Midterm Project - Digital Memes

https://webfiles.colorado.edu/towlea/www/hatofartMIDTERM.html

CopyRight CopyWrong

Where is the balance in protecting ones "original" creative output versus opening up the collective's creative output imagined by some as freely accessible source material for active reconfiguration?

        This question is one I debate frequently when talking about free culture and open source.  It racks my brain because this is just about the only topic that I don’t have an exact opinion for.  It is tough, where IS the balance?  Of course any type of artist or creator wants recognition for what they make, and of course your name will be associated with the piece even if there isn’t a copyright law; but for how long?  Throughout the semester we have been discussing how, especially now with digital artists, it is extremely difficult to stay recognized and not go unnoticed.  We talked about how artists are recognized through other people, who at the time just think they are posting blogs or making websites for fun, are actually becoming curators and deciding what is important and what is not.  Eventually the artists work is pushed further and further back into the archives.  As if the struggle to stay afloat isn’t enough, the absence of copyright would only make the struggle harder.  Everyone wants recognition and a large part of that is held in copyright laws.  

        On the other hand, as Lawrence Lessig has written, digital technology has made it easy to create new works from existing art.  In my digital art classes, or even just for fun on my own time, I use others works to make it into something new.  Not only is this easily accessible, but many times, this type of work is specifically what people want to do and enjoy doing.  Yet again you have to ask, where is the balance?  How much should you have to change something to make it your own?  And should you be required to give recognition to the original artist?  I’m not sure how I would feel if someone took my work, made a few changes, and called it their own.  Perhaps I would be extremely unhappy receiving no credit, even though the others persons work would not have been possible without my original; or perhaps I would feel proud and honored that someone enjoyed my work so much that they felt compelled to do something with it on their own.  These are all things to think about debating something as important as free culture and copyright.  It is practically impossible to come up with a balance between protecting ones "original" creative output while having the ability to open up the collective's creative output for active reconfiguration, which everyone will agree on.  

        In my Digital Art 1 class, one project I was assigned was to take any famous work and make it my own.  I chose Odalisque by Henri Matisse.  

Would Matisse have been upset by this work? Again, has it been reconfigured enough for him to appreciate my work?  Or would he be offended?  As the artist of this work, I feel like I was clearly remixing/post-producing/reconfiguring this source material, yet, as I have been debating, I don’t know if everyone would see it this way.  

Response to "Rhythm Science"

“Once you get into the flow of things, 

you're always haunted by the way that things could have turned out. 

This outcome, that conclusion. You get my drift. 

The uncertainty is what holds the story together, 

and that's what I'm going to talk about.”

        Coming back to this quote again and again throughout the book, it helped keep me focused through the rambling-type writing style.  In this book, DJ Spooky delivers a manifesto for rhythm science--the creation of art from the flow of patterns in sound and culture, “the changing same.”  Spooky explains how there are only so many things you can do with a DJ mix, and how it is up to the artist to make it authentic, how to make it their own.  According to Spooky, it is about how you arrange the mix of cultural ideas and products that inundate our everyday lives, how you use technology and art to create something new and expressive and endlessly variable.  Technology has become the medium, bringing together the artist’s consciousness and the outside world.  

        Spooky’s writing style is collage-like, randomly pasting in those ideas of technology, culture and the ever-changing shifts of DJ music.  At times, this becomes a challenge to take in and digest.  He goes back and forth from theory to autobiography to history, leaving the reader drifting in a collection of words.  Consequently, the pages are often dense and uneasy to follow.  The threads that are meant to tie each sentence together are usually not readily apparent; a style which forced me to re-read page again and again.  

Spooky puts it this way: “DJ-ing is writing, writing is DJ-ing.  Writing is music, I cannot explain this any other way.  Take Nietzsche, for instance, whose brilliant texts are almost musical.  Obviously, you feel the rhythm inside a great poet’s stanzas, but it’s there within the great philosophers’ paragraphs as well.  So many media and cultural techniques of interpretation coexist - reading, watching, listening, surfing, dancing - that this textual/sonic synashesia demands a great deal from us.”  

