Nebula

The poetic politics of sharing.

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:29:00 -0400

Sharing. We all do it. On Facebook, on Twitter, on Tumblr. All day, every day. Just putting out private lives in the open.

Is this a bad or a good thing? Well, we will leave that to the philisophers.But the platform we also share a lot on is Youtube. Youtube has created its very own culture, with all kinds of people posting and reacting on videos; it is a very interactive medium. It is a perfect medium for the concept: prosumer.

The Porsumer is a consumer, that has a part in the production of a piece of art through interaction with the artist of this piece of art.

Through all the comminucation we have on youtube, we can make our veryown art of something old, which gives existance to a new concept: “remix culture”. Remix culture means that we use old material and make it into new one, for instance: remix a song, as in the example I will post later. Or remix an entire video into a song, as “Autotune the news” does. Or maybe even just take a frame from a youtbe video or just a picture and make it into a meme.

This notion evokes “Amateurism”. A movement that has already been appointed by some artists as real art. Youtube provides a lot of these art works.

I think that amateurism on facebook, is not only a way to share its creation or whatever, but it can pass from amateurism to professionalism. There is many artists know from the internet, not only Youtube, but also myspace, at some time.

So for that part of the sharing and amateurism, i think internet allows to people to reach their goal easily, and in the other way, labels, for example, trust the way the artist is supported by an audience. It is positive for everybody in this case. So much, that now it exists some sites where the consumers, the amateur, are the one deciding if someone should have a chance in a professional side.

Internet and the share of creativity make a lot of change in the cultural landscape with this confusion of boundaries.

Eagle

Rhizome surveillance

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:58:38 -0400

dac-marleen-anne:

Social network is taking over the digital space. New networking sites come up every day, you can think about dating-sites, but more obvious are sites as facebook, hyves (in the Netherlands) and twitter that are all about networking. For the more elite networkers among us, I would like to refer to something as Linkedin. But not only these sites provide one a network to work or even exist in. Sites as deviantart, tumblr and weheartit also make networks out of your provided data and links to work or persons you might like. The very same goes for online shopping stores and warehouses. They bother you with commercials and newsletters which contain stuff that they think you might be interested in. This constant surveillance from above, tracking every single thing you do (or don’t do) on the internet, sure is something that provides us lots of stuff to think about.

Surveillance is an important aspect of our everyday-life, even if we aren’t always very aware of that. We are constantly watched by the authorities through surveillance cameras and other devices like that. The question remains, however, who is watching our authorities? Who is watching the watchers, basically. That is where one (very) positive aspect of social networking sites comes into perspective; everyone can watch and track down everyone. People can look after other people, keeping their eyes open for things that look weird, suspicious or abnormal. That’s only one part of it though, at the same time people are aware of the fact that it is possible that they are being tracked and watched by everybody. They automatically are going to behave better. (Do I sense or smell a bit of the panopticon theory by Michel Foucault here?)

Social media also makes it easier for us to watch people with a lot of power. News can be provided throughout the world within seconds and everybody has a cellphone with a camera nowadays, so it becomes harder and harder for institutions such as the government or army to keep things quiet for the ‘regular citizen’. That makes the social media such a great example of the interaction between surveillance (top-down) and sousveillance (down-top). It is very important to have that last one in society, because we want to avoid corrupt governments or military supression in the world. The transparancy of the social media helps us seeing things. So social networking isn’t necessarily something bad or threatening our society, it can even make a better society, if we just keep using it very carefully and wisely.

- Anne
(on the lecture ‘Privacy and surveillance’ - May 29)

A part of your post makes me react. The one you tell about targeted advertisement, I didn’t think about that before, but it is an important point I guess, for the sharing and surveillance on internet. Nowadays, marketers have found the perfect tool by way of the internet with this new kind of targeting. But it makes me feel paranoid sometimes. If I’m saying in my e-mail that I want to leave for whatever situation, I will end up with a lot of advertisement about low costs, Ryanair or Easy jet, for example. They use some cookies to reach and analyze your preferences. So, without us to know, we are sharing a lot of information about ourselves to companies. The internet is also a tool for this type of economic goal.

It makes me think how much surveillance is everywhere now.

