Introduction to Video and Sound: 2014-03-02

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Reading Response

"Art as performative enactment" is about art as a performative enactment. While the interpretation of this might be a bit vague between persons, the general idea should be that art is an expression of self emotions and doesn't necessarily have specific boundaries. The sky is the limit so to speak.
In addition, the showcasing of other people's work and allowing visitors to view such work allows for the spreading and furthering of art as a whole. The viewer's emotional and visual response to what they see in front of them applied to paper or even to other material spawns more artwork. The definition of what is art can vary greatly and is a very expansive area of discussion. A simple sculpture, a sketch, a smudge of paint on a canvas, a shattered vase, or even a simple stone can all be art. If someone somewhere saw something creative in that lump of rock or in the splash of color on paper then it is art, whatever the detail or whatever the style.Changing or interacting to art or even responding to art shouldn't be something that is frowned upon or discouraged - the interaction with art simply builds upon the existing work or piece and creates a new form of art. This is the natural evolution of an artform - allowing the viewer or the "user" to interact and transform the original creator's work in to something new and amazing. The interaction with performance art is slightly different than typical interactions with still life or stationary work. Interaction with performance art simply builds upon the original work, the new work is only modified and the original state is changed. Modifying traditonal art like a painting might otherwise be different since the original work may not be meant to be changed...and is therefore destroyed. It's all a matter of perspective and case in the end.

On the other hand, the article "the fantasy beyond control" is portraying a story about performance art and focuses at least in part on one woman's experience playing a character. The issue of manipulating art through interaction and capture is also brought up. While reading this, the issue of whether or not art is meant to be manipulated and changed came up as a question in my mind. Is it ok to manipulate art and to what degree can we do so?

In Camera edit

https://vimeo.com/88293809?utm_source=email&utm_medium=clip-transcode_complete-finished-20120100&utm_campaign=7701&email_id=Y2xpcF90cmFuc2NvZGVkfDkwNzM1MzNlMmU2YWRkZTA2MGZhNTUyY2E1OTFmMjI5ODg1fDI0NDU2MjY5fDEzOTQwNTY2NzV8NzcwMQ%3D%3D

Art as a Performance Act & The Fantasy Beyond Control

Lynn Herchann introduced me to a new perspective on how audiences interact with art. This subjective aspect of art, how those viewing it actively change the performance or work, has never been too highly regarded as an ideological approach to me. However, it does have some merit that I cannot easily brush aside. The example of games was an extremely powerful way of making her point. I started to think about how the virtual world is much more accommodating to this outlook, an opinion I kept while reading the second article. The intersection of the two writings had me thinking of the all great, all powerful Gorillaz.
The brainchild of a two british artist, this virtual band has four members which are constant and yet the actual, flesh and blood artist behind their music is ever changing. They are just plain odd. And yet, due to how their fans, or better yet and listener, view them, they do in fact exist. Our suspension of logic to accept these ridiculous characters as a real group makes them a real group. So much so as to garner them a coveted spot on MTV Cribs. Not only do fans come to learn about these four separate, fleshed out individuals, but also the world in which they inhabit. The mystical and surreal virtual world of the Gorillaz offer just as much artistic influence over participants as the band and their music. Symbolism abounds in the many music videos of the group, most notably Clint Eastwood, Do Ya Thing, and Feel Good Inc.
Entrenched in the internet centered world of the late 90s and the 2000s, the band and their music centers on a lot with rebellious punk-rock and hip hop ideals including unrelenting partying, identity, and opposing the status quo. This emphasis on the internet is a major part of the bands representation, as the creators put a tremendous amount of resources in the ability for fans to explore the Gorillaz's world via computers and easter-egg videos. Whether just fun animations or serious examinations of the music industry and popular culture, these digital creatures are really just hulls that, in the modern world, fans can more easily mold into the perfect band in their own minds.

Performance art articles-response

In discussing the subjective meaning that must be derived from performative art, Klemm states, "What is more, the viewer must assume responsibility for those meanings, and he or she is aware of having to assume such responsibility" (70). I find this statement very interesting, not because of what it says, but because of how it says it. Specifically, I think the quote is an interesting way to say that interpreting art indicates how one perceives the world. Thus, performative art doesn't necessarily make one analyze the meaning of the art but what the art means to them. I think that this suggests performative art is much more raw and personal for the viewer than other art forms.