        Overall, Rhythm Science demands a great deal from the reader.  This type of writing style summons complete focus and a willingness to thoughtfully put the pieces of the story together on your own.  Nevertheless, the book does a tremendous job at describing the ideas of DJ culture and the issues that surround art in the digital age.  

Net Artist Report: SelfControlFreak (Olivier Otten)

History

  Selfcontrolfreak (Olivier Otten) is a Dutch independent multimedia designer who’s also active within the Holland-Interactive Collective.  He was co-founder of multimedia studio Toxit, which he worked with for ten years.  He is VJ for Major League teaches at Willem de Kooning Art Academy in Rotterdam.  A selection of projects he was involved in include: VPRO’s 3voor12’s Viewmaster, Villa Achterwerk’s (On)geloofstest and Visual-power.com.

selfcontrolfreak.com
oli4.com

Projects

SelfControlFreak

  One of Otten’s most popular works is titled “Self Control Freak”.   According to Otten, the site “shows his research project; exploring the possibilities of interaction design in combination with a video.”  He goes on to explain that usually if you’re watching a video online as a spectator you have no role (passive third person).  However, in this project the visitor plays an active role and becomes first person.  “Who is in control of who?  Are visitors responsible in the way they act e.g. by mouse movement, clicks and dragging?” asks Otten.  The visitor is able to directly influence the videos and trigger various emotions and behaviors.  Since early 2009 the series has resulted in 21 (and counting) interactive videos.  

  A typical Selfcontrolfreak video begins with Otten framed against a white wall anxiously waiting to comply to the visitors commands.  #11 for instance, is a zoom-in of this scenario.  As the cursor moves over Otten’s face, specific features react.  Pointing to an eye provokes a wink.  Passing over his mouth elicits a smile or frown ... on and on the options go.  Each video invites a moment of focused attention, a hand-eye riddle and invariably, amusing trial and error. 

  When this lab rat stimulus and response appears to wear out and the visitors attention begins to fade, the real surprises, intrigues and conceptual depth emerges as Otten bites back--literally.  Bring your cursor too close to Otten’s face in video #2 and he’ll lunge forward to aggressively seize, chew and spit it back out.  The link between the viewers hand and the virtual icon becomes included in the story; slide your mouse left or right and Otten’s head follows.  Click and he spits out the cursor.  Again, Otten explores variations of this theme.  

  Despite the seemingly repetitive and limited reactions, each scenario is refreshingly unexpected.  Part of what makes Otten’s work so unique and valuable is that he replaces passive conventions with participation.  Combining the playfulness of YouTube with the hyperactivity of hyperlinking, Otten successfully erases the Internet’s “fourth wall.”  As Otten suggests, exactly who is in control appears open to negotiation--the ultimate answer perhaps being the actor who exerts a greater desire for self-control.  

  Ultimately, Selfcontrolfreak is a self-reflexive look at media and the theatrics of identity.  It draws forth a question of influence.  The viewer is free to move their cursor anywhere on the page, but the consequential outcomes are programmed and determined.  Otten’s simple actions work to remind us that the proclaimed freedom of the web is actually controlled and coded.

  

http://www.selfcontrolfreak.com/
                          ----> Interactive Videos!!

Masterpiece 2.0

  Recently, Oliver Otten collaborated with Baschz (a co-founder and curator of cultural breeding ground and exhibition space SingerSweatShop, Rotterdam), to create the first ever unique painting made with a Web 2.0 approach.  The canvas interacts with its visitors who, (similar to Selfcontrolfreak) can affect the process and final outcome of this authentic piece.  