Eagle

The man your man could smell like.

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:12:35 -0400

The man your man could smell like.

My Final Post

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:10:42 -0400

Last lecture we talked briefly about the most important concepts (and the people who wrote about them) that we discussed during the course Digital art & Culture. Mcluhan was briefly mentioned. At this point I realised that I hadn’t talked about him yet.. so I will use this last Tumblr post to say something about him. In the lecture we had to say his concept. I immediately thought of ‘the medium is the message’. But that wasn’t the concept the teachers were thinking about. They were thinking about ‘a medium is an extension of the human body’. It didn’t know that that second concept was also Mcluhans. The phrase ‘the medium is the message’ stuck by me during the course because it almost sounds like a mantra. You can also look at it like a slogan. The slogan is direct, expresses it’s meaning clearly and it’s catchy.

The medium plays a huge part in everyday life, especially if you think about advertisements. An advertising agency does not choose a medium radomly. It carefully thinks about it. If they would choos the wrong medium, the message would come across in a different way or it would not come across at all. An example that uses the medium very well is the example of Old Spice. It’s a bit of an older example (from 2010) but I think it’s a clear example. Old Spice is an American brand. It contains all kinds of male grooming products. ’The man your man could smell like’ commercial was thought of by Wieden + Kennedy. They even received the Emmy for outstanding commercial. This advertisement used the internet as the medium to spread their message. The commercial was watched 42,000,000 times. By using the internet as a medium, a lot of younger people saw the add. And because the add became viral, a lot of people outside of the U.S. saw the video too.

The way in which the message ‘the man your man could smell like’ was shown is also part of the medium. In advertisement this part of the message is always chosen carefully.The Old Spice commercial also uses the medium and the way the message is shown in a clear and modern way by using a tall handsome and athletic guy. He is shown in places that could be everywhere in the world (where there’s a beach and sea). This also adds to the meaning of the message. If the add campaign works out, your brand will be known everywhere and people will always think of the product and the commercial. In this way, the medium and the message work together to create a positive feeling towards the brand. The Old Spice commercial is an example where this worked well.

Orion

deliodac12: A couple of days ago I saw the movie Gamer (2009)...

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:49:58 -0400

deliodac12:

A couple of days ago I saw the movie Gamer (2009) and the concept made me immediately think of the cyborg. In this movie convicts who are on death-row are giving the chance to survive. The only thing they have to do is to survive thirty sessions in a game environment as human avatars. Through nanite technology, the cells in the human brain are replaced by cells that can be externally controlled by gamers. In the movie, the convict Kable gets controlled by the teenager Simon. The human avatars have to kill each other and all their moves are dependent on the connection between them and the gamer. There’s this delay in the connection, call the ‘ping’. This is the time the information sent by the gamer has to be received by the avatar in order to perform the tasks the gamer initiated. This ping is the weak spot of the human avatar, making him vulnerable to his opponents. [SPOILER ALERT]: In the film the chance that Kable survives the last round, gets smaller because of this ping. Other people want him dead and that’s why he has to get freedom to function without any delay (and later because he can escape the game by himself). [/SPOILER ALERT]

I thought the concept of the film was really interesting. In class we were talking about cyborgs, but I think this is whole new kind of cyborg. I can also discover several concepts we discussed during the course DAC. Through nanotechnology humans can be controlled by humans. Here, the human as a medium gets used as extension of other humans (McLuhan). Related to this is also the feedback loop between gamer – technology - human avatar. There’s also the blurring boundary of physical reality and virtual reality: for the gamer, it’s just a game (with real human beings). For the human avatar, it’s ‘real life’. He can kill real people and they can’t be resurrected, because it’s all real. There’s also the possibility that he can die himself. It’s also about absent presence, because the gamer is virtually present through human avatar, but physically absent.

I think it’s very interesting, because the film is about freedom and free will. In the movie, death-row convicts can gain freedom, but only if they give up their freedom and their free will. It’s kind of a paradox. I also think the clash between what the human avatar thinks and what the gamer makes him do is interesting. When a human avatar sees someone he wants to rescue, he can’t because his body is controlled by the gamer. The fact that the human avatar can’t talk with his gamer makes it even worse. The human avatar doesn’t have a voice and has to obey someone else.