But does one always have to see meaning in the performative act? And if the viewer cannot find meaning, is that then failure of the viewer or of the artist? And can any action be defined as performance art as long as it is completed in the proper setting? What are the limits, if there are any, of performance art? In the article, Klemm states the art should reveal "the truth of being" (70). Does this mean that all performance art must be profound?

There are two interesting examples of performance art that I found.

The first is a video of Andy Warhol eating a hamburger. After viewing the video, I wondered what "truth" the performance revealed to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejr9KBQzQPM&ntz=1

The second one I discovered is by Bruce Nauman. In this video, Nauman walks around his studio. When discussing the piece, Nauman stated, "'If I was an artist and I was in the studio, then whatever I was doing in the studio must be art'" (complex.com). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qml505hxp_c&ntz=1

Performance & Fantasy articles update

Updated version of my other post (this has examples of performance art)

In regard to Klemm's article, I have made the point before that performance rides in the same metaphorical vehicle as other art; some raw material is rearranged on a scene to create some sort of new representation/environment/message. Anything can be art, by this metaphor, but we personally use our preferences to distinguish between "good" and "bad" and "weird" artworks.

Performance art specifically has a wide range of "raw" medium. It can come in almost any form, and be attached to time in almost any way; it can last for ever as a monument, last for a period and be documented eternally by video, or it can be completely ephemeral, here and gone in a second.

Some of my favorite performances are below:

Marina Abramavic, or the grandmother of performance art: Balkan Baroque at the Venice Bienalle 1997

Here is an explanation and video of the performance:

Her extended performance

It was a very emotional piece for her, as she was trying to scrub away the blood from the bones, a greater mess ensued, staining her hands and her clothes. I think she even had to leave early.

Next is perhaps a …an odd one… Vito Acconci received much acclaim for his piece Seedbed.

What did he do?

Yes. He masturbated underneath the floorboards of the gallery when people were walking around over him.

Next is one of my favorites, and a good example of how performance can use any performer, be on any scale, and take place any where at any time.

NL architects' "Moving Forests"

They gave people the ability to create a forest environment anywhere they wanted, even in very urban places (where it is most important)

A very politically inspired artist, Alfredo Jaar, did two works that I like very much. His first, "Let There Be Light: the Rwanda Project 1994-1998"

I couldn't find video of this so here's a link to a bunch of examples.

As a witness to the Rwandan genocide, Jaar wanted to help give the victims a voice, and make account of not those who had died, but those who were still alive, and still needed help. So he bought up a bunch of postcards and gave them to people who had family and friends elsewhere. Their message to the rest of the world: "We are still alive."

His second piece, "Lights in the City" makes another statement about the helpless.

Jaar found places that the homeless of Montreal typically take refuge, and added light switches for them to light up monuments and important buildings of the city (such as Cupola of the Marche) when they stayed there. This was meant to call attention to people who are homeless in areas where they are far from the mind.

Another one that is politically motivated is "Conflict Kitchen"

Manned by many artists and workers, it is a take out restaurant in Pittsburgh that only serves food from restaurants that the USA is currently in conflict with. Their current menu: Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (or North Korea)

They have done other countries such as Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela.

Here is a video of their work.

Lastly, one of my favorite performance artists who uses his art as a constant struggle to reform issues in his home country, China, is Ai WeiWei. There is currently a documentary on netflix about him called "Never Sorry" and it is very good, I recommend it. He is often the victim of of aggression from chinese authorities due to his political statements and protests. His most frequent work typically includes defacing some sort of antique or valued items. For example, dropping and smashing a $1 million Han Dynasty vase and painting over/defacing others:

Here is a video of his exhibit. (there are ads, sorry)

His statement is that we destroy valued aspects of our culture every day and these events go unnoticed, and he was drawing attention to that with this drastic action. Of course he received a lot of grief from it all over the place, but this is the kind of work he does. He also updates his twitter regularly. Here is a link

lastly this is nice. this is funny and relevant and everyone should watch it.

