Project 4

Class Zine Pages: 

Homework 9

Homework 8

Anatomy of a Zine: When Magazines go Indie (via Time)

In this article, Meredith Melnick gives a brief lesson on the principles behind the movement of self-published zines. It's interesting to see how seriously these groups take these publications when it comes to its creation process and content. Something I wouldn't have guessed is how there are professionals in the publication business who are so evidently active in the zine-scene. It's cool seeing how even though someone can reach a very high level of prestige or recognition in their field, and still find that desire to make their own work by hand, just because it's fun and they feel like it. Even though it isn't going to gain a lot of recognition or fame, it's cool to see collaboration of different artist and writers who wanna work on a project in hopes of something beyond fame or money. I feel like there's a lot more value placed in a work of art if it's about something the artist cares deeply about and advocates for. I also like how they addressed the culture behind zines and the reason they tend to steer away from the now popular blogging platforms. Although most don't look down on the keeping of a personal blog online, but simply want the joy own having something physical in their possession.

Yes, Zines Still Exist, and, They're Not Antiques (via The New York Times)

Although this article explains things that were also in the previous article. This interpretation in the explanation of zines and their network of publication is a little more personal. I like how Chris Berube talks about different events that are currently taking place in order to expose independent artists and writer's work to the public. However, there doesn't seem to be lot of pressure on these zine creators to get their work out there. Since publication costs are so low, they're not really risking anything. It's often said throughout these articles that this type of freedom is what attracts the creators of zines in the first place. The article goes through a variety of different artists and their preferred topics. I think the best thing is how these topics (everything ranging from feminism, nerd/fan culture, political and social activism, or just pure randomness) that would almost never be seen being represented by any kind of formal publication company.

How to Make a Zine (via Rookie)
Very informative article, it really shows how much the community wants to aid the creation of the things they love. I like how its not this big secret on how to make zines. The article itself looks like it could be a little pamphlet that would be handed out to people who were interesting in making zine. It's almost like this little invitation to join this movement.

Homework 7

Original page by Hoon

Project 3

Homework 6

PART ONE:


Ryoji Ikeda, "Test Pattern 100m Version" 
In this video piece, Marclay initially requests that it be viewed in a certain fashion in order to be enjoyed in a certain way. This automatically suggests that the artist put a lot of thought into how they wanted their art to be presented and how time affects the piece as a whole. Christian Marclay I said to have coined the technique of piecing together fragments of film, this video is a mere three minute excerpt of a video the span of twenty-four hours of fragments of 70 years worth of film history. In this excerpt, Marclay uses a variety of films that take place in a variety of time periods, settings, and genres. Just when you start to feel comfortable in a clip's world, the clip changes and suddenly you're transported into another world. Not fully understanding the context on a single clip fragment, I personally felt automatically engrossed in the world each clip put me in, even though I didn't fully understand what was actually happening. I'm not entirely sure if this was Marclay's intention when he was assembling this piece, but that's definitely how it made me feel.   

Christian Marclay, The Clock
In regards to the formal part of this piece, someone would initially take into account the medium through which this piece is done. It's an audiovisual installation piece, that heavily relies on the participation of an audience that interacts directly with the piece itself. The piece itself consists of two long walkways made up of video-screen panels that are constantly flashing various black and white barcodes. With music playing in the background (also composed by the artist), large groups of people were able to walk along the walkway as they pleased and interacted in the piece in their own unique way. Since the images displayed on the walkways flash repeatedly, it almost creates a strobe-light effect in the space and allows the audience to play around with the environment that Ikeda creates. Some of the patrons simply sit down or stroll along the walkway, just enjoying it. Others dance around or take photos of themselves, trying to become a part of the piece in their own way. I think the reason Ikeda's piece is so successful in getting the audience involved, is because of the scale and composition of his installation. It's consumption of the whole space results in the people participating feeling small in comparison, it's seems more like a playing-ground than art.  
After doing some research on the piece itself, Ryoji Ikeda's intention was to translate the "digital data that surrounds us in everyday life" through the barcodes on the screens. I think he was successful in his intentions, but also resulted in creating this sort of other-worldly place that people can step into and feel completely removed from the real world. 

PART TWO: I commented on Ashley's and Nicole's projects. 

