Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Response to 'On Media': Power vs. Responsibility

Power vs. Responsibility

When I heard the sentence “With great power, comes great responsibilities” from Stan Lee via spider man, I was inspired and felt a great sense of safety. Yes, having superpowers with responsibility, the animation world is happy and secured now. But, how about our real world?
Not as fortunate as the animation world, our real world is almost in the opposite direction. With the development of technology, human’s ability reaches to an unprecedented peak----a peak for technology, as well as a peak for manipulation. Nowadays, with a $200 PC, a normal man can cheat majority easily via Youtube; having some knowledge on nuclear, a small country can destroy the entire earth at will. The most familiar example of this fact may lie in journalism industry:











With hands on the controller of lens, one reporter now has the ability to ‘manipulate’ a ‘fact’, a preferred or desired ‘fact’. Common individuals have neither time/energy, nor enough professional knowledge to distinguish lies between truths. Telling lies from the overwhelming information is unpractical. As a result, lies are, literally, out of control.



However, I’m not saying the technology should not be developed and skills should not be made more advanced. What resonated in my brain is the perennial dilemma of development.
Initially, those great Greek philosophers noted that truth is “coverless”. That is, the less cover and medium there is, the closer we are to the truth.
Although nowadays we are far from that mysterious great Greek age, to clarify or build an easier path towards truth is still the pursue of our early technology pioneers. Compared to 19th century, a ‘playback’ function is doubtlessly a breaking through; as well as recompose compared to ‘playback’ in the later century. The developments promise convenience and power, while nothing promises responsibility.

Some artists have replied to this phenomenon. Like the worry carried by movies like the Matrix (1999-2003), Blade runner (1982), Pacific Rim (2013), etc. that people’s failure or ignorance of maintaining the responsibility may backfire human being themselves---that the mainstream idea of science fiction. An animation EVA (Neon Genesis Evangelion 1994-?) made by Gainax goes deeper into the discussion of the religious punishment from ‘god’ because of the abuse of technology by human being, which is a favorite to me.

On*****Media and Power

                It is interesting to look at the evolution of media that G.H. Hovagimyan discusses in “On*****Media” in terms of power dynamics. As the world moves from technology to technology to technology, who is really the beneficiary? What are the impetuses behind these changes? I think that the evolution of forms of media is motivated, especially in modern times, less by a desire for a greater level of art, but rather as an effort of the political and economic elite to have a more powerful tool. If media is art and art is communicative, as Hovagimyan suggests, then innovation of that art means a novel (and thus potentially more persuasive) form of communication. As such, I think the crux of the issue, what is truly at play here, is not so much the physical transformation of media, but rather the manipulating of it in order to produce a new message.
Hovagimyan cites the radio’s role in politicizing the masses during World War II. The television played a similar albeit antithetical role during Vietnam. While FDR used the radio as a means for his brilliant oration to calm a nation, journalists provided TV viewers real moving images of the carnage of battle—an incredibly powerful example of the medium as the message. No longer could citizens allow themselves to believe the platitudinal claims of a commander in chief without acknowledging the realities on their TV screens. Although in this case the result was a resistance to the decisions of those in power, it was a more or less singular occurrence. Vietnam was the first and last war to have such broadcasting freedoms. The state and its corporate interests clamped down on media from then on, thus curbing their ability to communicate an oppositional message. Thus, TV and internet coverage went quite the same way as the war photograph: rather ineffectual at stopping wars.

This is not to say that all forms of media are facets of a self-serving authoritative influence. For example, the Bauhaus movement was particularly innovative in its transformation of architecture into art with a message of egalitarianism and utopianism. Dada and Duchamp made prefabricated objects into critiques of the bourgeois nature of art. Yet in these cases the message was too narrowly received and/or too radically perceived, and thus these forms did not have the overwhelming success that other, more corporatized media did.


