Introduction of New Media by Maxwell Legocki

        If were to join a side of whether art should be allowed to be involved with technology, I would say I am an advocate of the marriage between art and technology. This isn't because I'm a little bit of a nerd myself and have grown up with technology, but just by looking at the definition of art there is no specified medium. What is included in definition is that art is the expression of one's self with the use of their imagination and a medium. Like the introduction said, art is moving into fields such as ones once dominated by engineers (algorithms, fractals, etc.) and is continuing to expand. Technology is creating a whole new world for artists to explore and branch out into.

        Of course when people think of art they think of sculptures and paintings, however that idea is evolving. I think that with new technology, art is going to continue to evolve and people are going to slowly shift their views away from such typical mediums such as sculptures and paintings when they think of art. Instead, I believe that mediums involving technology are going to become the new stereotype one day in the future. I see art evolving as fast as technology evolving. It so happens to be that we are living in a technological revolution so I am curious to see what is to come. However, unlike the Renaissance or industrial revolution, I don't see an end to the technological revolution. I see ourselves on an exponential rate of improving technology as people continue to explore new areas.  

Olympics Art

Rush Introduction

Before I start, what the hell is with those "abstract squirrels"? Like, I get that it's all subjective and up for interpretation but when I saw that I could only think of this video:

Okay, time for seriousness. I think the most interesting topic brought up in this introduction is how 20th century art was fueled by art's integration with modern technology, as one might expect at the onset of the technological revolution. Most interesting to me was the work of Cage, who felt that chance should play a larger role in the arts. It demands the participation of the audience. 

I connected this idea back to the generative art we were discussing last time, and on the topic of art and technology merging, I found this cool little app:

http://tonematrix.audiotool.com/

The technological revolution spurred a different kind of art, one which is experimental. In the video below, John Cage plays an amplified cactus with a feather. Yes, seriously. It's pretty cool.

Intro by Greg P

             Rush provides a brief history of contemporary avant-garde media and its respective artists in the introduction. One statement that affected me was how if it is experimental, it isn’t art. I then thought it was interesting how this statement paralleled the current status of art history. We can’t write history if we are part of it, Rush essentially claims. So, with the “one foot in the past, one foot in the present” notion of time, I think the near self-expansion, change, and adaption of art is unbelievable. Duchamp effectively supports this ubiquitous notion with his barrier breaking pieces.

            The most interesting part of the introduction for me was the excerpts of the Fluxus Artists. These were the artists that opposed mainstream; instead of exaggerating and dramatizing daily life or stories, they stripped them down to the bare minimum. The best example for me was the piece where Yoko Ono turned an eight second shot of her smiling and turned it into an eleven minute artistic expression. Another example I enjoyed was when the artist simply used the film as the medium instead of actually filming a shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7wfaJupGQw

            This film by Yoko Ono is the lighting of a match. What usually takes a few seconds turns into five minutes. The simplistic nature of the action still tells a story; the fire at times looks like it might burn the thumb, and how it rescinds at the end are the effects Fluxus Art, I believe, aim for. 

Rush's Introduction

I found Rush's statement that todays artist is concerned with making a personal statement and differentiating themselves from the rest to be very interesting. I think the point of art is to be able to express your own unique perception on the world and make a personal statement through expression, not just direct communication. The idea that the artist has become preoccupied with this due to the increasing accessibility of media makes sense, since there are more people to differentiate oneself from. However, this isn't a bad thing. I think that to be truly original and make a truly personal statement is impossible, any piece of work is influenced by others preceding it, but the artists unique perception adds an original variation to the previous influences. Thus, the idea that because we are in a new media age the way art is will never be the same, seems ludicrous to me. I dont think art has ever truly changed, nor can it ever truly change. It is merely an expression of the current generation that can always be traced back to previous generations. Whether it was meant to build upon or as a reaction against past generations art has simply kept evolving due to the evolution of man, with the same basic ideas and principles intact. Of course, technology and artistic innovation have advanced the many paths artform can take, but the reasons as to why people create have never changed. However, corporate take over of art, such as in the music business has negatively affected the artistic expression.

