Project 3 Self Assessment

In Project 3, we were asked to create a digital artwork of our choice and to identify a central element for the project that relates to what we have learned this year. The central element in my final digital work is the effect of emerging new media technologies on our identities; our sense of privacy and our sense of reception of not only our selves but of other people. I created a web-based surveillance site to survey myself and document my everyday actions. The project was in a sense, a mirror of Facebook, with a little more emphasis on the ways that the technology could be used for more sinister behavior than contacting old high school friends. After all, you are not just using a software and communication, you are actually writing your own story and logging hours of an identity for others to view. This project was largely inspired by Hasan Elahi, a digital artist and professor who created a similar website after being put on the terrorist watch list. After spending many hours proving to INS in Detroit airport that he was not aligned with al Qaeda, and that he was an American citizen, he was asked to occasionally check in with the CIA to continue to prove the validity of his story. The nature of this interaction with our government probed him to “survey himself” and send the CIA information. In his opinion, he was giving in to the control and therefore would no longer be bothered by their immediate presence. This project was also largely inspired by an article we read by Peter Osborne called “Distracted Reception: Time, Art and Technology” which discussed how a change in our mode of thinking is occurring through this emerging virtual network. What I understood from the articles is that we are so surrounded by media that we can no longer be linear in focus. We no longer continue on one vein of consciousness but rather hundreds of capillaries of consciousness and we have less force in any direction as a result.

            When undertaking the surveillance project, there were some obstacles as far as documentation was concerned. One issue that arose was, if I missed a piece of information over the course of a day, it was no longer an accurate documentation of myself, something I was trying to avoid. I also ran into the problem that if a person was not interested in being in my project, I was not allowed to include them in my documentation.  The other issue that was beginning to affect the documentation process was the ratio of action to documenting that action. I sometimes caught my self in a loop where I writing that I was writing, I was documenting my documentation instead of reality. This also became a problem when I would remain somewhere on campus instead of moving when I wanted to move, strictly on the basis of the obligation to document that action. This was another obstacle when trying to communicate my meaning. Technically speaking, there were formatting concerns, especially when it came to making the site browse-able and user friendly. Using some of the pages that link to my site required the person to have passwords and login, which adds another interesting layer to the concept of surveillance, while at the same time further augmenting the reception of the piece toward something less objective. A final concern I had was the obstacle of process/materials, I was unsure about my documentation methods and how to record my actions through video, still photography, writing, or gps, and the extra time spent finalizing my documentation method affected the timespan of the actual surveillance.

            Over the course of the project, my work habits were always in-flux. I had a lot of initial enthusiasm for the project when the idea was first conceived and I had a lot of fun examining the different ways that surveillance can occur. I also had some success by adding both the elements of time-lapse photography and a gps trail that drew on a map as I walked to Hasan Elahi’s concept of photo surveillance. I think that I successfully engaged the issue in my own creative style and I experimented with new processes in digital media. On the other hand, I did not fully accomplish my goal of documenting a span of time in my life. The project only surveys my actions for 24 hours, whereas I planned to record 2 weeks. I also feel that I was unsuccessful in creating my own website. I initially planned to create a site that was entirely new rather than use a blogger template but technical obstacles and a time frame prevented this.  My largest mistake was that I did not begin to document earlier. This would have freed up a lot of time to organize the data on a site and make it user friendly.

            In light of the concepts that I was discussing in my work, I don’t think I can say that it is possible to step back from a new media project in today’s world. I watched the project evolve over the course of several weeks and my mind would never be able to receive the project without the understanding that I have now. All of that aside, I see the project as a great idea, not as a great finished product. I am satisfied to have a project that still has room to continuing expanding and hybridizing with new technologies as they emerge and the discussion of surveillance, privacy and identity develops further. As far as the website goes, it successful addresses the formal element of space by manipulating a virtual space that has access to a real one. By using plain, monotone colors in a template that was very simplistic, I think I successfully projected the idea of a “big brother” surveillance site. However, I am not sure if any message is communicated, specifically. I would hope that a viewer might make the connection between what I have done and what everyone is doing on a daily basis with the internet, however I am not sure that the message is inherently obvious in the piece.

