1. People walking quickly down the street (speed 200%?) at daytime. Lots of cuts, handheld camera, feels chaotic. Lots of random and confusing noise.

Cut to tripod shot of dark street with no one walking. Lack of sounds (or loud ones at least).

Repeat two or three times.


2. Entrance to office building at night overlaid with a low transparency image of the same scene during the day. People walking past, walking in, cars passing by, etc. Sound is echoed and quiet.


3. Right of frame: street during day with lots of traffic, people crossing roads. Center of frame is a dissolve (right to left) into the night shot. Night is shot from the same camera position, and there are nearly no cars driving around. It appears as though cars are driving into the dissolve and then simply disappearing. Sound is panned entirely to the right.


4. Short shot of bike rack during the day. Full of bikes. Fade to night, bike rack is empty of bikes. No effects. Intent is to slow the viewer down a little bit... bring them back to earth a little.



5. Vendors or shops. During the day they are bustling, full of people coming in and out, buying things, etc. At night, they are empty and dark. Various shots of different shops and/or vendors, quick cuts for each shop between night and day.


6. Final shot showing a little bit of everything. Street, sidewalk, vendors (perhaps), etc. All of the previously used effects put together to give the section a sense of tension.

Alternate Reality

For my alternate reality project, I would like to film an area in DC that is extremely busy during the day but then empties at night. For example... the Foggy Bottom area (mostly up on Pennsylvania) is chock full of businesspeople, homeless, vendors, students and cabbies during the day. However, at night there is hardly any walking or driving in the area.

I would like to show how desolate and perhaps even frightening these sorts of places can be when they are completely deserted. I always find it interesting that even in a city like DC which has 5.3 million people in the metro area, it is possible to find a place at night (downtown even) that feels like a ghost town.

During the day shots, I'd like to add in extra audio to make the scene feel crowded, rushed and thoughtless. However, at night I plan on taking out almost all audio... leaving only the slightest strain of traffic noise and perhaps strange clunks and clicks happening off in the background, as if something or someone is moving about off camera.

Virtual/Real Worlds

In Char Davies' article, "Changing Space: Virtual Reality as an Arena of Embodied Being," Davies talks about her piece, Osmose, and how it allows a user to (basically) feel as though they travel to a new and different world. She says that participants reported "a deep sense of mind/body relaxation," or "inability to speak rationally or put logical words together afterwards," or "intense emotional feelings, including euphoria and/or an overwhelming sense of loss when the session was ending."

My question is this: What is it about an alternate reality that is so appealing to us? Is it impossible for a piece like Osmose to evoke these same feelings in a person if it is representing a real space?

To answer my first point simply, I think I would say that alternate realities appeal to people so strongly simply because they are different. Look at video games. There have been several massively-multiplayer online games made over the years that have created new realities. Ultima Online (one of the first), created a fantasy world in which characters could do almost literally whatever they wanted. They could be a knight, a magician, an archer... any sort of typical fantasy character. However, they could also be a blacksmith, or a carpenter, or a herbalist. They could be a thief, and steal from other players. They could be a murderer. At the time, UO had far more players than any online game previously, and I would say that this type of "immersion" (the ability to do whatever they want) is why. People were able to enter this world, complete with its own history, lore, heroes, villains (living people, I might add) and live a different life.

However, UO is different from Osmose on one major point -- UO was still very "realistic." Putting aside the fantasy aspects of the game (you could shoot lightning at dragons), it was very Earthly. Boats floated on water. Water flowed in rivers. If you stabbed something, it died. Osmose is extremely different. The world created within it is entirely unlike life on Earth. There are certain objects that reflect Earthly objects (for example, trees and grass), but they do not behave like they do on Earth. A tree may be suspended in space, sparkling in a thousand colors. Its roots may grow before your eyes. The grass may move about, appear and then disappear. So perhaps this is what evokes such emotion. Seeing things we already know in a different manner.

However, "real" spaces (such a Ultima Online) can evoke similar emotions, however their causes are probably different. People in UO will become amazingly attached to a house they might own, for example. They'll spend countless hours designing and decorating it. However it is very clear that this house is not truly real. It does not exist anywhere except as several lines of code.

Another interesting concept is the human-computer relationship within Osmose and in other areas. In Osmose, the computer and its various VR supplements serve only as tools to link a person to this different reality. However, virtual realities may soon become home to true beings. A company called Novamente has created what it calls a "fully functioning animal brain," and plans to introduce it into the game Second Life in the form of pets. These pets will learn behavior from their owners (what is good or bad, what actions are rewarded and which are punished) and will evolve on its own. So will these pets not evoke emotions? If in real life your pet, who you've had for several years and have grown to love, dies, will you not feel sad? Can the same not be said for a virtual pet that thinks and acts like a real pet?