When technology makes humans able to control other human beings, technology went too far.

By Délisa

I think Délisa says something about an important concept that we haven’t really talked about during the course. We didn’t talk about ethics. All these technologic advancements are great and all, but where do we draw the line. Some of the examples that were shown during the class were a bit ‘controversial’. There was an example of an artist who created a treadmill and a big screen that projected an environmnent. People got on it and ran for as long as they could. But they weren’t able to just stop. You can choose if you participate, but as soon as you participate, you lose your will. You have to walk where the programmed screen guides you. At this point you don’t have a choice where to go and you aren’t really able to just stop. So, maybe ethics would be something that we should discuss.

Orion

24th of July 2010

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:01:00 -0400

As we were looking at this video about the one hundred most watched on YouTube, it makes me thought at these other videos for YouTube. Two years ago, Ridley scott and Kevin Mcdonald asked to viewers of youtube to film their day and to say what they have in their pockets, bag, what do scare them, and what do they love. But basically, they had to film themselves, the entourage or whatever they wanted on a particular day, the 24^th of July 2010.

Since 80 000 videos received from 197 countries in 47 different languages, film director Kevin Mcdonald and Producer Ridley Scott, made a movie with the partners YouTube and LG. this movie was called Life in a day. They wanted to share the life and thoughts from all over the world to us, viewers present still today, but also to show and keep a testimony of what was the life in 2010.

As we spoke about sharing on the internet through sites as YouTube, I think this reflects very well the point. Everything is about sharing and discovering in this video, and about digital in nowadays. Through new media, random people can witness their daily life in a real movie, produced and directed by famous names. The phrase of Warhol is more true than ever “In the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minute”. Through the digital media which is YouTube, it was possible to make a movie since other movies directed by random people, and dealing about them, basically. The share of their life is shown internationally, but also presented through the Sundance festival. The concept of this day shared by thousands of people became a big and famous project, even before it was done.

By this example, I would like to highlight that the digital media, here YouTube, was used to create an art. This movie is the artistic result of what internet is: A platform which allows us to share, knowing the consequences beyond this share. It is also a performance which reflects the multicultural landscape which internet allows us to know by the way of sharing.

If you want to watch at this movie it is simply on YouTube.

Eagle

Paranoia

Tue, 29 May 2012 18:07:51 -0400

Today’s lecture was about surveillance and privacy. After the lecture I began thinking about a subject for a post. I was just sitting quietly in my room, thinking about surveillance. That, my friends, isn’t a good idea. I started getting a bit paranoid. Why? Because I realized how many of my actions are being registered. Take today for example.. Let’s start with me walking out the door to get to the university. I open the door and my neighbors see me, I walk towards my bicycle and the camera of my landlord sees me standing in front of the house. I take my bike and start cycling to the university. Everywhere I look are people. On the crossing there are cameras who track the traffic. When I arrive at the university, I put my bike away and walk toward the lecture room. There I’m being watched by my fellow students. They see that I came to the class, they see what I’m wearing and in what mood I am. I sit down, listen to the lecture and during the break I use the internet on my phone. My phone communicates with a communication tower so that I can receive text messages and internet. My location is traceable. The break is over and the lecture continues. An attendance list passes around, now the teachers will know whether or not I was there. After the lecture, I go to my second lecture where my presence is also noticed and noted. I will have to eat something, so after the lecture I go to the supermarket. On my way I’m being recorded by other people and cameras everywhere. When I arrive at the supermarket I’m being watched by cameras and other people. I go to the cash register and pay electronically (pin) for my groceries. On the receipt appear the items that I bought, the number of the store, which bank I use, the date and time, my bonus card number and the expiration date of my debit card. The bonus card will store what I bought and combine it with the records that I made available for the store to use. I walk out of the store and ride my bike home. During this I’m caught on at least two cameras (and how many cameras that I haven’t noticed yet?). After this I go up to my room, check Facebook and use my surveillance power on other people.