  Throughout the summer and fall of 2009 a multilayered canvas and animation was created which could be influenced and followed by website visitors online 24 hours a day.  Each sent in suggestion was represented through animated interactions as they were painted layer-by-layer into the growing animated canvas by Baschz.  Every new layer was photographed separately and together with the others, creating the stop motion animating canvas, (which left the end canvas consisting of well over 100 different painted layers.)

<--- Visitor Input

<--- Represented Animated Interactions

Original Feedback:

• Everyone who applied for an interaction received a personal high resolution picture of their frame, signed by Baschz.
• The whole coming-of-art process could be followed live through a webcam.
• Anyone can send an object image for Selfcontrolfreak to interact with or you can send in a tee-shirt which he will wear on the canvas until somebody else decides to clothe him differently. 
• The sequel (Masterpiece 2.1) can be followed on their site currently.

http://masterpiece20.com/ ---> Watch the Masterpiece yourself!

http://www.selfcontrolfreak.com/press/fontanel.jpg -- Interview with Selfcontrolfreak and Baschz (in Dutch).  

Conclusion

  Overall, I was extremely impressed by Olivier Otten (Selfcontrolfreak’s)work.  He developed a new way to work interactively on the Internet and was the first ever to create a painting using a Web 2.0 approach, as seen in “Masterpiece 2.0”.  The term Web 2.0 is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information, sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web.  A Web 2.0 site gives its users the free choice to interact or collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumer) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumer) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them, (Wikipedia).  

  This approach (although not used directly) was also seen in his “Selfcontrolfreak” project.  Usually while watching a video online, the viewer plays no role; they are the passive third person.  However, this project made a successful stride towards using a Web 2.0 approach.  Although the viewer was not the creator, they did play a large role in what Selfcontrolfreak did throughout the videos.  However, it wasn’t until “Masterpiece 2.0” that Otten officially broke the imaginary boundary (the fourth wall) between actor and audience, interacting with the web viewers directly.  

  Both projects were playful and intriguing, showing a great deal of creativity.  I enjoyed finding the two projects stylistically consistent (whether through using some form of the Web 2.0 approach, or by appearing experimental and humorous in nature.)   

http://johnnyholland.org/2008/12/16/selfcontrolfreak-a-series-of-short-interactive-videos/

• Response by Jeroen van Geel (The Netherlands)

http://www.oli4.com/site/selfcontrolfreak.html

•  Otten’s thoughts on Selfcontrolfreak

http://www.image-festival.com/must-see/baschz-selfcontrolfreak/ 

• Masterpiece 2.0

"The Yes Men" Response ... PLUS Steve Lambert

        The “Yes Men” are two activists who primarily aim to raise awareness about what they consider problematic social issues.  In attempt to fix the problem at hand, they will show the truth by exposing a lie, a practice they like to call “identity correction.”  In the Yes Men Documentary, Mike and Andy begin by building a George W. Bush mock website, a successful attempt at “identity correction” as it gained a breadth of attention in the media.  As their next project, they create a parody of the WTO’s website.  Many of the visitors don’t notice that the site is fake, and send speaking invitations intended for the real WTO.  The Yes Men play along with the gimmick and eventually find themselves speaking on behalf of the WTO in numerous interviews, conferences and TV talk shows. With the intention and expectation of raising a few eyebrows and “inevitably” exposing their true identity, they are quickly disappointed as the experts don’t seem to notice the joke and actually agree with every shocking idea the duo devised.  In fact, it wasn’t until the men gave a lecture at a local university (which happened to be on recycling food via septic systems for third world countries) that anyone noticed their talk went from strange, to offensive, to appalling ... at last, success.  

        Similar to The Yes Men is Steve Lambert, an American artist who works with issues of advertising and the use of public space.  He is a founder of the Anti-Advertising Agency, an artist-run initiative which critiques advertising through artistic interventions, similar to “identity correction” of the media, Lambert works to reveal the true identity of advertising campaigns.  He has also collaborated with The Yes Men (along with 30 writers, 50 advisors and close to 1000 volunteer distributors) to create a New York Times Spoof on ending the Iraq War.  Check out his other works at http://visitsteve.com/bio/.

