A Rough Guide to Analog Video Synthesis:
READ this ARTICLE and comment on It within the comment section on this post for (20 Points): The Computer: A Tool for Thought-Experiments <<<< PDF- A paper copy will be handed out in class on Tues... the comments are DUE Sept. 27nd. If everyone doesn't post a comment of quality there will be a Quiz on the 27nd as well.
MORE:
READ this ARTICLE and comment on It within the comment section on this post for (20 Points): The Computer: A Tool for Thought-Experiments <<<< PDF- A paper copy will be handed out in class on Tues... the comments are DUE Sept. 27nd. If everyone doesn't post a comment of quality there will be a Quiz on the 27nd as well.
MORE:
| Sandin Image Processor (IP) Scan Processor Artist Working with Programming and Processing: http://v002.info/ |
After reading the article I never thought about how video and science are similar to each other. It was interesting to view these two subjects based on experiments. In both subjects you have to experiment to find out the best outcome. Also I thought it was relatable when Malina considered “art and science equally as testing grounds for the unknown differing only in their subject matters.” I agree with Malina. In the creation of art there are so many possibilities and directions you can go with in your work. It’s all unknown where your experiments will lead you. Also I thought it was interesting in articles when it said, “digital artist is not limited to making art objects but can create dynamic art subjects.” As artist we do not have a limit in our video creations. We can add a variety of tools and machines to build our creations.
ReplyDeleteI like the author's use of the word experiment to compare art and science. Whenever an artist makes work, they do experiments for days, months, sometimes even years. When we think of experiments we usually think of science. This is how the author sees similarities between science and art. Experimentation is what lead to new forms of art. In Woody Vasulka's case, he wanted to experiment with video by having a constant image charged with different voltages. And there are new types of art out there waiting to be discovered and experimented with. Speaking of which, today I saw a video on youtube where someone created an image using salt. Just by experimenting with salt this person was able to create an extraordinary image in a few hours. Experiments can sometimes lead to failure and sometimes success. But in order to be successful at art, the artist needs to experiment over and over till they create something amazing.
ReplyDeleteThe main thrust of this article--the central thought-experiment asking whether a machine could, theoretically, become the equivalent of a human artist--was particularly interesting to me. It's true, I do have an instinct to rail against such an idea, and have for a long time. Human existence (the act of being a conscious person, and all its mystery) has always seemed like such an impossibly complex entity to duplicate, and for the same reason I have long laughed at the idea that we'll ever achieve a true artificial intelligence. Even if a machine could be programmed so thoroughly to take in information, react, synthesize disparate concepts, etc. it still seems like the automaton would still be missing something fundamental in perspective, the sort of perspective that comes from actual human experience, in a human body, interacting with others. Anyway... next subject.
ReplyDeleteA more attractive notion, I think, are the sentiments Vasulka puts out there regarding his "artifacts." As the author says, "Vasulka already approaches his interaction with the machine as a symbiosis in which no participant is privileged a priori." I really like the idea of the artist interacting with the machine as a dialogue, and the machine offering up symbols and images that spark recognition and meaning in the artist's mind. I feel like I had a moment like that during my explorations this week--I was pushing the parameters on an object in MAX to ridiculous heights, and the image reached a point where it suddenly began to transform, finally at one point coming to rest on a distinct geometric pattern. It felt almost as if I'd dug up a painting hidden underground. And I can't really claim credit for it--I was an instigator throwing numbers around, but MAX produced the image.
I like the use of the term ‘Aesthetic reality’ by the author. As he uses it here to mean that the computer simulations of which he speaks are only real in the aesthetic sense, and not as concrete realities. The reason that I think this statement works, is because art can be created both with a computer and (at least I feel) by a computer. We can use the computer to cause the changes that we feel are necessary to create our art, but I feel as though if a computer is set with a randomization program it would be able to create its own art. I am not sure if that is the same idea that Mallory and Kawano have or not. Like it or not however, art is no longer just done on paper, “the legitimate appropriation of any technology for artistic purposes”, art can be found in many forms, even done by the machines that we take for granted every day.