Orion

Multiple Me's

Tue, 29 May 2012 15:12:00 -0400

deliodac12:

In class we talked about the notion of ‘absent presence’. Absent presence is the idea that a person is virtually present in the digital realm, but physically absent. Through the principle of absent presence, a person’s identity can be bended: you can be a boy in the physical space, but you can represent yourself as a girl in the virtual space.

We also talked about how this identity bending can be seen as an online therapeutic session. I really liked this idea of identity bending being therapeutic. I see it as the virtual realm providing people a second chance: When you’re not in a good situation in the physical reality, having all sorts of problems or having built up a bad reputation that you just can’t rid off, the virtual platform can give you a clean slate.

When you feel like your identity contains more than you’re showing in your physical reality, you can look for identity freedom in the virtual realm. You can form your own identity the way you want it to be or you can express yourself without anyone recognizing you and judging you. You can be a famous writer on the internet, but maybe a regular bus driver in ‘real life’. At one time, people can see this virtual reality where they can freely express themselves as their new reality. It’s a space in which they can find new satisfactions.

You cannot only use the internet as a liberating platform to express several sides of your own identity or to create a new identity, but you can also use it as a platform to express your real identity. An example we talked about in class is the gay community. There are places in the world or communities where homosexuals are not fully accepted. In some cases it can be very dangerous to come out as homosexual. For those people that can’t fully express their real identity, internet communities can function as a platform to speak your mind without any judgements. It’s a way to say the things you want to say and to feel the things you want to feel when you can’t in your physical reality. Because of this, people with the same problems can connect and stimulate positive responses, helping people virtually with affects in their physical space. People get a feeling of belonging, gaining hope and they can put their physical life into perspective, knowing that there are people with the same problems as they have. In this way I think that ‘absent presence’ has a positive influence on life.

By Délisa

When I read this, I instantly thought of the modernity. This is the period of urbanization, industrialisation, democratization, the rise of the middle class, a changing relation towards God, individualization and the split subject. Urbanization meant that people lived with more people in cities. People didn’t know their neighbors anymore and people had to split. They had to show multiple me’s in order to satisfy the people around them. Nowadays it’s still the same. We are different people when we’re with our friends or with our family. The same applies to the internet. If you have the feeling that the me that you show in your everyday life isn’t the real you, you can create ‘the real you’ online. You can be the person that you actually are, but you’re afraid of showing people in the reality because you’re afraid the won’t accept you.

Orion

In Digital Art by Christine Paul, as in class, we talked about...

Mon, 28 May 2012 17:55:00 -0400

In Digital Art by Christine Paul, as in class, we talked about digital devices as the continuation of the body. I would like to connect it with the digital art as a digital medium. We have seen that, for example, some deaf people need a device to hear something. I would like to focus on this type of disability. Their connection with the music might be inexistent, some might think. Why do they would go to a concert or play an instrument? They don’t hear anything! But, they can enjoy the music in so many different ways actually, and one of them, the main one, is the vibration. However, some people who work in the cultural mediation, or in associations caring about deafness, they create special concert or festivals to make deaf people be able to enjoy properly the show.

At that point, digital, but not only, devices are created. These are totally the continuation of the being, because they permit those people, who cannot hear, to feel and even see the music and to enjoy the concert almost as if they were not deaf. Not far from here, in Arnhem, there was a concert of death metal, made specially to attract this audience: “deaf metal”. They made a vibrant ground, to make them feel each rhythm of the bass and the drums. Beside, seven interpreters were called to translate the lyrics of the song in signs language. This is one example of the way they arrange a concert for deaf people to enjoy the music. But, the band Fumuj add some more devices for them during their last tour. They played with lights and vibration to translate their music. The light was made according to the rhythm of each instrument. We can compare it with the video clip of Around the world, by daft punk and made by Michel Gondry, in which each different type of character represent an instrument. The band also add big column in each concert hall they went, so deaf people could rely on it. There was game of light also on it and vibration. In default of hearing, they can see, feel and touch thanks to this devices. Obviously, like for the “deaf metal” concert, an interpreter was there to “sing” the lyrics.

I think these examples show the incorporation of digital in their art. Moreover, here, it is made for a cause, but people who are not deaf can discover by this, another way to enjoy the music, using their different senses.

