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?