Metavid

Screen%20Shot%202019-03-10%20at%208.58.2
Metavid
is a free-software site that hosts United States public domain legislative footage. Through closed-captioning text from a “simple Linux box”[1]that records “everything C-SPAN shoots,”[1] Metavid can provide “brief searchable clips”[1] of legislative footage. Online communities can engage with the audio and video media archives which are not usually viewed by the public but told second hand through other media outlets. Metavid captures a non-bias recording of legislative meetings so that the people can draw their own opinions and ideas. The close-captioned text allows users to quickly and easily search through the thousands of hours of archived footage so that all the related media appears in the search results.

Currently, Metavid hosts the “largest free and reusable archive of house and senate legislative footage”[1] which is made available through a partnership with archive.org. The online platform was launched in early 2006 under the advisement of University of California Santa Cruz’s Professor Warren Sack for Michael Dale and Abram Stern’s Digital Arts and New Media MFA thesis project. Metavid sparked interest in the United States House and Senate, and in 2010 the House launched their own online media content source following the Senate’s launch in 2011.

Metadata has inspired Abram Stern’s pieces. Other art projects Abram Stern has created surrounding metadata include Oversight Machines, Unburning 1D3001Part1 and Operational Character Rendition. In Operational Character Rendition, the project performs OCR or optical character recognition for low-resolution documents published by the SSCI (United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence). The data submitted on these documents is unsearchable since they are low-resolution pdf’s, and the metadata doesn’t correlate with the record. Operational Character Rendition analyzes the pdf file turning the picture of words into searchable results and accurate metadata.

Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metavid

Also informed by Stern’s guest-lecture in FILM189, UCSC, Feb 27, 2019.

Sharing Faces

Sometimes political and socio-economic issues can act as a veil, automating a blurring or skewing of how people may perceive one another.  Many people are taught to hate or disagree with entire populations of others because of past or ongoing sociopolitical issues.  Furthermore, this thought process produces stigmas and generalizations that will continue to deepen and push the cultures and people apart, until someone tries to reevaluate the situation.  A digital artist by the name of Kyle McDonald took this task into his own hands, and created an art installations that utilizes high tech surveillance cameras and specially coded software to bring together people from Japan and South Korea in an attempt to begin the mending of the quite rocky history between the two countries that has never been settled.  As Charlie Gere stated in his book, Digital Culture, “International political tensions presented a set of problems for which computing and  cognate  ideas  such  as  Cybernetics  offered  potential  solutions,” [1] just as how McDonald presented his potential solution or at least opportunity for the citizens of Japan and South Korea to connect on a more personal level. 

sharingfaces1-1-e1409173398630-640x432.jMcDonald placed two installations, one in Japan and one in South Korea, that utilized the surveillance cameras to take up to 5,000 photos of each individual that interacted with the installation.  The cameras would then, store the “position (X,Y), orientation (roll, pitch, yaw), and expression (object points),” [2] and using source code, mirror the image of the participant in the installation with people from the opposite country.  Moreover, this enabled each admirer from Japan or South Korea to experience their supposed “enemy” in a new light, further establishing the sense of humanity and affinity in each other's gaze and movement. 

Screen%20Shot%202019-02-24%20at%207.46.1McDonald stated in an interview with Creative Applications Network that, “Stories like this, about moments of reflection on the nature of our connectedness, really moved me,” truly showing his attempt to spark a transcendence of disagreement and prior stigmas, and to encourage the two countries to attempt to drop the veils that cloud their vision of the people who are literal mirror images of themselves.  Furthermore, it is quite interesting how many of the code advancements and developments over the years were produced from needs of war; the breaking apart of relations in the ultimate sense.[3]  However, this enabled skilled engineers and coding technicians to “exploit their new skills and understandings,” [4] reevaluating the world of code and cybernetics to be used for good instead of destruction. 

sharing%20faces.pngMcDonald’s installation is a wonderful lesson in acceptance and reexamination of one’s own opinions or perceptions.  Moreover, if we as humans continue to gain further insight into other cultures as well as other people’s ways of life, we might be able to remove our own personal veils that we might not have known we had or refused to recognize, continually striving to connect rather than disjoin.

[1] – Charlie Gere, Digital Culture (London: Reaktion, 2008), 62.

[2] – Kylemcdonald. "Sharing Faces." GitHub. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://github.com/kylemcdonald/SharingFaces.

[3] – Charlie Gere, Digital Culture (London: Reaktion, 2008), 74.

[4] – Charlie Gere, Digital Culture (London: Reaktion, 2008), 74.

Floribots

floribots-06-robotics-4-h-x-27-w-x-13-d-Floribots is a 128 robot origami flower interactive installation. It functions with “hive mind”[1] characteristics by sensing the audience’s movement and adapting its behavior accordingly. The artist, Geoffrey Drake-Brockman programmed Floribots to simulate behaviors that are “both of an individual and a colony.”[2] The technology of Floribots makes use of both software and electronics, allowing humans and machine to play creatively together. The artist installed sensors to detect the audience and in response the Floribots dance in waves creating a fun, interactive charged environment.

P1110160.jpg

The interplay between the responsive system and human audience of Floribots simulates both wave and particle behaviors. Inside the artwork, the software mind formulates a response to the audience. The cybernetics allow for many social realities to arise in the interaction between human and machine; this creates an exciting and intriguing experience. The software mind consists of many concentric shells. The outermost shell deals with the sensors and the mechanics of Floribots and the innermost shell deals with its emotional state. The internal complexity of the artwork allows the piece to react and create a sense of liveliness. 

When watching Floribots, I was memorized by the fluid rise of the flower-like machine. I felt like I was in a trance watching as the origami looking flowers rose and fell. I enjoyed the artists choice of colors for Floribots. The green stem and purple pot complimented the pink and yellow flower petals. The colors together worked to create a sense of happiness and possibilities.

floribots-retouchv2.jpg

I found the piece intriguing because of how it brings together biological, social and machine-based cell structure. In doing so, Floribots raises many questions about what a mind is and how a “hive mind” functions? Dr. Benjamin Joel, a world-renowned painter from Curtin University, states that Floribots hints at the controlling patterns of self-organization which arise across all cellular structures. The installation senses the audience and reacts as what Drake-Brockman calls the “technological other.”[3] The flower-bots will grow bored of no motion and start clicking and clattering for attention or become extremely chaotic with too much stimulation from the crowd. The cybernetic flower garden parallels human interactions with technology, making for an uncanny commentary about the processes underway in society. Humans react to Floribots, similar to carrying and talking to a phone or yelling at your computer for not working fast enough, but instead of a motionless phone or computer, Floribots reacts back. 

Floribots was announced the winner of the National Sculpture Prize for the People’s Choice Award in 2005 and has exhibited at a number of institutes including the Perth Institute of Contemporary Art in 2007 and the Singapore Art Museum in 2010. The artist has developed and broken new ground for “chrome plating, various forms of electrical and electronic engineering, high-end software systems, plastics chemistry, optics, laser engineering”[2] and more. 

 References

[1] https://www.drake-brockman.com.au/#Artworks

[2] http://www.drake-brockman.com.au/Floribots_Exhibition_Catalogue_.pdf
[3] https://morristowngreen.com/2018/03/19/an-art-exhibit-that-is-truly-moving-at-the-morris-museum/

Creative Adversarial Network

TopRatedCAN-1.jpg    A computer program called (CAN) Creative Adversarial Network has been making creative works that are being compared with art made by human artists, and it is learning how to continue to improve it's works by itself judging them and having people judge them.  

    This is important because if a computer can truly make art on its own then it can make artists obsolete. One of the doubts about the program being truly creative is if people were just voting the works to be good because they could be sold. While I disagree with this idea I understand the thought that they could just be viewing the art as something marketable. The pieces to me who is is just a normal person with no qualifications whatsoever are very visually pleasing to look at and I personally like the computer generated images. "Researchers then tested whether or not these generated works could pass as creative to some people. An object, for their purposes, demonstrates creativity if it is both “novel and influential.” When compared to human artists works it was judged to be lesser than the code generated art, whether or not it is lesser it is undeniable that the code generated art is very impressive.

AuthorPics-720x716.jpgThe Creative Adversarial Network was created by a team of computer scientist researchers at Rutgers University in their Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory "Computer scientists at Rutgers University developed a system to generate artworks that were deemed more communicative and inspiring than human-made art" (Hyperallergic) The results of their research on machine learning created the results of these paintings that ended up being more visually pleasing to viewers than man made ones were.

The relation of this interesting exhibition to our topics of self creating art is exactly that, it’s not just a mechanical forever self altering artwork like we have previously looked at. The CAN can (pun not intended) not only can create brand new artworks, but it can learn how to improve them and come to an understanding of what humans find visually pleasing. Its works became so good that in an experiment participants thought the images made by the program were man made. “The first question they posed was whether humans could simply distinguish between the computer’s art and human-made artworks. As Elgammal sums up in a blog post, participants believed that the generated images were made by artists 75% of the time, compared to 85% of the time for the collection of Abstract Expressionist artworks, all made between 1945 and 2007. In terms of the Art Basel paintings, participants thought that humans had made them just 48% of the time." (Hyperallergic).”

Link:

https://hyperallergic.com/391059/humans-prefer-computer-generated-paintings-to-those-at-art-basel/

Works cited:

Voon, Claire. “Humans Prefer Computer-Generated Paintings to Those at Art Basel.” Hyperallergic, Hyperallergic, 31 July 2017, hyperallergic.com/391059/humans-prefer-computer-generated-paintings-to-those-at-art-basel/.

$8,793 Worth of [Digital] Art


In 2014, art critic Pau Waelder published an ebook on the Merske Books website, titled $8,793 Worth of [Digital] Art, based on the representative value of the collective works he siphoned from the online art marketplace S[edition] [1].  Over the course of 159 images of works of art lifted directly from S[edition]’s storefront, Waelder pairs each of these works either an authentic or unauthentic “certificate of authenticity,” which is intended to only be given upon the official purchase of each copy of an art piece by an individual.  However, a simple flaw in the website presentation allowed Waelder to reproduce the certificate – a blank example copy for each art piece is shown on the website proper, which Waelder copied and used to forge some of the certificates in his collection while the rest he officially purchased.  These copies are indistinguishable from the real deal, forcing the reader to distrust what they see on the page as fact – an obvious metaphor for what debatably constitutes as “owning an official piece of art” in the contemporary digital landscape [2].

Indeed, can any difference be found between these two “authentic” certificates? (Save for the art and artists’ names, of course.)  In fact, if one were to edit these two certificates using one’s name instead of Waelder’s, would that individual now own these two art pieces, too?

This art collection clearly follows the spirit of Sherrie Levine’s 1981 photographic reproduction of Walker Evan’s famous Allie Mae Burroughs 1936 photograph (and by extension Michael Mandiberg’s own 2001 digital reproduction of Levine’s physical reproduction) – it definitely establishes itself as holding the same stance that other art critics directed towards Levine and Mandiberg’s work, that “the ideal of originality associated with avant-garde art [is] a myth” following the concept of simple reproduction [3].  However, this is by no means the full intent of Waelder’s piece.  In an interview with We Make Money Not Art, he explains that his piece is also meant to highlight the disparity between how purchasing art is handled in the digital world – which is performed similarly to purchasing physical copies in the real world – and how the natural dynamic of sharing data on the internet is done globally as an intrinsic, democratic feature.  Even so, not all works of art can be pirated straight from the storefront of S[edition] and other sites – they offer art pieces such as digital installation works and videos, which are incapable of being lifted through website image rips alone [2].  But in a digital world where copy-paste maneuvers are commonplace and file sharing is the norm, who can accurately determine the authenticity of any piece of art over the internet?

Sources:

[1] Martin, John, and Pau Waelder. “Merkske.” Pau Waelder, Merkske Books, http://merkske.com/worth/.

[2] Regine. “$8,793 Worth of [Digital] Art.” We Make Money Not Art, 7 Dec. 2015, http://we-make-money-not-art.com/8793_worth_of_art/.

[3] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. Phaidon, 2014.

Eyeborg (Neil Harbisson’s Cyborg Antenna)

Neil_Harbisson_cyborgist.jpg

Neil Harbisson is a cyborg artist based in New York City. He is described as a cyborg artist because his artwork his artwork is concerned with the concept of cyborgism but also because he himself is technically a cyborg. 