Propaganda

Message: With this piece I intended to look at how countries are able to divert attention from domestic problems towards international and security problems through a war. North Korea, I thought, would be a perfect example. They have a million-man standing army which is extremely costly, and the rest of the country is in shambles. With a tight controls on what people can think and say (through brainwashing and imprisonment/death), the government is able to push off most of these problems on other countries (for example the US). I do not believe this video is too out of the ordinary, except perhaps in its dialogue.

This also applies to other countries. Many would say that the Iraq war has been a perfect excuse for the President to divert attention away from many domestic problems.

Propaganda: My main tool in this piece is satire. I use almost solely video taken in North Korea and then extrapolate it to the rest of the world. Starving North Korean children are not North Koreans, but Americans funding their giant army which they cannot afford. North Koreans attempting to cross the border to South Korea are really South Koreans trying to join the North Koreans' "glorious revolution." By doing so, and by including certain snide remarks about the state of affairs in other countries (but certainly not in North Korea!) I am attempting to show that this is a true example of propaganda... and therefore, nothing that is said can be trusted.



Section 1: Call to Arms

"The time has come, Comrades. The Great General, in his wisdom has decided the agression of the big bully, the United States, cannot stand. This is war!"

(Images of Kimg Jung-Il, people cheering, NK army training and marching, etc.)

Section 2: Why the US is Bad

"You may know of the United States as a huge world power. It is true they have a good military, but the rest of their country suffers because of it! Look at these pictures of their weak and hungry! I have been told that we are not weak and hungry like this, so I can only believe that we are not!"

(Images of US military, marching, bombing, etc, juxtaposed with images of starving North Korean children)

Section 3: Someone Else is Bad Too

"Their ally, South Korea, sits below us like a chair that the Great General rests his bottoms on. In fact, many South Koreans seek to join our glorious revolution. Look at them trying to cross the border! (Not North Koreans!!!)"

(Images of North Koreans being detained by NK military at the borders, jumping fences, crawling under fences, etc.)

Section 4: Rallying

"We are glorious, we are strong. The United States cannot stand against us. We are rich in monies and possibly in other things as well, maybe we are rich in culture! The big bully United States cannot stand against our superior culture and possible money and other things! Now is our greatest of times! Now we fight!"

(Images of NK celebrations, parades, dancers, army, infrastructure, etc. Ends with an image of Kim Jung-Il and his father [previous dictator]).

Soundscape

The Future of Multimedia Art

In their article, “Personal Dynamic Media,” Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg state that “the interactions of humans with their media have been primarily nonconversational and passive in the sense that marks on paper, paint on walls, even “motion” pictures and television, do not change in response to the viewer’s wishes,” and that “once put down on paper [ideas] remain static and require the reader to expand their possibilities.” However, today media does allow for user interaction. Since this goal of creating an interactive form of media has been achieved, what is next in multimedia?

I would say (or perhaps hope) that it lies in user (or, in the case of art, “viewer”) creation as opposed to interaction. Take the internet for example. There are millions of people who can be classified as internet “users.” However, there are very few that can be classified as “creators.” A creator, in my mind, is someone who takes their corner of the internet (their web page) and creates something new and different by themselves. There is a lot of user interaction these days. Look at Myspace for example. It allows for users to change the way their page looks to reflect their own personal style. However the backbone of the system remains the same. People who edit their Myspace pages are not creating anything, they’re simply interacting with it by changing the way it looks.

The same can be said for multimedia art. Lets take JacksonPollock.org for example. This piece allows users to create “art” similar to that of Jackson Pollock by mimicking his gesture and stroke. The end result is that the user has made their own artistic piece. However, have they truly “created” anything? The way the strokes appear and the colors of the paint are predetermined by the original artist. So the user is not actually “creating” anything. They’re simply interacting with the original artists creation.

I’d say that, at some point in the future, multimedia art will move to a point that will allow the viewer of a piece to truly create their own art with that piece. How will this happen? Honestly, I have no idea. I cannot imagine a computer or a program that will allow a viewer to have complete freedom on what they create without requiring tremendous knowledge of coding, modeling, design, etc. But then again, technology is advancing daily. I remember when I first started playing computer games. Games had two dimensional, 8-bit graphics. Not long after, there was talk of people making truly three-dimensional games. How absurd, I thought. How could a normal person like myself possibly be able to afford a computer that could render such things in real time? But look at games now. Designers are able to create nearly realistic environments and characters. So who is to say that, a few years from now, some sort of technology will be created that will allow for the sort of user interaction I’m talking about?

Hektor: Art or Artist?

Hektor’s creators call him “a portable Spray-paint Output Device for laptop computers.” It was designed and created by Jürg Lehni and Uli Franke, of Lausanne, Switzerland. To create its art, it employs a computer, a premade Illustrator file, two small motors, some string, a specially designed spray paint holder, and, of course spray paint. With these tools, it is able to closely reproduce graffiti like images. My question is this: who is creating the art? Hektor or his creators?