Overall I think that the piece is conceptually strong, yet lacks the ability to create the right reception to the viewer. I think that the project deserves a “b” based on what was accomplished and the ideas that were addressed.

Project 2 Self Assessment

Project 2 involved using digital tools in the public space to create an artwork that could be experienced “in passing.” We first engaged with these concepts when we were asked to read a Krisna Murti article discussing the production and reception of digital art in the public sphere. The article discussed the impact that the new media had on the people of Indonesia, and evaluated how it could shed light on the ways in which we receive the new media within our own culture. From the article, I was able to glean the ways in which new media can be used as a vehicle of expression within our society. Following our discussion of the impact of new media, we were asked to research artists who have used the public space and digital tools as a means for expression. Although I was able to find many artists utilizing these tools in creative ways, the main inspiration for this project came from the Dada movement.

The Dada movement, often considered an anti-art movement, occurred in response to adversity felt by citizens in the wake of WWI and the totally apathy of the bourgeois. The movement emerged in Zurich, Switzerland, with the Cabaret Voltaire, where the unsuspecting affluent community was shaken up with outrageous and satirical performance art, poetry and music. Typically, young, well-to-do Swiss citizens attended cabarets to hear swanky music about sex, and to drink and socialize with others like them. The artists of the dada movement completely flipped the script, questioning the apathy of these well-to-do citizens, regarding the economic depression occurring all around them. They used a popular form of art, and turned it against itself to subvert the audience’s expectations. In this way, the artist of the Dada movement successfully used art in the public space to address the audience and the social concerns these artists felt they needed to address. The work of these artists became my main inspiration for project 2.

            As we developed our individual ideas, we formed collaborative groups to share the projectors available. This initial formation allowed us to bounce ideas off other students and discover where we overlapped conceptually. We had the choice of pursuing our own individual projects or working together to create a more elaborate project together. Each member of my group approached the project from a unique perspective and they each brought different ideas and interests to the table. This initial process taught me a lot about the dynamics of collaboration, and democratic workflow. It was also a great way to add depth to the project that I would not have initially predicted. I enjoyed the exercise of keeping the project as open-ended as possible as well as the exercise of trying to stitch seemingly unrelated elements together. However, as project ideas developed, we realized we could more effectively address our own ideas by splitting up. We all had different technical interests that were difficult to put together. Hence, the collaboration became something of a triptych, where each of us addressed separate content that led back in some way to a common theme.  Jeff and Alexia focused on filming and editing video projects which both addressed the different styles of martial arts, where as I explored possibilities of performance art hoping to address the manipulative rhetoric of political debate. In each case, there was a central theme of combat, game, and competition.

As we moved into this stage of the project, we created structured objectives to complete and began to organize the project as a whole: choosing a location and a registering surface for the projector, thinking about obstacles like power sources, and foot traffic. At this point, I began to think about elements of performance: characters, props, dialogue, message, etc. I also began to employ interested actors, discussing, with the well-versed theatre majors, aspects of the performance that would strengthen the piece. These students were also knowledgeable about Dada, which helped further the solidification of my ideas. Although the project had its foundation in digital tools, most of the time I spent in the arrangement of my performance project involved coordinating with others and gathering supplies from different school departments as well as craft stores. I had to build props like the hats, staffs, and podiums in addition to generating imagery editing appropriated footage in final cut for the background. I also needed to work through electronic logistics for the speakers, lights, microphones, etc.

One large obstacle, which was distinct for this project, was the construction of a paper screen for reverse projection. We spent a fair amount of time and energy determining just how the screen would function and what materials would work the best. I had a very hard time delegating these tasks to my other group members due to schedule conflicts and divided interest, so I was forced to take the reigns and make sure it got done. When it came time to set up, we found that the wind would not allow us to create such a screen, so we quickly found a way to project onto paper covered windows inside. This was a huge bump in the road, one that could have been avoided with more thought. This was a part of collaboration that became difficult. Fortunately, the altered project seemed to function effectively, even with the last minute change. 