Response to "ThruYou" and "Status Grabber"

        I absolutely loved the “ThruYou” site and video by Kutiman.  I thought it was perfect and I felt like I completely understood what a net artist was trying to accomplish without reviewing the material over and over, (though in this case I was so interested in the “ThruYou” project that I was happy to research the artist further).  

        My immediate take on the piece was that Kutiman wanted to produce a video on an array of wildly different musicians to see what happened when those artists (and their songs) came together.  The title of the work speaks for itself as well ... through you (the different musicians) Kutiman was able to execute his collaborative idea.  In an on-line interview Kutiman acknowledged that the internet had the ability to become what it is through the people who post themselves on it.  It was the general you that allowed Kutiman to have such great success in his own piece.  He also noted how much he loved the internet because everyone can be taught and inspired -- regardless of who you are, where you are from, or what language you speak -- by the people who post themselves and their work.

        Apart from the revolutionary music creation aspect, Kutiman’s project also has an interesting social media angle.  Before the project went viral, or the the buzz of it forced the site to crash, the root of it all came down to three people.  Only e-mailing a handful of individuals, the site took off from there in an accelerated snowball effect.  The team around Kutiman attribute much of their success to word traveling through Twitter.  Therefore Kutiman may in fact be the first music star born on Twitter, leaving no question that the world is sure to see this trend expand.  

        Similar to the recent popularity of Twitter, net artist Liz Filardi developed a new type of social-networking status updater: the “Status Grabber.”  I found this to be absolutely hilarious.  When asked for a better description of what the Status Grabber is, the anonymous caller responded “it’s a 100% free, verbal social networking service that allows us to communicate in brief updates intended for a general social audience.”  This definition directly translates to Twitter; the only difference being one gives updates on the phone and the other gives updates on a website.  What made it so funny was that the people who were asked to give an update through Status Grabber seemed quite alarmed, yet I wouldn’t doubt that half of those people have Twitter accounts, so what’s the difference? “I’m not stalking you, I’m socializing.”  Too funny. 

        It makes you wonder .. what has the internet become? A collection of creepy websites that allow millions of people to post useless information about themselves and for others  to “follow”, comment on, or “like”?  That’s not to say that I don’t have a Facebook account and partake in those same “creepy” behaviors ... it’s addicting.  Even now, I am writing for the purpose of my blog: in order to post my feelings and opinions, with the expectation that others might possibly respond to or at least read it.  Filardi’s exploration of how social networking changes the ways in which we relate to one another and enrich our lives is extremely interesting.  It forces people to view their everyday social networking routine in a different light.  Is it right or wrong? Or does it have to be either? Can’t it just be for fun?

Response to "Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artists"

        In Anne-Marie Schleiner’s, “Fluidities and Oppositions among Curators, Filter Feeders, and Future Artists,” Schleiner discusses how the different aspects of art have changed over time, and how they will continue to change through out the future.  As art was once only available to the elite who studied under masterful artists, art has now become open to everyone thanks to the development of the internet.  And along with that came the changes of where art is created (once only in the finest of studios, now it can be made anywhere from a bedroom to a lab), where art is displayed (gallery vs. an on-line space), who has the ability to control where it is placed, and who has the ability to claim authorship for the work at hand.  All of these changes have supported the an outreach to those who share common interests.  No longer do people have to travel to the nearest (or perhaps not so near) gallery in order to enjoy the art they love with the people they share this love in common with. One quote that particularly caught my eye read, “Public space has shifted to the web and engages audiences located geographically distant from one other but perhaps with hobbies and tastes closer than those shared by the average museum patron,” (Schleiner).  With the easy navigation of the internet, art buffs of different sorts can sit back in the comfort of their own home and navigate through website upon website, even creating their own “favorites” list with the mere click of the mouse.  