The word cyborg is a combination of the words "cybernetic" and "organism" and describes a being with both biological and mechanical parts. Neil Harbisson is technically considered a cyborg because of his antenna implant, which he calls "the Eyeborg." This device is implanted in his skull and was designed to extend the limitations of human color perception, specifically, it allows him to see colors even though he was born completely color blind, and he can even see infrared and ultraviolet colors. It does this using a camera on the end of the antenna, the camera detects both hue and saturation, and then the antenna sends that information to his brain as an audio signal through the process of bone conduction. [1] Essentially, it allows him to "hear" colors, including colors that humans would normally be unable to see. Before the implant, he was actually completely colorblind, and while he still technically sees everything in greyscale, he is able to percieve more colors than the average person thanks to his implant. [2] Since its initial creation the antenna can do much more than just allow him to percieve colors, it is also bluetooth enabled, allowing him to connect to other devices or the internet. He can also apparently "hear colors that other people are seeing." [3]

Harbisson describes the sensation of "hearing" colors as completely normal to him at this point. He claims that while at first he struggled with learning the names of the different colors he was hearing, but eventually it became a sense to him as intuitive as his others. He claims that now he has favorite colors and is even able to dream in color. He says that  starting to dream in color is when he truly started to feel like a cyborg, because in a dream it would be his brain creating the electronic sounds of the color, not the actual device, so he claims that is when the software of his device and his brain were united. [4]

1172736.jpgHarbisson says that the implant feels like a body part, he said “If you touch the camera or the antenna it’s like touching a tooth or a nail—I feel it, basically, which is weird, because I didn’t feel that before.” [5] Since it is surgically implanted into his skull, he also sleeps and showers with the antenna on. In 2004, Harbisson's british passport renewal was rejected because he was not allowed to appear in his passport photo with an electronic device on his head. Harbisson wrote back claiming that he self identified as a cyborg, and that the device should not be treated as an external electronic device, but rather a part of his body. His passport application was later accepted, making him technically the first cyborg to be recognized by a government.

Harbisson dosn't just see his implant as a functional tool, he describes it as a work of art. When asked about this, he said:

I see this as cyborg art: the art of creating new senses and the art of creating your own body parts. The problem is that it is impossible to share it. It happens in the mind of the artist, so I am both the artist and the only one in the audience because it happens exclusively in my head. The only way to share it is if you also have an antenna implanted in your brain. That is the main issue. [6]

References

[1], [3], [5] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9akbaa/the-cyborg-who-can-hear-what-other-people-are-looking-at

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/may/06/neil-harbisson-worlds-first-cyborg-artist

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygRNoieAnzI

[6] https://metalmagazine.eu/en/post/interview/neil-harbisson-the-reality-of-a-cyborg

Biometric Mirror

 

Biometric Mirror is an interactive art exhibit created and produced by Lucy McRae. Patrons of the exhibit are invited to casually glance into one of the installation’s mirrors which then runs an artificial intelligence software to analyze and “perfect” the patron’s physical facial features. The exhibit utilizes technologies researched and developed at the University of Melbourne that take into consideration physical attributes of the face including age, gender, and race, which are then quantified and modified through use of an algorithm to produce a Marquardt Mask, or a more “physically perfect” version of ones face.The participant is therefore shown, face to face a simulated version of themselves. Something that is similar, but eerily "off." They are presented with a doppelganger who is supposedly superior to themselves.

Biometric-Mirror.jpg

the-facial-masks-01-repose-frontal.jpg       The Marquardt Mask is an algorithmic process which “identifies facial characteristics that are universally perceived as beautiful.” It does so by analyzing one’s face and comparing it to a database of faces which have been measured and gauged in 14 different categories of beauty and attraction.In addition to creating a perfected version of ones face, the AI embedded mirror also performs the convenience of quantifying ones attractiveness as well as identifying their current emotional state through facial recognition software. Biometric Mirror’s objective is to personalize the application of the Marquardt Mask to the patrons of the exhibit and pose the question, “…whose version of perfection is it really?” This exhibit challenges artificial intelligence’s objective assertions on a subjective matter. The patron is subconsciously asked to subscribe to a machine’s discoveries, supposedly based in math and semi-perfect science, or, instead, decide to invest their beliefs in more subjective determining factors. After all, how can one trust the diagnosis of emotion from an entity which has never and cannot experience emotion in the same mode as a human person? Moreover, the biometric mirror asks participants to identify and officially define their own interpretation of the concept of beauty. Beauty is a subjective concept that while it has a defined meaning, is an innately differing concept, varying in perception from one individual to another.

Biometric_Mirror_Photo_Jesse_Marlow?form

  1. https://www.lucymcrae.net/biometric-mirror-
  2. http://neural.it/2019/01/biometric-mirror-and-if-you-were-perfect/
  3. https://www.beautyanalysis.com/

Conway’s Game of Life, sunSurgeAutomata, and the Conway Quartet

Gospers_glider_gun.gif

Conway's Game of Life is a cellular automaton (a model that attempts to replicate the behavior of living cells) developed by British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970. It takes the form of a grid with pixels that can either be in two states, on or off, or alive and dead since this is supposed to a model replicating the behavior of biological cells. The cells start in a state (alive or dead) either chosen at random or by a user and then the state of the cells is constantly changing and determined by specific rules.The rules determining the state of a cell are as follows:

  • Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by solitude.
  • Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation.
  • Each cell with two or three neighbors survives.
  • Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated. [1]

There are other cellular automata with other rules, but Conway's Game of Life is one of the earliest and most popular examples. It is also even possible to create three dimensional cellular automata, but most of them (including Conway's Game of Life) are two dimensional.

Some artists have taken cellular automata (either Conway's Game of Life or similar ones) and used them to create new pieces. One such example is Alexander Dupuis's piece Conway Quartet, a music piece based on cellular automata which he describes as

A Game of Life-based audiovisual synthesis system: four one-dimensional voices interactively manipulate themselves through shifting phase triggers and cellular waveshaping. [2]

Another piece similar to Alexander Dupuis's Conway Quartet is Carla Scaletti's piece sunSurgeAutomata. sunSurgeAutomata also uses a cellular automaton to create algorithmic music, however all of the sounds are derived from "clicks" organized by the cellular automaton. Carla Scaletti had this to say about her inspiration for the piece:

One of my goals was to create a computer-generated piece that was not based on a model of ‘instruments’ playing ‘notes’; instead, the structure arises from the self-organizing patterns that emerge when you apply the simple (local) cellular automata rules to pulses or as a signal processing algorithm. [3]

Listen to sunSurgeAutomata on Carla Scaletti's website

It is interesting how both Alexander Dupis's Conway Quartet and Carla Scaletti's sunSurgeAutomata are both so similar in concept, a piece of music derived from a cellular automata, but so different in execution. Dupis's piece uses the cellular automata for waveshaping, which is the process by which a simple audio signal (like a sine wave) is altered to create a more complex sound. In Conway Quartet, there are only four different voices playing simultaneously, and the cellular automata is determining what those four voices sound like. sunSurgeAutomata, on the other hand, actively tried to avoid such an approach. sunSurgeAutomata is a piece made from clicks derived from the cellular automata, so there are potentially much more than four voices. The two sound similar in the sense that they both lack any sort of discernible pattern or rhythm since they both aim to portray the biological-like nature of the cellular automata, but sound different because the way they capture that essence is completely different.

References:

[1] Conway's game of life (http://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)

[2] Conway quartet (http://www.alexanderdupuis.com/work/conway.php)

[3] sunSurgeAutomata (https://carlascaletti.com/sunsurgeautomata/)

Doubt

Around the turn of the century, artist Carsten Höller set out to create a work of art meant to challenge our perceptions of reality through coded sequences of light and spatio-temporal illusions. His immediate goal in creating the piece was to blur the lines between spectator and performer within a work of art, while instilling a deep feeling of doubt inside us.

carsten-holler-doubt-exhibition-designboThe installation begins as a single hallway of light, which subsequently divides itself into two paths, each of which is individually illuminated by either yellow or green lights. Once the spectator chooses a path, they will be presented with a multi-level maze of sorts, which combines different sequences of light projection, with moments of darkness, both to challenge our perceptual framework and our understanding of the spatio-temporal framework which we reside in. 

carsten-holler-doubt-exhibition-designbo

Upon exiting the maze, the spectators are presented with a massive open hallway which showcases the many works that Höller has previously created. Amongst these works are a series of revolving doors and mirrors (left), once again questioning one's perception of reality. Here a series of alternating encoded light strips and reflections of mirrors creating a distortion of space and unity.

carsten-holler-doubt-exhibition-designbo

Another large highlight of the work is a set of double carousels which spin in opposite directions at a much slower speed than normal. Upon entry, attendees are invited to wear 'upside-down goggles', which when combined with the effect of the carousel seemingly moving backwards, provide an out of body experience, previously compared to floating in space.

All in all, this massive installation seems absolutely breathtaking. It takes us out of our perceptual comfort zones by defamiliarizing perception, thus creatively instilling feelings of 'Doubt' amongst its viewers.

https://www.designboom.com/art/carsten-holler-hangarbicocca-doubt-exhibition-milan-04-06-2016/

Likeness


Los Angeles-based Adam Ferriss’s art installation from June 2018, Likeness, takes one person’s face and transforms it into another. It “reimagines face-filtering and remolds people’s appearances in real time.” [1] Likeness, curated by Alex Czetwertynski, another digital artist and curator, was produced for Google IO 2018 in the Museum of Developer Art and commissioned by UCLA Conditional Studio.

It is similar to Tim Hawkinson’s earlier work, Emoter (2000), which features the same concept of manipulating different facial characteristics to create an image of a human face, or amalgamated human-like attributes. Another remotely similar installation is Catherine Ikam’s and Louis Fléri’s Le Messager (‘The Messenger, 1995), an interactive 3D digital scan of a head fitted with sensors that tracked the movements of the audience, following the people around with its eyes. Ferriss’s installation featured a camera that would locate key focal points on the subject in front of the lens, prompting the AI on the LED screen to generate an image from the given face.

likeness2.jpg
Ferriss began his installation by presenting the computer two sets of images: generic photographs of people, and what Ferriss calls “label maps” that “identify and highlight the different facial features, like eyes, eyebrows, jawline, mouth, and nose, present in the photographs.” [2] The computer would then juxtapose the two sets of images and make connections between the labels and photos in terms of facial focal points; Ferriss states that this is called training, and can take hours or days at a time. His computer was trained for the span of a week for thirty to forty hours, “using the pix2pixHD architecture on the Helen Dataset to generate faces from the audience in realtime.” [3]

Once training had been finalized, Ferriss presented a “label map” to the computer, which modifies the facial construction of the subject. The final result could have changed any characteristic, including gender or skin color, or layered attributes on top of one another, as pictured in the photographs. Likeness was interactive, and allowed people to stand in front of a camera and pose for the AI face-generator, installed on an eight by ten-foot-high LED screen/wall. 

All characteristics considered, a key takeaway from this installation is that no matter our differences, we are all human, deep down. Regardless of our cultural backgrounds, upbringings, and appearances, we all share the same element of being human and feeling emotions. For Ferriss himself, the purpose of the installation was “to shine a light on the playful aspect of AI; to highlight how technological advancements shouldn’t be seen as either apocalyptic or the solution to all world problems.” [4]

2018-05-08-20-31-21-611.jpg

Ferris began coding seven years ago during his undergraduate program in photography at Maryland Institute College of Art, and had a large interest in learning to manipulate photographs. After taking a new-media class and having learned JavaScript and rudimentary coding, he began working on manipulation and his curiosity led him to where he is today. His “driving principle is to find new ways to interpret, distort, and redraw images and photos.” [5]

The official website for Ferriss’s installation is viewable here, along with an interactive GIF and more photographs of the installation: https://amf.fyi/Likeness

[1] [2] www.itsnicethat.com/articles/adam-ferriss-likeness-digital-190618
[3] https://amf.fyi/Likeness

[4] https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/adam-ferriss-likeness-digital-190618
[5] dtimes.com/art/artists-use-code-to-create-mind-bending-digital-art/

Article by Profannaty (Anna Stein) for Film 189 UCSC W2019

Digital Instru-Mentation: Red Forest and Emblems of Ascension

"The trouble with digital electronics is that you can't make it act pathological."

[Un-attributable personal communication from Tim Perkis, c. 1984, founding member of the The League of Automatic Music Composers — Tim claims he never said this…I claim I heard him say it].

The quote above reflects the difficulty that analog electronic musicians had in "perverting [the] technological correctness" (Rafael Lozano-Hemmer) of early computer equipment. It either worked, doing whatever its builders intended it to do, or it crashed into a steaming pile; very seldom could it be coerced into doing some-other-interesting-thing. Artists working with analog electronics were allowed a wider range of 'mistakes' due to the relative robustness of the signals involved.

For example Woody and Steina Vasulka's interest in the video waveform itself allowed vast areas of manipulation, granted that first one had to be in sync with the signal, as demonstrated in the program of Steina's video works presented at Currents 2015. Gordon Mumma's Hornpipe is perhaps a clearer example. It is a linked feedback system of space, performer, and instrument, where one component of the instrument is a "cybersonic" box of self-tuning analog filters. The filters could make 'mistakes' which the performer could enhance by playing the room's acoustics.