I think I was highly effective at juggling many balls for project 2. I was able to work through a many different kinds of obstacles, while maintaining structure and organization, as not to bite off more than I could chew in any specific element of the project. This was an exercise of balance and focus. One area that could have made the project more effective was concrete planning. I tackled each aspect of the project working from a list in my head. If I had done so initially on paper, I could have foreseen some other obstacles from the start.

Overall, the finished product functioned well, and I received many compliments for the high production value and intricacy of my project. This, in their opinion, set my project apart from the others exhibited that night. The visuals and sound worked together to effectively communicate my message, and in doing so, created the vertigo of rhythm and tone that I intended. I enjoyed the comical element that resulted in the finished product, as well as the initial shock factor that a performance art piece can employ. All of the elements smoothly worked together in the end, and the project looked resolved (as opposed to looking like a student project held together with duct tape and bubble gum, which in some senses, that’s exactly what it was).

The final outcome was one that I feel I can be proud of, and if I had to grade myself, I would confidently give myself an “A”(not to be arrogant, as there are always things that could have been improved.  I really enjoyed the process as a whole, regardless of some stressful moments, and I felt that I took the project as far as I could with the time, energy, and resources allotted. I am proud that I used the project to explore new areas of art and creative collaboration. I was able to learn about the work styles of others, and myself, while experiencing the dynamics of organizing an art project across many mediums. I received recognition from several viewers, which gave me confidence and enthusiasm for future projects.

Reading Response: Artifacts

The article posted on Rhizome, titled Artifacts: A conversation between Hito Steyerl and Daniel Rourke is a discussion about the glitch aesthetic, with reference to the western definitions of art, both domestic and international. It suggests a new movement in the aesthetics of computer art; one whose mode of visual perception finds beauty in the decay, the effect of time and travel on a work, in this case a digital artwork. The article explains that a common misconception exists that media remains identical and unchanged as it is transferred, downloaded, copied, compressed and extracted. In reality this changes and mutates unpredictably as its electronic information moves through the constructed "virtual space." The data is changed, and as it moves from address to address, media develops what the article describes as bruises and scars.

The article, as I understand it, suggests that the commodification of digital technology has produced a tangled ball of yarn, quickly interrupting and destroying the origins of information. To popular culture, the line between what is real and what is representational is distorted in regards to digital innovation. Today, in the digital art world, images/artworks/creations are lost in the vast expanses of the web and essentially die quickly, as their stories dissolve and mutate. Their definitions do not travel with them. However, what I can absorb from the article is that their original meaning has no importance to popular culture. To relate the concept to history, the article makes a slight analogy to the lost culture, art, ideas, resulting from imperialist action in less developed regions, including the lost cultural understanding of many of the artifacts which returned to the European empires.

What I can take this to mean is that generations proceeding the creation of the internet have evolved (or devolved) to a distinctly different approach to perception, some of which has been influenced and changed greatly, for better or worse, by the growing use of manipulation, control, and surveillance in emerging digital technologies. These generations, I presume, will be cut off from what was "real" before the internet, and the original derivatives of information will eventually die, rightfully subjecting all further digitally stored information to intense scrutiny and skepticism.

My questions are, as the internet continues to rapidly expand, will proceeding generations be less particular? Will they have the opportunity to successfully distinguish valid information from invalid information? Will a difference between the two exist?

"Am I any closer? Will I ever get there? Does it even matter?"- lyrics from Apocalypse Dreams, by Tame Impala

Reading Response: Distracted Reception

The Article, Distracted Reception: Time, Art, and Technology, consisted of a theoretical approach to understanding the reception of art in modern society. Its foundation lies in Walter Benjamin's theories regarding art in the age of mechanical production. However, the article takes Benjamin's discussion, based on the emergence of cinema and its effects, and carries it forward through the innovations of both television and computer and internet. In doing so, he suggests a possible "de-linear-ization" of logic and attention with the emergence of these new technologies, as they plunged us into a seemingly unnavigable sea of ideas, agendas, and information saturated content/media.