On Media: Authenticity vs Art

Cassia Kuhn

The part of this reading that really grabbed me, of course, was the mention of music. From an academic standpoint, the debate on the authenticity of music has been raging on since the 1920s. To even play a record on the radio was considered a cheat and a lie; the audience expected every performance to be live. This of course changed, but the mentality of recordings and albums was still fairly underdeveloped into the early 1960s. To a listener and a musician the record was an artifact of what could be a live performance; a bit like an audition tape. It was simply an authentic run-through of a band's music that could hold a fan over until the next concert. These rock and pop albums had to sound like they were recorded in one take or the audience would feel cheated. And this wasn't difficult; most songs were still very simple and could easily be recorded without overdubs. Just about anything by Frank Sinatra is a great example of a song that can be recorded or performed live (although this one might be the best, but I'm a sucker for 1957 Sinatra).

Luckily some visionary artists changed that too. Bands like The Beatles and just about any other psychedelic group realized that some amazing sounds could only be produced in a recording studio and started to incorporate them into their records. It started with smaller effects that were added to otherwise simple tunes, like "Tapioca Tundra" by the Monkees; I've seen them perform this song live and you just can't reproduce the echoes, simple as they seem. Other bands went all out like The Beatles, adding so much to their music that there was no way they could perform live. 

People embraced this idea as popular bands changed their sound, and the idea of authenticity changed. Now instead of through the sounds on the disc, an artist had to prove that they were genuine with their message and appearance. An artist like Bruce Springsteen has to convince his fans that he really is just a regular, blue collar guy like you and me, and his music helps him convince them. This is still the case; message authenticity is more important than technology. Look at the fairly new artist, Lorde. She performed her single "Royals" at the Grammy Awards on Sunday. It was very stripped-down from the original version, but they still used some prerecorded vocals at the show. So it wasn't truly, 100% live, but Lorde is still trying to portray her image as an everyday teen and that is what upholds her authenticity.

On Media: The New & Improved Representation of the Native Mythos

Hovagimyan mentions, very early on, how the mechanical and industrial advancements of the past century have changed the way tribal mythos are expressed. Immediately, I think of A Tribe Called Red. More generally, I believe music to be the most consistent medium in relating cultures' stories, beliefs, and mindsets. However, there seems to be a discongruence as of late with mainstream music, at least here in the States. Cultural identity seems utterly lost in mainstream pop and rock music. But in hip hop and electronic music, ahhh, there is so much more expression. Now, I am entirely biased; being partial to these later music stylings I see them as generally more creative and thought provoking. Additionally, these are the chosen styles of the misrepresented and minorities, groups that are more likely to actively search for traditional cultural roots as well as create new ones in response to their disenfranchised status. 
The author brings up the abundant use of sampling in hip hop and electronica. From this method of music creation sprouts a music environment that readily mixes medias. Movies, speeches, and other songs are all fair game to be manipulated into new art. The very basis of these genres (hip hop and electronic) is the use of intermedia, and this quality allows for an unequaled amount of creativity when addressing political concerns. It also allows a meta-culture to flourish as these underrepresented communities speak out for recognition. Music, and in turn the entirety of their cultures, mix. 
A Tribe Called Red is very much an example of this evolving nature of identity through music. Members of the First Nations, they come from a culture that is currently dying. Music, language, dress; all victims to 300 years of a hostile invasion. In order to celebrate, and remember, their communal past, ATCR has enveloped many aspect of urban music to carry their people's heritage. This is not without a growth and acceptance of alternative narratives, however. Their name in and of itself is in tribute to A Tribe Called Quest, an extremely influential rap group from the mid 1990s. They not only mix hip hop culture, but reggae, moombahton, and dubstep to create modern powwow that represents them and their community. 
The video below is a live performance of ATCR. It address cultural appropriation, history, and representations of them by non aboriginals in mainstream culture. But even more amazing is the mix of cultures. The show revolves around a celebration of heritage. Dancing and art abound, from the traditional spirit dancing on stage and off, to the audiences representations of their own cultures through dress and other mediums.(I most enjoyed the kilt!) ATCR mixes this song live, so it is a living, transforming performance that responds to the audiences energy and perception. G. H. Hovagimyan states, "The new cultural mythos is mapping out of human society that is extended into its technology and in a sustained symbiosis with that technos," which the video below showcases in real time. And thats pretty awesome. 




