The Open Field " Machines on the Field" was an interesting expression of art. I think the intention was very interesting idea. The contrast between the three ways to cut/trim grass was very dynamic. Just thinking of cutting grass I never think of all the possible ways I could cut grass. I just think of cutting grass. This piece shows how such a simple thing can be broken down into such complex components. The overall idea of Machines in the Field was ok to me. I thought the choreography was cool to see. Since this was of course outside it was hard to really hear the separate lawn mowers. There was a lot of outside noise that was very distracting. I would personally have liked to see the sort of art work carried out in a more controlled area. If the sound could have been controlled better I personally would have enjoyed it a little more.
Recently in reflections Category
Cameron Grainer's Luna del Mar piece in the Mcknight Visual Artists gallery was most appealing to me. It was Cameron's description in the discussion that first grabbed my attention. When he described the single celled organism it intrigued me simple because I had never heard of anything like it before. I remember myself trying to picture what the organism actually looks like. Once the description of the organism combining with a synchronized swimmer representing deep space made it even more interesting. The combination of the three is so random and opposite yet the final product couldn't have fit together better. Once I watched the film it was a little hard to concentration on the other aspects besides the woman swimming. I wish I wouldn't have known the swimmer was used. I think this would have allowed me to develop my own interpretation. With that said I think the piece was really cool. It really amazes me to see that Cameron just came up with this idea. Before this class I've had such a simple definition of art. For me to see this piece it just shows me that art can take multiple forms. I really enjoyed the piece and have a new found respect for art after seeing this.
My biggest takeaway from this exhibit experience was the intersection of art with many other areas of study and work (such as science, nature, etc.) that I saw in Cameron Gainer's piece, "Luna Del Mar". I never thought there would be such an intermingling of art and science in this exhibit. Now I realize the intersections that can occur -- from science to current events. That's why I enjoy art so much, because it is able to draw from so many other worlds to create an experience for the viewer.
Because we were able to hear from the artist himself, I was able to learn more about the amount of thought, research, and planning that went into this piece. Had I not heard about the experience from him, I don't know that I would have realized the scale of work that went into the piece. I think what I am trying to express is the idea that countless hours of work can be compressed into a short film, and it can be easy to forget the work that went into the creation.
I was drawn to several exhibits and pieces while wandering around the Walker. What struck me initially in John Water's exhibit was a piece in American B that combined real life images of disaster taking place on American structures with fictional movie accounts of the similar events (ex: 9.11 vs a spaceship crashing into the White House). It was interesting to see the overlap of real life with dramatic fiction. And to mentally compare the actual reaction to the movie/audience reaction.
Another piece that I was attracted to was the Ballad of Sexual Dependency, a video showing photos that documented people in the artist's life. It combined music, I am assuming from that particular time, that amplified my experience as a viewer. I was so attracted to this piece because of the intimate moments it showed, moments, like shooting up drugs with a needle, that are taboo and not shown too much in our daily life -- though they occur quite frequently in this world. I enjoyed the concept of feeling like I had a inside look of the artist's life even though I had never actually met them.
Having not spent too much time in any art exhibit, I especially enjoyed thinking about the process the curator took to put together an exhibit: the order, transitions, use of quotes, and so forth. It gave me greater appreciation of the gallery experience and the work that goes into creating it.
This was an interesting excerpt on parallels of social conventions and modern day art and creativity. The notion of authorship being creation of something new from things that have already been created. This postmodern form of art and creation is new in the sense that artists take bits of media they find interesting and form something different or transcendent. This is made possible through technology and the immediacy and ease of which it is created, shared and found.
The notion of using other artist's work is not a new concept as inspiration and influence has been around since art was created by human beings. Creation of better and more efficient technology, pharmacology, medical practices and processes, architecture etc has always been built upon from former methodologies. Looking at research procedures such as in the field of biochemistry, these postmodern photoshop practices have total overlaps in utilizing natural proteins and the creation of synthetic materials. It is really interesting because it seems to be the first photoshop in a sense. The 'copy' and 'paste' of new media is exactly like the 'copy' and 'paste' of proteins, hormones, chemicals and other biological materials. Researchers are inspired by past theories and create new theories using old biological materials, or new synthetic materials that are created using borrowed practices. These similarities came to the surface for me while reading this excerpt.
"This mutability of electronic media is just one step away from "variability" of new media", is a great summation of the article. This is an articulate way to describe new ways of creation in both biological and technological arenas in society. This type of creation is only going to become more simple and prolific for artists and lay people alike.
Thus far the digital art I have created has been minimal, so I'd prefer to draw upon the stories I've written and my process in piecing them together.
As referenced in the reading, the "naturalization" process of creation in the digital realm has foundations in pre-selection. The user might choose their materials from a pre-selected group that they did not create from scratch. My process in creating stories draws from this selection process in that I am able to select pre-existing pieces of information to include in my stories. However, in the final product -- the story -- there is a combination of a pre-selected collection of information (such as online research) and information that wouldn't exist had I not created it (such as an interview). How I, as a writer, choose to weave together a story is where I can use creativity. I can choose how to organize and flow the elements of information, and sequence them using transitions to glue them together. Stories are much like the evolution of media, in that one story is often times built off of another, and refocused and tweaked to further grow and evolve.
One comparison to note, however, is that while the web is essentially a library of information for these stories, the next step in writing is to use due diligence in what information you use by way of fact checking. So there is an extra step in the story creation process that might hinder a writer from using certain pieces of already existing information.