The video itself

Sorry to all those folks out there who stayed up all night in anticipation of this video upload, but your waiting has finally paid off!  The video, in the end, turned into a lighthearted look at the different ways in which we portray ourselves on the internet, and how it can leave someone feeling a little jumbled if he or she doesn't juggle identities well.  For a more in-depth discussion of this topic, see my previous post.  One of the ideas that the video tries to address is how each of our identities is sort of an identity within an identity; each one is connected to all the others, but also is central within its own world.  I guess this sort of goes back to the rhizome concept discussed earlier.  None of these identities is the 'real' or 'central' identity, they all come together to form a collective identity.  Now without further ado, here is the video!

Technology and Identity video

Hey folks, I'm here to talk at you about a project that I cannot yet show you.  Suspenseful?  Yes.  Exciting? Perhaps.  Alright, enough chit-chat.  I will upload the project once it is ready for the public eye.  It is still shy, and not ready to go out all alone.

My video project centers around the idea that technology alters our sense of self by creating an outlet in which we can create alternate identities or extensions of our self that exist in a different plane than our normal physical existence.  Humans have always had ways to reinvent themselves in different situations.  Nearly everybody acts differently in front of their family than they do in front of their closest friends.  This idea is not new, but the internet and modern technology allow people to extend their being to touch a greater number of people, bringing about it a new sense of both anonymity and the drive to establish a new and coherent identity outside of the physical plane.

Almost everyone in our culture seems to have a Facebook, but this is only the surface.  In addition to social networking sites, we establish our identities through musical tastes, favorite videos, emails, and a seemingly endless amount of additional online tools and resources.  Many times, these identities seem to be formed without our knowing.  Certain websites log our activities, and it becomes a number in a database with our names on it, and as technology continues to expand at nauseating rates, these connections and identities only become deeper and deeper set into our own sense of self.  There are some people out there who identify more with their Second Life avatar or their World of Warcraft character than they do with their physical self.

An interesting question that this all poses is which of these identities is real?  When a person's sense of self is able to transcend the physical boundaries presented by one's body, where does the self exist?  Does the self exist?  It seems to me that someone's identity is whatever they relate to.  If someone spends more of their time and energy propelling a three-dimensional model through a virtual world, who is to say that it is any less 'real' than a non-computer-user's existence.  Through technology, humans are creating new worlds that are, in many ways, just as real as the world that we conventionally consider real.

These issues challenge the very idea of reality itself.  That is not to say that technology is the first thing to do this.  Philosophers have challenged the notion of reality for as long as humans have been around, but technology allows us to see this idea in full bloom right in front of our faces.  'Other planes' become less of a theoretical concept and more of a visible reality.

So yeah, those are the issues I'm trying to address through this not-yet-complete video.  I will write a little more specifically once I have a video to go along with this all.  Until then, my dear devout readers, contemplate the nature of reality and the absurdity of the universe.

The Growth of New Media

New Media is a term that I have been running across quite frequently as of late.  This may or may not have to do with the fact that I am enrolled in a Digital Processes course, of which this blog is a fraction.  Actually, this has everything to do with it.  I don't believe I had really encountered the term before this term (these are two separate meanings of the term "term").  Anyway, the point is that this term is really quite ambiguous.

Reading Lev Manovich's article deliberating possible meanings for the word, shed some light on what the term might mean, but it also shed some light on the fact that nobody really seems to know what it means.  Regardless, we have entered into a new realm of media where sharing can be instantaneous, interactivity is increasingly becoming a given, and interconnectivity is at an all time high.  This interconnectivity is described with the word "Rhizome" in Deleuze and Guiattari's article, "From A Thousand Plateaus."  Rhizome refers to points of data that are interconnected in a non-linear fashion.  It is an array in which all points are connected to all other points, and there are no edges, only a center.

In reading this article, it almost felt as if I was reading some ancient spiritual text.  The concept of rhizome kind of reminded me of the Buddhist concept of Indra's net in which all points of existence are reflections of all other points.  The idea that everything exists as a relation to something else, rather than by virtue of its own being is a concept that I did not expect to be applied to the area of new media and technology, but when it is, it makes perfect sense.  The web of connections being created every second has no beginning and no end.  Each point reaches out to all other points in the most obscure ways.  It is all very exciting!

