Interaction : Fantasy Beyond Control and Changing Space

As we near the end of the semester more and more our thoughts and concentrations are focused to that of interactive art. The two readings above stand as great examples of the type of diversity one can achieve when involving your viewer.

Fantasy Beyond control is a great example of what we have discussed before as, 'the hack.' While companies were using Laser Discs as a means for a type of interactive game, artists such as Lynn Hershman saw the potential of it in art. I also feel this stands as a testament to the patience and execution within the realm of digital art. Many people I speak to think that even the mere sound of 'digital art' implies to them lazy art. I believe this steams from their interaction with all things digital, and how digital technology is supposed (as well as other things) make life easier. The logic goes digital = easy. However something like Hershman's Fantasy Beyond control takes a great level of planning and execution to finish. Picking various items in her apartment and thusly all the various story archs that come from THE VIEWER'S choices takes thought and skill.
Anyway...
I agree with her feelings that at this point in time we live in a culture in which people really want to integral parts of narratives. Reality TV is almost the only thing you can stumble upon while flipping through the channels. I think this is good evidence of people wanting to be a part of 'narrative.' if you will. Even thought the level of interaction is still one dimensional I feel as if people enjoy knowing that those are 'real people' on TV. Similarly in Hershman's piece, interacting and choosing things for our main character to do makes you feel as if that person is 'real.' Or, at least I think that's how I would feel about it....and of course with the boost in reality, you feel something quite significant.
Plus the three endings between, destroying the television, committing suicide, or moving to LA is hilarious.

Our second reading developed the idea of audience participation in a much different way. Much different in any of the ways I have thought about making interactive art as well. Hooking a person up to a VR machine and have the visual be based upon ones breathing is absolutely amazing, especially because 99% of the time breathing is no where to be found on people's day to day conscious levels of thinking. Breathing is so automatic that if your breathing becomes quicker, you might not notice your breathing is doing so, but you WILL notice you are becoming nervous (or other such reasons). In a sort of simple and unmasked art sort of way, this piece could teach people to be more aware of their bodies and feelings. Art can be grand but it can also teach us the little things. Start simple.

Software Studies

I have to agree that not a whole lot was brought to the table from this new reading. I did like it, and it's not to say that it isn't interesting or valid, but it seems these same ideas have come up throughout the semester (as well as the other digital art classes I have taken). I do believe that this is beneficial. It is important to harp on certain ideas so as that they are really hammered home.

One specific stood out to me as to why software studies are important and why software is above all, the most important. Manovich states that software enables a global information society. That is a pretty profound thing if you ask me. It seems pretty clear that yes, the internet connects people, yes it provides information from all over the world, and yes it is at your fingertips, but to say all of that about the internet is leaving one key part out. Software. None of that would work without software. Software permeates all of society that it just runs in the background.
software
software
software

As Lee stated in class, software itself opens up a whole universe of possibilities to media creation now. As digital media artists, we live in a world in which our day to day lives and interactions with media and technologies act as our inspiration and fodder for art works. What that means is we have a lot of choices. Things like Quartz and Processing again, give us more choices on how to use that fodder. Now we have been given the tools to make our own software. Think of an effect or process not built into VDMX? Make it.

And after that?

Throw it on the web. Share it. Let people use it. Let them get ideas from it and improve it. Equally, search around the internet for published patches and code. See the things others are trying, and then build off of it.

It is at this point though an interesting phenomenon comes up. The absence of historical software studies. Manovich is quick to suggest an example why. As soon as software comes out, old software is obsolete, and therefore has no reason to stick around, be studied, or further developed. A good analogy I believe is one of the movie industry. Movie studios can still make money off of existing and OLD movies by simply distributing them on newer and newer formats. I mean, I am not eagerly trying to get a hold of the original Mac OS or...well...any Windows OS for that matter, new or old....

anyway...



alright. Lets make some art.