Braves RMX by ATCR on Soundcloud

On Media

In this reading, I find the different relationships between media very interesting.  Over time, media has progressed and a medium usually isn't comprised of one thing.  For art, years ago a painting would have one copy and that was the only part of the medium.  Now, that same painting may be reproduced or printed, or could probably be seen all over the internet, in magazines, etc.  I think this communicative element that media has developed is very important.  The simple medium may no longer be the main focus.  The greater idea could be producing the medium in such a way that it reaches a large audience, above focusing on what the message or art actually is.  The depth of media is actually somewhat scary to think about, especially the ways in which media surrounds us and shapes our lives.  The increased nature of digitalizing media and using machines creates a whole other dimension that wasn't a factor in media a century ago.  For example, now reading a book on a Kindle or e-reader seems normal, and at first thought like a single medium.  But then you would have to consider the way in which the book was coded to be read on a screen and distributed more easily and efficiently to a lot more people.  These things are also media.  Thus, today, media has become more multi-dimensional and complicated, but it allows for certain media to become more widespread and reach a greater audience, which is often a critical goal of a medium.

This idea reminds me of something I saw recently posted on the Internet.  What seemed like a post for a website selling men "Push Up Muscle Shirts" turned into a completely different message.  In my own experience, I saw this first on Facebook, and then clicked on the link not expecting the second message.  Whoever else has seen this may have gone through various means to reach the final message of the main medium.

www.theflatteringman.com


On Media and the Alteration of Art

In the article, On Media, the author discusses the phenomenon of hybrid media, combining different types of media together to create a new type. Some examples were silent films with text on the screen and an orchestra playing music along with the movie. This type of art is important because every single new hybrid form breeds a new form of artwork. Media changes and evolves constantly, and if different types can be used together, the new form can become more convenient, perhaps easier, and perhaps more elegant in its design.  Now with the digital world, there are so many ways to produce new media and mix and match whatever one has available. This can be dangerous in some instances, such as photoshop being used to add, delete, and edit parts of true photographs, and claiming the edited photograph to be true. However, photoshop can also be used to enhance, add interesting effects, and create impossible but hilarious situations. Because of this, having a medium like photoshop is necessary for the progression of art and media. Another media that uses this manner of changing reality is film and the use of green screens. In fact, anything and any scene can be created and changed with the green screen, which can confuse our perception of what is real and not. This is extremely effective for films, however, because they do not need reality to be created, and can rely on a false reality made possible by the digital age.



This video does a brilliant job of capturing different styles of art and putting them together to create something beautiful. The fact that we have the means to take an older style of painting and  digitize and make it move and change is incredibly powerful. The power of art and technology intertwined has come so far, and will continue expanding into the future.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

On Media Reading Response

The constant progress of media advancement brings about a logical side-effect that certain aspects of culture (especially media culture) and societal influence by media are changing as well.  With advancement, ultimately comes the dis-use and discarding of old technology and old methods. The article names several instances of media advancement and what new benefits were brought and what “old” practices were cast aside.

With the invention and widespread implementation of photography, for example – the painting of certain scenes is no longer a celebrated art form. And this is, in my opinion, a bit sad. The article names battle paintings as something that has gone as a result of the photograph which just shows the blunt, bloody, and factual side of war instead of highlighting the glory and heroism of painted artwork. This is also an instance where mass production/printing has changed society’s interaction with such media. In the past, an artist would paint a mural or a painting depicting scenes of battle and great victories (perhaps glossing over the massive loss of life) and then people would gather to see one or maybe two reproductions of the painting – celebrating the battle and interacting with each other. Now, we can just pull up the images on websites or in newspapers without ever having to collectively honor and glorify the actual art of war.

The ongoing debate is whether or not these changes should be categorized as good or bad… or a bit of both? While one can always argue that the invention of new modes and methods and discarding the old is a travesty to history and we should stay with the traditional ideas – it is inevitably a consequence of “moving with the times”. Perhaps then, we are better off not confronting new ideas and methods with hostility and doubt, but rather embracing them and focusing on the future – while also maintaining the ways of old into our museums and historical archives, so that proceeding generations can learn where we came from and how we got to where we are today.