Performance Art

In reading Klemm’s “Art as Performative Action,” I was immediately struck by his statement about the responsibility of the reader to create immediate meaning while watching performance art. Certainly the viewer of a piece of a performance art is interpreting cues as they are given, combining them with preconceived notions and beliefs, reinterpreting, etc. throughout the entire piece. However, his claim that these discernments of meaning are available only as the action is being performed seems a bit outdated. With the rise of video, it is possible to re-experience performance art for decades. Someone watching cut piece live and re-watching it years later on film may not (arguably probably will not) have the same interpretation both times. Thus, the absolute responsibility over meaning is mitigated.

Going along with the idea of interpretation of meaning is Hershman’s notion about the video as a one-sided dialogue that “does not talk back.” I think there is an inherent comfort in this idea. It allows a viewer to interpret a video as they wish without the fear of being corrected. After all, who is going to tell them that they are wrong? Moreover, it allows a viewer to consider a piece of performance art through a variety of lenses, just as one might analyze a piece of literature through a variety of theories.

In my opinion, this viewer-based ascertainment of meaning paradoxically burdens and relieves a viewer of responsibility. The viewer must ascribe meaning in the moment based on the cues the artist gives. However, no one is going to hold them accountable for this meaning as there is no one right answer. This seems to be the key paradox which valorizes performance art: it is both immediate and transient.

I think that Teching Hsieh’s “Time Clock Piece” is an impressive and fascinating work of performance art that exemplifies the variety of ways people can interpret a piece.

http://vimeo.com/16280427

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

The purpose of dance---art as performative enactment

The purpose of dance.

Since tribal society, movement with or according to certain rhythm or pattern has become an essential part of human society. Either in form of paints, dancing, or ceremony, we have found archaeological evidence in most every early settlement of our ancestors.

Without any doubt, dancing is about movement. But why would someone else’s movement have any affair with us?

The answer is, we can feel it! Our sight will be guided by the highlights of the movement showed by dancer. By feeling the floating gestures, we would be able to explore some rare area we’ve never been, or someplace we have seldom noticed but is deep inside our inner world. We capture the tension created by the performer. We bring our life experience into it and disclose our ownmost truth. More interestingly, a great piece of art usually requires little life experience other than our basic life. Sometimes, one art piece could even be international or intercultural, that is, beyond the separation of language or culture. I believe that’s the source of what Gadamer called concept of ‘festival’, i.e. shared ties among human beings.

That makes sense. Before human languages are generated, the world already exists and runs well. Human tribes are built and were operating in the world established on sound, picture, texture, and movement. Everything is communicated via gesture, imagination and empathy. We FEEL the world before we describe the world. Thousands of years passed, everything in the human society now we are experiencing is basically translation or re-representation of the nature universe. According to Greek philosophers, truths are covered during the process of translating and re-representing, while art is the key that leads us back to the disclosure of truth (Unconcealment). Art IS the tunnel, in the opinion of Heidegger, that allows us to rediscover.

Response to Art as a Performantive act by Harris

This article talks about the performance art and describe about the element of play in art, and how artist use art as self-presentation and use it as medium to create a " dialogue" between audience and artists.

" when the game is played for spectators, then the spectators too must participate in the movement of the play in order for the game to present itself in the truth of its being." this sentence reminds me the series of Marina Abramonvic's performance art piece. I know other people already post many of her art piece in the blog post, I decided to choose a piece by JAY-Z called"Picasso Baby: A Performance Art Film" that under her influence.

In this performance art, Jay-Z performing the song to several different people-sometimes a celebrity, sometimes a artist, sometimes a fan- each one at a time. and his performance as what Jay-z said is taken from the energy of crowds, and he needs to decide how to deal with the energy. this performance art film totally illustrate what the article mention:"the being of the work of art presents itself to those who plays along, to those who perform the being of the artwork as it gives itself in an active way." the performance art as what I interpret from this article and the video is the representation of atmosphere that the piece is made, and the self representation of artist himself, his mood, his mind during the time when he make the piece.