The Interface

At first, it seems rather obvious that the GUI is a crucial component to computing these days. Discussing certain aspects of the GUI in class seemed redundant...but thats just because it was brought up then in discussion and in the reading. In fact, I believe now that I honestly use my computer (or any computer for that matter for example an iphone) and 99.999999999% do not even think twice about the GUI. I commented in class that I still sometimes do things by the Terminal window on my mac...but is just for fun. I still even then don't really acknowledge the going around the GUI. The GUI, just is. It's just there. 99.9999% of my life using a computer was with a GUI.

It took a lot of thinking about how people recognize and interact with an environment for the GUI. The psychology of behavior and information seems pretty interesting. For example, it seem logical to organize information in nested folders....much like people are very much familiar with. However, already areas of the GUI are becoming obsolete...well...sort of. One used to have to go through folder after folder, nested information after nested information to find a file. It all makes sense though: A>B>C>D. But things like Apple's Spotlight search bar in their OS makes nested folder obsolete. I don't have to go looking through folders anymore, I simple type in the search bar, REASON, or, VDMX, and it comes right up. It doesn't matter where it is exactly...it could be 18 folders deep, but it will find it. Steps have been removed in the GUI....of course...the irony of this comment is that I am still basically relying on the GUI to access the Spotlight search engine.

Interface is important, and as we embark on the task of making 'organic' interactive digital art, how people will interact with it is important. An equal amount of thought must go into thinking about how people will be able to initially understand what is presented with them. This means it must be simple...the interface that is. No one wants t participate in something that is unbelievably complex...well...MOST people wont want to.

For example, the video we saw of the processing code piece that turned your shadow puppets into monsters. People need to recognize right way how they are interfacing with the piece. If that piece required for example, someone to turn it on, pick sensors, place them on their hands, be in the projects path etc etc it would fail as a piece. This interface is simple. Move in front of the projector...watch shadows turn into monsters. awesome.

So, conclusion. Make it simple.

let the art be as complex as you like. make the interface easy to understand.

VJ + The Hack

A few things stuck out at me while watching the VJ documentary. Regardless of the fact that Vjing is still a pretty new art form, it has still gone through the same growing pains that other areas feel. Not only the form itself, but also the people involved.

Taking a survey of VJ's from its start to present (present being around 2004/2005 relative to the documentary) you still have a division of what you could call traditionalists and...neo-VJ's? What I mean is there is a schism in execution. Early video performance was all analog. I recall one guy saying he just has truck loads of VHS tapes on loops and stacks and stacks of VHS players. There were quite a few people in the film that seem to look down upon the fact that everything has gone digital. Instead of spending hours setting up a rig, people just walk into a venue now with a laptop and a keyboard. Those traditionalists didn't seem to set up a good argument for not giving the digital guys and respect...but that could have been the documentary's fault. Either way...I find it funny. Even though VJing has only been around roughly for maybe 50 years there are already groups dividing themselves up within video art. Which is not at all a bad thing, I feel like it probably encourages different lines of thinking. Different lines of thinking that all eventually lead back to the same thing, live video art.

As discussed in class, I feel the documentary ties in nicely with Wark's 'Hacker Manifesto.' When Sony first put out its portable video camera, they in no way intended it to be used by artists. The video art scene in NY saw the potential of it, and it was hacked it. Here in lies another great aspect of digital art. The hack. You can hack just about anything. Digital art represents limitless possibilities...although some might not be fully realized as of yet due to current technological capabilities, digital art represents the continual development and change of the art form parallel to changes in technology. Touchscreens have actually been around for quite sometime, but with the now (relatively) cheap multi-touch technologies of the 21st century more and more interfaces are being designed and in conjunction being used in art. I am pretty sure Apple never intended the iphone to be used as a multi-touch OSC unit in a live video performance, but the hackers saw the potential.

While it is key to make sure one doesn't not hide behind gear and their technology, when integrated flawlessly and fluidly, interactive digital art being a living organic thing. Which is sort of scary when you think about. No?

p.s. I also dislike the label VJ. And there ya go...I have already aligned myself to a group in digital art. Silly new age art forms.