The video above is a short report of one of their show. It is in French but I tried to translate it below, since a French transcript for deaf people:

Voiceover: the band Fumuj is mostly a powerful electro/rock band, at 100 decibels. But yesterday, in the audience, there were deaf people like Enrique. For him, the show look like this:

(silence)

Voiceover: And yet, in the middle of the concert hall, he is like everyone. Backed by this bright and vibrant column, somatosensory receptor (NDT vibration transmission) in his hand, he saw the concert in its own way.

Enrique: Actually, it’s the first time that I come here. I was a curious to see how they could manage with the vibrations, for example with this receptor. But the column behind me is way much powerful. It’s really effective.

Voiceover: On stage, Fumuj transforms his music into light. For those who can not hear, screens and drums are lightened by the rhythm of the instruments.the lyrics are translated in real time by a sign language interpreter.

Laetitia: For a hearing… a hearing thinks I dance, but actually, I sing with my hands and my whole body.

Romain : deaf or hearing, it plays on the senses. So everyone is benefiting.

Singer: And it leaves the hearing deaf.

(laughs)

Voiceover: Deaf people leave happy, they broke the barrier of silence for a concert.

Eagle

Cartesian dualism for identity

Mon, 21 May 2012 17:14:40 -0400

factoryart:

During last lecture Stevens told us the identity before the digital had a root in place. A persons identity is dependent on where (s)he was born and lived at the point in time. During the rise of digital media, however, the identity has shifted towards a virtual space, where a thing as place is partly unimportant. The access to virtual space, however, is still dependent on place and the exact point in the virtual space too.

I do not agree with this vision of the history of identity. I must admit that some philosophers before the digital age have said that identity is dependent from place. John Locke, for example, said that the religion you are taught isn’t necessarily the right religion, because the choice of YOUR religion is dependent on where you are born. Whether you believe the right religion or not is therefore decided by a random occasion. Locke states here that religion is dependent on place and thus, identity is dependent on place.

Other philosophers state something else. As early as the Greek philosopher Plato philosophers have stated that the true origin and identity of a person lies in its soul. The soul is intertwined with the body, but it can be put separated. The soul is independent of a place and exists in a divine world (such as in the myth of Er by Plato) independent of places.

Another philosopher who stated that the mind and body are separated was Descartes. He said that the only origin of existence was in the thinking of the self: I think therefore I am. The identity of a person is not in his actions or his appearance, but in his thought. Descartes thought that this self lived as a soul attached to the body. The soul, however, is still detached from the physical.

These two philosophers have determined centuries of Western philosophy. Still Stevens claimed that the identity was seen in the Western civilizations as dependent on place before the digital era. I do not agree with that at all.

What do you think?

- Simon de Vette.

Identity is who you are and I think that who you are is how you act. People are raised in a certain way and taught differently. But then they built their own personnality, identity. The place might be a part of this construction even if it is erased in the digital identity. Although, I think that the place is virtually unimportant because on the web you are nowhere and everywhere, but it is what built you ina sense. It plays a role.

Digital distance

Mon, 21 May 2012 15:24:39 -0400

In everyday life, your body plays a huge role. Your body is involved in everything you do and it goes with you wherever you go. You are limited to the possibilities of your body. In the digital world you are no longer limited by your body. You can do a lot more than the things you do in everyday life. In the digital world it’s possible to fly or to be a hero while you’re in the real world a boring guy with an office job. On the internet you can be whoever you want to be. To be able to change your identity and not being limited by your body has negative effects. Think for example of paedophiles who tell teenagers in chat rooms that they are teenagers too or think about the con man who creates an online identity and tries to sell you something (that you will never receive) over the internet. Not being limited can also be used in non negative ways. In all sorts of games you can create an identity. The simplest example would be The Sims. In this game you need to make an avatar to play the game with. You can name your avatar yourself and you can define the appearances of your avatar. You can decide what sex your avatar has. Frame, skin colour, colour of the eyes and even the shape of the face can be adapted by you. You can choose to make an avatar that reassembles you or your idea of the perfect person. You can also create yourself and to perfect it. This avatar functions in the same way in the digital world as your real body functions in the real world. Your body is a tool with which you can partake in activities. In the digital world, your real body stays home to control a virtual body. Your virtual body is limited to the possibilities of the game. An avatar in The Sims cannot fly, do a somersault or swing from one rope to another. As far as I know, there are limitations in every game. The biggest limitation however is the fact that you cannot touch something psychically. You can only form an image in your mind of how something would feel and how it would be to experience something like that in real life. Not being able to touch anything, causes a distance between you and the virtual world. This is described as optical visuality.