On*****Media Response

As indicated in "On*****Media," media, in all of its forms, is constantly striving to improve and to reimagine itself. To support this claim, the author cites the transition from paintings to photographs. Another great example of endless progression in a medium can be seen in film. Caroline, with her discussion of Wall-E, already touched on the notion I am about to address. Specifically, the creation of Pixar is a perfect example of the tireless efforts to revolutionize a medium as technology progresses. Before Pixar, animated films consisted of mostly 2D animated films, which had been around since the first release of a 2D feature film (Disney's Snow White and Seven Dwarfs). Pixar then revolutionized the animated feature. Pixar originally formed as a section of the Computer Division at Lucasfilm. During their time at Lucasfilm, the team developed a new animation program (I am pretty sure the team was given permission by Lucas himself to develop such a program). This creation then evolved, as computers did, into the Pixar Image Computer. Unfortunately, I do not have a large amount of knowledge in relation to computer animation and the way in which these programs work (otherwise, I would provide a much more colorful explanation in relation to this medium's progression). At any rate, even an individual with little experience in computer animation, such as myself, can understand the transformation Pixar films have undergone, starting with Luxo Jr. and finishing with Pixar's latest release entitled Monsters University (not to mention the progression from 2D to computer animated features). Even the most simple difference, such as more defined textures, is noticeable when the two aforementioned Pixar works are compared. To have a fuller understanding of how computer animation and Pixar has progressed, I highly recommend watching The Pixar Story. The documentary provides its viewers with the understanding of how the development of technology greatly impacted the creation of computer animation films.

And while I do agree greatly with what "On*****Media" and my classmates have said about media and its development, I cannot help but think of the viewing of The Wizard of Oz I recently saw. This showing was not typical in the sense that I just streamed the video online or popped a DVD into my computer and watched the classic. Instead, I attended a symphony concert where the Pops orchestra accompanied the film. Specifically, the film was stripped of all music and all orchestrations were instead performed live [1]. In the past few years, this type of showing has become very popular across the country; symphony halls show classic films and provide the live orchestrations. Thus, I cannot help but wonder how this relates to "On*****Media." After all, my classmates (myself included) and the article agree that media is constantly developing. So what does it mean that an aspect of media has now reverted back to the time of silent pictures. After all, "On*****Media" even mentions the presence of orchestras during the original screenings of silent movies. The article does say art is mimetic, but does it mean in the sense that art can revert back to a dated form? Is it possible that this transition backward could only have been made as a result of technological advancements (the conductor does have a computer that provides time markers to pace the orchestra)?

Post-Media and Pissing on Art

"The artist is a not great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and mostly leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on." - Stephen Hicks

Up until the very late 19th century, Art was mostly a manifestation of aristocratic societies. The artist, whether an Egyptian slave carving the Pharaoh's tomb, or Michelangelo painting for the Pope, or Monet painting for some rich socialité, art was a consequence of social inequality, and for most people, a luxury. The advent of state socialism, the general improvement of everybody´s lot, mass communications and production...all that changed the scope of art and consequently, its very nature. It is no longer a superior material expression of society. Duchamp killed that notion. He killed art as humans knew it for 10,000 years or however long we've been doing it. He was against it, against art. He wanted to tell everybody how ridiculous this concept that people had of it was. 


Today, everybody is an artist and nobody is an artist. We do have people who earn a living out of it. But most of us have also made a 6-second Vine video and some of them are pretty good too. We like them better sometimes than the current media exhibition at ROCCO. Make a .gif, a website, buy some flower stuff at Michael's and do something for your grandma. Is is art? Wrong question. There is no such thing as art anymore, I think. We have people who paint really well, people who pretentiously or not paint something abstract, we have filmmakers and singers, etc, etc. And of course, there's everybody else with a pencil or a laptop. What's good art? What's not? 


......