It was very nice for me to read these articles, as the idea of this expanding interconnectivity, or at least our expanding awareness of it, is one of the more positive things that I see modern technology bringing to the table.  As technology and communications expand, I sometimes imagine that humanity will have no choice but to acknowledge its unity in a way that it never has before.

Tino Sehgal

Tino Sehgal was an odd artist to research.  Really, it's impossible to get a good impression of his art using resources such as articles, interviews, etc.  This is because his work is built around the experience that is created.  Beyond that experience, existing in that moment, the art really doesn't exist.  It is not like a painting that can at least be reproduced in many aspects, and can be seen at any time.  In some ways, it is more like theater which must be experienced at the moment or not at all.  However, I think Sehgal would resent this comparison to theater.  He dislikes his art being seen as a performance, as much of it is spontaneous, interactive, unexpected, and engaging in ways that actors and their audience cannot be.  It breaks through the theatrical conventions of performance.

Having studied dance, Sehgal almost seems to choreograph his art pieces like a dance, but in a way that involves more than just the performers.  His dances involve the observer, or another way of saying it is that the observer is not just the observer.  The observer actually changes the piece as he or she observes it.  The fact that Sehgal attempts to prevent any sort of physical record of his work only adds to the experiential nature of it.

Tino Sehgal's lack of objects in his works forces the viewer to reconsider what art consists of.  For example, is a painting art?  Or is the experience generated by the painting the art?  Would art exist at all without the observer?

The Medium is the Message

Marshall McLuhan seems to be an odd person with quite profound opinions on the nature of technology, and of art.  He brings up the point that what we often perceive as a message is actually just its own medium, and that each medium's message is another medium.  This forces an observer to consider the medium as a part of the message, if not as the message in and of itself.  He talks about people asking what the meaning of a painting is, and saying that it is the medium of the painting itself.  By bringing up cubism, he points out that the style of cubism is itself a message, and not necessarily a medium through which messages are conveyed.

To be perfectly honest, however, I cannot claim to have totally understood McLuhan.  Many of his analogies went over my head, and as interesting as some of his points sounded, their inner meaning eluded me.  His analogy of a supersonic jet, in which sound becomes a visible object as soon as it stops being sound (or something like that) just ended up confusing me.

As much as I didn't understand it, I am going to try and take what I did understand to help me reform my own ideas of art and technology.  It is important to acknowledge that the medium someone chooses is not simply an arbitrary medium through which they can convey a thought, but it is part of the thought itself.

How 'bout some technology, baby?!

Hey devoted readers,

Once more I'm here to entertain, enthrall, and enlighten you all.

Today I am presenting you with some videos that may or may not portray the role of technology on society, and may or may not examine the effect it has on human behavior.  They try to do this, but it's really up to you to decide!

To watch the videos, just click HERE!

The first video I have for you today is just called "Ice Cream."  This video is just sort of meant to show the ways in which people might sometimes try to just get more done at one time than is necessary or convenient.  The emphasis that we (myself included) on 'getting stuff done,' while it can be helpful so that we don't all just sit on our asses, does not always provide an individual with a satisfying, peaceful life.  There is a lot more to be found in just 'being' as opposed to 'doing' than many people realize.  Also, on a personal level, this video is a challenge to see what I myself was capable of when it came to...well...eating really fast.

The second video, called "Let's Get It Done!" sort of goes along the same lines as the first, but in a different way.  In it, I tried to juxtapose myself going on a leisurely, aimless bike ride with the progression of human technology and civilization.  I am not trying to downplay the benefits or advantages of human advancement, but I am trying to challenge the idea that we are really getting anywhere concrete.  We're all just sort of going along, but we're not going somewhere better, and we're not going somewhere worse...it's all sort of just happening.  That's not necessarily a bad thing; my aimless bike ride was, after all, quite enjoyable.