This question is similar to those I have been asking all semester. At what point does a piece of multimedia art stop being “art,” or even the artists own creation? If a computer randomly generates sound and images, is it an artist? Or are those who programmed the computer to do so the artists? While I have already decided on my own answer to this question, it is interesting to look at it from different points of view.

Lets say we have a novice painting student. He doesn’t know much of anything about how to paint… all he knows is that it involves brushes. He takes a class. He buys a canvass and paint at a local art store. He goes to class. His professor says, “Here’s a still life. Here’s how to sketch it. Here’s how to show depth. Here’s how to use color. Now paint that still life.” When the student finishes, he has produced a piece of art. However, would everyone agree that this painting is entirely his own? He received much tutoring, after all. He didn’t stretch his own canvass. He didn’t choose his subject… so is it really his own “piece of art”?

Similarly, are the creators of Hektor the creators of the art he produces? The work Hektor produces is not of his own creation. By using Adobe Illustrator and a plugin called Scriptographer, Hektor follows paths that tell him where to move, when to start spraying, and when to stop. However, the Illustrator file that tells him his actions was created long beforehand. So is Hektor creating this piece of art? Or are those who gave him his instructions?

As always, I maintain my argument that Hektor, like any other multimedia tool, is just that – a tool. Hektor is like a paint brush. He is a canvass. He is the paint. He is the professor offering instruction. However, the author of whatever piece he produces are his creators and those who give him his instructions.

Hektor is extremely different from most multimedia art, however. The fact of the matter is that the artists’ hands never touch the final piece. They barely even touch the paint except to shake it before the pass it off to Hektor. Of course they give Hektor his instructions, much as other multimedia artists provide their tools with images or movies or sounds, but Hektor creates art in a much more permanent way. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with Hektor and programs like it. Will there be a point when his offspring are able to draw from various sources and create their own art? Who knows.





Various other things:
Rita - A drawing and erasing display
Telephone - Two computers talking

John Cage - Computers and Art

In his essay, John Cage states that “we need a computer that isn’t labor-saving but which increases the work for us to do.” Does creating art on and with computers require less talent and effort than the creation of art with traditional mediums? Is it worth less?

I’d have to say no, and not only because I use computers to create art. While it’s true that certain things are easier to do on computers than “in real life,” (for example, when coloring a drawing, I can use the paintbucket tool to fill a shape, as opposed to using a brush and ink, which takes longer), I do not believe that it requires less talent and effort.

Advancements have been made in different artistic mediums over and over throughout the years. When people started using oil based paints as opposed to egg based paints (oil allowing for the use of transparent layers for better control over colors and more realistic effects), there wasn’t a massive backlash against the new medium (to the best of my knowledge). Computers are, of course, somewhat different. Someone who lacks the physical skills required to paint a perfect circle can make one on a computer in a matter of seconds.

However, the fact remains that computers cannot make art on their own. There’s no sort of magic button on a computer labeled, “MAKE ME SOME ARTS.” The computer is still a tool, and as long as “art” is based on an artists intention, the medium and tools used matter very little.

Situational Tour: The White House

The White House. Access to this building is usually controlled by a large metal fence, vicious and unrelenting security, possibly land mines beneath the grass, and definitely snipers on the roof. However, today, it is guarded by much, much more. A few police, and a feeble temporary crowd control fence. Why?


Because outside of its walls the masses have gathered with signs, flags, face paint and other nefarious tools of the so-called trade.


But why have these people come? What is their so-caled trade? The White House seems quite unconcerned.


They are protesters, the untouchable sludge of the political world. Their signs and dead eyes give them away.


These signs, which vary from person to person, serve to explain their owners intentions and feelings to those around them. The owner of this sign, for example, is clearly protesting the actions taken by certain underworld crime bosses named after aquatic spheniscidae.


This protester is attempting to convince his cohorts to use Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional.


This protester draws peoples attentions to the biblical significance of their actions. Indeed, who would Jesus bomb? Are not all people equal and loved in the eyes of Jesus? Should we not, therefore, bomb everyone?


Some, however, do not carry signs. They wander through the crowd aimlessly, merely content to be part of the gathering.


Others seem uninterested in the protest. In fact, this one seemed to be far more interested in her flavored ice. What is her purpose? She is dissuading other protesters from their mission with her delicious, refreshing flavored ice. Let us ignore her, lest we fall prey to her scheme as well.


Others go even further, and transform their entire appearance. This protester, clearly, is an Old West bandit. He is likely to rob your trains and stagecoaches, if you have such thing.


"The Man" grows restless with this menagerie hovering so close to the White House. Backup is called, and men with dogs appear. Clearly these protesters are having a large effect. Their voices are being heard! They are ready and willing to fight off "The Man's" rabid dogs of oppression. The White House must answer their pleas! It must!


Or must it? The White House appears, as ever, quite unimpressed. It sits back, gazes at its lazily gurgling fountain, and contemplates other issues. The crowd, discouraged, moves off to another building that might be more inclined to listen, and finding that it is, in fact, more likely to listen, hasten to allow themselves to be arrested.