Now, finally, it seems that the digital is achieving the plasticity of clay, paint on canvas, or even analog electronics. Several Currents 2015 participants have developed, or cobbled together, computer based tools which provide the robustness needed to just dig in and explore and experiment with the material at hand. It's much like the shift from the brush of a Mannerist painter to the sponge of a Max Ernst frottage.

Campbell_RedForest.jpg

For Red Forest, Robert Campbell described "Mining the After Effects [a post-Freudian reference to one of the pieces of software he uses] of intentional actions," as a working process and, on a larger scale, as the intent of his work.

The piece is a six-screen display of slowly morphing overlapped imagery which pass from screen to screen quietly illuminating man's effect on the environment, especially with reference to the Chernobyl disaster.

Yolande_Robert_061015.jpg

Yolande Harris and Bob Campbell
discussing Red Forest

Campbell starts with real-world images and experiments with them until his artistic instincts find a trail to follow through the maze of functions. Earlier iterations of this trail-blazing would have been unlikely to see the forest for the trees of highly technical problems to be solved. He uses the results of his explorations to elucidate the (un)intended consequences of human processes in the world around us.

Noisefold_Emblems.jpg

For Emblems of Ascension, the NoiseFold team of Cory Metcalf and David Stout have developed a gigantic library of software modules for synthesizing and modeling both sound and image under the rubric of the Max/MSP programming environment. Their ten-year collaboration has given them tools and interfaces which allow the exploration of myriad links made in and between the components. Once a system of modules has been established it can be mined for interesting and evocative connections that are turned into multiple 'finished' works. I put finished in quotes because, by the very nature of being produced in the system's real time operation, the work is always being created anew.

Noisefold_discuss.jpg

NoiseFold: Cory (in light blue top and David (to his right, in black top) discuss Emblems of Ascension with the Currents seminar, "Thinking and Writing about New Media."

In this multi-screen image and sound installation NoiseFold has assembled a set of modules which produce digital simulations of spinning particle fields that explore the interplay between inertia, noise and force of attraction. The sound is generated in response to the images through a complex system of relationships, creating one integrated whole.

With this progress in tools we can start to imagine an actual collaboration between humans and machines where, rather than participating in a one-way struggle, each contribute what they do best in a two-way dialog. And once these collaborative systems are established, their collective behavior will become more interesting than any particular 'finished work'.

Links:

Robert Campbell website, Red Forest
NoiseFold website

Mypocket

burak-arikan-mypocket-exhibition-neuberg

Custom online software, HD video animation, list, receipts, installation

MYPOCKET traces simultaneously a personal history of expenditures and universal financial forecast. The artist has meticulously retained physical and virtual evidence of all his expenditures, creating a database visualization of their passage and custom software algorithm of their probability of recurrence. The Transactions Feed archives all of his economic interactions (thereby making all his personal financial records public), and posts their percentaged predictions. The Transactions Graph is a dynamic representation of the temporal and relational aspects of these transactions. Each receipt of his expenditures are then marked a stamp of the predicted probability with which the transaction would have happened, transforming it into a unique “predicted object”.

Inspired by a line in the Bank of America Privacy Policy document, the MYPOCKET system run from 2008 to 2010 subjecting the artist to a 2 year life experiment.

MYPOCKET is a 2007 commission of New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc., (aka Ether-Ore) for its Turbulence web site. It was made possible with funding from the Jerome Foundation.
http://turbulence.org/Works/mypocket/

Thunder

The Japanese experimental visual artist Takashi Ito’s 1982 short film Thunder tests two extremes of the fairly conventional medium of film. A five minute pulsing odyssey through an industrial architectural network, fueled by long exposure light drawings and a mechanical score that perverts both voice and glass samples, Thunder is maximal in its approach to providing audiovisual information, while boldly displaying a lack of kinetic cohesion.[1]

The entirety of the film consists of sequenced photographs, relying on the phenomenon of persistence of vision to enable the viewer to “perceive motion smoothly unfold over time.” [2] However, Ito does not seem preoccupied with simulating a realistic motion. Instead, in Thunder, he splits the frame into two distinct sections, which could be described as the static background and the dynamic foreground. The static background consists of the disembodied female figure, the only discernable living being in the film, whose machine-like gesturing becomes hypnotic by the conclusion of the short, along with the urban architecture itself. It grounds the viewer while erecting a sense of foreboding that never quite peaks. The dynamic foreground consists of the strobing blue and red lights, the long exposure light patterns, and the male figure (possibly the filmmaker himself) who controls them.

2.JPGIt is these foreground elements that explore the space, dancing around the edges of the architecture long enough to brighten, but not illuminate. As Laszlo Moholy-Nagy noted in The New Vision, light is “an outstanding aid in propelling kinetic sculpture, and in attaining virtual volume.” [3] Although the medium of film is quite restrictive in its voluminous capabilities, Thunder is able to harness the potential of hyperactive light to explore a background space in two dimensions. This dichotomy serves to subvert the traditional expectations of a “stop-motion film.” Instead of taking an unfilmable subject and using photographic sequencing to give the 1.JPGillusion of realistic motion, Ito is taking a filmable subject and stripping it of context and coherence through incremental framing. It’s this theme of subverting expectation that may have influenced Ito to choose film as his medium for this particular work. For a work that’s so heavily focused on the use of light as a voluminously expansive medium, it’s slightly odd that Ito, whose artistic history does include light installation, opted to film this work. However, Thunder is a piece of opposites. Ito takes something filmable and uses incremental framing to distort it. In the same vein, he adopts a “flat” medium, but displays a flurry of lights to seemingly expand it into the third dimension. Perhaps the most intriguing dichotomy of all is in the film’s use of order to display disorder. Ito’s workflow is painstakingly methodical: incremental sequencing of individual photographs to emulate motion. However, the images Ito constructs are decidely frantic, bordering on chaotic. This final set of contrasting ideals further cements Thunder as a film work that attempts to explore the idealistic boundaries of the typically flat medium.

[4]

Ito’s career is saturated with works such as Thunder, which utilize photographic sequencing to pervert conventional notions of spatial awareness. One of his earliest works, Spacy, created in 1981, goes even further than Thunder in its examination of a single space. While Thunder was housed in a sprawling architectural network, Spacy is contained entirely in a dimly-lit gymnasium. This physical restriction serves to further emphasis the space through kinetic repetition. As the camera pans through infinite loops of the gymnasium, and the space shifts from a three-dimensional environment to a propped-up image due to Ito’s trick photography, the viewer begins to question the authenticity of their own perceptions. According to the filmmaker himself, the goal of Spacy and a later work entitled Box was to disturb the “awareness of space in the movement from the three-dimensional to a plane and back again.” [5] In contrast to Thunder, which operates by providing too little information about its setting, Spacy inundates the viewer with seemingly endless permutations of the same space. By the time Ito begins to toy with horizontal panning and strobe lighting near the end of Spacy, it almost comes as a welcome change, an audio-visual assault that disrupts a space that has become much too familiar over the film’s short running time. Once again, this is an example of Ito’s perversion of the “stop-motion” medium, which aims to take advantage of persistence of vision to animate the unfilmable. Spacy also differs from Thunder in its method of producing virtual volume. While Thunder adhered to the method advocated by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, using light to expand the perceived dimensions of a space, Spacy instead relies on photographic trickery to increase the size of its space. By panning through the gymnasium in what seem to be seamless loops, Ito is perpetually adding virtual volume to the work, creating the monolithic space that one can sense through the piece. By the end of the film, the actual travel distance of the perspective camera has eclipsed (many times over) the intitial perceived volume of the space. 

videoflagy.jpgIn Thunder, the structure of the piece can be thought of to consist of small frame subunits that are individually motionless and incoherent, but reveal their true intention upon sequencing. A larger-scale video installation entitled Video Flag Y (left) created by Nam June Paik addresses some of the same artistic questions as Thunder, but utilizes televisions as the small subunits that make up the whole instead of individual frames. In his installation, Paik constructs a 7 x 12 grid of television sets that display individually perplexing images, as they are edited rapidly and flicker. [6] However, when played in sequence, the series of television sets produce variations of a mass image resembling the American flag [7]. Political message aside, this installation is an experiment in corrupting the integrity of the film medium.  Like Ito in his short film, Paik abandons clear image and movement as the principal means of disseminating audio-visual information. He opts for pattern and the interplay between the small subunits in his work (the individual televisions) to relay that data instead. This is analogous to Ito’s use of a dynamic foreground to explore space through stark jump cuts and pulsing light rather than realistic persistent motion.

 

References:

[1] Thunder

[2] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. 16

[3] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. 194

[4] Spacy

[5] Takashi Ito Filmography

[6] Video Flag Y (image)

[7] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. 71

Inorganic Flora

 

Combining the delicate, intricate folds of nature with the hard, clinical use of computer algorithms, artist Macoto Murayama digitally sculpts flowers that he painstakingly dismantles in order to further understand their structures. Working mostly in Japan, Murayama is a botanist, as well as an artist, who attended Miyagi University in 2007, and went on to study at the Institute of Advanced Media Arts and Sciences in 2009 [1].

inorganicflora2.jpgEach of his pieces is detailed to the most extreme degree. Each segment is annotated with the term, size, and shape of each piece of the flower [2]. The thin, blueprint-style lines that make up the image mimic the details and minutia of the plants he examines. He is able to make the rigid and technical lines capture the grace of the natural. He states that “when I looked closer into a plant that I thought was organic, I found in its form and inner structure hidden mechanical and inorganic elements” [3].

 

 

edmondcouweb250.jpg?w=460

Murayama’s work is reminiscent of Edmond Couchot’s “I Sow to the Four Winds” in its goal to capture nature with pixels. While Couchot’s work is interactive, it is much more minimalistic, as it focuses on a flower’s regenerative powers, and not its internal structure [4]. The viewer is able to scatter the seeds of the dandelion with a puff of breath. The seeds then fall off the screen, and new flowers bloom in their place.  Robert Mallary wrote in his article, ‘Computer Sculpture’, that “for the first time the sculptor has access to a tool [the computer] which can be used not only for executing a work of art, but conceiving one as well” [7]. These pieces resemble sculptures condensed in two dimensional space, remaining intangible but extremely detailed, and in its own way, Murayama’s observations about botany make plants seem like their own simplistic computers. Murayama’s choice to expand the plants into blueprints forces the audience to think of these organic things in a digital way. He forces them to acknowledge the complexity of what they look at every day.

Both Murayama and Couchot’s work exist in a sort of three dimensional space, in a way that one can experience what is normally delicate and natural in a way that is impersonal and digital. The delicate equations, the inner workings of the computers, and the thin lines of these artworks correlate with the complex processes and structures as their biological counterparts.

Like the sculptures that Mallary describes, Murayama’s work is a piece of art that requires an attention to detail that is not normally required for art and an amount of skill that both stem from the medium of computer generated art.

[1] Frantic Gallery, artist’s primary exhibitor

http://www.frantic.jp/en/artist/artist-murayama.html

[2] Laughing Squid, article on the artist’s work

Inorganic Flora, A Collection of Detailed Botanical Blueprints

[3] Smithsonian Magazine

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/macoto-murayamas-intricate-blueprints-of-flowers-57862546/?no-ist

[4] Arts and Electronic Media, works, Coded Form and Electronic Production

[5] YouTube video

[6] Sharon Ferris, picture of I Sow to the Four Winds

[7] Robert Mallary, ‘Computer Sculpture: Six Levels of Cybernetics’, AEM Documents

MILKProject

milkproject.JPG

Esther Polak and Ivar van Bekkum’s MILKproject, produced in 2003 and 2004, is a prime example of locative art; works that utilize location-based media such as GPS or Google Earth in order to explore spatial interaction, or in the case of Polak and van Bekkum’s work in question, human reaction to digitally tracked patterns. The project involves tracing the movement of various European dairy farmers, collectors, salesman, (and more) via GPS, as they function as small parts of a large, dairy-transporting whole. Once their movements have been tracked, the GPS dot patterns are rapidly played back to the participants in sequence, who subsequently comment on their own routines. This extra wrinkle of subjectivity in the work serves to address the notion of removing humanity. More specifically, the work asks what can be regained from viewing the patterns of one’s life when all the humanity has been drained and reduced to coordinate values.

This work is one whose status as art in the traditional sense is difficult to discern, but can be more easily understood in the context of electronic art. Though MILKproject is undoubtedly an electronic production, it does not strive to utilize its technology to recreate or pervert traditional art as many other projects do. MILKproject is a work that could only exist because of the recent emergence of location-tracking technology and the processing power of modern computers. As the Austrian physicist and artist Herbert Franke noted in the early 1970s, the “speed of execution” of computers allows for a greater freedom in art due to practicality. Franke also noted that the “fast working capacity of the computer permits the production of large series.” [1] In regards to MILKproject, the large series in question is the sequential display of GPS coordinates, played back to the participants in the work. The power of computing and the locative technology is the driving force behind the project, allowing for the expansion of “the creation and distribution of art, including its manifestations as code.” [2] In the case of MILKproject, it is not the haphazard arrays of coded GPS dots or the motion of the participants themselves that constitute the work, but rather the collective interaction with the space, both in the moment of action and upon reflection, that form the piece. The initial movements of the subjects is the first human motion, which is reduced to a digital signal by the GPS technology. Lastly, the participants’ viewing of this signal and their insights is an attempt to re-translate back into the language of the “natural world.”