Media is a wonderful curse. Everybody gets a shot. Greatness is gone too. There are no more masterpieces. They are just too difficult, and there are too many art critiques to agree on one. We want it easy. More people can create their own concepts and do something to represent them. Its valid. In a society where everybody is equal, the name of the game is mediocrity. No matter who or what you are, you can still be somebody. You do get the occasional star, but it will hardly shine by producing videos of cats on YouTube. Take a look at Tom Hanks' speech to the Yale graduates

"My appearing today at Yale University is surely one of the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse...Please, DO NOT turn off your electronic devices. Take the speech and set it to music, and maybe insert some crazy cookie graphics, posted on the web, and if it becomes a viral sensation, you'll be equal to any cat playing with a paper bag, as popular as a cute girl that sings about Fridays...hey! you can be the next Sam Tsui!...Boredom has been vanquished! That same technology has allowed for a surplus of celebrities, and that is nothing to cheer about."
Welcome to the "playback" culture Hivagimyan talks about. 

Post-media has the potential to break this pattern, (or perhaps make it worse). To bring spontaneityoriginality and less of a standardization of culture and media. Computer algorithms making art? Maybe, but certainly new and unexpected things can come out of them just as we have seen with the advent of photography, video, and .gif art. We could stop reproduction and iteration, or at least contain it. And we will still keep doing those things that we have been doing for a while, like cat videos, and funny videos, etc., just as people keep sketching and painting and playing acoustic guitars.We might stop pissing on art for a while. Or maybe that's exactly what we should keep doing. 


There are many great artists out there today. Great pianists, insightful directors, etc, whether they are recognized or not. But there's a lot of shit out there too, I think. Or too many art critiques. Not sure which one.

On Media Response - Remediation Rocks

Media is constantly changing and getting recycled, that is what makes it so cool! With the invention of new technologies come new ways to create art, and new ways to disseminate information. As McLuhan says, the medium is the message and with that, the message is constantly changing through which medium we decide to send it through. As Hovagimyan writes, painting completely changed with the arrival of photography. Suddenly, the photograph was capturing a moment in time with exact details, and there was less pressure on painting to convey realism. As we see today, the arrival of photography didn’t cause painting to go extinct, merely transform. This is remediation. Remediation, according to Bolder and Grusin, is “the representation of one medium in another” but it is also the historical process defined by the ways new media refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer challenges of new media. For example, there are artists who specialize in painting scenes that look hyperreal, as if they were photographed. There are many ways to look at remediation. Remediation can be seen as a new medium offered as an improvement, the new medium is still justified and seeks to remain faithful to the older medium’s character; the new media projects itself as progress. Remediation can be viewed as a new medium aggressively trying to replace the older one; refashioning the older medium or media entirely while still marking the presence of older media and maintaining sense of multiplicity or hypermediacy. The third way to view remediation is the new medium trying to absorb the older medium so there are not as many discontinuities, the entire act of remediation ensuring that the older medium is not entirely erased – it is replicating the way of the older medium. For example, Edward Hopper’s New York Movie Theatre painting is a painting representing film. My favorite example of remediation is the end credits in Wall-E. The end credits of Wall-E are a remediation of art in general from cave paintings to hieroglyphics to Mediterranean mosaics to pointillism to Van Gogh to a video game. The creators are secretly saying, “Look! The digital age can create an image just as good as Van Gogh complete with pixels and the ability to zip it up and send it through cyberspace. Wall-E is an example of Remediation II, the new medium trying to replace the older medium, refashioning the older media while maintaining the sense of multiplicity and hypermediacy. In the end credits of Wall-E, the digital is superseding and taking over – it is an homage to past mediums with a hint of aggression. While watching the end credits we are reminded that we are engaging in both the older medium of painting and the newer media of cinema (specifically digital cinema) because we can see pixels move – we are completely conscious that the new medium (cinema) is conveying an older medium.




Monday, January 27, 2014

Response to "On Media" -- Harris

In this article, ON*****Media, the writer give us a general idea of what is the "Post Media", which he believe is the "current climate of the arts", and "there is only dynamic iterations of form". The iteration of form somehow lead me to think of the how advance in technology like video, video editing software, has change the media.  the iteration of form, the repetition, the copying and remixing of an art piece is what illustrate the "current climate of the arts".