Intermedial Art

Is non-intermedial work truly as worthless or unimportant as Higgins seems to claim it is? Is intermedial art truly more insightful than “normal” art?

It seems like this is a question that’s difficult to answer without stepping on certain people’s toes. While it’s clear what Higgins’ answer is to this question, is he necessarily correct?

I do believe that it is true that multimedia (or “intermedial” ) art can sometimes be more thought provoking and insightful than work produced in a traditional manner, I feel as though it is somewhat closed minded to claim that traditional mediums have no place in the future of art. Look at, for example, Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary.” This painting, which incorporated pornographic pictures and was painted, in part, with elephant dung, created considerable uproar when it was first shown. It made people question the artist’s intent (was he, perhaps, trying to attack Christianity?), or was he commenting on art itself? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the fact that it did provoke such questions and sparked much debate.

On the other hand, a good example of an intermedial piece that also created somewhat of an uproar was Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” in which she sat, passively on a stage and allowed audience members to cut off pieces of her clothing. This made people ask themselves, what is it about our culture (or perhaps was it Asian culture?) that made women so passive? Or were women just naturally passive? Was Ono attempting to make another statement? Again, many deep questions were raised.

It’s clear, in my mind, that “normal” art is not extinct or less valuable than intermedial art. Any and all art can have large impacts… the medium matters very little.

Situational Tour - La Casa Blanca

View Larger Map

For my Situational Tour project, I’d like to examine the human element in the immediate area surrounding the White House. In this area, there are generally many types of people. Security guards, tourists, protesters, newscasters… each has come to the White Hosue with different intentions. I intend to examine the motivations for each of these, and possibly other, groups. Have they come to this location to register complaints? To protect others? To revel in the grandness of democracy? What, if anything, do they have in common?

Birth of a New Medium

Did the efforts of ARPA and the Xerox PARC directly lead to multimedia art? Were they the first footsteps in the field, or were they simply a necessary step before multimedia art could begin to take place?

While it is clear that there was nothing overtly “artistic” about ARPANET or the work of Xerox PARC, it is important to note the concepts with which they both dealt. ARPA was concerned, mostly, with the creation of networks between computers for the transmission of information. As Engelbart displayed with his “oNLine System,” it was possible for separate computers to communicate with each other. While this had obvious implications for the military and academia, it had similar, less direct implications for art. Multimedia art, it has been noted, is often concerned with interactivity. With ARPANET, or Englebart’s “oNLine System,” it was possible to change information on another computer. To today’s viewer, this would be seen as little more than a primitive form of email, but in reality, the connection between two computers reflects the essence of multimedia art. No longer were these two computers and their users having separate and different experiences, but they were sharing an experience.

Additionally, Xerox PARC, which during this time was dealing with the idea of creating a sort of portable, personal computing device, was dealing with another aspect of multimedia art. Multimedia pieces often strive to deemphasize the importance of authors. Many multimedia pieces invite viewers to change what they see in a piece. Recently in the AU museum, one piece looked at the colors of people’s clothing, hair, etc., in addition to movement, and reflected those colors and movements in itself.

This is precisely what Xerox PARC was attempting to do. While it’s obvious that they were not thinking about “art,” per se when they were theorizing about what would later become laptop computers, they were thinking about giving the power of computers to a wider audience. At the time, computers were really only owned by government agencies and academic institutions, as they were simply too expensive for consumers, and also were really only designed to deal with rough data and calculations. Alan Kay, working at PARC, spoke of how personal computers would encompass “all other media.” They would no longer be restricted to making long calculations, but could be used to view and create media. Is this not the essence of a large portion of multimedia art?

In the end, the efforts of ARPA and Xerox PARC probably did not DIRECTLY lead to multimedia art. While many of their thoughts and intentions mirror those of current multimedia artists, their intent was not artistic. However, ARPA and PARC were vital stepping stones towards future multimedia, interactive and decentralized art.

Geeks and Artboys

The short article, “Geeks and Artboys,” by William Gibson, discusses the various contributions to multimedia art by those who Gibson places into two categories: geeks (people whose work was not self consciously “artistic”), and artboys (whose work was). Gibson seems to state in his article that the contributions of geeks often outweigh those of artboys. But is this true?

It is difficult to answer this question. It is clear that many of the geeks Gibson references made tremendous contributions to the multimedia field. Vannevar Bush, for example, who served as one of Roosevelt’s advisors, had amazing foresight. He spoke of “walnut-sized ‘dry’ cameras” (which we have now in the form of tiny digital cameras), and “glass-topped desks wherein … rear-projected images [are] collected” (perhaps television). Clearly Bush's thinking was before his time (albeit only slightly), and perhaps this is why he is credited with the creation of the “military industrial complex.”