The third video, "The Computer Transistor Brainwave Internet Robot" is what you might consider an advertisement for the future of technology.  When iPhones, computers, TVs, video games, and even interpersonal relationships and the use of your own mind, have all merged into one thing, this is maybe what you'll be seeing during a commercial break....projected directly into your MIND!  It's sort of just a commentary on how absurd some technology pieces of today seem to me.  Do we really need all of the ridiculous and inane gadgets that are thrown at us, or does throwing them at us generate the need?

Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy the videos!  Until next time, I'm out!

Copyright and Remixing

Lawrence Lessig brings up an interesting take on the idea of copyright, and does a good job of highlighting why permission is largely unnecessary and illogical nowadays in the digital world.  Remixing old works allows the artist to bring in meaning that would not be present if the material was not borrowed.  I think remixing can be a wonderful way to create art, and there is simply so much stuff out there, that there is no shortage of materials for inspiration.

I think when people say that remixed material is not original or not as much the actual work of the artist, that they are missing the point of it.  It is most certainly original and creative.  Non-remixing artists take material and ideas from their lives and filter them through some medium in the form of their art.  The only difference is that remixers use the actual physical material in creating their work.  It allows the observer a unique opportunity to see something that they have likely seen before mixed up into a completely different work.  It affords them the opportunity to look at a familiar idea in a novel way, and for that reason I think it is a very effective art form.  Obviously the remixer must do some actual remixing.  One cannot simply steal art, but any time that any change is made, that is the artist taking another stroke.

It is nice that in the digital age, so much material is at our fingertips which we can take and do whatever we want with.  It allows people so much more in terms of artistic ideas, inspiration, and tools.

Artists Embracing Technology

The reading by Williams helped me see how the development of technology is chaotic and fueled by many competing interests and ideas.  It is interesting to me that none of the reasons that television was created had to do with art and artistic expression.  Williams helped show that humanity's drive to enhance their own abilities through the use of technology is a chaotic and a self-propelling process.  What is interesting to me is the fact that regardless of what sorts of new mediums come about, people of an artistic inclination still are able to use it for their own expression.  Television is in a way a combination of radio, still cameras, motion cameras, projection, etc.  All of these things that were not created in order to further the reach of the artistic impulse, yet they can easily be adapted to make art.

It seems that art is not limited by medium.  An individual could make art by himself on a desert island, or he could go to the fanciest studio somewhere with the most state-of-the-art equipment, and neither one would be creating something that is, by definition, more 'art' than the other.  It is a nice concept, and makes you realize that all you need in order to express yourself IS yourself and your environment.

This has been made very clear by some recent artists who use video in order to express themselves.  Wegman used video in a very simple, unassuming way, and created something that is refreshing and hilarious at the same time.  His video about deodorant is stupid, simple, hilarious and witty at the same time.  All Wegman needed to create this was his camera and his armpit; a very low-key endeavor.  He went on to make similarly silly and simple videos for Sesame Street, such as this rendition of Rub-a-Dub-Dub.

The videos by Stan Brakhage also showed that not much is needed in order to express yourself.  Although he seems to have spent more time on each work, at least compared to how long it is, his videos retain a certain simplicity that makes you scratch your head at artists who insist upon using high-budget resources and such.  Not that expensive things are not good for making art, but sometimes the simpler things express themselves more effectively.  I liked his two works that we watched, Mothlight and The Garden of Earthly Delights.  They used simple things that occurred naturally, whether that was body parts of dead moths or plant matter.  It was nice to hear Brakhage talk a little bit about Mothlight too.  It shed some light on his intentions, and helped me experience the depth of the work more effectively.

The point of this all is that all you need is yourself!  Express yourself through everything you do!  In my eyes, every one of your actions can be a form of art if you look at it that way.  Use whatever is at your fingertips at this moment!

Over and out.

Belated Analysis of Decasia

I'm going to take a moment to expand on what I initially wrote, because I had to cut the post short due to wrist pain.