        One piece of work that really fascinated me was http://turbulence.org/Works/stalkingsocial/facetbook/v4/wall.php.  With Facebook so present, I found this work interesting and relatable in an almost humorous way.  As Filardi put it ... “While everyone performs for everyone in particular, let us psychoanalyze the face-specimen in the matrix dressed as a book.”  I found this quite amusing.  It is true, Facebook is a virtual place people go to impress their hundreds of “friends” .. and for what? To be virtually “cool”? Just as people debate whether virtual/net art is real, we have to wonder, is every one of your friends on Facebook as “real” as their profile displays them to be? Perhaps digital art and the virtual place an artist decides to display them is not “real” in the physical sense.  You can not travel there and examen this area where art is displayed, because of course it is made up of different codes and located on your computer screen.  However, does Facebook not do the same thing?  Many people find Facebook interactions to be just as “real” as connecting with someone in person.  However, another dilemma that arises is that of privacy and ownership.  Again, this is similar to the issues of privacy and ownership of art and where it can be displayed.  Because of filter feeders and curators net art has the ability to travel from website to website becoming more important on some and eventually being led to the back burners of others .. this all happens with the simple act of the people “in charge”.  Ownership even becomes lost in translation, as some argue that as long as it is on their site, they have the ability to claim ownership.  Similarly, Facebook owns everyones information who has made an account.  They are allowed to sell your information to other companies (including Google) who eventually gain ownership of entire virtual lives.  From Google you can browse the web for content on “Amelia Towle” for instance, and any information that has any sort of connection to my name will show up for thousands to see.  Clicking through links will lead my “followers” anywhere, just as net art has the ability to do .. original ownership or not.  

Introduction to Net.Art Response

I found Bookchin/Shulgin’s “Introduction to Net.Art” to be interesting yet also fairly humorous.  It was pretty entertaining that they believed anyone following their “critical tips and tricks” would become a successful modern net.artist.  Bookchin and Shulgin request that the artist choose a mode; the mode either being 1. content based, 2. formal, 3. ironic, 4. poetic, or 5. activist.  Though this was written over ten years ago, I found it surprising that Bookchin and Shulgin only asked that the artist choose one.  Has the world of art only recently become ambiguous?  For decades works of art have held more than one meaning, have been left open for interpretation, and have been categorized in more than one genre.  I found it curious that the authors of these strict guidelines had not forecasted that net.art would follow a similar pattern.  Perhaps I am taking the guidelines a bit too literally, yet the entire article is written in moderately firm protocol.  It simply surprised me that Bookchin and Shulgin did not fully consider the different directions which net.art had the potential to take off in, given that all of the worlds inventions have.  Nothing stays the way it is originally intended to be.  This applies to artists especially, who love to push boundaries and break down old barriers.  

Just as quickly as I spotted the lack of ambiguity in Bookchin and Shulgin’s guidelines, did early net.artists deliver in giving net.art multiple meanings and interpretations.  One piece I really enjoyed was “Digital Studies”, which was made by an array of people.  First and foremost the site explains how it would not have been possible without the important historical figures and innovations we have come to learn about.  But the site also contains links which discuss different net theories (such as “The Shamantic Web” by Roy Ascott which I found very enjoyable), as well as displaying links to actual pieces of net art, (many of which are unfortunately no longer accessible).  A piece that was available however, was one by Tina Laporta called “Shifting”.  She discussed a common theme among many of the works I came across: the division of real and imaginary.  I can imagine this was a major theme during the development of digital art because the artists were literally entering into a new “realm” (cyberspace) in order to create their work.  Artists were suddenly confronted with deciding which space, if not both, they were thinking and creating in, and which space, if not both, was real.  “I project out into the borderless space of the matrix where you and I connect, intertwine and dissolve but never (dis)appear,” (Laporta).  Roy Ascott goes on to help explain this theme in his article “The Shamantic Web”.  