Gibson seems to see artboys as not having the same open-minded thought process. He discusses himself as a younger man, and how, seeing himself as an artboy and choosing to act as such, he and his friends focused entirely on one emergent technology (virtual reality) and ignored another (the internet). Looking back on it now, it’s clear which one has had a greater impact. The internet is used by millions upon millions of people, whereas traditional virtual reality has, for all practical purposes, completely died out (of course there are still video games, which are similar, but they’re not the same).

This, perhaps, is Gibson’s true point. It’s not that artboys are less intelligent than geeks, or that they’re focusing on the wrong types of multimedia, but simply that due to the why they’re forced to think (on the production of art), they end up concentrating on specific details as opposed to the big picture. Nor are artboys failing to add to the field of multimedia, they’re simply not doing so in the same way that geeks are. The geeks Gibson speaks of dealt with issues that would still be striking years, decades, even centuries later. The artboys, like most artists, dealt with issues that would, eventually, be seen as slightly prosaic or obsolete as the next great art movement took over.

Nancy Davenport: I call Photoshops!

The photography of Nancy Davenport is not something that one would normally call “fine art photography.” In her photographs, she combines various elements clearly taken from other images and changes their meaning entirely.

“Accident Prone,” and “The Apartments,” in particular, create slightly unrealistic scenes where horrible things are taking place. For example, in “Accident Prone,” one image shows a person standing on a cliff, waving to the camera while massive boulders appear to be falling directly above him. The viewer knows that this person has only moments to live, but the action has been frozen. “The Apartments,” shows various tragic and/or violent events occurring in a series of apartment buildings. One image, for example, shows a huge smoke cloud rising from behind some buildings while in the foreground, a missile is only seconds away from hitting the same buildings. Another image shows a group of masked men descending down the side of a building as if storming it during a revolution.

All of her “photos” have a similar theme. Action is frozen moments before something tragic, violent or bloody is about to occur. If these were real images, they would be amazing. However, these images are not real. Upon close inspection, it is possible to tell where editing has occurred in most of the pieces. For example, in the image where men are storming a building, the light being cast on the men in comparison to the light being cast on the building is extremely different. There are small “errors” like this in all of her pieces.

One must ask oneself, however, is this intentional? It’s clear that Davenport is skilled with Photoshop. But if she is so skilled, why has she made it possible for viewers to see where she’s edited her images? Does she perhaps want us to know that we’re being drawn into her own fantasy world?

A New Semester, A New Class

It's time to reboot the good ol' multimedia blog for a new semester. This post, as Professor Packer has requested, is simply for testing and to explain our aspirations for this class. My main aspiration is to gain knowledge that will be useful in my independent study and to further my understanding of multimedia art in general.

For your enjoyment, here is a picture of a toaster:

biPolar

Chris McClelland’s piece, “biPolar,” is an extremely interesting use of new multimedia techniques. This piece, which is projected on a huge window on the second floor of the Katzen Museum, shows dozens of floating dots that move and change color depending on the actions and clothing of those who walk in front of it. During the day, the dots respond to these people and bounce about in a frantic manner when stimulated, or sit still and “pulse,” when they are left alone. At night, the shades on the window are drawn up and the dots are projected onto the window itself, allowing people who are driving by on the road outside to see them.

This piece is amazing in its use of live media. By using the program, “Processing,” McClelland has created little snippets of code that appear almost alive. When someone approaches them, they jump around excitedly like a puppy. When left alone, the sulk and attempt to draw attention to themselves through other means. McClelland has, for all practical purposes, created a simple-minded life form in his piece. What difference is there between McClelland’s dots and a baby, for instance? A baby will do the same thing when interacting with a person. They will mimic facial gestures and, when left alone, make attempts to regain an adult’s attention.

Is this McClelland’s intent? I’m not entirely sure. After speaking with him, it seems he was much more interested in color and interaction with the viewer and with polar opposites (an idea expressed by the title of this piece and the dual day and night nature of it). However, the idea of the creation of life with multimedia is still important. While it is impossible to say that McClelland has created an intelligent being with this piece, he has created something that pretends to be intelligent… fairly convincingly so. It will be interesting to see how McClelland expands on this in future pieces.

Capturing the Capital

At the recent exhibition, “Capturing the Capital,” a group of multimedia artists got together to display pieces that dealt with politics and the artist’s place in a political world.

While I was unable to view all of the pieces (there was a discussion at the venue while I was there, so I did not want to be pushing past people to see every single piece), I did get a good feel for most of them. One piece in particular seemed extremely interesting to me. “Protesting on Demand,” a piece put on by the Floating Lab Collective, allows random people to put in requests for protest topics in via email that the Floating Lab Collective would, in turn, protest in DC. This combines many different sorts of multimedia (such as the internet as well as performance art), and makes an interesting comment on protesting. I have often laughed at ads in the Washington Post calling for protestors and offering $8 an hour in return. What good is a protestor, I thought, if they’re not protesting something they actually believe in? The Floating Lab Collective seems to be making a similar statement. The use of “on Demand” in the title of their piece is reminiscent of “Movies on Demand,” a slogan often quoted on TV for digital cable. People apparently are unable to wait to get a movie, or to drive to the video store to rent one, and want to have them as soon as they “demand it.” The Floating Lab Collective seems to be saying that people act the same way about protesting. People aren’t coming from all over the country to protest for what they believe. Businesses are hiring people to come in and protest, in a manner similar to “on Demand” cable.