To illustrate his point, the author presents some flaws of the attention vs. distraction paradigm, especially within the realm of how we define modern art. He explains how art is inherently a process that we engage in for the purposes of diverting our attention from what is in front of us. He states that we go to galleries to intentionally distract ourselves from reality, and in order to accomplish said goal, we must focus on the art that exists in the gallery. This is described as diverted attention. However it becomes more complicated as we take in whole gallery experience: the other viewers, the employees, the cars out the window. At this point we have become distracted from our original focus; from the distraction that we used to divert our attention in the first place. In his words, "art distracts and art is received in distraction... ...Art is received with attention invested with an anxiety about distraction; both distraction from the work and the "distraction from the distraction," that is attention to the work. Here, attention is distraction (from distraction); and distraction is attention (to other objects)"

I believe that the author is suggesting we imagine our process of logic in a way that is less antiquated, allowing for exploration, or what antiquated terms have always defined as distraction. In essence, we are in constant flux between attention and distraction, both variously occurring in the realm of what has happened and what is yet to happen. Thinking that we can ride a solid line, or divert from that line and return to it, can be thought of, in a sense, as irrational with regards to the emergence of computer and internet technology. Rather than considering our unique, unpredictable, speculative, and investigations of the unmapped virtual space (the internet) as a distraction from what we should be doing, we should understand that distraction and attention as we have defined them, are no longer under our control. We should embrace our new tools and understandings to their fullest potential.

Here are some visual schemas that illustrate my speculations about distraction/ perception, and human thought/ analysis.

Project 3 Research

Evan Roth
The first artist I have chosen for my project 3 research in Evan Roth, an american artist born in 1978, who currently works in Paris. He is represented by N2 Galleria and also receives support from both eyebeam and rhizome for socio-critical works that exist in both the digital and public spheres. Roth is especially interested in the bridges between graffiti and programming, and his hacker-like style is reminiscent of Adbusters and other culture jamming artists. He has had works exhibited in many noteworthy museums including MOMA NYC, won awards including the Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt National Design Award. He is also the co-founder of GRL (Graffiti Research Lab), a collective which focuses on freely distributing street art techniques and open-source coding for graffiti artists.

Although you can access his website by clicking on his name above, anyone can easily find Roth's work by googling "bad ass mother fucker"

Evan Roth's Project TSA Communication is a an art piece that comments on the sterile, impersonal experience traveling by air while implying a disconnect between the views of the american people and the views of the Federal Government, "inviting the government to learn more about passengers than just the contents of their carry on bags" The project indirectly responds to the US involvement in the Iraq war on the basis that TSA, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, beefed up their efforts to tighten screening procedures. This led to an outbreak of racial profiling specifically in American airports, and the tightened security caused much controversy in american public opinion regarding the violation of constitutional rights. Events like this, surrounding the attacks of 9/11, were government manipulations of information in attempt to control public opinion.

The archive of Evan Roth is chock-ful of projects like this one. Light Criticism is another project that uses both digital elements and guerrilla techniques to address the public. 

In this project, Roth creates cardboard cut-out stencils which read, " NYC's real graffiti problem. Graffiti = Advertising." and places them over backlit advertisements in the public sphere. The project comments on corporate ownership of the public sphere, and the NYC government removing "illegal" banners by artists. "we’ve watched our friends be detained, arrested, beat, fined, tried, and given real jail sentences, not a single corporate toy from any ad firm has had to do any time." 

Roth is highly invested in using art and technology to create a more open dialogue for citizens both locally and internationally and, on top of all this, he plans to use rap music, a popular genre in the american youth, to relay his passion for activism and breakdown some of the dangerous constructs of censorship and control.

What I took from Roth is that, in order to use creativity for change, or use art to relay a message, you must enter both pop culture and the public sphere. Modern society is surrounded and made dizzy by tactical corporate media and if you expect, as an artist/activist, you must use some tactics of your own to break through to your audience. These tactics could include the ad firm's own method, by forcing the viewer to take in the message due to it's placement, or by generating social interest by way of shock or controversy. Either way, an important aspect that allows these tactics to affect, is the human element, In layman's terms, the public's understanding of your work in the public context requires you, as the conductor, to have something important for them to hear.