“A more optimistic view is that our concern in digital art with whole systems, that is, systems in which the viewer or observer of the artwork plays an active part in the work's definition and evolution, represents at the very least a yearning to embrace the individual mind by a larger field of consciousness. By this account, the employment of telematic hypermedia is no less than a desire to transcend linear thought by reaching for a free-flowing consciousness of associative structures. It then becomes the artist's imperative to explore every aspect of new technology that might empower the viewer through direct physical interaction to collaborate in the production of meaning and the creation of authentic artistic experience,” (Ascott).  

Digital Narrative Response

  In reading the five digital narratives for this weeks discussion, I found that the conceptual frameworks for the stories were made up by a combination of things.  Most of the stories developed through hypertext and remixes, and I also found that they were all very much like reading a diary.  So much so in fact, that at times I became uncomfortable watching these personal secrets unfold with the mere click of a mouse.  However, I also believe that this was each of the net artist’s intentions.  Each conceptual framework was uniquely and strategically chosen to make the reader feel a certain way.  For instance “Six Sex Scenes” by Adrienne Eisen, begins with a captivating piece of Eisen’s autobiography.  With successful attempt at intriguing the reader to continue, she conveniently leaves links placed along the bottom of the screen; thus allowing the reader to decide which direction the story should go in next.  Frustrating too however, was the way this hyper-textual story telling was set up.  As a reader I wanted the story to maintain a rhythmic flow within the time line, yet with each click of my mouse I only found myself arriving at sporadic allotments of Eisen’s life.  Determined to find the least round-about way to get from start to finish, I began rapidly clicking only to find it would be impossible to read this series of events in a linear fashion.  
        On the other hand, in Tina LaPorta’s “Distance”, you are allowed a linear perspective.  With every click the reader learns more about LaPorta’s perspective on internet communication and long distance relationships.  Though the author is not writing in complete sentences, and though some of her sentences are actually questions, the message which the author intends to get across is immediately understood.  What might not be so clearly defined however, is whether LaPorta is simply playing a character in her net art work or whether the net art work is actually the “real” story of LaPorta herself.  After reading “Distance”, I believed LaPorta was speaking of herself, though in story form.  This again relates back to how each of the five artists used conceptual frame-working to enhance the overall impact of the story.  By listing questions such as “is technology a veil?” and “is the virtual real?”, LaPorta is without a doubt aiming to stimulate new thoughts and feelings within the reader.  We all use some form of technology, and most of us use some form of digital-networking, but LaPorta displays her emotions in such a way that it makes everyone step back and look at technology, specifically the internet, in a different way.  
        Then there is the story “Dakota” which is perhaps the most frustrating to read of them all.  Though the flashes of words are perhaps written linearly, it is hard to determine what the story is actually written about.  From what I could read, I think “Dakota” was about the emotions of dying young.  With the help of data manipulation (i.e. the flashing of words and phrases) Young Hae-Chang Heavy Industries was successful at pulling forth emotions, even without complete understanding of what was going on. 
        Overall, what stood out the most to me throughout these stories were the different link strategies and conceptual framing used to manipulate data.  I enjoyed reading in this new medium but at times also found it frustrating and anxiety inducing.  I found that I am a linear thinker and that the lack of order left me feeling anxious and out of control. 

Response to "As We May Think" and "The Work in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

       

        Throughout Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” I was continually surprised by how many of the issues Benjamin touched on (75 years ago) still resonate with us today.  

  First came the issue of mechanical reproduction.  Historically speaking, reproduction has always been evident.  It was unproblematic when pupils of a craft made replicas by way of learning, when made by masters for diffusing their works, or by third parties in the pursuit of gain.  What was problematic however were two thing: when the presence in a work of art was lacking in time and space, and when the process of reproduction compromised quality for quantity.  