I found Decasia to be an intense, often sad, often frightening portrayal of decay in the world, and especially in the world of human civilization.  The repetition of circular motion kept bringing me back to the idea of cycles;  cycles of growth and decay, birth and death, peace and war, happiness and sadness, etc.  The fact that the film all had been aging in an archive guaranteed that it was not contemporary, which I feel added to the overall feel of the film.  You do not watch Decasia and see scenes that you are familiar with (at least I didn't).  It was a journey through the last century of human interaction, advancement, and the destruction that has come with it all.  I can understand how one may watch it and just think it is stupid, but they are missing something incredibly meaningful in the film.  As I stated before, I would love to watch the film again, and will probably go out of my way to do so at a later date.  It was a total trip to watch.  It was able to almost completely remove me from my normal mode of consciousness and take me into this insane world of birth and death.  Thumbs up for Decasia!

DECASIA!

Okay I'm not going to write a ton today because I woke up and my wrist hurts a good bit so...not much typing today for me!

Personally I honestly thought the film Decasia was great.  I was a bit skeptical going into it, but the combination of film and sound was quite chilling.  It allowed my mind to wander in many interesting directions.  It was refreshing to not follow any sort of linear storyline.  I didn't really try very hard to determine one coherent message from the film at all.  I really just had to sit back and take it all in.  It was pretty crazy.

I would certainly watch it again.

Panopticon Project

For this project, I created three sets of images that focused on three different types of surveillance.  The first set is intended to focus on being watched.  The point of the photographs is to suggest that there are few places that you can go to (in Appleton, at least) where you can be sure nobody is watching you.  Whether it is from a window, a security camera, or just because you are in a public area, your actions are no longer private!

How many people have been caught on this camera without
ever realizing it?

The second set focuses on a more passive type of surveillance that I am particularly fond of.  This is the type of surveillance that comes from just sitting and watching.  There is no intent to discover anything or to monitor anybody's behavior.  The idea is simply to look and see what you see.  I don't even really like to think of it as surveillance.  It seems to passive to accept that label.

What better activity?

The third set of images is based on the idea that wherever we go in our daily lives, we cannot escape from the concept of time.  Not only is it, for obvious reasons, a concept that defines much of what we do, but it is nearly impossible to even walk down the street without constantly being reminded of what the exact time is.  In a setting such as Appleton, there seem to be clocks on nearly every block, not to mention the large amount of appliances and objects that we use daily that also tell us the time.

This third set of images also serves to remind me not to
procrastinate in the future.

Rachel Crowl

Listening to Rachel Crowl talk about the history of the internet and how it has developed from a publishing medium to an incredibly interconnected and diverse social networking tool had a somewhat eye opening effect on me.  It's too easy for me to become cynical about the uncontrollable expansion of technology and communications in the past few decades, but it's also true that the way in which technology opens up pathways to share ideas, art, news, and other things that can be important to distribute among the populous.

It is crazy to think about the fact that a cultural phenomenon such as YouTube, which began only 5 years ago, has been so incredibly influential on our society and pop culture.  It began in April of 2005 with this enlightening video about elephants.  Since then, it has been a medium for people who otherwise would have been completely unknown to become strangely famous, and for companies, individuals, officials, and other groups to distribute their messages to an audience that is larger than was ever possible before.

However, I still think that as much as people may gain from these advances in technology, they are undoubtedly losing something as well.  I am sure that this kind of thing has been said throughout the ages as new technologies have been invented.  With the car, people lost the motivation to walk.  With the advent of writing, people probably lost the will to memorize.  With the invention of the computer, people are losing the ability to think in the same ways that they used to.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but with ever-decreasing attention spans, and ever-increasing connections to all parts of the world, people's minds are sure to be working in a very different way as the years go by.

Perhaps I am just a sucker for sitting under a tree and watching the world go by, but it seems like the days of this sort of activity are slowly (or maybe rapidly) diminishing.  After all, why not just download the newest nature-sounds-and-images screen saver?  Or how about throw on some relaxing songs on itunes?  Better yet, leave it up to Google!

