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?