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.