The link i am posting is of an ipad painting demo. I think that this is a good example of how technology an new media has allowed art to change and become so accesible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKIVZeYiTN4

Rush's Introduction

I thought it interesting that in the first page of the introduction, Rush explains that every representation of art has been used in someway somewhere, and so the artist's preoccupation is to find a means to create a personal statement. I think that this mentality of having to "revolutionize" art by being different is contradictory to what art is supposed to be anyway. However, the rest of the introduction goes on to explain how art essentially became more abstract and flexible for artists to work within. It has always occurred to me that painting for example, as an old artistic expression has evolved to allow greater abstract concepts. Especially when you take into consideration the Sistine Chapel era to Picasso to whoever is popular today. I thought it was very interesting how the author explained the evolution of film and imaging becoming more abstract. But even more interesting is this reoccurring theme of technology allowing for greater artistic variability and creativity. I think that is also counterintuitive to what technology was intended for, which is to service people into a faster, easier, and variable way of existing. But artists have taken technology and manipulated it for the purpose of representing an idea to the people. Sometimes that technology is even used against itself for representing the idea of "too much "Technology." I am interested to see how Rush explains further what artists use these mediums for since it continues to evolve.

The video I am sharing is what I believe to be a very cool representation of an evolution and combination of art. There is painting aspect, which evolved to encompass more definitions - even more cultural elements such as street art. And then video and technology with the animation, all together make an even better form of art. Maybe even intermedia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGaqLT-gO4

Rush's Introduction

While reading Rush’s Introduction, I really enjoyed learning about various artists and their contributions to new art movements throughout the 20th century. First of all, I found Muybridge’s work to be very interesting. His method of setting up a series of strings attached to the camera’s shutter and having the horse run over the strings was genius, especially for that time period. I also thought it was interesting how Muybridge’s photos were originally going to be used for scientific studies, and were not “adopted by artists” until later. I have always thought of science and art to be in two completely different realms, but after learning this fact and reading a statement made earlier in the Introduction (“All art is experimental or it isn’t art.”) I think science and art can go hand in hand. Now I can definitely see a connection between the two subjects. Rush’s description of Eisenstein’s “dynamic images” and “varied camera angles and sophisticated montage editing” also made me think about a connection between art and science. Rush stated that Eisenstein’s work depicts “multiple views of reality” which allows “for multiple understandings of reality,” which is a “key aspect of modernism,” or “enhancing perception by altering it.” I think these statements have a lot to do with science/technology, because they both allow us to have enhanced/multiple views of reality (compared to a world with no science/technology). I also liked reading about John Cage and how he “emphasized the element of ‘chance’ in art as a valid way of making a work.” I think this also connects subtlety to the idea of science and art going hand in hand, in that the furthering of science and technology is very dependent on chance happenings and experiments. In the past I have also learned about Merce Cunningham, and I thought it was interesting to learn about the other side of Cunningham’s dance pieces (aka Cage’s music that accompanies the dance). Here is a video that I found of a Cunningham dance accompanied by Cage’s music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca2iVll-N0g I think this work definitely takes into consideration chance/experimental happenings, and it alters my perceptions and makes me question what is really happening with the dancers, the music, and the clips playing in the background/overlaying the dancers.

Thoughts Regarding Rush's introduction

Rush’s introduction gave me a very complete overview of how art has evolved throughout the centuries and how it will continue to evolve with the emergence of new technologies. One of the sections that fascinated me the most was "Time in Art". This is because he clearly explains that with the development of photography, artists were now able of manipulating not only space, but also time. This idea that artists could now plan the movement of subjects and objects in pictures was an enlightening creation.

Another topic that raised so much argument within myself was Duchamp whose ideals followed the belief that anything could be art. To him, “no material seemed out of place as a means of personal expression”. He became an icon because his artwork began to raise the question of what was art at the time. One of the reasons I disagree with him and his beliefs is because I feel such statement above allows every reader to believe they have the capacity and right to be called an artist. Such belief itself diminishes the importance and value of art. By saying anything could be art, even the simplest things in earth, he is basically implying anybody could do art. And this is just like saying anybody could be engineers or scientists, which sounds irrational. Nowadays when people walk down a gallery and look at very simplistic art they do not show appreciation towards it and feel they too could it. Examples of this type of art I refer to could be Malevich’s Black Square. Although I am quite sure the thought process and meaning behind this piece is extremely profound, nowadays people see this displayed feel it is too easy to do that. This also happens at times as when people look at pictures of clothes hanging or a simple toilet, etc and such photographs are called a work of art. At the core of this issue lies perception and what each individual sees as art, which is the reason why I feel defining art will never be a possibility. I just felt the need of expressing why I feel humans have, in a sense, damaged the image of art with their own perceptions of what art is.

