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.