Another piece, Jon James Anderson’s “Gestalt,” is a sort of newspaper released by the author that deals with politics, art and, of course, political art. What’s interesting about this piece is not necessarily that which he has written, but the form in which he has written it. He has made a true newspaper; it is the right size, it is printed on cheap news-grade paper, and he has made dozens (if not hundreds) of copies of it. This is extremely different than what one might consider traditional art. There is not one finished piece, but hundreds of different parts. It is not intended to be looked at or watched, but picked up and read and then thrown away. It is, for all practical purposes, not a piece of art and only a newspaper.

However, Anderson’s statement is what is important for this piece. To me, he is saying that artists must evolve. In order to remain political and change people’s minds in today’s society, an artist must use a medium that is familiar and easy for people to understand. Few people go to museums anymore, so few people might see a traditional painting or sculpture that has political significance. However, millions of people read newspapers. Anderson is ensuring that all of these people will have access to his piece.

Art as Mediation

In my projects this semester I have often dealt with the media. It is difficult not to using Max/MSP/Jitter, actually, unless you are using all your own media. Regardless; I have challenged and questioned the media in many different ways in my pieces.

In “Remix,” (video source was Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” and music was Prodigy’s “The Way it is”), I took two different pieces of music media, a music video and a song that were somewhat related but still different, and combined them into one piece. Due to this “remixing,” the meanings of the pieces change. When watching this video, Michael Jackson no longer sings and dances to the music, but he seems to be forced to match another song entirely. This creates a very strange effect. The viewer still feels like they’re watching a music video, but the video does not function like those one might watch on MTV. The viewer is forced to think about this difference, and thus, what makes a music video a music video.

In my most recent piece, which is still untitled, the viewer is able to mix music with video clips of newscasts regarding the RIAA. Additionally, the viewer has the ability to “scratch” the video backwards and forwards in a manner that is similar to how a DJ scratches on a record. My intent with this piece was to completely change the way the news about this subject was seen. The viewer can choose to use no music and simply watch the news, or they can force the person speaking in the video to repeat a word over and over again, or they can attempt to put the news to music, thereby creating their own song. In this case, the viewer is completely changing the meaning of the news for their own purposes. It’s no longer the news, but a sample in a piece of music. And music is what the entire RIAA debate is based around, so the act of remixing the debate itself could be seen as an act of rebellion. It is up to the viewer to decided.

Writing with Scissors

William Burroughs’ idea regarding the creation of new forms of writing via the cut/fold method is something that doesn’t really sit all that well with me. This is probably because I’m a writer myself, and the idea of cutting up my pages in order to achieve something seems kind of silly.

I can see what he’s getting at, though. Burroughs seems almost more interested in the interesting things language can do when used in an unordinary manner, however certain forms of writing (such as L.A.N.G.U.A.G.E. poetry) deals with this, and it’s still “real writing,” if you will. This style of poetry recognizes the various uses of different words and groups them together (sometimes) nonsensically to create effects a read might not have experienced before.

Burroughs’ idea, however, just seems like a gimmick to me, though. I can only really see it being effective if done perfectly, and then only if the person who wrote the original piece was a good writer. And if that person was a good writer, they would be able to make an intriguing and new piece without having to use this technique.

Real-Time Media

Real-time media creation has a large impact on how art is and can be created. In our reading and watching of online interviews, we have seen it put to use in various settings; from the creation of an interactive maze to the production of on-the-spot music.

There are several different types of real-time media creation that we have looked at. Algorithmic media involves the use of, you guessed it, algorithms in order to produce thousands of different effects. In fact, most of the media that we’ll look at employ algorithms of some sort. North Pitney, a user of Max/MSP/Jitter, used algorithms to create the brain of his real-world, interactive maze. In this case, the algorithms are a sort of intermediary step between the artist’s work (the maze) and the viewer (the person attempting to walk through the maze). As the maze watches people walking through, it decides for itself when and where to move walls. The algorithms used to give this maze a certain sort of “intelligence,” were created by Pitney, but the maze operates on its own. This means the interaction in this case is almost purely between a machine and a viewer.

This is similar to our own visualizer experiments. In this project we fed the computer different sorts of media (a video and some music), and, after telling the computer how to deal with the data, let it do what it wanted in order to see what results it produced. Those viewing our pieces were not seeing directly how we had created this new visual and auditory display, they were seeing the byproduct of the computer’s understanding of our programming.