Performance Art

Both readings this week emphasize the importance of the relationship between the viewer and the artist, especially in performance art. Increasingly, the audience is encouraged (or even required) to analyze the piece or even participate in it. Many times the goal is for the viewer to see himself in or create an understanding with the piece and relate it to the real world. Performance artists go to extremes to make these scenarios and try to challenge the audience to engage and test their ideas of perception.

An interesting discussion from the New York Times asks the question, "Did YouTube Kill Performance Art?" I find this correlates to Hershman's piece because performance art through video causes distance and disconnect for the audience. However, it's an accessible way to view art, and can allow artists to gain recognition. An important question asked by the NY Times is whether this is beneficial for performance art, or whether it allows artists to simply perform publicity stunts that lack purpose in order to get views? This intermedia disrupts the natural medium, and the space between the artist and viewer leads to less interaction even in thought and overall time spent in perceiving it, opposed to seeing something live.

Though there is a clip on YouTube that explains this act, it still pushes the boundaries of closeness with the audience. Artist Taras Polataiko takes her performance down a path similar to that of Marina Abramovic by creating a situation that could greatly impact her life. Polataiko is "on exhibit" as a real life sleeping beauty, eyes closed, awaiting Prince Charming. Contractually, she allows anyone who also signs a contract and is aware of the possible outcome to kiss her, and if she feels a strong enough connection and opens her eyes, she must marry that person. While signing up, potential suitors may seem excited to participate in such a revolutionary project, but as they approach her, usually take a few steps back and awkwardly ponder what they've gotten themselves into. I obviously don't know her intentions, but I can infer that she wants the audience to participate and feel discomfort, because an emotional reaction will allow them to take more depth from the piece.

Performance art response: Audience interacting with art

Both “Art as a Performative Act” and “The Fantasy Beyond Control” are about the inclusive, participatory nature of intermedia, which I thought was a lovely way of thinking about that type of art. The first reading explains that intermedia focuses upon the interpretation of the audience, since a piece is immediately experienced – that is, you don’t just contemplate it afterwards, or on your own time, like you would a still painting. With an intermedia piece, the audience is directly a part of it. It plays on the audience’s power of interpretation to make the art. That is why Gadamer’s three elements of performative art are relevant: play, symbol, and festival all have to do with how the audience perceives and treats a work of art. As Klemm says, “What do you we recognize in the work of art? We recognize the meaning of our being in the world.” Art and especially intermedia work depend upon the participation of an audience to unearth the meaning of a work and make it their own. In “The Fantasy Beyond Control”, Hershman talks about how 24/7 media exposure has caused a “sense of cultural time displacement”, where it feels like history and time just pass by in front of us and we, as individuals in a media-saturated society, feel alienated because we see them pass but don’t get the opportunity to participate in them anymore (since all they see is information presented to them). Similar to Klemm’s discussion of intermedia, Hershman suggests that interactive media lets individuals join in “in the discovery of values that affect and order their lives.” That is, intermedia work lets people feel like they can participate in the world.

Reading both of these pieces made me wonder about how at the same time we’re reading about the importance of interactive media, we’re making videos that are inherently one-sided. Theoretically, as Klemm would say, audiences of video art could create their own interpretation of the work and identify with it – this is clearly true given the existence of cult movies and Rocky Horror festivals, for example. But it feels like Hershman wouldn’t be as comfortable with video art, since there’s no way to add to it in an objective sense. It is what it is. So I thought, what if there were a performance video piece that took the form of a one-sided conversation, like a more intellectual version of Dora the Explorer talking at the screen, asking the audience to participate? Even more compelling to me is the idea of art that is directly constructed by the audience – one-sided but from the side of the audience rather than the artist. For example, like Marina Abramović’s Rhythm 0 (1974), in which she presented herself and a variety of objects, and invited the audience to do whatever they liked to her, and she wouldn’t react. This six-hour performance was certainly interactive in that the audience was allowed to affect the piece but it went to the extreme that the audience made the piece – their actions give us an opportunity to interpret “the meaning of our being in the world” (Klemm) and the nature of the art audience. While I couldn’t find video of the actual piece, I did find a video of Abramović talking about the piece:

Marina Abramovic on Rhythm 0 (1974) from Marina Abramovic Institute on Vimeo.