In the series of video " Everything is remix" pretty much summarize in a world where all media is being mass produced at an impossibly fast rate, it seems destined that anything "original" will end up copying some existing piece of work, even if that is unintentional (i.e., the moment in "Everything is a Remix" featuring George Harrison's 'subconscious' copying of an early Motown tune.) Even when unintentional, many artists display copying, no matter how minute it may be. This copying may not manifest itself so obviously as George Lucas' shot-for-shot matching of Kurosawa in "Star Wars," but may instead take shape in terms of form and style. I am not entirely convinced by "Everything is a Remix," of the fact that we all stand much to gain from copying.

Hollywood has created a formula for all movies, and the entire art of film has been com-modified and standardized. We all crave this universal movie formula, and the culture industry understands it can make money off of that formula by reusing it again and again. Our cultural experience is thus com-modified, and, subliminal or not, all artists are susceptible to this standardization of culture. This makes it impossible to create anything that is truly "new" or even "art" for that matter, since (at least according to A & H) art should be art for its own sake and not have any monetary value.

While this seems a bit extreme, I think there is some validity to it. "Everything is a Remix" even references this point during part two, when it points out the fact that 74 out of 100 blockbusters from the past year have been remakes of or sequels to existing films. "Transforming the old into the new is Hollywood's greatest talent," claims the narrator. He goes on to explain that the remaining "original" blockbusters were all genre movies which "stick to pretty standard templates." (key word there, STANDARD). The narrator seems to be ragging on Hollywood here for its incessant use of copying which, of course, serves the main purpose of giving audiences what they want. Hollywood has determined that what audiences want (or, at least, what they think they want) is what they're USED to. The narrator says that directly at some point in the video, but I couldn't find the actual quote.

This is the one hiccup that I personally find with the video's argument. He' all in favor of copying, but here he seems to be ragging on Hollywood for doing just that. He even admits that indie art films, the holiest films of the film world, are susceptible to standardized formulas, thus making them nothing more than elaborate money-making schemes. Given this, it would seem that not all copying is good, especially copying that is used to take advantage of the public, but he never seems to make that admission.

Just like any other creative person, I see the nuisance of copy and patent trolls and wish they would all got discard. I think copying and building off the work of others is the best way we can enhance ourselves artistically and scientifically. It just seems like there's a pretty big gap between what should be considered "good" and "bad" copying that goes unexplained.

On ***** Media Response - Ekin Erkan

Romanticism, often conceptually narrative in the sanguinary French Revolution, depicts a zeitgeist of blaring pioneer-ship of human feats and battle victories. Such chronicles neglected the gray and black despair of humanity often rooted in war, with Lord Byron accentuating the exoticism in drama and history. The tragedy of Gericault's The Raft of Medusa is lost on our hardened generation who recognizes mangled soldiers not as heaving Gods but pure souls making the piece enshrined in "art history's" velvet. While aesthetically and symbolically poignant, there is something far too grand in Delacroix's Liberty Leading the People that strikes current intermedia with a dagger of emotional disparity.

While Eugene was punk for his time - rejecting academic perfection in art with substitution for free brush colors, anti-monarchist art is best set upon a more decrepit pedestal (cue "God Save the Queen").
Robert Capa's bleakly and characteristically monochromatic scenario best slips the dagger to Romanticism's throat - the masculine, Ancient Greek harping and championing of combat is folly. Images of civilians darting during1939 air raids and the contorted bodies of Spanish Civl War soldiers can be described as brute and grotesque - but certainly ever real - as if to blare "War is never beautiful and romantic. Fuck your cinematic autherism." Robert Capa brought emotional poignance to reality in his photography - seemingly rejecting Romanticism.


In his "On ***** Media," Hovagimyan speaks of philosopher Wittgenstien's Logical Positivism - submitting all activity, and, thus, art as cross-lingual communication in structure. This posits much more innocence than Plato, who would grow blush in the face to such preposterous claims (rather Book X of The Republic era Plato would be the ever-wrathful), submitting all art as mimetic. In imagining the  portrait of a chair, the first layer of the "ideal" structure is fixed in God's perfection - for He creates all things - and the second layer in the carpenter of the tangible structure - the chair's furnisher. Thus, the painter or poet knows much less than the "ideal" for she/he only holds a representation of a representation. The artist is twice removed from genuine knowledge. Plato proposed an epistemological argument: all knowledge in art is flawed and the artist doesn't hold any knowledge (such knowledge exists only in the ideal, which the philosopher has access to via the armchair). Plato, hence, submitted art as dangerous and flawed.