Photosynth Project

http://photosynth.net/silverlight/photosynth.aspx?cid=9530358F-1909-4CD3-99D5-B81EBA4C9A1D

Can only be viewed on a Windows Machine
(or mac if you have Silverlight)

Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision

People living in the digital age are bombarded by media left and right. It is no surprise that an age of art would come out of that dynamic. Roy Ascott seems to have been ahead of his time when he wrote his article. I find very similar ideas in the reading New Directions for New Media (or something like that) that we did for Fall semester 2008 History and Theory of Digital Art. Both readings touch on the idea that in the digital age, the person is the last element in art. To a degree conceptual art follows this path also, but the interaction is what is key now.

I was particularly interested in the idea of feedback. Really, it makes perfect sense in the digital age. Digital art pieces A) Do not exist for themselves and B) They do not exist by themselves. In between these two postulates lies the possibility for feedback. It is a very attractive idea that, myself as an artist, can create a digital art piece that can react dynamically to people. People see this piece and react to it. Their reaction is their 'output' and that output can become the 'input' for the artwork. That interaction has the potential to make the art piece dynamic, very personal, and infinite in its states and forms.

After our talk I recalled Kelly's VJ performance last semester in our Digital Art 2 class (I am by the way excited to see what Kelly comes up with this semester in class as well as the A/V performances outside of class). His videos could have existed solely by themselves after he started them, but his performance was dynamic in the sense that he was continually changing the inputs and parameters in which this piece as time went on, and as he reacted to it. The idea of chance and unpredictability is also very attractive in this age of art, which is what I felt Kelly was executing and playing with. I am unsure if Kelly had in fact rehearsed that very closely, or if much of that was on the fly, but either way it was very well done.

Exciting times in digital art.

Art in the age of Mechanical reproduction

This writing has been discussed in some form or another in many of my art classes, but I had never actually read it. This particular topic is of interest for me regarding my own photography and how digital reproduction affects my work.
As touched on in class, I am quite on the fence about this whole thing. The issues for me stem from the benefits of education, and Benjamin’s idea of the lost aura of artwork. For the most part, I am strictly speaking in terms of photographing pieces of art.
On the one hand, I feel like mass produced artwork is no longer art, it is a commodity that is bought and sold. At that point in time, I feel that the work is for decoration, as we spoke about in class, the exhibition value. For example, Mike David photography. I used to work at the Flatiron Crossing mall, and almost every day I worked I would pass by a booth for Mike David. The booth was set up to sell his huge gigantic photos of exotic landscapes and things of that nature. I have seen Mike David and said booths at many art festivals over the last couple years. My problem is that I see all the same pictures at his booths. He makes mass produced prints. I have even been to two separate houses that have the same exact Mike David print located inside.
It is at that point in time I feel like that work is no longer unique. I hate walking into someplace and seeing a piece of art and thinking, “oh, I have that same one”. It is no longer unique to me. Mike David’s photography is all about a sellable image, which is not wholly a bad thing, (I mean, the guy is pretty successful…his bills are obviously getting paid) but it terms of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, I frown upon it. The aura of the print is lost when he makes hundreds of those prints.
So then what about this whole education thing I spoke about? On the issue of photography to document other work, I think it is a good thing. Photography brought about an age of making the world smaller. Suddenly people could see exotic and beautiful places from around the world and with that, great works of art. Obviously seeing the Starry Night in person is something entirely different from seeing a photograph of it, but I think it is important that people be aware and have access to these types of things. I have seen images of that painting many times, and can appreciate what I have seen. Without those reproductions I may never have seen that painting. Who knows if I will ever be able to afford a trip to see any of the great works of art around the world. I feel like that type of documentation of artwork is good. It makes art less exclusive, and allows for a larger audience to have access to art and be educated by it.
As a digital photographer, it could not be an easier for me to make an unlimited amount of copies of my works. I choose not to when it comes to making prints. I make my prints very limited. We discussed in class the ability to create nearly exact copies of things like paintings because of advancements in imaging technology, and I am with Benjamin on this one. It takes away the aura and the ritual. That is why I choose to make my prints limited. I like them to be unique. I don’t want them to just be about the print, I want it to be about the process I went through to make the image. If a machine can remake for me 1,000 times, the aura and ritual is lost.


At the same time…I put most of my work on the internet...technically there could be 500 ‘copies’ of a picture being viewed at the same time…

So I am a hypocrite?

Probably.