Images and text in the boxes above are screen shots taken from an interview by Juxtapoz Magazine. October 2010, issue no. 117, pp. 126-135


ART THOUGHTZ WITH HENNESSY YOUNGMAN

The second artist I have chosen for project 3 is Hennessy Youngman, a video artist who emerged on his own youtube channel in 2010. He first discovered his passion for art while working as a security guard at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Although intrigued by the efforts of classical artists exhibited, Youngman has expressed an interest in contemporary art that say something and does something in the present, much more specifically invested in the study of art of american hip-hop culture. 


On his channel, ART THOUGHTZ, Youngman assumes the role of art critic, discussing contemporary art issues surrounding race, gender, and pop culture. Youngman occupies a special category in this light as both performance and a video artist, and in several ways, an activist. His video works sample the artistic language of hip-hop culture but in a way that elevates its form into the dialogue of fine art. By addressing contemporary art theory in the vocabulary of hip-hop vernacular, Youngman defies the status quo in the world of youtube channels and that of high brow art discussion. In an indirect fashion, he invites criticism of his character/ideology by his use of popular slang and humor, which only serves to facilitate his discussions. He expresses a strong interest in popular culture evaluating their own definitions of art by listening and responding to compliments and criticism in his videos, which are either posted as comments on his videos or sent to him through emails and other forms of social media including  twitter. In his brief history as a youtube broadcaster, Youngman has managed to generate over 10,000 subscribers and over 1 million views. He has also been interviewed by the Huffington Post in addition to being featured by F.A.T. Lab (The Free Art and Technology Lab, Eyebeam Sponsored) "an organization dedicated to enriching the public domain through the research and development of creative technologies and media."

What I have taken from Hennessy Youngman that sometimes being as direct as possible is the best way to evoke change. At the end of the day, art is a rudimentary form of expression that both grows from, and has its foundations in, social dialogue and change. Through Youngman, I have gleaned a greater appreciation and understanding of the artists role/ human element of art, as well as the effects of an artist's presence as public figure in the art world.

Artist Research: Aaron Meyers and Richard Vijgen

For our first research assignment, we were asked to find a new media artist and relate their work to an article we read. The article, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production by Walter Benjamin, discussed how the evolution of society through the technologies mechanical production was changing the way we think about art. It talked about how our concepts of image and artist have both changed drastically, and how our experience as a viewer has changed to delete the personal relationships that we develop with the artists themselves. 

We discussed the article in class, sharing our experiences and how Walter Benjamin's theories either have or have not manifested themselves in our lives. One common thread that we could all agree on was how much our lives and ideologies have changed with the advancement of computer technology.

 

With the evolution of internet culture and social media, our ideas about creativity have also shifted drastically.

 

Aaron Meyers, an artist that I found on eyebeam, is one artist that is responding to this new medium and considering the vast ocean of creative possibilities that can arise from these emerging technologies.

Aaron's Personal Site

Aaron Meyers "is a designer and programmer using generative strategies in the creation of software and moving image." Meyers's makes work with a range of content spanning from augmented reality and interactivity to visual music, and his work seems to echo the changing ideas of audience experience and collaboration.  

One work of his that I found to be inspiring was the "World Series of 'Tubing'" a interactive game-show reworked for modern purposes. The two opponents are using QR codes which correspond to youtube videos, trying to out-do each other to come up with a more interesting video. The audience  can see the battle projected on a wall, and can vote on which contestant is winning by pointing a laser on a target which corresponds to each of them.  This project repurposes a game show model for modern context and shows how the possibilities for interaction and community as a result of emerging technology can be endless. 

Meyer's work, which goes in a lot of different directions, could be critically analyzed from many perspectives which I find to be relevant to the class. His collaborative project about visual music, for example, involved the effort of programmers, artists, and musicians, to try and think about the new ways the computer can be used as an art medium. 