Project 2

"Busy Bodies"

I wanted to focus on the concept of 'busy bodies' personified through bodily function--most importantly the brain. 

Homework 5

An appropriation artist is someone who reworks another pre-existing creation in order to make something new; whether or not that new art is given a new look, purpose, or commentary. Appropriation, at least in art, is seen in virtually every creative medium possible: visual images, music, literature, film, fashion, etc... it's become such an engrained concept in the creative process that it will usually so unseen or unnoticed by the audience. I believe that today, most artists gain inspiration from something or someone that has proceeded them and will sometimes put certain elements of that work into their own, either as a commentary on that work or to simply enhance something that is completely un-related.

I do believe that the artists appropriating art today are working on a different playing field than the artist who appropriated hundreds of years ago. These days, the conflicts that arise from the rightful earning of monetary profit and recognition. Art is mostly pretentious at a 'professional' level and success is more often defined by money rather than influence or value of expression. Although its more universally seen in music, sampling/appropriation of other artists and songs is a common form of popular music--and this goes far beyond the concept of doing a simple cover. Now, artists have the sense to take anything they want from the world around them and converting it into a type of art they feel should exist. Lyricists take from classical literature, musicians can take an old song and completely change the genre it was written for, artists can take techniques and allusions from film or even technology to create a visual allusion, artists today have the whole creative spectrum to draw inspiration and influence from. I believe artists today see the art world with a lot more freedom, most likely because the mostly unrestricted content that can be obtained through the internet. Also, I feel like as a whole, artists are now less inclined to make art as commissions but more for themselves or to push themselves. We live in an age where internet recognition and public approval is sure-fire way to success and popularity. 

I do think Kelly's "Black Star Press" work has more taken away from it due to the artists race. Not to say that there's anything stopping him from creating any kind of artwork he feels like creating, but just because everything has the potential to be appropriated doesn't mean everything should. Even though the piece is not a commentary on race, his commentary on the circulation of certain images makes less sense and honestly matters less due to subject he chose to focus on in relation to what race he is. I think Miranda Lichtenstein has a point when she says that everything can be 'appropriated'. Mostly because, everything has happened in the past, whether it's a creative work or not, can be repurposed by someone and turned into something else for this time. 

The artist I wanted to research from the article is Sara VanDerBeek. She is a Baltimore, Maryland native and is known for her photographs sculptures and 'three-dimensional still-life assemblages' that she destroys right after using. VanDerBeek appropriates from classical sculpture that she studied and observed while traveling to different art museums across Europe. VanDerBeek is also best known for creating these photos with the purpose of showcasing these statues' relationship to the space they are placed in. I chose this artist because her purple-hued photographs of classical sculptures really caught my eye, and it seemed like her work is best appreciated in a three-dimensional and physical space (she makes very good use of installations). 

Homework 4

To begin, I believe appropriation art is about sampling or reworking either another object or creation that comes from different source and incorporating it into one's own work. However, there is a fine line between appropriating something and downright stealing someone else's idea and claiming it as their own. Appropriation is present in everything from music (covers, remixes, and just straight up sampling), visual art and video art (either visually universal motifs or specific works from someone else), and virtually every artistic medium in between. When it comes to the term Fair Use, it provides a bit of freedom for the public to use someone's work without the need of notifying them or asking for permission. In regards to the relationship to Fair Use and artistic creations, I don't believe they are either friends nor enemies, because Fair Use does not allow the amount of freedom that would allow them to 'get away' with anything; at least in terms of creating new content. Fair Use is mostly about letting people use small excerpts from other works, usually for educational rather for commercial purposes; and usually if that work is no longer in print.