Performance Art and "Jaladas"

"Jalada:" Spanish expression used commonly in Mexico to describe trivial, seemingly thoughtless or effortless "art." English translation might be: pulling-off shit and getting away with it.

The main point I got from the reading was the concept of art becoming more engaging with the public. This is possible and almost inevitable in many forms of the newer media forms of art like the internet and other mediums that rely on a user interface.

Browsing the internet, I found Charles Broskoski, an internet artist who produces all sorts of interesting little websites who focus generally on a single, very straightforward concept.

The website that resonated the most with me is casually also a great example of interactivity and participation in the art work and process. Check it out!

In this website, the user is invited to draw anything on the screen canvas with a very simple drawing tool controlled with the mouse movement and clicks. There is no fancy filters, colors, etc. Its basically a black pen or pencil. The artwork can be cleared or saved. Once it is saved, it is displayed down below in the same website. You can see by now how interesting this can get. The website is a mirror of us as artists. All of us are artists working on this huge project which at the same time is medium and end.

Talking about performance art. Yes, it can be very participatory as we saw is Yoko Ono's piece where she invites the audience to cut her clothes. Yet it seems to me, performance art has a basic flaw. It is very prone to jaladas. Spontaneity, participation, abstraction, popularity, etc all are very problematic when drawing the line between art and not art. Let's take for a moment the case of YouTube. What makes all the amateur videos in YouTube not "gallery art?' Anybody can perform these days through this platform. It has its limitations for sure concerning nudity and similar stuff. But it is unquestionably filled with human performances, many of them thoughtful, others clear examples of jaladas.: Some of the "artists" aka users have artistic intentions and others just want to be famous or do something funny or appealing. YouTube is a 21st century expression of popular art, as well as a commercial mess of jaladas.

I think that a compelling example that touches this point is performance artist/YouTube user, Hennessy Youngman. Henessy is in fact a persona invented by artist (that is, a person whose claim to art has been recognized to an extent) Jason Musson. His videos playing this character are "hilarious" and "enlightening." I agree with whoever wrote this piece and commented on his work.

In the video I post above, Youngman talks about "Relational Aesthethics." Assuming the position of an outsider of the art world, he discusses this kind of art and sharply, (sometimes brutally) brings forth hard facts about the nature of this expression of art. It is one of many great, funny, sharp videos which constantly expose the "true colors" of the art world: elitist, driven by commercial interests, segregationist, pointless, etc...

So here is a guy, who I'm not sure if he is a true artist or not in my opinion, but who is hilarious, honest, has a point, performs in YouTube AND galleries/venues, discussing art in a very compelling way and basically bringing forth the jaladas of other artists. Is his own show another jalada? I don't think so, actually. And I'm not sure why. To me he has blurred the line between YouTube funny shit and a somewhat true expression of art. Very ironic.

Lets watch his video on Performance art during class! Its funny, and very sharp. People will takes sides for sure!

Art as Performance. Art as Festival.

In the Klemm article about performance art, I especially appreciated the ending about art as a festival activity. I believe it is incredibly important to think of art as something to be shared and discussed with as many people as possible. One piece of art alone can be thought of as a “festival” if it brings people together communally, but the fact that we actually have true festivals that celebrate and showcase different types of art is essential to the true nature of art. To put both of these in perspective, a performance art piece could be a festival if it is put on for a community and brings people together to view the performance. This is not what one would normally consider a “festival,” but it has the same theme of gathering people to view and appreciate something enjoyable, groundbreaking, or something else entirely, together. On the other hand, we also have music and art festivals, which are what people normally think of as festivals, that showcase the art or music or other medium of many different people, and still bring a community of people together to appreciate it. The fact that art has this power in not only one, but multiple ways, is phenomenal.