The next type of real-media creation, “intermedial,” can also be related to our visualizer experiment. Dick Higgins, in his article regarding intermedia, spoke of the interaction between different types of media and how this interaction provided for a new and fresh sort of art. This is true for our visualizer. While adding music to video is not a new idea by any means, our dealing with the two mediums was slightly different. By taking video that already had audio and then adding our own, we changed the original meaning of both the video and audio, making them our own.

Gestural media is affected by a user’s movements, sounds and the like. The “Messa di Voce” piece we studied is one such example. In this piece, performers interacted with a program by moving, singing, quacking and doing other actions. This caused amazing images and effects to form on the screen behind them. In our own work, we have created similar effects. By making a patch in Max that recognized and reacted to mouse movements, we were able to change the rate, saturation, brightness and such of video clips while simultaneously doing similar actions to sound files. By doing this, the performer or user was able to create effects similar to those in “Messa di Voce.”

User interaction is somewhat similar to gestural media. In interactive media, changes are caused by the actions of the user. For example, in our video compositing projects, users were able to change which video was displayed, or the sizes of videos displayed, or the rate at which videos played by pressing keys or moving the mouse. This interactivity allows the viewer or user to become the artist as opposed to the person who created the original patch.

This sort of media (algorithm based, intermedial, gestural and interactive) is extremely different than traditional art. For example, a traditional video piece is linear. It starts at the beginning and plays through the end. Perhaps it loops. However, the media we have discussed is different in that it is completely unlinear. The user (or performer) decides what video clip or audio clip is displayed, what order they are displayed in, the rate they are played and what effects are put on them. Because of this, the pieces created are much more spontaneous and perhaps more interesting.

Extra fun examples:

Algorithm: Happy Man
Gestural: flOw
Interactive: Mixed Reality Interface
Interactive Hoogerbrugge

Jamie Lidell - Human Funk Tornado

Jamie Lidell, yet another performer using Max, created a patch that works somewhat like a digital DJ. In his performances, he uses Max to produce background music for his singing. This is different than some of the other Max user videos we have seen in that his performances cannot be classified as performance art or as an installation. He is doing something that seems much more mainstream, and it is interesting to see Max used in this fashion.

While he does not go into specifics on how his Max patch works, he does say that he used it to create a sort of "looping machine." According to this, I feel like he is doing something more interesting than what most current musicians are doing. His music seems like it could be much more spontaneous than others. Because of this, he is almost recreating this mainstream genre of art by putting his own spin on it. While this is different than the other videos we have seen, it still shows an artist using Max to achieve new and different pieces.

Matthew Lewis

Matthew Lewis, a professor using Max, talks about the various ways that Max can be applied to both the professional world and to the teaching world. Several of the things that he talks about, such as the ability to get near instantaneous results when working with the program, are the sort of thing that Max excels at.

Two of the projects struck me as very interesting in particular. The first project Lewis talks about is one that he created in order to randomly generate logos. Since I am and have been interested in graphic design for years, I find it fascinating that it is possible to use Max to help you with the preliminary sketching stage in identity creation. It definitely seems like an easy way to mess around with ideas without going through some long, drawn out process.

The second project that interested me was one of his student's, where the student's movements controlled sounds being produced. This, which is similar in nature to the Messa di Voce performances we viewed previously, is an aspect of Max that truly interests me. I look forward to figuring out how to create this sort of physical interaction with the program.

Messa di Voce and Donald Duck

The "Messa di Voce" (Italian for "placing the voice") performances found here, provide a new way to look at sound. One example, Messa di Voce: "Bounce (Jaap's Solo)," has one man on stage in front of a yellow/green background. He makes "special cheek-flapping," sounds, as the website says, and every time he does, black bubble-like objects shoot out of his mouth and float to the top of the scene.

This video, like the others found on the website, make the viewer think differently about sound. For example, near the beginning of this piece, Jaap makes several large bubbles among hundreds of smaller ones. I found myself asking, "What did he do to make these? It seems like all the sounds he's making are random. But if all the sounds are random, why aren't more large bubbles created?" Jaap eventually branches out into different sorts of sounds that don't quite qualify as "cheek-flapping," and eventually starts sounding like an enraged Donald Duck.

This idea of creating something physical (tiny black bubbles) with something that really isn't physical (the various sounds we are capable of making), is intriguing. By the end of the piece, Jaap has a large group of bubbles sitting at the top of the screen; but as he steps back to appreciate his work and pat himself on the back for a job well done, they begin to fall away, and try as he might, he can't catch them. Angered, he kicks and pushes all of the bubbles off the stage while making even more (slightly frightening) Donald Duck noises. Is this saying something else about sound? Perhaps that sound, and even the visualization of sound, can easily be lost. They are temporary things.