I was already familiar with Richard Prince's appropriation art before reading this article. His 'Cowboy" pieces were taken from photographs used in magazine advertisements and resulted in similar courtroom disputes. Whether or not Prince's art has meaning, it doesn't detract from the fact that is a form of appropriation. Artist's will always change other people's work to varying degrees but how to decide how much alteration is enough to not get someone into trouble is no small feat. Although I will admit that appropriation in art is much more obvious in visual art than it is in literature or music. I feel like are more instances than not the work visual artists appropriate from will get them into trouble. However I don't want to fall into the category of people who believe art always needs to have some sort of meaning. The artist may have no reason to make a piece of art, but the audience will always place meaning there if it has none, that how it works. Now when it comes to the internet and the circulation of visual media and how the public consumes, there's almost no way to control who sees it and what they chose to do with it, artistically or not. That's the risk internet artists take. Visual art isn't even the only thing that is appropriated daily on the internet. I feel like in this digital age, it's as easy as ever to trace back art to it's original creator, so even though people may appropriate other's work there's a much smaller possibility that someone else can take credit for all of it. There's also the issue of appropriation art being for profit, and whether or not the original artist will even care about it unless it jeopardizes their ability to make money off of their work, or if they don't get a portion of the money they think they deserve.

I think Richard Prince knows how to make money. I honestly think that's his goal and he found that appropriation was an easy way to do it. However, he's not the only one. There are thousands of instances where individuals or corporations have profited off of appropriation--whether in art or not. I don't think we can decide on whether or not he's a real artist or not because there's a very vague notion of what 'real' art is----it's very subjective. Whether or not I agree if he's a good artist or not, he accomplishes his goals, but that isn't to say that people who find his work problematic or even illegal shouldn't criticize him for it--they should! In regards to how I see appropriation--I think it can work and sometimes it shouldn't even be messed with. It really depends. If someone were to appropriate my work, I'm not sure if I'd be upset or not. It would really depend on the nature of that artist's work. However I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due.

Homework 3

I found this article from Future of Storytelling about two weeks ago while scrolling through Tumblr about legendary Disney animator Glen Keane. The article was short, but it described Keane's history in working in animation, the classic films he's worked on like The Little Mermaid, Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, etc..., and attached was a video of him talking about how through his forty plus years at Disney, he had witnessed the advancement in technology used for animated feature films and how he has embraces them in order to tell stories.

The video starts off with Keane drawing characters like Ariel and Beast on paper with pencil, and describing how the drawings of these characters transcend the paper and reflect the artist's soul and imagination. Like most animators, he describes his frustration of wanting to go inside his drawings and live within the world they create. So, Keane puts on virtual reality gear that allows him to see and draw his characters in a three dimensional plane. Watching him move around and 'digitally sculpt' these beloved characters and bring these characters in to life is quite moving as someone who values how animation can immerse a person beyond their scope of reality.

Keane claims that the nature of an animator is being anything you can imagine, and that the nature of any artist is freedom. The reason I chose to share this video and why I think it's relevant to this class and to art and technology in general is this progression we see of technology specifically engineered to help artists bring the products of the imagination to life. I'm specifically interested and dedicated to animation and translating the human soul and heart in a story that can resonate with people. Animation itself is a type of medium that requires artists to constantly learn new programs and invent new technology for artists to work with (Another video that explain Dreamworks Animation Studios new Apollo software here). Animation as a craft is about translating the human experience with images and pushing the boundaries of how to intrigue and fascinate the audience for years to come.

Homework 2

I believe GIFs are fairly universal in its use and popularity, but I also believe that comes from millennial’s unique uses for it that GIFs have become what they are today. This generation is the generation that created their own type of Internet communication, not only to use with each other, but as a way to convey emotions and experiences as well. I think one of the things that have made GIFs so popular and successful is its accessibility and its ability to convey a vast amount of information in a small confined space (and on the Internet no less). In this age of downloading anything you want from the Internet: from music to movies and videos, GIFs would inevitably fall under just another item for the public to pick up from the Internet market. I think the appeal GIFs have to some people is its ability to capture a moment and let it repeat forever. This type of media that takes the recorded movement of a video and yet still retains the memory of a photograph and creates this type of space that occupies a small frame of time. This is especially true of cinemagraphs in creating a moment in time out of a still photograph. We know the whole world is moving around in real time, but there’s something about picking a single movement or gesture that allows the viewer to focus on a moment over and over again the way a simple photograph or video couldn’t really let you do. If we’re talking about GIFs on a much broader scale, I can definitely agree that Tumblr has a lot to do with the resurgence in GIF popularity. I have a Tumblr account myself and witness a countless amount of GIFs a day just through scrolling. Everything from film, TV, and animation are translated into GIF form by Tumblr user and are reblogged by thousands of people a minute every day. There is an endless amount of high quality GIFs of television episodes a mere MINUTES after it airs on TV. How do people do it? I honestly have no idea. The point is it happens--all the time. Tumblr has already become a platform for artists to share their art on the Internet, and GIFs have ultimately become of that artist community. People have even started to incorporate GIF to their digital illustrations and comics on Tumblr as well.