On another note, something we don’t generally think of as a festival art are the ever evolving digital media. In Hershman’s article, she talks about interactive computer systems that allow the viewer to react to whatever is happening on a screen. The screen seems to have some kind of intelligence in that it is mimicking an alternative identity. But this is not real, and computers and code do not have the methods to create something truly individually intelligent. Likely, we would not want this, because if a computer can actually think for itself, it will make mistakes like humans, or it is not really thinking at all, but something else entirely. The article goes on to discuss how this software was inaccessible and has only a few copies, when something like this needs to be produced on a mass scale. This goes back to art as a festival. This computer program, called Lorna, is an art. It is a type of digital art. Art needs to be accessible for communities and be able to bring people together, which is what Lorna could have done, but was not expanded enough. So many phone applications and computer/video games are popular because there is a community of people who play and discuss them together.

I think this piece is an incredible work of performance art, and Marina Abramovic is fantastic at bringing people together:

Art as a Performative Act

“Self-recognition comes about when the work of art calls our being into question, or when it transports us into another order of things, where we discover our own most identity in the truth of being.” – Art as a Performative Act, 72

Through art we become more self-aware. That being said, what happens when we ARE the art? We become the very thing that makes us aware of what we are, which sounds like quite the conspiracy theory. As I read these pieces, I struggle with thinking about what I would like to do for my own performance piece. I consider myself incredibly self-aware and wish to become even more so through my performative art piece. However, I have the preconceived notion that performative art must always be provocative and make a grand political statement or gesture when there are many different ways to define art and create it.

I often look to Bo Burnham who is a comedian and yet is very controversial in his material as well as his use of intermedia. In the opening of ‘what.’, Bo Burnham’s second comedy special, Bo incorporates an incredible amount of media and there is no doubt that every single action is premeditated. With a pre-recorded song, miming, choreography with the lighting, and even magic. Yes, I have the tendency to fan girl over Bo Burnham – he is a witty comedian who started on YouTube and used that fame to propel himself into a television personality with two comedy specials and albums – but it is truly remarkable to see the ways he so seamlessly incorporates media in his performance to make a real statement about sex, consumerism, and all aspects of the pop culture industry. It is as if every single part of his act is premeditated but that brings me to wonder – is all comedy stand up performance art? In Burnham’s show ‘what.’ he makes a joke that criticizes video editors however the audience watching at home does not get to hear the joke because the video editor cut it out – this makes me wonder what the actual experience of watching the show was and having Bo Burnham explain that segway. Perhaps he said “I got a really good joke about video editors, video editors are so fucking…” and then told the joke to the audience or said “great! I’m just using this time to fill for when we edit the video for Netflix and YouTube. Is Burnham’s performance meant to be viewed live or online? If it is an online performance can we still consider it performance art?

Monday, March 3, 2014

Performance Art Response - Ekin Erkan

As proposed by Hegel, art is a link to the higher universal truth of spirit and, thus, it is certainly not limited to simply "aesthetic consciousness" but rather something "ontologically disclosive" about the human condition (Gadamer). Intermedia, with it's prime candidate for example being performance art, does this particularly well as it reaches out to a broad(est) audience. In the post-post-modernism, or psuedo-modernist art movement of endless cords of audience-participatory art (for example computer games, text-in shows, and the internet as a whole), which has led to a vapid brainless state, performance art has an amazing potential to break a fourth dimension by blaring into an audience's face. Performance art contains the pivotal example of the "game" - one of Gadamer's three concepts of art - where the audience enters the zone of art as a group of participatory members. It is true that much of performance art would not exist without an audience as it is entirely experiential and multifaceted (with the audience being a colossal facet) - however an argument can be held that performance art can reach Hegel's higher universal spirit through interaction(s) within its members alone. Much of the pieces performed by Viennese Actionists, such as Otto Muehl's Wehrertuchtigung (Military Training) were privately held (within communes) for the sake of psychological exploration of the self via performance art. Viennese Actionists' art was much about a revolution in personal life, as Wilhelm Reich offered - consisting of a social synthesis of Marx and Freud, as well as psychological theories such as scream therapy.
Nonetheless, most performance art pieces are for the audience's psychological exploration - for example "Art School Stole my Virginity". Technological interfaces resulting out of neo-Dadaism into performance art intermedia affects people in an entirely interrupting aesthetic experience and, as Hans Breder described in his September 2012 Artforum, this is entirely important in creating the essential nature of humanity - something romanticized as "immaterial." Whereas modern philosophy (physicalism) would disagree with such a point, it is true that performance art entirely seeks something seemingly immaterial - the "...dematerialization of content by entering into the microstrcture of sound and imagery....what in physics people speak of as ephemeral phenomena that cannot be reduced to mere things. The radically microcosmic experience creates an effect that is at once both abstract and real."- Gadamer. Whereas mediums of post-modernist art invite mental action, performance art in intermedia interactive systems like Lorna requires it's audience to act and engage.
Performance art brings to life what Gadamer calls "the symbol." This is not an expressive symbol or idea of feeling (Suzanne Langer) but, rather, the presence of what is being symbolized - all experiences are symbols yet have a particular affection not in the constrains of their physical nature, making it a self-presentation and self-recognition (and, in this way, every branch of reality is a self-presentation due to its interactive nature: life is performance art).
Lastly, performance art most obviously captures Gadamer's concept of "festival" (as mentioned in Gadamer's The Relevance of the Beautiful). In "festival," art produces a sense of unity with a communicative function. Whereas it can, and often is, argued that anything connected to a person is art (and, thus, contains this concept of "festival" because all experiential manifestations produce a unity with any observer), intermedia/performance art does this quite bluntly. Hans Breder's Nazi Loop shows this emotional unity of "festival" by connecting to a binding sense of horrific fascism, racism, and fear in display of superimposed Nazi territories on a map of the United States of America.

