Brian Knep was an incredibly interesting man and artist; I enjoyed listening to him talk about his work. I already liked his work and had some sense of appreciation for it, but after hearing his conceptual ideas that were behind each piece and his reasons for producing each piece made me appreciate and enjoy his work on another level. I enjoyed that he derived so much of his inspiration from science and math because it makes his aesthetic choices seem more meaningful.
I also liked the way he interpreted his own art pieces in a way that says they are existent with or without the existence of an audience, yet they are so interactive. The idea that the viewer interrupts the activity of the piece's natural life is an interesting perspective. I did like that even though the audience's presence changes and disrupts the piece, the piece is able to deal with the change and grow in a new way as if to say, "life goes on, roll with the punches." I feel like I learned a lot from his talk about ways to view art and to make it so that it can fit in all kinds of different communities and be seen in all kinds of different ways.
The Theremin was a fascinating instrument that I had never seen before. I really enjoyed getting the opportunity to try playing it. It was definitely difficult to coordinate both sides of my body, but the idea that the sound was being produced by my interference with the space around it was amazing and even reminded me a little bit of the concepts used in Brian Knep's work. The idea that the instrument exists and is changed and altered by the presence of an audience, or in this case a musician, and that it flows with the environment and all the changes that come to it. The Theremin is like new media art for the music world which uses a lot of science and technology to produce the music.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Brian Knep
Brian Knep’s work was really interesting. My favorite pieces were those that were expressed using the childlike drawings: Emerge, Expand, Erect, and Escape. I enjoyed the play of the simplicity of the forms displayed, contrasted to the complex concepts and the precision needed to produce the movements through the technology. I enjoy the concept that these little creatures represent mankind and that in each piece they are struggling to reach a goal.
“The works in this series use child-like drawings to examine, in a humorous way, the illusions that drive us. The creatures, with their huge, exaggerated faces and skeletal legs, are caricatures of the endlessly cycling everyman. Visually, the creatures are presented as shadows, illuminated only by the lights that are cast upon them. They cover all available surfaces, reacting to our intrusions into their small worlds.”
I also found the piece Deep Wounds very moving. It definitely made a strong statement about how we fear the enemy, yet it conveyed this by touching upon ideas that are significant and close to us like relationships. It successfully made me think about the way we treat people who are close to us or who have the same ideals as us versus how we treat people, and even think about people, who are different in such strong ways that we are physically against them.
My Questions:
The piece Deep Wounds seems as though it could have been quite controversial. It brings significance to confederate soldiers, but it does this in an anonymous way (instead of bringing up their names directly). It is juxtaposed in a space that has forgotten the confederate side of the war, which could highlight something they now feel shame about. All the soldiers’ memorials are projected on the floor that we have to walk over to view, which could be interpreted as insulting if it was not seen as the idea that they have been buried and are now being unearthed. When creating Deep Wounds, did you encounter opposition from people about how, where, or why it was displayed? If you did, then how did you overcome those obstacles?
In your pieces Emerge, Expand, Erect, Escape, you use the creatures to represent the “endlessly cycling everyman,” and they all seem to be grouped and have the same goals. Do you see yourself as being one of these creatures? Is it a play on the idea that we are all trying to be the same or end up being the same? Or is it meant more to represent the idea that we work together or need to work together more to succeed at these universal goals?
“The works in this series use child-like drawings to examine, in a humorous way, the illusions that drive us. The creatures, with their huge, exaggerated faces and skeletal legs, are caricatures of the endlessly cycling everyman. Visually, the creatures are presented as shadows, illuminated only by the lights that are cast upon them. They cover all available surfaces, reacting to our intrusions into their small worlds.”
I also found the piece Deep Wounds very moving. It definitely made a strong statement about how we fear the enemy, yet it conveyed this by touching upon ideas that are significant and close to us like relationships. It successfully made me think about the way we treat people who are close to us or who have the same ideals as us versus how we treat people, and even think about people, who are different in such strong ways that we are physically against them.
My Questions:
The piece Deep Wounds seems as though it could have been quite controversial. It brings significance to confederate soldiers, but it does this in an anonymous way (instead of bringing up their names directly). It is juxtaposed in a space that has forgotten the confederate side of the war, which could highlight something they now feel shame about. All the soldiers’ memorials are projected on the floor that we have to walk over to view, which could be interpreted as insulting if it was not seen as the idea that they have been buried and are now being unearthed. When creating Deep Wounds, did you encounter opposition from people about how, where, or why it was displayed? If you did, then how did you overcome those obstacles?
In your pieces Emerge, Expand, Erect, Escape, you use the creatures to represent the “endlessly cycling everyman,” and they all seem to be grouped and have the same goals. Do you see yourself as being one of these creatures? Is it a play on the idea that we are all trying to be the same or end up being the same? Or is it meant more to represent the idea that we work together or need to work together more to succeed at these universal goals?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Daniel Rozin
As a “new media” artist, Daniel Rozin creates interactive digital art sculptures and installations. The pieces I’ve been looking at are all based on the idea of reflection using the principles of mosaics to deliver an image that directly connects to the viewer. He uses computers that are hardly visible to control the movement of each piece.