ReplyDeleteKyle Peterson-
ReplyDeleteWhat interested me the most about this article, was the level of freedom that artists have. Anything from nature, to the most abstract can be rendered in any way the artist sees fit to portray his message. I also thought it was interesting that he stated "contemplation of the artwork 'dematerializes' the thingly, sensory element of the work."
Lucus Packer-
I think the most interesting aspect of this article is how we as humans are finding ways to explore and expand art at nearly the same rate we are able to explore and expand technology in general and electronic technology in particular. To think of how unending the possibilities are truly becoming is amazing. Your imagination is literally the only roadblock in the creative process, if you envision it, you can do it. It also makes me wonder what a classic artist, maybe Michaelangelo, would feel about today's art and artists. Are we abandoning our personal artistry to the "machines"? Are we creating to wide a range of opportunities in today's technological environment? I don't think so, necassarily, although it does seem we are moving further and further away from actual human creation in favor of electronic creative processes. Ultimately,I think it opens up artistry to more imaginations and more minds, which can't be a bad thing so long as we don't lose our identities in the process...
There is no way that Debbie is going able to post due to her current situation.
ReplyDeleteIt is fascinating to read about someone pioneering these types of experiments, but at the same time, I feel they make more perceptible the limitations of both the human component and the machine. What is unique about early work, such as Vasulka's early experiments, is that he was intricately involved in every step of the process. He wasn't just imagining things, wondering what a machine could do, he was manually programming the computer, writing the code, and attaching the patch cables.
ReplyDeleteWith each generation of technological advancement, we the users become one more step removed from the creation process. Experiments become tools. Our "thought experiments" are bound by the parameters coded into the computer by someone else. What comes to mind is the project from 273, in which we took assorted filters and applied them in degrees from minimum to maximum range. While this is new for us, we are bound by that min and max. We do not (easily) have the opportunity to dig into the machine, change the code or flip a switch to see what one more degree of change would look like.
It is a whole territory left unexplored, but one likely to be infrequently explored as we set up these barriers with each iteration. As the tools become more complex, we are less able to explore freely with them, something to envy in the experience of those who used a Rutt-Etra.
When reading the article I never imagined I'd compare art and science in the same category. Personally I hate sciene I'm not good at it, but I also don't think he was saying it was the chemistry chemical part of science, but the exploration and curiousity science needs. Artists experiment all the time using the computer is just a new tool as was oil paints in the early renaissance. We are discovering new medium all the time. I also thought it was interesting that Woody Vasulka mentioned he was not only responsibile for the creativity but that he had to give credit to the machine as well. Side note but it was something that caught my eye. Using computers is a fairly new art form It is still something we are learning how to channel, but like science it is a frontier to be traveled.
ReplyDeleteThis article kind of opened my eyes as to where the worlds of art and science meet. Technology has rapidly progressed over the last few decades, and it would make sense that contemporary art would reflect that. I think the creative "what if" parts of our minds are what pushes the limits in technology as well as art, and significant advances have been made in both due to limitation. Whenever we are limited by the constraints of the technology that is available at the present time, instead of making due with what we have, we experiment with all of it's possibilities, and then strive to create something that can actually materialize what we could only imagine before. This cycle never ends, and it shows in our everyday life, including our art.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as technology infinitely develops, some people may think that the creative process for artists becomes less and less... creative. In my opinion, I don't think it's ever the machine, but the person behind it. Technology may spoon feed us sometimes, but in the end someone will always have the idea to push both their art and whatever technology they are using to create it, to a new level that was never before imagined.
The idea that we can minipulate video through time and sound is absolutely amazing. If we have come this far with technology, the future is bound to hold something far more great that we could imagine. Computers are constantly getting better so the form of computer art that we see today is (to me) is only the beggining of something far more great.
ReplyDelete:)