This visual symphony is an interesting piece. I never before thought that the sound of cheek flapping is actually the sound of thousands of tiny black bubbles floating across a screen. But apparently it is. This piece also has "intermedia" implications, as it is bridging the gap between opera (in a way), performance art, animation and other visual mediums. And by using a computer that accepts real world input (much like North Pitney's maze, where the person controls the maze, or animation in this case, by using their body and voice as opposed to a keyboard and mouse), the virtual/real-world gap has again been bridged.

Intermedia from Higgins' Perspective

Dick Higgins’ essay titled, “Intermedia” (1966), explores the areas between the artistic mediums of the day. Higgins himself was an intermedia artist, and according to his essay, the only new work during his time that was worthwhile was that which crossed boundaries set by classical tradition.

He attacks painting and sculpture and the like. He claims pop art is “bland,” and “dead.” However, he lauds praise on artists like Marcel Duchamp for works such as “Fountain” (which is a urinal signed “R. Mutt, 1917”). Higgins also attacks theatre, which in itself is a sort of mixed-media, as it encompasses music, performance, and visual arts. However, it is stale and lacking in interactivity, Higgins states.

The Intermedia Higgins discusses bridges more than just the gap between different art mediums, it also bridges the gap between the artist and the viewers. Viewers are encouraged to become participants. Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” (image on the left) for example, called for audience members to come up on stage and cut pieces of Ono’s clothing off. This is performance art, but it is also something else. The participants themselves become integral parts in the performance, as without them, Ono’s clothing would remain unchanged. Because of this, the performance reveals insight not only into Ono’s view on the world (in that she passively allows strangers to remove bits and pieces of her clothing), but also into the mind of society itself. The participants, for the most part, only remove small pieces of her clothing, and only one man goes in and tries to reveal all of her body. Does this mean American society is closed and prudish? Perhaps.

This kind of work is what Higgins sees as truly revolutionary. Picasso, while a good painter, was little more, in Higgins’ eyes. The people who mixed mediums and involved their audience were those who truly deserved praise. And perhaps Higgins is right. While I disagree with the fact that single-medium works are worthless, I do agree that mixed-medium pieces are far more interesting and revolutionary. Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece,” seems far more insightful to me than a painting of a subdued woman in cut clothing. This blurring of lines is a striking way to express an opinion and is the “future” of art; or at least it was the future for Higgins, for us it is the present.

An Intelligent Maze

North Pitney’s experimental maze piece (shown in the video above), utilizes Max/MSP/Jitter to render an ever-changing maze controlled by the computer in the real world. This is an interesting concept as it draws on ideas and that are being used in the game design field as well as problems that have plagued the game design field for years.

The ability to randomly generate a playing field in a game has been a hot issue for a long time. Once a player has finished a game, or a level, or a stage, or whatever, there is no reason why the player should want to go back and play it again (unless he/she just fell in love with the game). However, with a randomly generated level, the game is a little bit different each and every round. However, many game designers and companies have found it difficult to do so. In early games, there simply wasn’t the technology. Once there was, games with randomly generated dungeons (such as in the “Diablo” series) were put to use. However, soon after games moved to 3D, which posed a problem. It’s easy for a computer to lop a bunch of 2D elements together to make a level. It’s not quite as simple to do that with 3D, as there are so many more things to take into account. How can they create dynamic lighting if the level changes every time it loads? How do they make subtle transfers in texture? How can they place random junk/crates/whatever where they’ll look natural?

While game designers are just now figuring out how to do this (such as in “Hellgate: London” [which is being designed by the people who did “Diablo”]) , Pitney has already passed them in a way. His maze, which changes to reflect a user’s actions, acts much like these games and it is clearly three-dimensional. So, is Pitney’s work a form of entertainment? Is it a game? Or are games themselves pieces of art? Is Pitney’s “game,” also art?

I believe the answer lies not in whether or not the maze or the game itself is art, but, as Pitney touches on, somewhere in between. The unification of the virtual world and the real world, which one rarely sees in this form, is what is artistic about this piece. Games now a days boast extremely intelligent AI that can watch what you’re doing, predict where you’ll move, and take action against you (especially in first person shooter games). Pitney’s piece brings this sort of AI to the real world. The maze itself, which is controlled by a computer, is “thinking” in its own way, and working against you, much like an AI controlled character in a game might. But the difference is that it is acting against you in the real world.

In a game, I can simply pause or quit or walk away from the computer, which renders the AI helpless. With Pitney’s maze, however, this is impossible. You are confined in the maze and you can’t just walk away from it… you must literally out smart the computer to get out. This transfer of intelligence from the virtual world to the real world poses many interesting questions. Is the computer thinking? Is it possible for the computer to keep you in the maze if it chooses? Or is it Pitney who is keeping you in the maze? After all, he wrote the code that controls the maze.

Regardless, this piece provides an interesting insight into the realm that lies between the virtual world and the real world. One can only think that in the near future more complex virtual/real world environments such as this will be made, further blurring the line between that which is artificial and that which is real.