Polak & van Bekkum’s other work often explores the same themes of spatial interplay through the use of GPS technology. An earlier project, entitled Amsterdam RealTime, tracked the movements of Amsterdam inhabitants as they went about their daily lives, gradually creating what could be described as a subjective map of Amsterdam. [3]

amsterdam.JPG

More frequently traveled sections of  the city were more brightly lit up than the less traveled, with only individual’s patterns of movement serving as signifiers of streets and roads. The main difference in these two projects is the activity of the participants after their motion has been tracked. In Amsterdam RealTime, the motion of the subjects remains visible even after their experimental period has elapsed, leaving a kinetic residue of sorts. In this way, the work was quite cumulative, unlike MILKproject, which approaches its subjects in isolation. However, in Amsterdam RealTime, the participants were never asked to react to the map or the pattern of their movements, one of the main laments of the artists, rendering it a more sterile work on the whole than MILKproject. 

In a way, MILKproject acts as a piece that aims to doubly reproduce an existing piece of art. However, unlike many reproductions, which aim to reproduce or pervert more traditional art mediums such as painting or sculpture, MILKproject considers the actual motion of its participants to be an original artwork. Going off of this analogy, there are two "translations" in play: an initial technological reproduction of the motion in the form of GPS data and a second human reproduction of the GPS data in the form of the individual's reaction to their own movement patterns. Polak and van Bekkum are attempting to discern what is lost in these reproductions, as by definition, they cannot be flawless. In his 1934 writing, The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Walter Benjamin expounds on the shortcomings of even the most perfect reproduction, claiming "one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art – its unique existence in a particular place." [4] Though Walter Benjamin was referring to the reproduction of more conventional forms of art, this one lacking element, context, is applicable to MILKproject. As with a medium such as painting, where the context exists as an amalgamation of the physical history of the piece, the reasons for creating the piece, and change of ownership, to name a few elements, the context of locative art includes such elements as the reasons for motion, the physical surroundings that envelope the participant, and even the emotions of the participant. These are all lost in the translation (or technological reproduction) from the human language of motion to the machine language of GPS data. However, Polak and van Bekkum introduce a second translation in order to explore how much can be reproduced in human language form. By allowing the artistic participants to react to their own "reproduced" artworks, Polak and van Bekkum are turning Walter Benjamin's ideal of imperfect replication on its head and attempting to reverse the stripping of context. It's these final reflections by the participants in MILKproject that explores what seems to be the main theme of the project; the attempt to discern any semblance of humanity from location.

In most of the interviews conducted by the artists with the participants of the study, it becomes evident that locative data is more evocative than one might initially think. Though the blurry backgrounds of the GPS playback screen do not offer much context for the subjects, the oft-scattered dot patterns are in most cases enough for the individuals to recall general patterns of movement or tasks. For example, the farmer Zaiga Tremaine, upon seeing her dot travel repeatedly in a rectangle exclaims, “There I was mowing the grass! All the time at the same spot!” [5]

inaction.JPG

Not only is she remembering the corresponding task in regards to her location, but Zaiga is making observations about her life based solely on locative data. Similarly, although he notes that he cannot “remember every step, like that,” the salesman Alexander Veldhuijzen can remember details that seem quite incidental, such as wandering to the toilets or driving slowly around a roundabout. [5] Ultimately, what these interviews all represent is the inability to completely drain motion of the human experiences it’s tied to. MILKproject serves to illustrate the inherent link between location, motion, and humanity, which is stronger than one might presume.

An additional locative artwork that examines the connection between emotion and location is Christian Nold’s Bio Mapping. This project operates through the measurement of Galvanic Skin Response, “a simple indicator of emotional arousal”, as individuals move through a space, culminating in the creation of so-called Emotion Maps. [6] Bio Mapping, even more explicitly than MILKproject, aims to explore the inherent connection between emotion and location. However, in Bio Mapping, the operational roles are switched. The emotional response is measured in technological fashion, while the location is the factor that is more subjective. However, judging by the variance of GSR displayed on the example Emotion Map (height of red bar denotes degree of emotional response at a certain location), there is a distinct bond between human emotion and position, a sentiment echoed by Polak and van Bekkum in MILKproject. The combination of these projects (along with Polak and van Bekkum's previous work Amsterdam RealTime) raises an interesting question that neither of these works can answer in isolation: how do people alter their movement patterns based on their emotional reactions to certain locations? It would be intriguing to see a synthesis of the ideals of these two projects. While Amsterdam RealTime and MILKproject simply pick up motion and direction based mostly on necessity (i.e. people traveling to work or performing their work, in the case of MILKproject), Bio Mapping picks up all location data simultaneously. In Bio Mapping, there is no indication of travel paths or frequency of travel. A combination of the GSR tracking system with the real-time locative mapping of Polak and van Bekkum's works would illuminate the full human element of motion, incorporating physical context as well.

biomapping.jpg [5]

Sources
[1] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. 206.

[2] Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. 24.

[3] Amsterdam RealTime

[4] Benjamin, Walter The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, 1934. 21.

[5] MILKproject

[6] Bio Mapping

NomadicMILK

Esther Polak’s art project NomadicMILK, 2009, shadows two different aspects of the dairy economy in Nigeria. The artist spent the early months of 2009 in the deserts of Nigeria following both the paths of those in charge of the production of the milk, the cow herder, and those in charge of the distribution of the milk, a truck driver. Through visual and GPS recording of both subjects, Polak’s NomadicMILK persuades the observer to redefine new relationships between the environment and technology.

Interesting enough, Polak introduced a GPS robot to the nomadic cow herders of Nigeria during her data collection. In one particular clip of NomadicMILK this small robot retraced the herder’s path with sand. Amazed at the technology, the herder facilitated a conversation. Polak remarked that she was fixated “on how people see their own tracks and how they react with that. When people see their own track, they see part of their life, part of their identity.” [1] Polak is not intrigued by GPS itself, but rather an individuals reaction to their own daily movements and migrations. Such movements that one would have ordinarily looked over. 

     090201tranmediale-300x199.jpg    phpThumb_generated_thumbnail.jpeg

Nomadic MILK consists of audiovisual clips depicting the day-to-day duties of both subjects, the retraced GPS prints, and the robot aforementioned. However, the concept of the art piece lies in the relationship between the numerous mediums.  Through the dissection of Nomadic MILK one can see that the project doesn’t comment on the diary industry in Nigeria. But, rather houses a narration regarding the interaction between technology and the environment. Through this amalgamation of three different mediums between two different subjects, the observer sees two different depictions of one reality. Upon entering the exhibit, the onlooker is plagued with these coinciding relationships between the abstract and the existing, between a rural and a global setting, and finally between technology and simplicity.

Around the world, artists just like Polak are playing around with the visualization of data, transfiguring these abstract figures into interactive physical exhibits in new and innovative ways. Through a new medium of representation, artists enable the data to take on a new meaning and have a larger resonance within the onlooker. In collaborative effort Syver Lauritzen and Erik Haugen literally color their data in their interactive piece MONOLITT, 2014.  An unsoiled white pedestal takes “crowdsourced sentimental analytics” and transfigures these emotions into a 3D painting of data illustration.[2]  As residents of the city Oslo express their emotions through twitter, the structure exudes a color in correlation with a corresponding sentiment. A positive tweet such as “feeling good” would excrete pink paint upon the once spotless pedestal. Upon a tweet declaring a sense of annoyance, black paint would seep and trickle upon the structure. Various emotions are harmonized with an array of hues, coating and smearing the structure with the city’s emotions. 

     tumblr_nbwsumRV1L1qav3uso6_r1_500.gif tumblr_nbwsumRV1L1qav3uso5_r1_400.gif

Albeit in different and unusual ways Esther Polak and the collaborative pair Syver Lauritzen and Erik Haugen ingeniously managed to create an art experiment that takes notice of the relationships born from this entanglement between the environment and today’s technology. Edward Shaken stated that in data-filing “its visualization, or any of the 2D or 3D prints that give the work a concrete physical presence” [3] Both MONOLITT and Nomadic MILK gather data through a coded form and represent this information through an interactive and electronic medium. Therefore, allowing the observer to comprehend the information through a new perspective and with a more powerful reverberation.

 

Citations: 

[1]: Esther Polak: NomadicMILK (2007-2010) – Documentation.” YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2014. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdSdGKvCvpA>.

[2]:Sokol, Zach. “Emotional Tweets Make This Sculpture Leak Colorful Paint | The Creators Project.” The Creators Project. N.p., 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2014. <http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/emotional-tweets-make-this-sculpture-leak-colorful-paint>.

[3]: Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. Berlin: Phaidon, 2014. pg 79.

 

Images (left to right): 

http://theendofbeing.com/2009/12/26/nomadic-milk-esther-polak-tacks-dairy-in-nigeria/090201tranmediale/

http://theendofbeing.com/2009/12/26/nomadic-milk-esther-polak-tacks-dairy-in-nigeria/090426groeneveld01/

http://31.media.tumblr.com/aac26d41e420ba1036bc9bd0df62c511/tumblr_nbwsumRV1L1qav3uso6_r1_500.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/a75eef8dde9d6fec0ad61481b997ae73/tumblr_nbwsumRV1L1qav3uso5_r1_400.gif

Ominous

“Ominous” is an audio-visual performance by Marco Donnarumma in which the artist uses his body to compose sound pieces using a device that records his movements. The piece was commissioned by the European Conference of Promoters of New Music (ECPNM) for the occasion of the 5th Live Electronic Music Project Competition. It premiered on 3rd November 2012 at the World’s New Music Days, and since then has been performed at various other venues  such as National Academy of Arts in Bulgaria, New York Electronic Arts Festival, etc [1].



(Performance of “Ominous” at Bios@Techne@Art, 2013)

In “Ominous”, Donnarumma uses a suit of wearable biosensors, called “Xth Sense”, that transforms the acoustic signals from the wearer’s muscle contractions into an audio stream. Each movement that he effects results in a different pattern of sound being played on nine loudspeakers. The artist stated that the performance is an homage to the works of Alberto Giacometti, especially the sculpture called “Hands Holding the Void”, whose “body rests in an unstable position and its suffering gaze seems about to explode in a loud cry”. He quotes that one common topic in Giocometti’s work is “a constant irrational search and movement towards an unknown object”. And thus “Ominous”, his movements comprise of the manipulation of an “unstable sonic object”, which is not visible to the audience except through a blend of the artist’s gesture and the sound that “Xth Sense” produces[1].

(Source: Marco Donnarumma | Ominous)

tumblr_lm78gu8J471qghk7bo1_500.jpg

(Hands Holding the Void by Alberto Giacometti)

Marco Donnarumma is currently a PhD student at University of London under Prof. Atau Tanaka and Dr. Matthew Fuller. He is also supported by the Rockefeller Foundation as a Harvestworks Creativity + Technology = Enterprise Fellow. His work explores “the dimensions of the body in relation to real, virtual and cultural space…disrupt the flesh to uncover unknown traits of human nature” [3]. Both the Xth Sense and its signal processing system was created by Donnarumma in order to explore a type of music that he terms “biophysical music…that is a joint result of bioacoustic and physical body mechanisms” [4]. The system is released under an open source license, and can be downloaded (or referenced) at Res. A Matter.

Xth_sense.png

(Xth Sense [2])

Regarding his theory about using the body as an instrument, Donnarumma stated that “the whole body system is a technology; namely, a relentless sound technology”, and advanced that “by injecting an understanding of the sonic expressivity of the physio-somatic body system into the computer…instrumentalization of the body can be extended, so to unveil an authentic paradigm of interactive performance; one that places emphasis on the body as a musical and dynamic technology in itself” [2]. In this vein, the Xth Sense system functions not to “‘interface’ the human body with an interactive system, but rather to computationally extend the body inherent capabilities, so to shape an actual and complete musical instrument”, thus providing a continuous association of the sonic experience with the movement of the body, all the while removing clunky limitations that the system would otherwise impose upon the artist’s movement [2].

The range of sound produced in “Omnimous” is at once dynamic, tense, and violent. Its conception as an extension of the body of the artist frees it of the constraints of the classical instruments, but which also subjects it to other instruments regarding the flexibility of the human body. Nevertheless, this work is an interesting addition to Francis Bacon’s “sound-houses”, as quoted in Andrew Hughill’s “The origins of electronic music”: “We have also sound-houses, where we practise and demonstrate all sounds and their generation. We have harmony which you have not, of quarter-sounds and lesser slides of sounds. Divers instruments of music likewise to you unknown, some sweeter than any you have…”[5]. One could also say that the body, as extended by Xth Sense, is one of the instruments that fulfill Varese’s contention to the fullest, namely that “composers are now able…to satisfy the dictates of that inner ear of the imagination” [5].