Orion

Last Thursday we talked about how it is easy to create a false...

Mon, 14 May 2012 20:21:42 -0400

Last Thursday we talked about how it is easy to create a false identity on the platform of the internet. I think there is a part of this evolution which can be dangerous. After this course I thought of an advertisement made to warn the parents and keep control on the internet for their kids. On this advertising you can see many people ringing at a door and entering to see the kid upstairs, with the permission of the smiling parents. Of course these persons represent Porn internet site, violence and everything a parent wouldn’t let their kid do or see. At the end, we can see a creepy man showing himself and taking the little girl with him, in front of the mother.

The point is that false identities are also dangerous for young and naive persons who don’t know how to handle with the internet. It is so easy to make believe now that you are a person that you are not in the real life. I think it is also an important issue about the subject of the digital identity. It is such a common thing nowadays to have one. It is a part of our society and everyone, has one digital identity. The internet control being harder as the web is infinite, and with the social network being highlighted, some criminals take profits of this new hidden place. That is why there was a whole prevention about that. And I think this scary video (because yes the man is very creepy) made a lot of noise and represent well the new media and the digital identities. It shows how it can be false and dangerous if you don’t understand what exactly you are doing on the internet. And it is of course most directed to parents of young people, who can be really influenced and lost, trusting everyone on the internet.

So the digital identities is really something which has entered in our society, being a part of us or showing what we want, but it can also be very dangerous depending the platform, for example on chat platform, and how people use and trust them.

Eagle

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy

Mon, 14 May 2012 17:57:40 -0400

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy

The case of the 'Beard Guy'

Mon, 14 May 2012 17:50:31 -0400

deliodac12:

I think a lot of people know the version of ‘Somebody that I used to know’ made by the Australian band ‘Walk Off The Earth’. They became famous especially on YouTube for the way they are playing the guitar with five people. So in this case their fame is based upon their talent and their idea to do this and their impressive demonstration of it.

But maybe some of you did notice that there is one special member of this band who gets a lot more attention than the other band-members.

It’s Mike Taylor – the so-called ‘Beard Guy’. While the others seem to be intensively busy with playing the guitar, he just seems to stand there at the right end of the guitar doing nothing but starring thoughtful at the end of the room. Actually he is playing the guitar at certain moments, but the main-impression is that he is not doing anything at all.

And exactly this is the reason why he gets more attention than the others. The way of presenting himself in the video has made him sort of famous.

You just have to read the numerous comments on the video where he is mentioned and sometimes gets compared to Chuck Norris and other famous persons. He has an own fan-made Facebook-page. He even has his own fan-collection and even an underwear-collection with his face printed on it.

And everything of this has nothing to do with the band or what his part is within the band, it is actually based on the way he is presenting himself.

Because of this presentation he became an object that can be sold. It is not the person Mike Taylor – but it is well the constructed ‘Beard Guy’.

*Ioanna

Another example would be Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. This guy was participating in a running competition. A person took a photo of him and posted it to Flickr. Here people started making comments about how handsome the guy was. Soon after this the picture was photoshopped and posted on Reddit. The picture became more and more popular and even became a meme. It seems that you can become famous for being in the right place at the right time (and being handsome of course).

Orion

Fame

Wed, 09 May 2012 18:13:00 -0400

I found it quite strange that nobody knew why Kim Kardashian was famous. I decided to browse the internet to discover why she’s famous. (I used Wikipedia as a source because it was one of the few sites that didn’t have 1,000 gossip stories on her and actually said something about her background.)

