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.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