A comparison can be made between this work, as a performance with Xth Sense, and the interactive music installation “Very Nervous System” of David Rokeby. In the latter work, users are able to create music by moving around in an open space monitored by a system of cameras. The actions of the users are transformed into synthetic sound in such a manner that the machines are required “to conform to more intuitive and physical ways of knowing and interacting with the world, rather than demanding that the user conform to a machine-like logic” [6].

Aside from the technological gap between the pieces, there is a sense that the two works are similar in the way they asks the machine to conform to the human body’s intuitive movement and eccentricities. However, Donnarumma’s work makes the distinction that he is using his body as an instrument in the performances, and not as some inputs to an interactive environment. In a way, the human body is all there is, the electronic system is only used to extend the action of the body to the sonic realm. On the other hand, Rokeby’s installation functions as an interface between the body and the machine, which remain separate entities belonging to different worlds. The abstract object in “Ominous” would not have been as sympathetic if it was not illustrated as an extension of the human body. By associating the abstract with his movement, in the spatial and sonic dimensions, Donnarumma has injected a very physical presence to this “void”.

marco-donnarumma_ominous3.jpg

(Source: Marco Donnarumma | Ominous)

 

[1] Marco Donnarumma | Omnimous

[2] Marco Donnarumma. Xth Sense: recoding visceral embodiment. CHI 2012. May 5-10, 2012. Austin, Texas, USA.

[3] Marco Donnarumma | Bio

[4] Xth sense | Res, a matter

[5] Andrew Hughill. “The Origins of Electronic Music”. 2007

[6] Edward Shaken. Art and Electronic Media. Pg 147

All My Life For Sale

All My Life For Sale is a work by John Freyer where he sells everything he owns online.  When I say everything I mean everything, Freyer finished by selling the domain name itself.  This work of art is part of a collection on Rhizome entitled Digital Archivalism.  This form of art blends anthropology and art with the research and collection of artifacts in the digital space.  These artists collect items and comment on their social implications.  Rhizome describes these artists as “collecting and curating the cultural byproducts of digital living” (Rhizome).  Many people debate whether or not this statement is art, is selling all of your possessions a work of art, or merely an exchange of goods?  This statement on the business of art calls into question the value of art.  Society assigns value to art, in some cases astronomically high value.  I took from this piece that value has a new meaning in the digital age. 

In Ressurecting the Technological Past: an Introduction to the Archeology of Media Art, Erkki Huhtamo analyzes this branch of archival art.  “The case of the media archeologists is somewhat different: their affection for the debris of the machine culture is intertwined with an anxiety and suspicion about the real role that technology is playing in contemporary society” (200) this quote resonates in this piece because of the both digital and very real aspects of it.  While the piece is temporary and lives online, the effects are very real: the selling of stuff.  The intersection between digital art and its real life, social effects is very interesting and something that artists continue to explore today (see Sanctum, digital art exploring the effects of social media).  Huhtamo goes on to say that “All these artist-archeologists, however, treat gadgets of the past as cultural forms, or as bearers of culturally and socially assigned meanings.” (200) While in All My Life For Sale, Freyer is not looking at items of the past, he is commenting on the items of the present and the items themselves: consumerism.

The Physiognomic Scrutinizer

Surveillance and physical stereotyping easily go hand in hand together when explored in the context of software. Programs require fundamental placeholders for values and measurements, and to describe a person using these universal traits requires a very cold and objective approach.

In 2010, the annual STRP festival in the Netherlands witnessed a new take on physical stereotyping when Marnix de Nijs unveiled his Physiognomic Scrutinizer, a sensor that somewhat resembles a metal detector. This contraption uses footage of each participant as input for facial recognition software. The software, however, does not stereotype a person as being part of a certain group or class of similar people, rather it finds the closest resembling entity in a list of 250 infamous celebrities. When the individual is matched, they are released to the other side of the sensor, and their results are projected audibly around the installation in a subtle tone of judgement and accusation.

Mr. Nijs has created a tool which can help us understand how widely biometrics and recognition software can be applied in application. By confronting the growing archetype which denounces surveillance as a tool used solely for control, Marnix has seized an opportunity to redefine what the intentions of technology are and open the conversation for any capabilities of such sciences.

Of course, Marnix is not the first artist to challenge the socially accepted purpose of a tool or design. Marcel Duchamp used a four legged stool and the fork and wheel of a bicycle to render both objects useless in his sculpture titled Bicycle Wheel. While Duchamp’s deconstruction of these household items discouraged actual use of the final product, the innovations of people like Marnix ultimately led to a modern-day BMX reincarnation of the Bicycle Wheel created by Ryan Humphreys. This cycle of defining and redefining various mediums of artwork is a creative necessity that cannot be accredited to any distinct artist but is perpetuated by every artist with the mindset to do so. Personally, this style of artwork consistently sets the bar higher for other artists who work within the same or a similar medium and perpetuates better and more interesting concepts, especially in the case of Marnix who has taken an otherwise dreaded hassle and turned into an installation for the sole purpose of amusment.

While the humor and satirical nature of the piece warrant many cheerful and approving responses from members of the audience, many of the referenced identities pre-programmed into the installation are infamous for certain heinous crimes or poor lifestyle choices. Even though Marnix utilizes controversial actions to make the Scrutinizer more exciting, the installation overall becomes more prone to misleading admirers into thinking that the software has anything to do with personal morals. Yet, it serves a purpose to remind participants of the ultimate capabilities of any individual specifically and may reiterate the idea that as different as any person might look, collectively we are the same in terms of having to make those choices for ourselves and not rely on a fixed position in the same way as we rely on our physical compositions. Ultimately, I would say that The Physiognomic Scrutinizer is a fantastic piece which not only contributes to the exhibition in which it is installed, but also enhances the world of artwork based on a reflective nature towards both the body and the psyche.

Regine. “The Physiognomic Scrutinizer.” We Make Money, Not Art. N.p., 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. Print.

Tony, Fat. “Ryan Humphrey’s Fast Forward BMX Art Gallery In Hollywood.” Ride BMX RSS. Transworld RideBMX, 20 June 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

The Deleted City

poster2.jpg

In 2011, Richard Vijgen created The Deleted City. It is an interactive piece that uses the 650-gigabyte backup of Geocities. Geocities was a free webhosting provider that was set up like a city, where users were free to upload information about a topic of their choosing. Users were provided with a “free piece of land” in the Geocities. This piece of land was to be their “digital home” where they would publish their information. Their digital home was located in a neighborhood, and the neighborhood users were placed in was based on the subject matter of the digital home. At its peak the Geocities was the third most visited site on the Internet and millions of users had contributed to its massive database. Unfortunately, in 2009 Geocities was shut down. But before it was shut down and deleted, it was backed up. The back up was then used to create The Deleted City. [1]

In its time Geocities was impressive because of the high level of user participation. In some ways, this user participation is similar to collaborations themes discussed in Art & Electronic Media (AEM). AEM emphasizes through examples such as, E.A.T/9 evenings: theatre & engineering that with the collaboration of different disciplines there is a greater possibility of innovation and breakthrough. [2] Without Geocities allowance for a wide range of topics the website would not have been nearly as popular.

The Deleted City is a historical piece, a “digital Pompeii”, that allows the viewer to interact with a piece of Internet history [3]. In todays world things are fast paced, especially on the Internet, The Deleted City is interesting because it takes a relic from the past and forces the participant to reflect on what was, and how far the Internet has come. By interacting with the piece of history the participant is also reminded of what the Internet is today. Geocities was eventually abandoned and shut down because users were leaving the site for social media. Perhaps it is possible in the future a piece much like this one could be installed using a back up of Facebook or MySpace.

                                                          Glyphiti-01.jpg

This piece reminds me of the piece Glyphiti by Andy Deck. The pieces are similar in that Geocities and Glyphiti’s success were dependent on user contribution. However, despite this similarity there is an interesting contrast. Like a real city, Geocities was dependent on the continuous growth of user contribution and data. While Glyphiti was dependent on user contribution as well, the piece demanded that users build on top of each other’s work. In this difference the two pieces communicate different themes of ownership and permanency. Geocities’ exponential growth, followed by its memorial in the form of The Deleted City, conveys a message of permanence. Though the Geocities is no longer present on the internet its legacy continues in The Deleted City, and so the users ownership of their digital home is continued as well. Glyphiti demonstrates a completely different message. The fact that users must build their own work on top of the works of others conveys a complete lack of permanence, demonstrating that nothing lasts.  

 
[1] http://rhizome.org/artbase/artwork/53493/
[2] Edward Shanken, Arts & Electronic Media, 2009 p 182
[3] http://deletedcity.net/

Box by The Creators Project

Bringing projection mapping to moving objections, Bot & Dolly endeavored to create an exhibit in coded form that had never been attempted before. Their creation, “Box,” sufficiently accomplished this mission through a visual and musical experience entailing two automated robots each orienting a blank 4’ x 8’ canvas in coordination with projectors and a live human actor.

To offer a little background, projection mapping is the process of projecting images onto unconventional surfaces, transforming them into complex shapes, environments, and images. This process allows artists to employ various optical illusions to turn regular walls into living moving objects. Here is an example of traditional projection mapping. “Box” took projection mapping several steps further by simplifying their canvas, but allowing it to move in a coordinated manner.

Ever since the advent of Coded Form and Electronic Production in 1801, “a range of algorithmic techniques [have been used] to generate form from mathematical formulae” (Shanken, 22). “Box” is the culmination of many of these latest technologies available to an artist today. Utilizing pre-determined formulas to govern the rotation and position of a robot’s joints, obstacles are alleviated, allowing the effortless and seamless illusion of an actor manipulating 3-D objects to engross the viewer. Reas described this relationship between elements as “structure.” Simply put, “some structure are unique to software and are not possible to express in other media” (Reas). Without the ability of software to interpret an artist’s will into actionable sequences, the manual manipulation of the canvases would have made this project impossible.

While “Box” would be ideally exhibited live, in order to share the work created to a wider audience, the artists elected to capture the presentation as if one were in the room. Utilizing the breakthroughs of camera technologies, a camera scout mimics the motions of a curious on-looker highlighting “Box” from a viewer’s perspective. These underlying engineering marvels, in conjunction with computer rendered optical illusions, allows for the transformation of factory line robots into a robust electronic production through its coded form.

Behind%20the%20Scenes.jpg

The pinnacle of software is its ability to “’process [and] manipulate…abstract things [like] data’” (Reas).  Automating the process of creating the visual effects allows the creators to focus on the storytelling. When the technology evolves to the extent as advanced as it is today, the result is indiscernible from magic. When movie goers first experienced motion picture in a cinematic setting, audiences ran from their seats at the sight of a train rushing off the screen. Today, people have grown accustomed to seeing anything happen on screen often believing virtual sets to be real. Much like regular projection mapping, “Box” bridges the physical world with computer generated visuals. The marriage of the two, when experienced in person, is nothing short of magical.

Principles%20of%20Magic.jpg

The themes in the video include: transformation, levitation, intersection, teleportation, and escape to salvation. These principles of magic encompass what a great magic show should entail. “Box” performs these tricks while breaking the laws of physical earth. Yet, the presence of the physical reality are always present with the whirring of gears, belts, and motors in the background accompanied by music which enhances the very real interaction between man and machine. The illusions presented, much like the origins of projection mapping, encompass the thematic design of optical illusion.

To compare with another work in AEM-OC, Virtual Mirror – Rain, “challenges one’s perceptions about fundamental phenomena” (AEM-OC). By instlling rain not only indoors, but in reverse direction of gravity drop for drop, “Rain” puts viewers in an alternate reality where the physics of Earth do not apply. Much like the illusions of “Box” the seemingly impossible feats of teleportation and levitation are effortlessly accomplished with the gesture of a hand as a magician would have motioned on stage.

I should add a disclaimer that Bot & Dolly sell cinematographic technology and this commissioned art piece was a ploy to sell the capabilities of their equipment. However, the money making motives do not deter from the fact that they have revolutionized and reimagined storytelling technology. With the advent of CGI, artists garnered the ability to create unreal worlds and give humans godly gifts, yet the major downfall with CGI is that everything must be preplanned. A major creative process of trying, failing, and haphazardly stumbling on brilliance is lost. Bringing back the physical-ness reintroduces the possibility of turning mistakes into a breakthrough idea.

The concerted performance of human and machine illustrates how far machines have progressed into becoming one of us. Not only do they serve as tools to make our lives better, “Box” shows how robots can be utilized to be our companion in expressing emotion and fostering connections, arguably the basis of human existence.