I found out that she is famous ‘for starring in Keeping up with the Kardashians’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_kardashian). She is also famous for starring in a sex tape and producing clothing lines and fragrances. After reading this the question still remains why did she become famous? You can say because she is beautiful, but not every beautiful person becomes famous. You can say because of her sex tape, but in order to get the attention that it got she had to be famous before that. I clinked to the page on her father, Robert Kardashian. He was a good friend and the defense attorney of O.J. Simpson. This was a huge trial in the United States, but I don’t think Dutch people really know the story. But the family was wealthy and friends with famous people and were visible to the public eye. The family became famous. Tv network E! created the tv show Keeping up with the Kardashians and made the members of the family well known. This got me thinking that fame is comparable with a disease.. it spreads from one person to the other. You could also view fame in the same way that we view the internet. The internet has a lot of links, you can go from one page to another. These links are also visible with famous people and they all refer to other famous people. If you think of Kim Kardashian, she links to her father Robert Kardashian, who you can link to O.J. Simpson who you can link to other famous people. Another example could be Susan Boyle who is famous for competing in the talent show Britain´s got talent. She got famous because the show was famous and the judges were famous. The show also got a lot of attention because you could view bits on youtube. Youtube is a very well known medium that a lot of people use. I asked myself the question if knowing the right people is the key to becoming famous. It does seem so doesn’t it?

Orion

Things & Thoughts: Virtual reality: bringing people back to life

Mon, 07 May 2012 11:39:00 -0400

Things & Thoughts: Virtual reality: bringing people back to life:

deliodac12:

Last class we talked about virtual reality and how it can intersect physical reality. I immediately had to think of a remarkable performance at the Coachella festival a few weeks ago. Rappers Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre performed on stage with rapper Tupac Shakur. Maybe some of you don’t know why…

This virtual presence is really interesting to see in this context, so far, I only knew on pictures the ones at the airport informing you about conditions and restrictions or welcoming you. It make me think about the inverse. this way is to put the virtual into the reality but you can put also the reality into the virtual. I think for example of video game in wich you are the character who plays without any joystick. Your moves are transcripted directly into the screen. This type of game, Kinect, erase completely the distance and the line between the real world and the virtual one. Indeed we can act absolutely like the ordeals were true and our life could depend on it. The entire body is in contribution while before only the hand controlling the joystick was involved. It is like we would be in the game… in this virtual world.

Eagle

Becoming limitless

Sun, 06 May 2012 10:00:00 -0400

In the last lecture of April 26^th, the term ‘nomadic devices’ was mentioned. These are technological devices that you can take with you wherever you go. For this to be possible the device has to be fairly small. I would say that it has to fit either in your backpack or your pocket. A desktop computer would, according to this definition, not be considered a nomadic device. I mean, you can’t really carry it in your backpack when you’re travelling or something. If you own a car it would be a lot easier to carry it with you but it would still be difficult to do.

Because of the nomadic devices our lives have changed. You can sit and work or study wherever you want. As long as there’s a electrical socket you can work. In the summer you can work outside while in the winter you can sit near the fireplace. Your devices can be as flexible as you and that is a positive change. Because the devices are so small you can always do something. If for instance the train can’t travel any further (that happens quite a lot here), you can just pull out your laptop or smartphone and work or read for school. We have become less dependent of our environment. We now create our environment and put everything that we need into it. It is perhaps comparable with the rise of the agriculture. Humans were nomadic a long time ago. But then we started to settle down, live in houses and started growing crops. Infertile ground was transformed into fertile ground because we needed to produce food. We changed the world so that it would suit us. We no longer adapted to the surroundings, but we made sure the surroundings were adapted to us. I think this is quite comparable to the nomadic devices. We no longer adapt ourselves but adapt the environment in which we live. The biggest difference is of course the fact that with nomadic devices you become more flexible and you can go wherever you want whereas creating settlements actually limits you.

Orion

Preserving..

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:44:00 -0400

It appears that it is also difficult to preserve visual arts.. a security guard at Radboud University threw a piece of art in the trash. He didn’t realize that the drawing of 12 metres big was a piece of art.

source: http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2795728/beveiliger-gooit-kunstwerk-weg.html

Orion

Preserving digital art

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:13:00 -0400

digitalart12:

In todays class we discussed the work of the two artists Joan Heemskerk and Dirk Paesmans, known as Jodi. We also talked about the conservation issues raised by digital art. I want to name an example of work by Jodi, OSS/****, and the conservation strategy used to preserve it for the future.