A second artist who I found to be pertinent to the discussion of the evolution of media is Richard Vijgen, whom I stumbled across on the rhizome database. I was particularly interested in his work Deleted cities, a project which recreated the website "Geocities." Geocities used to exist on the web as a virtual "space,"a search engine that was organized like a map. People could become "tennants" having a semi-physical spot near other items related to them. The site was eventually taken down, but the project has captured the site and preserved it as an archaeological "site."  I thought the piece really spoke for a change in perspective in what real or authentic really is. 

Richard Vijgen describes himself as an information designer with dynamic and screen based media. His website for his studio is presented as a studio for object oriented information design and research. To be honest, it's tough to say exactly what the guy does for a living. It's for certain that he is an idea guy, and his studies have put him into the real of new media. 

Reading Response: Naomi Klein - No Logo

This article assigned for this reading response is a chapter of Naomi Klein's book, No Logo, which focuses on a type of art called "culture jamming.," a developing style that uses advertising as it's main subject matter.  These "culture jammers" have chosen to attack ads which they find to be manipulative, dangerous or misinforming, especially advertisements for alcohol and tobacco, which target underprivileged young people in low income areas. The artists tap into the hard work put into ads by advertisers by using there location, color scheme, slogan, etc, but they, then, subvert the meaning of the advertisement to display something more accurate to what the company is offering, "sending conter-messages that hack into a corporation's own method of communication to send a message starkly at odds with the one that was intended."

Culture Jammers have been around for much longer than you might imagine (a culture jamming collective called BUG-UP, Australia's Billboard Utilizing Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions, caused approximately $1 million in damage to tobacco billboards in 1983) even though they seem to fit in line with many of the tactical web - artists that we see today.The article discusses how their form has been affective at using one part of the power structure against another, creating things that are both aesthetically and politically effective.  The tobacco and alcohol companies fear these attention welcoming artists because they are beginning to expose some of the inaccuracies of advertising in the public forum. Rather than sue these artists, large companies are better to just leave them well alone and avoid extra publicity.

I'm all for it. I like the idea that we should all have a billboard to say what we think is important to the whole. With all of our advancements and evolutions that have allowed us to communicate so fluidly, the one thing that seems to be undermined is the existence of open public forum. As the article states and I find to be true, "free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacophony has risen to the point that no one can here you." I think that is important to take back control of our media, it shouldn't be strictly a tool for companies to beam messages at us, which I think taps into this whole other issue of who owns what. 

Reading Response: Art in the Age of Mechanical Production

For this week's reading assignment, we were asked to read Walter Benjamin's article, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production.  The article is articulating a change in perspective about art-making in contemporary society, as a result of some technological innovations. The main vein of ideology that I can discern is how capitalistic production has altered the way that art is produced and distributed, and as a result, capitalistic production has subliminally altered the way we appreciate art.
In modern day society, the idea of capitalistic production has slowly incorporated itself into every facet of our lives. We are constantly looking for faster, easier ways to accomplish tasks and relay information. This can be seen plainly in the innovation of photography. Before the camera, a painting was the only way to capture a moment to preserve it through the ages. Once the camera was invented, the creative mind was free from time consuming production and set its sights on other creative processes.

The article describes some seemingly negative aspects of this change in production as it settles into more and more facets of our lives. One such negative aspect is described as the "decay of the aura." Because we can now access art so quickly and easily, the magic that surrounded the act of art-making is losing its power. For instance, because you can easily and quickly grab a picture of the mona lisa with a quick google search, people are much less inclined to go see the work in real life.  Hence, the aura, the magic of the physical object is appreciated less because people feel that they have already experienced the art. This can be a great thing for the "global village," because it is allowing people who have never had the chance, to experience art for the first time, but it is also leading to the degradation of the romance of art. The traditional idea of art is that it is special and personal and unique, that it is an instrument of magic. Only secondary, is the work's value as an exhibition. However, the speed of distribution in contemporary society is separating the audience from their personal relationship with the artist. In essence, the ritual of painting/drawing/producing art is no longer important, and, contemporary society, now flooded with imagery from all angles, no longer cares to distinguish one process from another. The audience now views all images in the same category and we categorize art as existing for the sake of itself.