Yet, it seems that there is an innately healthy articulation between emotional sensation, symbolic connection, and aesthetic realism in art (which Plato, perhaps, never sensed). This brings people together in celebration - from Paris Fashion Week(s) to Chaos to Couture. The isolation of reality in place for Freudian irrationality is only natural with rejection, hence Surrealism and pre-cursor Dadaism (or, more entirely, the avant-garde). This seems to be the true homeland for our generation's art, a generation a bit destroyed by media influx, economic hopelessness, and systematic dream-burrying. Art of the 1920s saw beauty and celebration of human feats had been substituted for the entirely illogical (a reflection upon human meaningless and animalism), fantastical, and sometimes sexual underbelly of the human psyche.  Take a reproduction of the alphabet - Luis Aragon's Suicide, included in Picabla's CannibaleMeaning is seemingly lost, like WWI's lost young soldiers.



Fashion photographer Guy Bourdin well depicted the celebration of the surreal with such ephemeral emotional connection in his articling for Vogue France 1955 in his surreal fashion films. Carnal, bare, and fetish-like, Bourdin's early depictions still resonate within the avant-garde fashion forces from Rick Owens to Aoi Kotsuhiroi. The influence can be traced to Dogme 95 films of Lars von Trier, Thomas Vinterberg, and Harmony Korine that incorporate Super 8 and 16 mm film to project the bare basics of art - emotional connectivity via the grainy poignance of something aesthetically thwarted.


Aoi Kotsuhiroi Heels

Hence, the vulgarly human art - punk and raw in nature -  requiring no airs and an open mind from the audience is the future. There is no room for romanticizing in the strictly DIY interaction (not meaning half-rate "hipster art"of no technical quality, thought, knowledge or vision for the sake of production - plaintive art requires effort, dedication and altruism). Performance art, as I noted in my previous post, rivets a pang of beautifully human inter-connection. Anything not offered for blatant reaction in a one-layered context (read: Andy Warhol's Piss Paintings - the only artist justified in his canvas-pissing is Jackson Pollock) or under ostentatious silken covers can achieve this - and, thus, thank Plato for the Death of Romanticism. 

Evolution of artistic media

        I feel like this reading was essentially saying that media changes and evolves alongside human society and technology. I think it’s interesting that the author disagrees with Walter Benjamin on the topic of art losing its “aura” when reproduced; I interpreted this as the author suggesting that the development of reproducible art (including photography and film) is simply a step in the evolution of artistic “language.” The reproducibility of art certainly makes it more easily accessible to regular people who can’t necessarily view the photographed subject or original artwork in person. I do think that art can lose some aspect of its unique presence when it is reproduced (as Benjamin would say) but I don’t believe that destroys any effect the piece has; the poster of “Starry Night” in my dorm room can make me feel the same emotions as the real painting. The difference is just that the original piece would also carry with it the authority of a Van Gogh original and the awe that comes with beholding the piece in person.
        I think the changes in media and media technology are directly related to the speeding-up of everyday life in human society. Things moved slower in the days of daguerreotypes, without cars in common use and certainly no email or telephone. As technology advanced and ways of communicating became more and more instantaneous, so too did the types of art and media that arose become more and more about immediacy and keeping attention. Film, of course, is the current endpoint of that development, directly communicating what we should look at and how we should feel at every moment in a piece.
        The author says, “With the TV commercial we have an interesting occurrence. The creation of a consumer culture presented in a medium that is some sense also defining the global media mythos.” In 2012, Coca-Cola released an advertisement called “Security Cameras”, in which we see different scenes captured by security cameras around the world. The premise is that security cameras often capture terrible things but sometimes they capture sweet moments as well. As a piece of multimedia art, this video is commentary on the good things about humanity, and about love and friendship. At the same time, we must remember that it’s a Coca-Cola advertisement, marketing the “happiness” found by drinking the soda. “Security Cameras” is an advertisement promoting consumerism packaged in a multimedia art form that is specific to the most recent developments in human society and technology.