OSS/**** is a work on CD-ROM, which consists of three programs **** ***, #Reset and %20. It was originally made in 1999, updated by the artists themselves in 2005 and distributed free with the magazine Mediamatic. OSS/**** explores the different physical elements of a personal computer – the screen, the mouse and the CD-ROM. The interface is transparent, and the user needs only to click directly on the programs to launch them.

                **** *** exploits the functions of the mouse: the lines traced by its movements, its position each time it stops, windows that open unexpectedly; revealing fragments of text, syllabic sounds etc. #Reset offers a variation on the screen, with grey, white and black lines scrolling at different speeds and in sequences determined by the lapse of time and by interaction with the mouse. %20 features the keyboard and its relationship with what is happening on the screen: the program takes a screen-grab of the desktop and alters it visually according to various parameters activated by the keys. The sound, and the changing, frequently stroboscopic rhythm with which the images move, create in the user a tension around the status of his or her own data, as much as a pleasurable exploration of the combinations offered by the artists.

                The work is designed to be watched on your own PC and it is interactive. You have to experiment with it, using your own data, in order to establish a personal relationship with the work. The artists wanted to create surprise and confusion, and to play on a certain kind of anonymity.

OSS/**** was updated already in 2005, because the original no longer worked. The 1999 code worked only on versions of operating systems that were contemporaneous with it, and by 2005 the Mac OS9 was no longer in use. The migration that has taken place has involved the loss of some visual elements, such as the large number of icons in the Mac OS9 version.

                OSS/**** depends on specific relationships between the keyboard, the mouse and the screen and that is central to the artists’ intentions. The work can no longer be distributed if the computer no longer has these three distinct components (as in the case of mobile phones or an iPad). In the artists’ view the work exists only in the relationship between the user and his or her computer.

                The way the work is distributed, by CD-ROM, is as important to them as the programs themselves, and a conservation strategy specific to OSS/**** could not work if it included only one of those two elements. Since the CD-ROM has become practically obsolete (some new computers don’t even have a CD-ROM drive anymore), the most appropriate way in which to distribute the work would seem to be to make the programs available online. This would have the advantage of making programs available to download, thus preserving the relationship with the computer and the interaction between the user and his or her computer, as well as offering them the chance to be surprised and confused.

Get surprised and confused yourself: http://oss.jodi.org/

post by Loes van Beuningen

Software changes fast and computers need constant updating. If you stop updating, your computer will eventually stop working. The same applies to digital art. If you as an artist develop art that uses software, you must update it regularly. This raises a few questions.. If an artist updates his art (and changes it) is it regarded as the same piece of art or is it considered a different version of the original? And does it make a difference whether or not the artist changes something that is visible or if he just changes something in the code (that most people don’t look at)?

Orion

Digital art?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:08:37 -0400

Through all the courses since the beginning, we saw different concepts and try to tend to an approach of digital art. Today we talked about the use of media, and the many interpretations that several persons can have on a same subject. So here it would be the message which is to study in depth. Then an other point that remained in my mind is the use of digital in art. Mixing these aspects, I want to discuss something that I find interesting related to the subject of digital and art.

Back in France, there is a place where digital art is the focus, Kawenga, and one of their performance was really interesting. Basically, the material was simple: people in a room and a computer, facebook on. The woman who led the performance was turning on and off the light of the room. Then she posted a statut on facebook asking somebody to tell her to stop turning off and on the light. After a few minute in this discotheque, someone replied to her, and the performance ended. I think this kind of performance can be place in the domain of art because, first, the place deals with “digital art”, but mostly because it delivered a message through a performance, almost as a play. Except that here, interaction was present with the people there in the room, but also at their places, feeling the need to answer to something they did not even witness. As a consequence, we can make a relation with the fact that the same medium is used but the interpreted differently. I think there is several message behind this performance. One of them is the demonstration of the wild use of facebook, this new active media. One other is that digital is everywhere in our world now even to serve the art, which is absolutely the case here. So I think it matches perfectly with digital art used in the same time as a tool and as a medium.

Eagle