The first two suprematist compositions below by Malevich came a couple of decades after Duchamp. These are all examples of art that could indeed make people believe creating art is almost too easy.

technology and mundane moments in art.

One of Rush's first, and most interesting points regarding new media art, is that the "contemporary artist" tries to find the best way to make a personal statement in their art. Whether this be through the more traditional painting, or new age computer illustration, medium is based more on its effectiveness, than on ceremony. One such example in modern times, is the art of David Newman. Newman paints people who are involved in the computer world. He paints them, however with a stylus and an iPad:

His works combine the skill of painting, with technology of today, which is the best way to create and showcase art that depicts the leaders in technology today.

Later Rush talks about Flux-Avant Garde films such as "Eyeblink." In this short, the camera is zoomed in on Yoko Ono's eye while she blinks one time. Following in Duchamp's legacy to make art that is barely considered "art," Eyeblink demonstrates the film trends of time to capture mundane moments and bring focus to them.

https://soundcloud.com/ari-fima/video-project

Kiera's Sound Project

https://soundcloud.com/kiera_rose/audio-project-1-kieraa

Maxwell's Sound Project

Max's Project

Greg P's sound narrative

https://soundcloud.com/gp27/soundnarrativefinal

Qi's Sound Project

https://soundcloud.com/qi-su-1/coming-back

Allison's Sound Project

Rush's New Media

Very early in the introduction, Rush states that "while the use of new media in art does have a history, it is not easily delineated." I thought this was an interesting acknowledgement of how tenuous the relationship of an artwork or artist can be to the term "new media"; not because it doesn't qualify, or isn't good, but simply through how hard it can be to define the term outside of a highly contemporary view point.

Obviously, "new media" as a term is a reasonably specific category in the present day by virtue of artists who currently identify as new media artists, and discuss and reconstruct the term. However, numerous times Rush makes reference to creators, often filmmakers and photographers, who were "new media artists" before the term had come into existence, much less taken a place in the discussion of an evolution of art. The definition of "new media" then, in very strict terms, fluctuates as newer media is developed, and clearly has the potential to mean very different things as art evolves in the next decade.

Rush's thoughts on time, and several of the photoseries included in the introduction reminded me very vividly of time lapse art.Time lapse media -- which often combines both photography and video in a way that makes it not quite an example of either -- can either vastly slow down time, as in the example of time lapse photography of an athlete, or speed it up, as in time lapse footage of nature, or the sky. This example of timelapse video, Existence, evidently takes place over an enormous amount of time, in numerous locations, but it is compressed into something the audience can personally consume and perhaps more clearly understand.

Brynn's Sound Project

Alexa's sound project!

The Trouble With New Media History

I agree with Michael Rush that a thematic approach to a new media history would be more appropriate than a chronological one; which is why I was disappointed when the rest of the chapter on the development of film as an art form turned out to be a chronology. I don't mean to pick on Rush. As a writer and student of art history, I sympathize with him. Although, I've only read the introduction to New Media in Late Twentieth Century Art, I imagine the further chapters on the history video and digital art were a difficult undertaking. Unlike Rush, I don't believe new media's status as a developing art form is what makes recording its history so difficult. After all, if that were true, we all might as well as stop studying now and just wait forty to fifty years when we can observe new media from a more objective standpoint. I believe it's new media's ephemeral nature that makes it such a difficult subject for the art historian. From painting to photography, photography to film, and film to digital art, the incorporation of new technologies has caused art to grow increasingly immaterial. As Rush points out, art inside a computer, "resides in no place or time at all," and, "can seem to collapse the normal barriers of past, present and future." This collapse of time extends from the impossibility of touching digital art, of containing within a specific space or location, such as a museum. (Of course, certain forms of digital could be printed out and plastered on the walls of a museum, just as stills or scenes from films could be displayed on walls and screens for viewers, but neither scenario would showcase the artworks in their intended form.) It seems that with the inability to collect and contain new media artworks mirrors the difficulty in approaching them historically. Art history becomes more vast and elusive, more like ordinary history, as art forms become increasingly transitory. 