With its level of availability and potential to be redone by at least a hundred of other people, the idea of a single GIF being sold for $16,000 sounds kind of ridiculous. Obviously if someone is willing to pay for it then by all means, the seller should feel somewhat accomplish to say the least. It just seems strange looking at how GIFs, even GIFs made by professional artists, are circulated through the Internet and through popular culture itself. It's not the same as a drawing or print someone created in real time and is sent through the Internet to be seen. GIFs are somewhat severed from its credit source, even if it contains original material. You can recognize the GIF, even remember the artist’s name, but having that file frolic through the Internet without any restriction removes it from any sort of physical form of reality. The other problem with GIFs being considering ‘sellable’ art is how the Internet has enabled the public to make their own GIFs. Not to say the Internet has given everyone the immediate ability to make a unique and original GIF, but the Internet does enable everyone to make a GIF of Jennifer Lawrence repeatedly tripping at the Oscars...if they really desired to do so. The thing is that the GIF itself will usually present itself in two different forms: a form of Internet that reflects popular culture and turns them into extremely popular memes; or a form of new contemporary art that is showcased in museums and galleries all over the world. Some people regard either form a form of art, some don’t. Regardless, both have origins on the Internet and have the potential to be seen all over the world. However, whether or not GIF art can be sold at the same rate as other, physical art is really up to the public to decide and agree on.

That being said, there’s a lot to things to consider when seeing GIF art as being driven by the everyday person. It's true there have been a lot of commodities invented that allow people to make their own GIFs, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's easier for people to make art. GIFs have simply become another method in making art. Every person has access to a pen and paper, but that doesn’t grant that person the immediate ability to draw. However, with the resurgence of the GIF have allowed artist to work and play with this new medium on the most prominent media-sharing space in the world: the Internet. It's just become another form of expression that everyone can use and relate to. I believe the reason people find the use of GIFs so relatable is what it’s able to convey. Putting any real artistic aesthetics aside, GIFs circulated throughout the internet are usually just a reflection of popular culture--an embarrassing moment that was caught on camera, a scene from a TV show that everyone finds ‘relatable’, or even just a dog running around. These days, GIFs are prime meme material, according to the Internet

(Cue every ‘surprise bitch’ gif made in 2014: http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/american-horror-story-coven-surprise-bitch-gif.html ).

I think the reason people like using GIFs so much are their ability to grasp a ‘moment in time’. The moment doesn’t necessarily have to be an artistic one, or even a personal one at that. The thing that really draws people in is the event, the moment, that they’re allowed to witness over and over again and is also easily sharable. The reason the effect of a GIF is different than a video is that it is immediate. There's no ‘open link in new Tab”, loading or buffering, it’s just there and it keeps going on and on and on. Since GIFs are used with TV or movies most of the time, it’s easy to say people are drawn to gifs because they can watch their favorite scenes over and over again, or a line their favorite character says that they can ‘relate’ or react with. It’s a form of internet culture almost everyone has adopted, so much so it’s even embedded in the way we think and how we think other people should understand us and how we feel.

homework 1

One of the many benefits that people take advantage of through technology is the ability to share their experiences with their peers almost instantly and from almost anywhere. Every website and cellphone app update is designed around making this sharing experience easier and easier. This is why people are more accustomed to sharing their personally significant photographs and videos on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter. Public media sharing also connects people to live events happening all over the world by removing the need to be there. It’s easier now than ever to receive news and information the second it happens through the Internet, there’s no longer any excuse for being ignorant to the world around you. You can view the recorded video of a presidential speech in live time or see a photo of your newborn nephew only moments he left the womb. When there’s a natural disaster or large event, there will almost always be a phone-recorded video posted somewhere on the internet for all to see.