  When a work of art is lacking in time and space, it is also lacking in tradition.  An important aspect of art is the tradition of having a unique history: where the piece originated, acknowledged ownership of the piece and the changes within both.  Only the original can hold these traits, which leads to the first issue of “authenticity.”  This, as we have read, does not stand true for “technical reproductions” such as the developing of film, because of course there is no original or “authentic” print.  It does stand true however for “mechanical reproductions” where the mass production of a piece leaves the work of art vulnerable as the quality of its presence becomes depreciated.  Nevertheless, although the uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its roots in tradition, this tradition is also changeable.  For instance, Benjamin discusses an ancient statue of Venus who stood in different traditional context within the Greeks and the clerics of the Middle Ages.  Though each group viewed the statue differently, they were both confronted with with its uniqueness.  As Benjamin states, “It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to its authenticity is never entirely separated from its ritual function.  In other words, the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use,” (Benjamin, 5).  

  When the importance of authenticity is lost and the process of reproduction begins to compromise quality for quantity, the issue of “aura”, or the lack there of, comes to rise.  As mentioned above, art has always maintained a uniqueness to the creator and to the viewer that is transcended throughout history.  However, when those pieces begin to be made for the masses, they also begin to lose their aura and gain only social influence and significance.  When art is made for the masses, individuals lose their sense of independent evaluation.  When the masses decide what to think of a piece, the viewer becomes biased to think the same way.  Currently in my art history class, we are discussing how this is called a “framing device.”  Art is thoughtfully put in advertisements, on book covers and displayed throughout museums so that we all feel a certain way about them.  It makes me wonder, what would I think about the “Mona Lisa” for instance, had it never been “framed” to me a certain way.  Plastered on calendars, billboards and highlighted as the main attraction at the Louvre Museum in Paris, of course I am conditioned to believe this painting is a masterpiece, even though I have never been to the Louvre to pay my respects to Leonardo Da Vinci.  If it was not framed to me this way however, I may just think of the Mona Lisa as a mediocre looking woman with no eyebrows.  Although this piece was not originally intended to be made for the masses, in the 21st century it likely holds such high significance for its ability to be reproduced in so many ways and in so many places.  Thus in the absence  of any traditional or ritualistic value, art in the age of mechanical reproduction would inherently be based on the practice of politics. 

  New to learning about the history of digital art and digital media, I rarely think of the Internet or the World Wide Web as a technology that was once not accessible by the click of a mouse.  However, in 1945 when Vannevar Bush wrote the article "As We May Think", he was certainly ahead of his time.  He discussed a device he dreamed up called the "memex"; a machine in which "an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility", (Bush).  Already sounding amazingly close to today's basic computer, he went on to explain the different features of this device.  Bush wanted the memex to have the ability to not only receive, store and retrieve information, but he also wanted the machine to have associative indexing.  This idea alone shows Bush's "crystal ball thinking" which points to today's World Wide Web.  

  As humans we think associatively, so therefore it would certainly be best to develop a device that could aid us in doing this better and faster.  With the memex Bush's essential feature was the process of tying two things together.  "When the user is building a trail, he names it, inserts the name in his code book, and taps it out on his keyboard.  Before him are the two items to be joined, projected onto adjacent viewing positions.  At the bottom of each there are a number of blank code spaces, and a pointer is set to indicate one of these on each item.  The user taps a single key, and the items are permanently joined.  In each code space appears the code word.  Out of view, but also in the code space, is inserted a set of dots for photocell viewing; and on each item these dots by their positions designate the index number of the other item."  Simply put, when numerous items have been thus joined together to form a trail, they can be reviewed in turn, like turning the pages of a book.  

  I wonder what Walter Benjamin would have thought about this invention. Perhaps he would have thought this was just a new “framing device” for the masses; a new way to make art easily reproducible and distributable, leaving work with no authenticity and no aura.  Had he looked a little deeper into the future however, maybe he would have found that eventually, artists would use this as a special medium, not as a default.  It is human nature to strive for uniqueness, just as a work of art does, and today new artists are striving for this by using a digital medium.