Reas, Casey. "Software Structures" 2004

Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media. London: Phaidon, 2009. Print.

Paramedia

 

     Yasunao Tone is a widely known sound artist and his piece Paramedia is on the cutting edge of sound art.  Curated by Arika (a community organizer) and installed at the Whitney Museum in New York, Paramedia is an intense, engrossing piece of sound art in which speakers correlated to different frequencies give and recieve a range of sounds.  Arika describes Paramedia as “a dense, immersive environment constructed using 8 speaker stacks and custom-build hardware that splits multiple pre-prepared sound sources by their frequency, each speaker stack revieces any sound produced within its designated frequency range, creating a split, special, aurally disjointed and hallucinatory experience.”  Using these pre-prepared speakers Tone creates this audio soundtrack that at first is jarring and even unpleasant, but begins to pull the listener in.  He punctuates the sound with moments of silence, and uses machinery to play with the direction of the sound, playing the recordings forwards and backwards.

 (this is a video recording of Paramedia, I am having trouble uploading a video that will display and play in the article)

     Tone is using machines (speakers) to create a work that builds on itself and repeats, much like other works that fall under the category of Coded Form and Electronic Production.  This form of art calls into question the creator, and enables the artists to create works previously impossible.  Tone takes this to another level and blends the ability to reproduce things Mechanically abd Biologically.  While the speakers (machines) create and expand on the noise, Tone manipulates it, creating imperfections and mistakes that machines otherwise would not make.   Tone explains this concept sayin “Macines are designed not to make mistakes… in our behavior we often make mistakes, so why not machines also? I added that reality to it.  So its not destruction but an addition.” (Arika quoting Tone). 

     Yasunao Tone’s manipulation of sound and usage of speakers in Paramedia is reminiscent of  Joel Ong’s work Wagon.  Wagon consists of 6 speakers which move around the installation and interact with the soundspace as well as three kinetic sculptures. While these two pieces differ in the interaction between speakers and the intention of the artist, they are both examples of technology and machinery being used to create sound art .

Life Support Systems – Vanda

In Mateusz Herczka’s work Life Support Systems – Vanda (2004), he seeks to expand the human’s ability to map complex systems with the aid of technology. Herczka comments on the nature of this specie’s existence. “They grow on tree branches with the roots exposed, and they collect water from the morning air. The body of the orchid is ugly, but the flower is the best! Highly desirable.” In essence this species of orchid, like so many other living things that fall prey to humanity's intrigue, are extracted from their natural habitat and forced to preform as a mass-production device for whatever parts are desired. Herczka appropriates the open-growth cultivation process that is used to produce this orchid because it gives him direct access to a plants root system over a long period of time. He considers these bare-root Orchids as partially synthetic in nature due to the human-controlled environment they are reliant on. Herczka took this simulated and artificial existence and, and as he puts, “[attempted to] push an orchid all the way over the barrier so that it becomes completely artificial.”

How does this work? It all comes down to electricity. All known organic material has electric charge, and modern science is in the process of discovering how much information can be unpacked by simply measuring change in electric charge across an organic entity/object. This area of research is intriguing to all pillars of thought: from neuropsychology, cosmetic surgery, and advanced mathematical stochastic process research, to military applications of questionable integrity. His hardware is designed specifically to measure electrical charge along the plants roots. The readings(referred to as extra-cellular bio-potential) then flow through an amplifier before arriving in a hacked Xbox (the first generation of Xbox, that is) were the data is processed, interpreted, and translated into a computer-generated map of the plant’s potential growth patterns.

In effect, it could also be supposed that once these orchids die, their growth pattern, or “expression” as Herzcka puts it, can be extrapolated upon to continue the growth of the orchid. In doing so Herzcka and the orchid alike play a role in blurring the line between what life is. Other contributors come to mind. First would be Eduardo Kac's transgenic installation “genesis” which focuses on the encryption of DNA, and how it is only a set away (if at all) from being computer code. [1]Or, on the bio-mechanical side, another project that stands out is TCA's NoArk project, who extracts biological cells from a living thing  and then sustains them in a controlled environment with a predetermined shape and environment to live within. [2]

Present assumptions of what life is amd what life could be are coming more and more under the magnifying glass.  Could an orchid become digital? If so, could the information we have of its growth pattern, its “expression” as Herczka puts it, be the translation to an evolutionary state outside of the body? Is biochemistry really is a requisite for life and identity?

He also comments that his use of an Xbox is a critical part of the piece. He states that by using an Xbox instead of any other computer, he is putting a time stamp on his work so that it can be “planted in the year of 2005, which can be compared to a projected date of 2040 when we will be able to scan and capture a human mind. Supposedly at that time, an artificial brain will be able to interact inside the computer with an artificial orchid of 2005.”

2. Shanken, Edward A. Art and Electronic Media (Phaidon, 2009) AEM  p. 158
3. http://tcaproject.org/projects/noark

Epigenesis: The Growth of Form

gen-vu2-w.jpg

“Epigenesis: The Growth of Form” by artist Roman Verostko is an installation at the Frey Science and Engineering Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. [1] The work was installed in 1997, after a year of work, in the newly opened building. The installation, often referred to as a mural, is made up of eleven individual sheets of paper upon which a pen plotter applied acrylic ink. The designs are presented as a “visual symphony of form” [2] and are created through mathematical algorithms in Roman’s software. The large, dark stoke symbol that appears on some of the pieces is in fact the basic element used to create all of the pieces. [3]

Like many of Roman Verostko’s pieces, such as “Derivation of the Laws” (1990), [4] Epigenesis is difficult to classify as an artwork, and raises questions about the definition of art and whether art created through computer code can still fit into an existing definition of art. Like Epigenesis, Derivation of the Laws also employs algorithmic series to produce acrylic paintings using a plotter. Because of the production techniques, based in mathematical calculations and realized through a plotter, Roman's work begs the question as to whether the artist is in fact creating an intentional work of art at all, or whether it is fundamentally machine-made.

A similar question of artistic authenticity is being raised by many of the different types of new and especially digital media being used today. Michael Rees, for instance, discusses the use of CAD and Rapid Prototyping as an art-form. [5] Like Roman’s work, RP is computer-based and the final output artwork is produced by a machine. In RP’s defense, Rees states, “I think RP will help the artist be more precise, the engineer more creative, the scientist more knowledgeable. I would hope that industry will also recognize the contribution that artists have to make and will welcome them in their research and development efforts. The arts will, in turn, incorporate more of industry into their domain.” [6] This sentiment seems applicable to Roman Verostko’s algorithmic plotting art as well, for in both cases the artistic concept behind the artwork is inherently linked to the production methods and would have otherwise resulted in a fundamentally different kind of artwork.

tri-left.jpg

Related to this idea of production method and it’s link to artistic authenticity, the title, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form, provides an interesting insight to the work and how Roman Verostko intends for the piece to be viewed. Epigenesis refers to the idea that an entity is created from a single element but through a series of processes grows and differentiates itself into something obviously separate from its original form or really any one step of the process but is a cumulative work as a result of essentially unconstrained development. [7] With this in mind the production method of Epigenesis comes to the forefront in understanding the work. The use of a plotter creates a very distinctive artistic signature with it’s overlapping but exact brush strokes. The repetition but transformation of a single symbol into some larger artwork, where the individual strokes “grow” together in interesting, and sometimes unexpected, directions to make a final product is certainly deserving of the term Epigenesis. Considering this, it seems the final product is far from pre-determined by the artist and is instead allowed to grow based on the fundamental constraints put in place by the artist. In the end this does little to clear up the question of authenticity, for Roman isn’t actively directing the production of the art to a predetermined end, but rather watching it unfold from his initial concept. However, because Roman ultimately was the one who put the piece and it’s progression in action it seems that it should be considered an authentic piece of artwork in at least concept and originality of production process.

With both RP and Roman’s plotter art, the machine is simply a new media with which to do art. The creativity needed to imagine such a work, especially using new and generally untested media, is an artistic feat in itself. In both cases it is clear that while these digital media are new avenues down which art has only begun to progress, they must be considered art none-the-less, though perhaps not by a traditional definition. "Algorithmic art is different: an algorithm is an explicit, discursively articulated schema. It does not create the concrete materiality of its output – it merely specifies some of its properties, at a more abstract level. In that sense, algorithmic art is conceptual art." [8] In this sense the production method becomes almost more important as an artistic statement than the aesthetics of the final piece itself and forces a re-evaluation as to what can be considered art with today's expanding techniques and materials.

[1] Roman Verostko, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form. 1999. http://www.verostko.com/st/mural.html

[2] Roman Verostko, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form. 1999. http://www.verostko.com/st/mural.html

[3] Roman Verostko, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form. 1999. http://www.verostko.com/st/mural.html

[4] Roman Verostko, Derivation of the Laws. 1990. http://verostko.com/boole.html and
http://www.artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/limited-edition-george-booles-derivation-of-the-laws

[5] Michael Rees, Rapid Prototyping and Art. Documents. 1998.22-23. Art and Electronic Media. Edward Shanken. 22-23.

[6] Michael Rees, Rapid Prototyping and Art. Documents. 1998.22-23. Art and Electronic Media. Edward Shanken. 22-23.

[7] Roman Verostko, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form. 1999. http://www.verostko.com/st/mural.html
and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epigenesis

[8] Scha, Remko. The esthetics of algorithmic art. About Algorithmic Art. http://radicalart.info/AlgorithmicArt/intro.html

Photos from: Roman Verostko, Epigenesis: The Growth of Form. 1999. http://www.verostko.com/st/mural.html
http://www.verostko.com/st/model/tri-left.jpg

Sound Wall

Peter Vogel’s 2009 Sound Wall is unique in that can be viewed as a standalone sculpture made out of hundreds of photocells and electronic circuits, but also has an interactive sound element that is activated by passing a shadow over specific circuits creating a dynamic user exclusive experience and musical composition.

_MDM0364.jpgPeter’s ideas for Sound Wall originated with his 1975 “Musical-cybernetic Environment”, a series of three Plexiglas columns covered in sensors with a sound synthesizer on top mounted on a wall. Two speakers are placed on the left and right side of the columns. Vogel described the spatial interaction with Musical-cybernetic Environment in 1974: “Each conscious movement made in front of the sensors will result in a modification of the sound event. The first movement triggers a sound, while subsequent movements have a modifying function… the sequence and modifications that emerge in this way are the actual compositional work” [1] Musical-cybernetic Environment can be heard here.

Robert Mallary states in stage six of his article on six levels of cybernetics in the AEM; a computer must make decisions, “But these decisions are made within guidelines sharply defined by the programmer” and that “He [the sculptor] may use the computer interactively and synergistically”. [2] Sound Wall and Musical-cybernetic Environment are cybernetic structures that have “decisions” programmed into them, in this case to play certain tones, but only when they are interacted with by the sculptor himself. Sound Wall in a sense can be seen as an ensemble of photocells and light sensors that wait patiently for the conductor to queue them to start performing, once his shadow passes over the sensor, the orchestra begins, and each sequential movement can be seen as traditional conducting. Vogel’s 2009 performance of Sound Wall displays a unique non-robotic cybernetic structure that interacts with an essential conductor and with such synergy as to create a beautiful compositional work.

CYSP 1, a 1956 work from Nicolas Schöffer also takes on Sound Wall’s theme of interaction with a spatial environment. Consisting of self-movable structure with sensors for light, sound, and movement, CYSP 1 used key elements of kinetic art and cybernetics, such as employing an electronic brain and having sensors that take in information from the surrounding and react to it accordingly.

mbcysp.jpg 4517616.jpg

CYSP I was often showcased as a performance in which CYSP I plays a role in a ballet piece with one or more humans and interacts with them accordingly in time with music. In this sense CYSP 1 is seen as a ballet partner to a ballerina in the same way Sound Wall is an orchestra to a conductor. Both may be very different cybernetic structures; Sound Wall is stuck to a wall and needs a human to truly work, whereas CYSP 1, a robotic structure in theory can react to everything, however, both systems flesh out the concept of feedback. CYSP 1 takes in information from the system and then reacts to it according to guidelines Schöffer had programmed into it, reacting according to feedback it receives from its environment. Sound Wall, like CYSP 1, also utilizes the concept of feedback, taking in information about light and shadows and then reacting to it accordingly by playing individual sounds.

Not everyone could use Sound Wall to create beautiful music though, only when someone that knows how Sound Wall was programmed to react at certain points conducts and reveals a truly magnificent cybernetic system of control, feedback, and output. Ultimately Sound Wall is a beautiful structure on a wall, but its true potential as a cybernetic composer only becomes evident when the essential human component is added that creates the perfect symbiosis between man and machine in the form of music.