Since today’s generation has an array of different media outlets at their immediate disposal, they also have the most knowledge about all the different ways to use the Internet. 20 years ago the idea of a portable cell phone was regarded as ridiculous to the public, no one could have predicted the rapid succession of social media outlets and cellphone advancements that characterize our society today. Everything from television, film, music, videogames, and popular culture has shaped and is shaped by today’s generation in the way they think, create, and share media. Teenagers and young adults have already had years of looking at brightly lit screens to see their favorite TV shows, movies, friend’s messages, YouTube Videos, Snapchats, and the week’s latest meme. Today, children today are starting even earlier in this retinal ‘training’ with a larger amount of learning websites, television shows, and interactive developmental devices available to them. My one-year-old niece is already familiar with how to maneuver an iPhone. So I think it’s definitely fair to say that this generation has a different ‘virtual reality’ than our predecessors.

Going on Panera’s comment on how “non-contemporary cinema, just like a simple painting in a museum, bores many of these young people, because it lacks sufficient information to keep their eyes and minds occupied or entertained”, implies that he believes that younger generations are incapable of grasping the historical significance of art throughout the ages that came before them. That being said I don’t believe that it is a museum’s ‘job’ to ‘entertain’ people. There’s a difference between an art exhibit in a museum and a gallery. More than anything I believe it’s a museum’s ‘job’ to hold a record of the past and provide the public with the opportunity to learn about the history of any topic, including art. Now that isn’t to say that the arts aren’t meant to entertain. Almost every form of art is meant for some type of audience. However, he flow in which contemporary art is lead is heavily influenced on ‘the next big thing’, so if an artist is hoping to attraction the attention of a younger audience, they need to use what younger people are used to and enjoy watching. One also has to take into consideration the range of interests and creative drive young people in the creative arts have. These days, young artist will most likely begin to create the type of art they don’t see in the market yet, instead of just waiting for something they can consume. Thank being said, with the different ways there are to make art, music, or film, this generation has more than enough means to be able to entertain themselves.  

Now going back on the topic of the use of technology in our own personal lives, I can both agree and disagree with Panera’s claims of something’s ‘proof of existence’ lies solely in its digital documentation. The digital documentation of something allows one to immortalize that event, image, moments, etc., for all of time. The event obviously still existed in real life, but ever since people have had the ability to give it a digital presence, they’ve done it almost religiously. Although it’s true that it’s becoming easier and easier to edit certain images in order to achieve a certain ‘reality’, but I believe that making something digital does not necessarily remove its credibility.  Panera’s claim that the human memory is becoming more and more and fragile is a bit complicated. Yes, it is true that our minds have become more and more accustomed to digital media and it has become custom to upload as much as we can onto a digital surface as we can; but I believe that’s only because having a digital presence creates something that the human mind cannot accomplish. The human mind is not physically able to recall its memories with the crystal clear image of what a digital photograph can. Not every detail is as accurate as we believe it to be, the brain fills in all the holes in our memory as required. Where Panera is coming from is understandable enough, we live in an age where we have more power than ever to create the images and ‘reality’ we want. Everything we consume visually has the possibility of being fabricated or altered from its original form.  It begins to get difficult to trust the things you see in the digital world. He also claims that digital media is controlled on a larger scale, beyond the control of the regular person. I believe there are different approaches to the use of digital media, whether it is in art or for personal use, it’s really for the user to decide.

project 1

Gif Project

For my GIF project I decided to animate it using a drawing program called FireAlpaca and Photoshop. I drew the individual frames with FireAlpaca and assembled them in Photoshop. I also found the background online and altered the lighting and shadows in Photoshop to give it a more complete feel. I don't have a lot of experience animating but I had a lot of fun with this project. (shown below: Basic animation without editing or color)

With this GIF I tried to recapture the phenomenon circulating Tumblr and it's relation of fans and their favorite pieces of media. Tumblr makes it very easy to post and share gifs people make using scenes from their favorite shows and movies, at almost an alarming rate. There's also a saying that a lot a people discover new shows a movies through the gifs or 'gifsets' they see other people reblogging on Tumblr, saying that it caught their attention and interest. The key to this is picking a very specific moment to showcase in the gif. Whether it is a scene of a certain character, a line or even a piece of dialogue to grab the viewers attention. Sort of like a 'leave them wanting more" motto for gif-makers. 

So in order to accomplish this I used a character that I had previously created and a scene that I had already written and tried to capture the essence of it through only a few seconds of visuals.