One section that I found to be particularly informative is section VIII.  It uses the analogy of theatrical actor vs. film actor to describe this change in thought. It suggests that when a person goes to see a theatrical performance, he or she experiences not "just acting," but the aura of the actor themselves; that the visceral experience of seeing the performer is the creation of a personal relationship with the actor in their entirety. Whereas, with a film actor, the audience receives only the actors interpretation of their role. Therefore, the audience's experience of the acting is separated from the actor's total being and as a result, they sit comfortably in the position of critic. They are free to judge and analyze the actors performance as it relates to all of acting and as a result, the audience has no obligation to consider the processes the actor undertook to achieve a result.

Overall, the article can be a bit confusing to try and tie down to one concept. However, I agree with the author in their interpretation of the change in aesthetic value occurring in contemporary society. I definitely perceive a distinct difference in new vs. old aesthetics. As an artist, I have these ideas about where the honor of art lies, but it is my job as an artist to attempt to connect with an audience, and therefore, it is my responsibility to analyze the way art is perceived, as perceptions inevitably change. It is quite a guessing game in contemporary society to analyze what the word "art" means and anything that can shed light on this guessing game is worth considering.

NEW ART

Here are a couple sketches that I have been working with in the past few months. I have recently gone back to drawing as a means of generating new ideas. I have been working specifically on changing the way that I make marks with a hope that I can take my work in photoshop to the next level. I have been interested in scanning in my drawings and altering them in photoshop to create digital works that fit my style, because I haven't found that my photoshop/skills are sharp enough to start from scratch with the pen tool. Not sure how these works will translate in terms of functionality, but I have been exploring and learning through them, to find out what rings true for me in the grand scheme of things.

NEW STUFF!!!!

I am currently beginning a new semester and have decided to continue on my path through advanced digital media by repeating the course to further develop my ideas and technical skills.

We were asked for the first assignment to read and respond to the first chapter of "A New Culture of Learning" by Thomas Douglas and John Seely Brown.

In essence, the first chapter of "A New Culture of Learning" is describing some changes that are occurring in the infrastructure of contemporary society and how those changes are affecting/conflicting with tradition learning models of the 20th century. These changes involve the evolution of technology and media; specifically how their evolution has created new ways to exchange ideas, altering the traditional concepts of the public forum. The chapter articulates a change from a stable, controllable infrastructure to a more fluid one. It describes how the internet has created a world of learning that has infinite possibilities and how learning is no longer bound specifically by a classroom setting. This is allowing for learning at every stage of life as well as permitting the ability to constantly play with new ideas. The method of learning that the chapter suggests is the "Arc of Life" learning model where constant play, investigation, and imagination can occur. This is not to negate the value of traditional learning techniques but rather to augment our understanding of the new tools to which we have access.

The chapter tells the story of a young boy, Sam, who is learning how to use the internet. He begins to play with some new programs that are designed to not only teach children the fundamentals of web design and computer science, but to introduce the children to a community of like minded individuals who can play, critique, and modify the games that he designs. This could never occur before the evolution of the internet, and Sam is now able to learn things that would never have been permitted by a tradition education setting. His experience is expanding tenfold as a result of the addition of a public forum to the process of learning game design/ programming.

I find this to be true in contemporary society, the fact that we all have infinite resources at our finger tips as the result of increasing connectivity between like-minded individuals. Currently, we are all, consciously or unconsciously, receiving and responding to new ideas as well as contributing our own ideas to the public forum as a result of innovations in social media. I also agree that the internet has created a platform for endless play, investigation and imagination. This is expediting the evolution of ideas in many ways, but I often wonder if we benefit. History has proven that we often consider an infinitely expanding world and we often eat our own words when we take things to far, or find out the actual limits of what we can do. What I am saying here is, when moving forward with a new  concept/idea, is a sense of reservation necessary? Will we, in our excitement, make errors that cannot be undone in the future? Is it possible that these changes may not be what we think they are?