References:

[1] http://vogelexhibition.weebly.com/jean-martin-peter-vogels-interactive-sound-art.html (Peter Vogel: Musical-cybernetic environment; Freiburg 1974, unpublished; quoted in Peter Vogel. Interaktive Objekte catalogue, 1996:85)

[2] Edward Shanken, Art and Electronic Media (New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2009), 204

Other References:

http://www.petervogel-objekte.de/

Celestial Mechanics

celestialmechanics_leos.jpg

It is a busy sky, indeed. Celestial Mechanics is a artwork created by Scott Hessels and Gabriel Dunne in 2005. It presents something much closer to home than one might think. Its purpose is to show what is right above us in the skies in the forms of low orbiting satellite pathways. Every satellite, as well as weather balloons, broadcast signals and data to computers all over the world. Hessels and Dunne have compiled all of that data to create a piece of art. Celestial Mechanics was constructed to be shown in planetariums because the dome shaped auditoriums allowed viewers to become more involved in the experience than with a flat two dimensional screen. Rather than the presentations typically seen in planetariums of stars, galaxies and distant worlds, viewer are able to see the satellites fly by that give signals to their every day objects such as their TV news or cellular phones. “In order to generate the image, the data was parsed into MEL, a scripting language used by 3D animation program Maya, which was then rendered into animation frames.” [1] With this generation of the image, the viewer is then able to follow a multitude of paths the satellites have been on, allowing one to visualize the complicated obstacle-filled space that is the skies above. Aaron Koblin’s Flight Patterns is a similar piece to Celestial Mechanics, actually being “the result of experiments leading to the project, Celestial Mechanics.”[2]

title.jpg

However, Flight Patterns focuses only on aircraft flights in, out, and across the United States, using differences in colors to represent altitudes, models, and manufacturers. 

cmech_gps-660x290.jpg
Although Celestial Mechanics was striking to the eye, exactly what it was depicting could be unknown and confusing upon first glance.  After learning what all the lines and dots represented, it was astonishing to realize the amount of objects that are orbiting Earth. The many pathways strung around the planet, yet none of them every colliding. This artwork shows how complicated the seemingly empty sky is at any given time, with never a moment of rest. This work also shows how technologies such as aircraft and satellites have helped connect the world, closing the distances between continents with tangled, yet intricate webs of lines. We have become dependent on these technologies, but are rarely able to see their full affect and coverage. Hessels and Dunne’s graceful representation of the monotonous data collected from these flight paths was all made possible through computer visual programs. Thus, computers have opened the doors to these new forms of art, as stated in Shanken’s Art and Electronic Media, “Artists also used computers in order to create images that could not have been imagined or produced using traditional media”[3] and that "a computer-guided multi-media programmes synchronizing the development in time of corresponding elements of graphics, melody, colour, rhythm, light
intensity, motion and projection strikes the speaker as an art form that might claim to have utilized the potential of modern computer technology almost to the full."[4]

References:

[1] http://www.cmlab.com/index.php

[2] http://users.design.ucla.edu/~akoblin/work/faa/

[3] Edward Shanken, Art and Electronic Media (New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2009), 26

[4] Edward Shanken, Art and Electronic Media (New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2009), 205

Other References:

http://rhizome.org/artbase/artwork/40291/

http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work/flightpatterns/title.jpg

The Internet Mapping Project

Internet%20Mapping%20Project.jpg

If one could actually see and visualize the virtual Internet world, what would it look like? According to the results of the Internet Mapping Project, the online web appears to be much like a complex tree of many overlapping and connecting branches. The Internet Mapping Project is a colorful digital artwork created by computer scientist Hal Burch. Burch, also the creator of the publication “Mapping and Visualizing the Internet,” used a layout algorithm to code a map that links networks in the Internet. Internet mapping, by definition, is the "study of the physical connectivity of the Internet." [1]

Upon a closer look at the image, each colored branch represents the distance from the test host, IP address, and geographic region. The endpoints, or nodes, of each branch is an Internet entity. Burch was not interested in the individual networks themselves, but wanted to create a "tree" that mapped the relationships between networks and how sites and addresses, or traceroute paths, were connected. His goal is to continue to collect data over a long period of time and add to the picture, eventually revealing the growth of the Internet.

117_big02.jpg

The Internet Mapping Project is similar to the artwork Communimage, a piece mentioned in the Works section of the AEM. Communiage also draws information from the Internet so is dynamic and constantly changing. Both the Internet Mapping Project and Communimage create a visualization of the Internet.

In the documents section of the AEM, writer Donna Cox stated, “Computers are helping to connect the talents of the artist and scientist.” [2] The Internet Mapping Project is such a vivid example of how a scientist used a computer to create an art, so emphasizes the theme of coding and electronic production. Like the piece shown in lecture, "Distribution of Elementary Signs" by Frieder Naker, the Internet Mapping Project was created by the artist first establishing a complex code or algorithm, then the computer calculating and forming the art based on what the creater inputed into the program. Each of the squares in the "Distribution of Elementary Signs" was controlled by probability distributions the computer calculated. [3] Each branch in the Internet Mapping Project is a result of the artist's complex codes and algorithms. The Internet Mapping Project, however, seems to be much more complicated in terms of appearance, for technology and coding has become much more developed over the years. The Internet Mapping Project was created in the year 2000 while the "Distrubution of Elementary Signs" was made in the 1960's.

Also in the AEM documents section, writer Howard Wise wrote that some pieces of art "represent the 'programs' of artists who have chosen not to make paintings or scultpure, but to express ideas or art propositions." [4] In the same way, the Internet Mapping Project is not a painting or any type of traditional art, but instead, conveys the creator's point that the Internet is growing and becoming more prominent in today's society. Therefore, the artwork also relates to another AEM-OC artwork, Sanctum by James Coupe and Juan Pampin, because it reveals how connected society is due to social media and the Internet as a whole. When each line that ties networks together are shown together, a complicated web is formed.

Due to the artwork’s circular shape, my first impression of the piece was that it resembled a biological cell. After reading the description, however, I learned that it was actually a map, but still like a cell in that it makes up a system. A single cell is a system made up of tiny individual organelles. In the same way, each end point in the Internet Mapping Project is a network or a site, and together they create a colorful system that represents the Internet.

[1] "Network Mapping," Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_mapping

[2] Edward Shanken, Art and Electronic Media (New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2009), 82.

[3] Edward Shanken, "Lecture 4-5 Coded Form and Electronic Production"

[4 Edward Shanken, Art and Electronic Media (New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2009), 78.

“test pattern” by Ryoji Ikeda

"test pattern" is an ongoing audiovisual project by Ryoji Ikeda that features an intense cascade of black-and-white bar-codes synchronized to electronic music. To be precise, "test pattern" is a system that converts all kinds of data into a visual pattern. This pattern predominantly consists of black and white bars representing the binary of digital information. The stream of data is processed and displayed at breakneck speed in order to "examine the relationship between the critical points of device performance and the threshold of human perception, pushing both to their absolute limit" [1].

testpattern-testpattern_n4-1.jpg
(FRAC Franche- Comté, Besançon, FR, 2013)

Beginning as CD record in 2008, "test pattern" installations have been maturing in size and scope, going from utilizing a series of LCD displays to a panel of high-performance projectors spanning incredible dimensions. Various installations of this series have been commissioned and displayed in galleries around the world, including: La Casa Encedida in Madrid, Spain; Théâtre de Gennevilliers in France; Carriageworks in Sydney, Australia; etc.

testpattern-testpattern_n1-2.jpg

(Yamaguchi Center for Arts and Media, JP, 2008)

testpattern-testpattern_n3-1.jpg

(Théâtre de Gennevilliers, FR, 2010)

testpattern-testpattern_n5-2.jpg

(Carriageworks, Sydney, AU, 2013)

testpattern-testpattern_100m-1_1.jpg

(Ruhrtriennale, Kraftzentrale, Duisburg, DE, 2013)

Ryoji Ikeda is a Japanese electronic composer and visual artist who currently lives and works in Paris. Ikeda’s performances or installations consistently features the use of sound and visuals with mathematical precision [2]. An example of his other work that uses visual components to display digital information is “datamatics”, and “datamatics [ver 2.0]” (written about on AEM-OC here). Additionally, he also collaborated with an artist collective known as Dumb Type, and as a duo named “cyclo.” with German sound artist Carsten Nicolai. His work as part of this duo consists of two CDs of electronically synthesized sounds provides an interesting comparison with the work featured here (as will be discussed later).

In “test pattern”, Ikeda places emphasis on the deluge of information that exists in the space that we occupy. It is evident that Ikeda is taking the logical next step in electronic media's trend where "the conventional aesthetic privileging of precious objects has been increasingly supplanted by a more ephemeral aesthetics of information" [3]. The physical space of the installation is simply overwhelmed by the fleeting, but virtually infinite, amount of information that flutters by hundreds of frames per second. The sheer amount of output all but guarantees that the author simply cannot master or direct the projection, and must be completely reliant on the performance of an assembly of electronic apparatus, without which this project would not have been possible.

An interesting aspect of “test pattern” is elucidated further through comparison with Ikeda’s work as “cyclo.”. Essentially, the CDs that this duo published are sound tracks that were composed not with respect to the aural experience, but with respect to the geometric representations on an oscilloscope. As a result of this, the composition will sound rather harsh in order to create pleasing graphical forms. In the artists’ words, there are two ways one might enjoy such a work:

“On the first level, you can purely enjoy the sonic content and its translation into images…On the second level, you can try to read the content of the images, and you can try to understand their correlation to the left and right audio channels, the frequencies and the amplitude. Therefore, the visual image is not only a graphical representation, but delivers you information about the sound data“ [4].

On a basic level, both “test pattern” and “cyclo.” make use of the computer’s “…ability to map one media into another using appropriate software—images into sound, sound into images, quantitative data into a 3D shape or sound, etc” [5]. And according to Manovich, the ability of computers, or electronics, to do so has facilitated their development from “remediation machine” into “Universal Media Machine”, a change from simulator of existing media to manipulator and inventor of new types of media [5].

It is evident that both of the works here look at information in a different form than its usual category. “cyclo.” transmutes sound into mathematical forms in the image of geometrical figures. “test pattern” translates multimedia into visual elements. In doing so, the processed form takes higher precedence than the original form of the information, the presentation of which is prone to cause confusion for the viewer. Given the similarity between the two works, one might say that his work as “cyclo.” have shaped Ikeda’s artistic sensibility and how he envisioned “test pattern”.

The similarity also highlights the difference between the works. “cyclo.” is a highly controlled synthesis of electronic sound, while “test pattern” emphasizes the chaos that pushes at the limit of human perception. The visual output of the latter showcases the virtually limitless amount of information, which may be regarded as potential awareness that exists in the gap between the world of human perception and machine working. And when one gazes at the edge, it is just an empty darkness.

concert-testpattern-1.jpg

[1] ryoji ikeda | test pattern
[2] ryoji ikeda | biography
[3] Edward  A. Shanken, Art and Electronic Media, Page 24.
[4] Ashley Young, Catherine Hedberg. An Interview with cyclo. (Ryoji Ikeda and Carsten Nicolai). INSIDE/OUT. MoMA. 2013.
[5] Lev Manovich. "Simulation is the central notion of the Dynabook". Software Takes Command. Bloomsbury Academic. 2013. Pages 64-91.

Brushstroke

Brushstrokes.pngTaking the ideological cluster of gesture, authenticity and originality as his foil, in the mid-1960s, artist Roy Lichtenstein caricatured the abstract expressionistic brush-stroke in a cartoon style with a background comprised of Ben-Day dots – a commercial printing technique used by newspapers to reproduce cartoons. Paradoxically, he initially mocked this eviscerated but iconic signifier in a series of unique paintings, only later reproducing them as serigraphs.

Prior to producing his first Brushstrokes work, Lichtenstein spun his upcoming work as a “satirical send-up of Abstract Expressionism” by saying: “I’m thinking now of doing something on Abstract Expressionism…The problem there will be to paint a brush stroke, a picture of a brush stroke…Purposely dripped paint and things, you know, where the drips are actually drawn drips that look like drops of water drawn by a commercial artist.”[1]

 

Brushstrokes_source.jpgAs Diane Waldman has noted, the source for the first Brushstrokes work was a comic strip:  Dick Giordano’s Strange Suspense Stories 72 (October 1964) published by Charlton Comics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushstrokes

[2] Diane Waldman, “Brushstrokes, 1965–66”. Roy Lichtenstein. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1994,  p. 151.

Brushstroke

Brushstrokes.pngTaking the ideological cluster of gesture, authenticity and originality as his foil, in the mid-1960s, artist Roy Lichtenstein caricatured the abstract expressionistic brush-stroke in a cartoon style with a background comprised of Ben-Day dots – a commercial printing technique used by newspapers to reproduce cartoons. Paradoxically, he initially mocked this eviscerated but iconic signifier in a series of unique paintings, only later reproducing them as serigraphs.