Project 2, Edit in Camera

1. Sail Song

2. A Roommate w/ Special Writing Skill

In Camera Edits

In Camera Edit

Chord Progression from Madeline Kushner on Vimeo.

Meet-Cute from Madeline Kushner on Vimeo.

Klemm and Fantasy Articles Response

Klemm and Fantasy Articles

In regard to the article on interactive art, I think that there is much more controversy here than just involves a systematic, generating system. What was explored recently by the hollywood film "Her", and many other films such as Tron, Wall-E, and more, is the idea or sentience arising from highly advanced machines. Naturally, we like it when things are more like us; that is, they have emotion. Certainly "her" is just a computer program, but does she not have enough of a personality for Joaquin Phoenix' character to fall in love with her?

But as I said, and as the text even mentions, this whole idea has a scope reaching far beyond just film and intermedia. As we reach new eras of technology every decade or so, we come to new possibilities that can make a human like system a reality, whether it is just in the way we look and move and react, or, the greater task, how we think (about 10:00, 40:00, and 150:00) and feel. While we currently hold endless lectures and have enormous corporations and firms looking into the idea of artificial intelligence and the like (such as Facebook and Google), it still remains an incredibly difficult task to tackle for several reasons, as Noam Chomsky discusses (about 42:30).

Chomsky, and earlier, Minsky, both gather attention not just to how a machine might have a mind, but how our brains indeed are machines, by many respects. At least by the mechanistic view of psychology, we are nothing but machines that have a neurologically programmed mind, and our emotions and thoughts are nothing but complex cognitive behaviors that arise from our neuronal wiring. It would be simple to say, then, that all we need to do to emulate the human mind in a machine is to also emulate our own physical computing system in their hardrive. Not so simple, in fact, when you consider the trillions of synapses that exist in the brain, and the hundreds of different specialty brain areas etc. Many use this argument that we cannot simply re-create the human mind as a counter to mechanistic theory, but the machinist simply insist that the complexity of the brain is simply too overwhelming, and that it is possible, yet too difficult a task to achieve at this age.

For the time being, however, we are caught in a stage of robotics and engineering and programming that is somewhat unattractive. This is distinctly because we are making machines that emulate humanity. That is we are stuck in the uncanny valley , where most of the most recent developments in artificial intelligence and humanoid robots just creep us the fuck out. So if any of the earlier videos made you a little unsettled, it was for good reason , since our brain naturally looks to recognize humans, and any human like thing that is distinctly not human looks just like a flawed, unnatural human, possibly diseased and someone our evolution should make us want to stay away from. We are making astounding progress in this field, for sure, and what we have done so far is cool, no doubt, but we still have a long way to go before we climb out of the uncanny valley.