For my link today, I've included a link to my favorite website, FFFFOUND! Viewing the site in class will be a little like a Fluxus event, since the site will be different at any given time it is opened and it is created by our participation as well as the participation of the users who post on it. (Hopefully none of the really lewd images will be at the top of the feed on wednesday!) Looking at the site after reading Rush's introduction, I found myself wondering if FFFFOUND! was a new media history, if it could be considered a kind of museum, and if the works shown on the site fall into the category of avant-garde. 

http://ffffound.com/

Response to Rush's Introduction

   In Rush's introduction, he talked about lots of technology development and art avant-gardes. What makes me feel fascinating is the development of art from photography to sequences of motion picture and then becomes film. It is an "dynamic interplay between art, technology and life". When I read this, I interpreted it as technology enables the life become art. The "studies in time" that rush talked about is pretty interesting because it enabled people to record the sequences of motion and to represent the time lapse, and that's how cinema developed. In Muybridge's 1878 photographs of horses in motion, he used twelve cameras, "each making an image at 1/200th of a second", which involves the play of time elapse. I'm not quite sure about the related time lapse motion definition, but I found two videos both talking about time lapse and are in reverse time lapse direction. The first one is produced by a art studio called Marmalade and they are professional at producing slow motion videos, the create excellent ads,  and I guess that might be the same idea as Muybride's horse photo piece. These ads are so impressing, I observed those tiny details that how things are going in real life that I 've never seen before, just as people never seen how horses move before they invented those ways to record horses' movement.

The other video recorded the process that a dandelion grew from a flower to a seed in one month. But oppositely, it accelerated the speed of the motion in the film. In a few seconds we can see the whole process that how it grows and changes.

I barely found Rush talked about what "new media" is, maybe "new media" doesn't strictly exist since everyday the new technology is replacing the olds,  so "new media" might not exist, but the technologies are always developing.

Response to Introduction

The introduction to New Media in Late 20th century was a great art history lesson.  There were many artists and specific artistic movements that I had never heard of.  One of them was the Fluxus movement.  The book says, "It made jabs at the seriousness of high modernism and attempted, following Duchamp, to affirm what the Fluxists felt to be an essential link between every day objects and events and art."  Fluxus was basically a rebel art movement that was participatory action, it was intermedia.  The viewer is directly involved in the making of the art.  The viewer actually becomes the art.  A Fluxfilm with Yoko Ono in it called Disappearing Music for Face is an 8 second smile to no smile slowed down to 11 minutes.  These fluxfilms were meant to be very minimal and were "critiques of mainstream avant-garde film."
Another film called wavelength by Michael Snow was made with more creative and poetic intentions.

Although you may not want to watch the entire "film" there are four actual acting scenes in this 45 minute zoom.  Snow was was pushing the boundaries on what was an entertaining film.  In a way Wavelength had a plot and a setting and everything a "normal" film would have.  It used minimalist music, random paring of tones that varied with wavelength as the movie progressed.  It's definitely experimental but is it Fluxus (intermedia) or just avant-garde? I think it falls more into the avant-garde category and less in the Fluxus category as the book has it.  I say this mostly because Fluxus tends to use the viewers in the art.  This is just an experimental film.  However, I do feel like Fluxus can be a sub category in avant-garde, but there is no way to know that for sure.

Introduction to New Media

      Rush introduces his book with a reminder that it is difficult to understand the sporadic birth of new media with the quote: “While the use of new media in art does have a history, it is not easily delineated. This history has yet to be written, largely because it is always developing (9).” This is important to keep in mind when studying new media because like a piece of artwork, its development and history must be viewed from many perspectives in order to understand it. And following Duchamp’s idea about art, new media is being defined not only by the artists but by the viewers.  
An idea from the development of new media is Bergson’s Philosophy of a universal hunger for understanding time and how it is reflected in art. It is interesting how this desire to understand time has lead to its manipulation. This video is an example of how humans play with time through new media. I think I would be cool however if the woman in the video was with the same background, shirt, hair, etc for the five years.
      It is also interesting to look at how the coexistence of art and technology has influenced the development of new media. Rush describes tension between art as an industrial process v.s. art based on “pure feeling”. I find it extremely unsettling that art can be both a creation based on mathematics and engineering and it a creation based on random “chance” (as argued by Cage.) This self contradictory-concept of art is difficult to grasp but is demonstrated in Cunningham's video which I see as a bridge between both sides of the artistic spectrum
The question I was left with after Rush's introduction is how far are the boundaries between art as exact and art as spontaneous? With today's technology it seems like emerging artists must either struggle to find a balance between the two or push the boundaries even farther.

Soundscape Project, Sam Fetter