Prior to producing his first Brushstrokes work, Lichtenstein spun his upcoming work as a “satirical send-up of Abstract Expressionism” by saying: “I’m thinking now of doing something on Abstract Expressionism…The problem there will be to paint a brush stroke, a picture of a brush stroke…Purposely dripped paint and things, you know, where the drips are actually drawn drips that look like drops of water drawn by a commercial artist.”[1]

 

Brushstrokes_source.jpg

As Diane Waldman has noted, the source for the first Brushstrokes work was a comic strip:  Dick Giordano’s Strange Suspense Stories 72 (October 1964) published by Charlton Comics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushstrokes

[2] Diane Waldman, “Brushstrokes, 1965–66”. Roy Lichtenstein. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 1994,  p. 151.

Interactive Paper Systems

Sheridan%20Interactive%20Paper%20SystemsInstallation view at opening of Software exhibition at the Jewish Museum in New York, 1970.  Image from exhibition catalog.

Scholar Kathryn Farley, in a 2007 essay published by the Langlois Foundation, described Sonia Sheridan’s contribution to Jack Burnham’s Software exhibition in detail:

In 1969, art historian and media theorist Dr. Jack Burnham approached Professor Sheridan about participating in an exhibition he was organizing at the Jewish Museum in New York for the following year. The exhibition, titled “Software,” exposed the public to a wide variety of perspectives concerning the functional applications of information processing systems. (1)

The project represented a fresh take on the exploration of technology’s impact on creative production: members of the public would have the ability to respond to and interact with computer-built environments operated by participating artists. The catalog for the event, edited by Burnham with the assistance of others involved in the show, emphasized the importance of interactive artist/audience relations. (2) In the catalog’s introduction, for instance, he states, “(a)nother goal of ‘Software’ is to make clear that art itself is a form of intermittent dialogue. We are trying to make that sense of dialogue a conscious event.” (3) In an interview excerpt, Professor Sheridan recalls that the opportunity to interact with the audience was the main reason she decided to participate in the project. (a) In this other excerpt, she discusses the participatory dimensions of other artists’ work included in the exhibit and the excitement that it generated. (b) Building upon the theme of interactivity, the press release announcing “Software” emphasized the event’s participatory objectives. (c)

Professor Sheridan termed her contribution to the exhibit, “Interactive Paper Systems (1969-1970)” (d), and intended the work to highlight the image-making capabilities of communications technologies in real-time.

After demonstrating various graphics processes in relation to classroom instruction, Professor Sheridan offered attendees the ability to experiment with two instruments produced by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M): the Thermo-Fax machine and the Color-in-Color copier. (4) She hoped that the experience of working with new graphic tools would lead to greater awareness about the creative possibilities afforded by rapid methods of production. In her words, “It is obvious that this work process becomes another kind of time for the artist as the distance from conception to conception is reduced to minutes and objects change as rapidly as thinking allows.” (5) In addition, commercial imaging tools required minimal training and were adaptable to the preferences of users.

Not surprisingly, Professor Sheridan approached the exhibition as if it were an extension of the Generative Systems classroom. Her style of presentation expanded upon a workshop format that she had developed: professional demonstrations, hands-on experimentation with different technologies and student/teacher consultation. Similar to a Generative Systems class, she was sensitive to the configuration and placement of equipment within the exhibit space, as the diagrams attached to this organizational document demonstrate. (e) Also, Professor Sheridan insisted on having graduate students from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago travel with her to New York in order to participate in presentation activities, granting them real-world production and exhibition experience. Finally, similar to the lesson plans she devised for individual class sessions, Professor Sheridan established a schedule for completing a host of instruction-related tasks. (f)

(1) “Software,” sponsored by the American Motors Corporation and the Smithsonian Institution in conjunction with the Jewish Museum, took place at the Museum’s Manhattan location from September 17-November 8, 1970. Originally, the exhibit was intended to move to the Smithsonian immediately following its NYC incarnation but damage caused by a fire prevented the move for taking place.

(2) Jack Burnham’s activities in relation to the exhibit are discussed by scholar Edward Shanken in his paper, “The House that Jack Built: Jack Burnham’s Concept of ‘Software’ as a Metaphor for Art,” Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol. 6, no. 10 (November 1998): http://leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_6/lea_v6_n10.txt

(3) Jack Burnham, introduction, Software Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1970) p. 12. It should be noted that the catalog for the exhibit was never published but copies were distributed to participating artists and attendees.

(4) In addition to providing the machines for use during the exhibit, 3M also allowed Dr. Douglas Dybvig (the inventor of the Color-in Color machine) and Mr. Don Conlin (project manager) to attend the event and assist Professor Sheridan in introducing the company’s products to the public.

(5) Sonia Landy Sheridan, artist statement, Software Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1970) p. 24.

Kathryn Farley © 2007 FDL

http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=1999

Interactive Paper Systems

Sheridan%20Interactive%20Paper%20SystemsInstallation view at opening of Software exhibition at the Jewish Museum in New York, 1970.

Scholar Kathryn Farley, in a 2007 essay published by the Langlois Foundation, described Sonia Sheridan’s contribution to Jack Burnham’s Software exhibtion in detail:

In 1969, art historian and media theorist Dr. Jack Burnham approached Professor Sheridan about participating in an exhibition he was organizing at the Jewish Museum in New York for the following year. The exhibition, titled “Software,” exposed the public to a wide variety of perspectives concerning the functional applications of information processing systems. (1)

The project represented a fresh take on the exploration of technology’s impact on creative production: members of the public would have the ability to respond to and interact with computer-built environments operated by participating artists. The catalog for the event, edited by Burnham with the assistance of others involved in the show, emphasized the importance of interactive artist/audience relations. (2) In the catalog’s introduction, for instance, he states, “(a)nother goal of ‘Software’ is to make clear that art itself is a form of intermittent dialogue. We are trying to make that sense of dialogue a conscious event.” (3) In an interview excerpt, Professor Sheridan recalls that the opportunity to interact with the audience was the main reason she decided to participate in the project. (a) In this other excerpt, she discusses the participatory dimensions of other artists’ work included in the exhibit and the excitement that it generated. (b) Building upon the theme of interactivity, the press release announcing “Software” emphasized the event’s participatory objectives. (c)

Professor Sheridan termed her contribution to the exhibit, “Interactive Paper Systems (1969-1970)” (d), and intended the work to highlight the image-making capabilities of communications technologies in real-time.

After demonstrating various graphics processes in relation to classroom instruction, Professor Sheridan offered attendees the ability to experiment with two instruments produced by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M): the Thermo-Fax machine and the Color-in-Color copier. (4) She hoped that the experience of working with new graphic tools would lead to greater awareness about the creative possibilities afforded by rapid methods of production. In her words, “It is obvious that this work process becomes another kind of time for the artist as the distance from conception to conception is reduced to minutes and objects change as rapidly as thinking allows.” (5) In addition, commercial imaging tools required minimal training and were adaptable to the preferences of users.

Not surprisingly, Professor Sheridan approached the exhibition as if it were an extension of the Generative Systems classroom. Her style of presentation expanded upon a workshop format that she had developed: professional demonstrations, hands-on experimentation with different technologies and student/teacher consultation. Similar to a Generative Systems class, she was sensitive to the configuration and placement of equipment within the exhibit space, as the diagrams attached to this organizational document demonstrate. (e) Also, Professor Sheridan insisted on having graduate students from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago travel with her to New York in order to participate in presentation activities, granting them real-world production and exhibition experience. Finally, similar to the lesson plans she devised for individual class sessions, Professor Sheridan established a schedule for completing a host of instruction-related tasks. (f)

(1) “Software,” sponsored by the American Motors Corporation and the Smithsonian Institution in conjunction with the Jewish Museum, took place at the Museum’s Manhattan location from September 17-November 8, 1970. Originally, the exhibit was intended to move to the Smithsonian immediately following its NYC incarnation but damage caused by a fire prevented the move for taking place.

(2) Jack Burnham’s activities in relation to the exhibit are discussed by scholar Edward Shanken in his paper, “The House that Jack Built: Jack Burnham’s Concept of ‘Software’ as a Metaphor for Art,” Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol. 6, no. 10 (November 1998): http://leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_6/lea_v6_n10.txt

(3) Jack Burnham, introduction, Software Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1970) p. 12. It should be noted that the catalog for the exhibit was never published but copies were distributed to participating artists and attendees.

(4) In addition to providing the machines for use during the exhibit, 3M also allowed Dr. Douglas Dybvig (the inventor of the Color-in Color machine) and Mr. Don Conlin (project manager) to attend the event and assist Professor Sheridan in introducing the company’s products to the public.

(5) Sonia Landy Sheridan, artist statement, Software Information Technology: Its New Meaning for Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1970) p. 24.

Kathryn Farley © 2007 FDL

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

Vera Molnar

Hypertransformations

23.jpg

The following is from : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

 

Hypertransformations , 1975/76, plotter drawings, open series, 4 variations, each +/- 20 x 20 cm

The numbers “75.179.10.55.39” are a date code: 75 stands for the year, 179 is the day of the year. This code tells us that this sheet was printed on 28th June, 1975 at 10:55:39 am.

Transformation en bleu refers to a variation of the series Hypertransformation but it is a version painted by the artist. It is part of Vera Molnar’s investigations on the relationship of hand and machine.

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

Vera Molnar

Hypertransformations

23.jpg

The following is from : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

 

Hypertransformations , 1975/76, plotter drawings, open series, 4 variations, each +/- 20 x 20 cm

The numbers “75.179.10.55.39” are a date code: 75 stands for the year, 179 is the day of the year. This code tells us that this sheet was printed on 28th June, 1975 at 10:55:39 am.

Transformation en bleu refers to a variation of the series Hypertransformation but it is a version painted by the artist. It is part of Vera Molnar’s investigations on the relationship of hand and machine.

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

Vera Molnar

Hypertransformations

The following is from : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

 

Hypertransformations , 1975/76, plotter drawings, open series, 4 variations, each +/- 20 x 20 cm

The numbers “75.179.10.55.39” are a date code: 75 stands for the year, 179 is the day of the year. This code tells us that this sheet was printed on 28th June, 1975 at 10:55:39 am.

Transformation en bleu refers to a variation of the series Hypertransformation but it is a version painted by the artist. It is part of Vera Molnar’s investigations on the relationship of hand and machine.

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

 

Hypertransformations by Vera Molnar

23.jpg

Hypertransformations

1975/76

computer graphic

open series, 4 variations, all sole copies

print: each +/- 20 x 20 cm

artist′s own collection


The numbers “75.179.10.55.39 “

are a date code: 75 stands for

the year, 179 is the day of the

year. This code tells us that this

sheet was printed on 28th June,

1975 at 10:55:39 am. These details

are featured on the adjacent

variations as well as in the cat.

no. 7 and 8, stating the precise

moment of production.

 

 

Source : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

 

Hypertransformations by Vera Molnar

23.jpg

Hypertransformations

1975/76

computer graphic

open series, 4 variations, all sole copies

print: each +/- 20 x 20 cm

artist′s own collection


The numbers “75.179.10.55.39 “

are a date code: 75 stands for

the year, 179 is the day of the

year. This code tells us that this

sheet was printed on 28th June,

1975 at 10:55:39 am. These details

are featured on the adjacent

variations as well as in the cat.

no. 7 and 8, stating the precise

moment of production.

 

 

Source : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

Hypertransformations

This article is a STUB please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

 

Hypertransformations by Vera Molnar

23.jpg

Hypertransformations

1975/76

computer graphic

open series, 4 variations, all sole copies

print: each +/- 20 x 20 cm

artist′s own collection


The numbers “75.179.10.55.39 “

are a date code: 75 stands for

the year, 179 is the day of the

year. This code tells us that this

sheet was printed on 28th June,

1975 at 10:55:39 am. These details

are featured on the adjacent

variations as well as in the cat.

no. 7 and 8, stating the precise

moment of production.

 

 

Source : http://digitalartmuseum.org/molnar/hypertransformations.htm

Rereentry

This is a STUB article please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

Rereentry

Michael Joaquin Grey

gray_reentry1.jpg

 

Reentry revisualizes and dematerializes “The Powers of Ten”, a reversal of childbirth, and the reentry of the first US astronaut back to earth. This computational film creates a generative and dynamic film object that scales relationships of form, growth, space, individual and cultural development simultaneously.

Source : http://www.fringexhibitions.com/gray2.html

Cinq études de Bruits

This is a STUB article please make edits and adjustments as suggested on Wikipedia to make it more robust.  Thanks!

 

Cinq études de Bruits (Five Studies of Noises)

Pierre Schaeffer

 

Cinq études de bruits (Five Studies of Noises) is a collection of musical compositions by Pierre Schaeffer. The five études were composed in 1948 and are the earliest pieces of musique concrète, a form of electroacoustic music that utilises recorded sounds as a compositional resource.