Rozin was born in Jerusalem, but he now lives and works in New York. He is an art professor at the Tisch School of the Arts, NYU, as well as the owner of his software company, Smoothware Design.
He has won numerous awards for his work in industrial design and within the multimedia community including the Prix Ars Electronica, ID Design Review and the Chrysler Design Award..
I find his work fascinating because of the way he is able to manipulate his materials, such as wood or trash, and use light to control the illusion of a reflection in an otherwise non-reflective surface. It is amazing to see the transformation of the materials and the elegant collaboration of the digital elements working with the sculptural elements.
This is a video of my favorite piece:
Wooden Mirror - 1999
830 square pieces of wood, 830 servo motors, control electronics, video camera, computer, wood frame.
Size - W 67” x H 80” x D 10” (170cm , 203cm, 25cm).
Built in 1999, this is the first mechanical mirror I built. This piece explores the line between digital and physical, using a warm and natural material such as wood to portray the abstract notion of digital pixels.
All of my information and images were from the following site:
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Second Life
Listening to Philip Rosedale talk about Second Life was very interesting and informative as to why he decided to create this virtual world and why it has become so popular. The idea that it is “a place where anything can happen” seems to be virtually true, because, virtually, anything can happen in this world if you are willing to spend the money and the time developing your ideas. I would like to say though that not “anything” can happen if you are willing to consider our real, non-virtual world, because the only access you can get to this virtual world is through our living world, and although it may be a fun outlet, or even a place to make a living, anything you accomplish there is only going to stay in that world. You can re-build yourself to look just how you want, and you can create a life for yourself in an imaginary world, and you can make virtual friends with thousands of people or ignore them to your heart’s content, but for every minute you spend living in this world, it is a minute that you are not living in the real world. Without discrediting the experience you can enjoy in this virtual world, the fact remains that improving yourself virtually will not make it happen in reality. I can respect games and the Internet and virtual worlds for providing an outlet for creativity, fun, and a unique social experience, but to say that “anything” can happen is misleading and scary.
One of the questions that was asked in the speech was, “Do we come to prefer our digital selves?” This question is the part of virtual reality that really scares me, because I have had friends who have in some ways transitioned out of reality and spend all their time on World of Warcraft, which sounds like it has similarities to Second Life, even though Second Life is not considered a game. I can understand the desire to be alone, yet social and totally imaginary all at the same time, but people truly let their entire lives be consumed by this. Philip Rosedale responded to this question by saying that in some cases we do begin to prefer out digital selves because we are presented with the challenge of surviving in this virtual world and we can start over in many ways to be more creative or social, but even though it seems frightening to think that, it is inevitable. This just makes me think about the Disney Pixar movie Wall-e, and the world that had been created in space where people floated around in chairs all day with a computer screen in front of their faces eating fatty foods, and this was their life. To hear the word ‘inevitable’ in such a related context makes me want to never go on and create a virtual life.
As an artist, I can see the draws of living in a world where you can do anything. It would be fascinating to temporarily visit that world to design and be creative, but I don’t believe that virtual art will ever replace traditional art; there is room for both in this world. I have no desire to be a virtual artist, I really enjoy the physicality of art making; that is why I love wheel working so much. It sounds like Second Life is a great opportunity for new media artists; it just doesn’t fit with my particular way of working or thinking.
One of the questions that was asked in the speech was, “Do we come to prefer our digital selves?” This question is the part of virtual reality that really scares me, because I have had friends who have in some ways transitioned out of reality and spend all their time on World of Warcraft, which sounds like it has similarities to Second Life, even though Second Life is not considered a game. I can understand the desire to be alone, yet social and totally imaginary all at the same time, but people truly let their entire lives be consumed by this. Philip Rosedale responded to this question by saying that in some cases we do begin to prefer out digital selves because we are presented with the challenge of surviving in this virtual world and we can start over in many ways to be more creative or social, but even though it seems frightening to think that, it is inevitable. This just makes me think about the Disney Pixar movie Wall-e, and the world that had been created in space where people floated around in chairs all day with a computer screen in front of their faces eating fatty foods, and this was their life. To hear the word ‘inevitable’ in such a related context makes me want to never go on and create a virtual life.
As an artist, I can see the draws of living in a world where you can do anything. It would be fascinating to temporarily visit that world to design and be creative, but I don’t believe that virtual art will ever replace traditional art; there is room for both in this world. I have no desire to be a virtual artist, I really enjoy the physicality of art making; that is why I love wheel working so much. It sounds like Second Life is a great opportunity for new media artists; it just doesn’t fit with my particular way of working or thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
