bewersdorf’s excitement about art, and prompted him to form relationships with other enthusiasts. Through collaboration with these parties, Bewersdorf developed a philosophy surrounding the art and experience of surfing and its manifestation @ SpritSurfers.net.
Every new philosophical idea must have a solid foundation, where the author can explain his most basic concept. Bewersdorf grounds his philosophy in “framing,” as it interacts with INFOmonks and INFObrats. He compares Joseph Cornell’s “collected tidbits” to the choices that a net artist would make in regards to formatting. “Is the box 8" x 7" and made of white wood? Is the for the images 500 pixels by 400 pixels with a 4 pixel border of #FF0099? Should the wooden spool sit above the rubber ball? Should the animated gif sit above the midi file?” After this is established, Bewersdorf defines the INFObrat: the quintessential consumer, using the web for their own gain (shopping, paying bills, email, etc.). The INFOmonks, however, treat the web as a spiritual realm: glorifying the web by creating beautiful gardens behind the shopping mall.
These INFOmonks are aided in their quest by Boons and Wakes. The boon is that moment of pure inspiration, only achieved by “surfing the wave” long enough to hit the “eureka moment.” It could be literally anything, found at any time, as long as it has captured the spirit of the artist. Naturally, the wake follows. It is described as the relationship your boon creates with any past, present, or future experience. This wake can be contemplated in its entirety to shape the eventual materialization of your work.
As the Internet can be seen as one enormous search for the next object of interest, a Net artist is able to exploit the expression “finding is making.” This means that by simply finding, and drawing attention to something, the artist has actually created something new. However, “A jewel set into a poor setting degrades the jewel and does not do justice to its beauty…It is the framing of the finding that rewards us with the greatest bounty.”
All of these factors combined is what makes Spiritsurfers.net the interesting spectacle of art that it is. It is possibly the only medium that the INFOmonk can use to spread the beauty of the INFOspirit.
Every new philosophical idea must have a solid foundation, where the author can explain his most basic concept. Bewersdorf grounds his philosophy in “framing,” as it interacts with INFOmonks and INFObrats. He compares Joseph Cornell’s “collected tidbits” to the choices that a net artist would make in regards to formatting. “Is the box 8" x 7" and made of white wood? Is the for the images 500 pixels by 400 pixels with a 4 pixel border of #FF0099? Should the wooden spool sit above the rubber ball? Should the animated gif sit above the midi file?” After this is established, Bewersdorf defines the INFObrat: the quintessential consumer, using the web for their own gain (shopping, paying bills, email, etc.). The INFOmonks, however, treat the web as a spiritual realm: glorifying the web by creating beautiful gardens behind the shopping mall.
These INFOmonks are aided in their quest by Boons and Wakes. The boon is that moment of pure inspiration, only achieved by “surfing the wave” long enough to hit the “eureka moment.” It could be literally anything, found at any time, as long as it has captured the spirit of the artist. Naturally, the wake follows. It is described as the relationship your boon creates with any past, present, or future experience. This wake can be contemplated in its entirety to shape the eventual materialization of your work.
As the Internet can be seen as one enormous search for the next object of interest, a Net artist is able to exploit the expression “finding is making.” This means that by simply finding, and drawing attention to something, the artist has actually created something new. However, “A jewel set into a poor setting degrades the jewel and does not do justice to its beauty…It is the framing of the finding that rewards us with the greatest bounty.”
All of these factors combined is what makes Spiritsurfers.net the interesting spectacle of art that it is. It is possibly the only medium that the INFOmonk can use to spread the beauty of the INFOspirit.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Lascaux
Introduction to Net.Art by Natalie Bookchin & Alexei Shulgin (1994-1999) is deceptive in its simplicity. Readers can interact with the information while not losing themselves in oceans of illuminated text. The content serves as a guide for Internet artists in the then modern era, but formatting is the best tool used to engage viewers (I will return to this later). Bookchin and Shulgin’s ideals for the development of Internet art are parallel to common themes of that five year period. Opportunity extended by a DIY interface allows the designer to choose from five basic modes: “1. Content based
2. Formal
3. Ironic
4. Poetic
5. Activist.” Once a purpose is set into motion, the designer can gauge success by one of the ten basic indicators: “1. Bandwidth
2. Girl or boy friends
3. Hits on search engines
4. Hits on your sites
5. Links to your site
6. Invitations
7. E-mail
8. Airplane tickets
9. Money.” While this text seems to be completely simplified, some of the concepts are extremely complex and deserve more description than are allotted in the piece. Had I been a digital artist at the time, I would find this somewhat trivializing of my work. At the same time, I would be unable to deny the merit of the majority of what they’re saying.
Cyber*babes by Lisa Hutton explains the laws of Internet censorship while teetering along the boundaries of what she can and cannot do. Her piece includes pictures of men and women cut together and exposed momentarily. After a second, the exposed areas are covered with the standard “black bar.” The prompts taking the reader from page to page are constantly asking to verify the users age, and to me seems like a statement that anyone can click “I am 18.” She continues to display the actual statues regarding the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and plays with what she can and cannot show to the viewer. If the viewer clicks that they are not 18, it will take them to a page concerned with toys, cyber nannies, bedtimes, etc. People will use the internet to see what they want to see, and with the ease of “age-verification” it is almost impossible for censors to protect children and freedom of speech at the same time.
The Visual Thesaurus by Plumb Design is a Net Art piece that has remained relevant since its creation and is still used by many people today. This is extremely interesting because most Net art becomes obsolete within a few years of its creation, and many of them don’t even maintain links, allowing them to rot and become inaccessible. Visual Thesaurus takes the regular thesaurus and displays it as a never-ending word web. In doing so, it allows the viewer to see relationships between words and follow a trail, mine went from “Stein” to “drop a line” before my free trial ran out.
Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artist by Anne-Marie Schleiner speaks to the new circumstances that artists may be working under in the 21st century. Her artists X, Y, Z scenarios discuss possible variations between these future artists. Schleiner also compares the oppositions between past artists and future artist through a T chart, highlighting their workspaces, habits, egos, and mannerisms. She then does a very similar statement for future curators, alluding to possible backgrounds, attire, and ties to institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)