Dan Leers

Dan Leers is the type of person that every liberal arts school wants to use as an example.  In his time at Lawrence, he went from having no idea what he wanted to do with his future to having a strong idea of where he wanted to go (which still was not where he ended up) but through all of that, the diversity of knowledge that he picked up while studying here was invaluable.  When he finally made his way into the New York art scene, he would not have been nearly as prepared to understand the many layers of meaning within the art that he interacted with without the liberal arts education.  It was interesting and encouraging to hear him talk about the unpredictable nature of living life after college.  He made it clear that no matter how many times you think you know where you're going to end up, you are probably still in for a surprise.

Beyond his own life story, it was interesting to hear Dan talk about various aspects of photography in different geographical areas and in different time periods.  In particular, it was interesting to hear about photography in West Africa, where he went to study photography.  It was fascinating to see how the subjects of the photographs emulated many fashions and styles that we are familiar with, but still revealed their true heritage through the photographs.

As a whole, the talk was an enlightening story of an individual who figured out his life (at least up until this point) and learned myriad interesting things along the way.

It takes patience to capture a moment

The photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson has many stunning photographs.  His work truly exemplifies his intuition and patience.  In this short video in which he speaks a few words, he describes photography as a form of drawing; a form that is irreversible by nature.  You can never revisit what could have been the perfect photograph.  You can only wait for the next one.

This image is a wonderful example of Cartier-Bresson's fluid style of photography.  All of his photos rely on movement, synchronization, and the perfect placement of all elements for just a single moment.  He does not make still-life photographs.  He does not photograph trees or mountains or empty rooms.  He photographs life in its most organic form.

I can't help but feel a great deal of respect for a man who can capture such precise moments on film.  His ability to encompass a feeling and a coherent idea in a photograph is quite impressive.

Surveillance and 'Standard Operating Procedure'

Pretty provocative, aren't they?  The Documentary, 'Standard Operating Procedure' will almost inevitably produce a negative reaction for the same reasons that these photographs and thousands of others like them will.  It is all too easy to point fingers at those individuals involved in these scenes and photographs and condemn them for what they have done.  However, is it really appropriate to apply blame to these few individuals?  This is not to suggest that what they did was in any way condonable, but perhaps the story is much deeper than how it appears.  

Errol Morris created the documentary in order to shed light on the complexity of the situation, but may still leave viewers angry at the soldiers stationed at Abu Ghraib.  It is, after all, totally impossible to put ourselves into the shoes of these individuals.  Who among us has been in a situation anywhere near as stressful and inhuman as those soldiers?  Were they really outright evil people?  Was it total chance that those involved all happened to be evil?  Who actually thinks that these people would have believed it if they were told what sort of terrible practices they would be involved in?  It is easy to say "I would never do that!" when we are sitting in our peaceful, harmless environments, but it is a whole different story when you are actually in the moment and people of authority are right there with you telling you what to do.

Stanley Milgram did not just happen to select all of the inherently bad people.  Adolph Hitler did not get 'lucky' that the German army was willing to carry out the horrendous deeds it did.  No, I believe this issue goes much deeper into human nature.  It goes far beyond what we 'know' we will never do.  I am not trying to suggest that everyone would act like these soldiers did given the same context, but I would bet that a far greater number of people would, who would never be willing to admit it to themselves.

The reciprocal nature of technological enslavement

There is no denying that Doug Engelbart changed the world and the way we perceive problems and information in a very profound way.  I wonder, however, if he considered the reciprocal effects of the changes he was catalyzing.  He talks about the ways in which computers will facilitate quicker organization of ideas, and more readily available trees of information, but I am not sure that he foresees the profound way in which computers would alter human consciousness positively AND negatively.


This is not to say that computers are the first example of this.  Throughout history, there has been a back-and-forth relationship between mankind and the augmentations we create.  Humans enslave their material environment, and to return the favor the material world enslaves humans.  It is easy to see what humans have gained through computers in the areas of "progress" and "efficiency" (for whatever these goals are  worth) but what is less obvious is what we have irreversibly lost.  Computers allow us to move faster and faster, but what is the point of moving faster unless you are moving in the right direction?


Do computers tear us away from the flow of energy through the Universe, or do they allow us to be more in touch with it?