Curioser and Curioser

Theories
Theories can bend, twist, distort and shape objects.
Planes can fold, interlock and intertwine.
I deal in the realities of the haptic quality of ‘STUFF’

Theories of Black Holes [a black hole is described as an ‘event horizon’] ? moments of intensities that swallow up matter/ information? Information is never lost, completely wiped out, but leaks out to exist elsewhere.
The universe is now balanced and black holes, moments of intensities that swallow up matter are no longer threatening to swallow up everything, but are balanced with equal incidents of positives? The unexplained and inexplicable? or just thinking in circles.

The knit is not merely a flat plane folded but consists of moments of intensity that pucker, pull from within the plane and push through the plane to sculpt it.
Stitches are juxtaposed, collaged, piled-up, stretched out, never quite swallowing up the grid which only exists in theory, not in reality.
Moments of intensities pucker the grid into instances of ‘otherness’.

SHALL WE DANCE? The Spectator as Artist

This is an article about an artist who recently had a show at the Serpentine in London.
This presents a new perception of 'art'. Is the viewer then an essential component of the work of the artist?
Tomkins, Calvin (2005),Shall We Dance, The Spectator as artist: in The New Yorker, October 17, 2005, pp 82-95 New York, The Conde Nast Publications.
The work of Rirkrit Tiravanija , winner of the 2004 Hugo Boss Prize, an award for significant achievement in contemporary art.
Show at: Guggenheim Museum, N.Y. where he built a low-power television station to “demonstrate how individuals can be active contributors to their own media culture, rather than mere consumers of it.” The film being broadcast over the closed-circuit monitor wa a nineteen-seventies fictional documentary called “Punishment Park”; it showed American antiwar protesters being brutalized and even shot by police.
A Tiravanija retrospective has been mounted in Chiang Mai, Rotterdam, Paris and London [Serpentine Gallery, July 2005] also, Cologne, 1996 and NY, 1999.
Rikrit wanted to go beyond Duchamp and Beuys.
His many jobs included driving a truck for an art mover [which he turned into an art gallery on weekends], also worked for a number of small galleries installing exhibitions.
In 1989, at his first show he cooked a Thai meal [curry] in a group show.
At his first solo exhibition 1990 at the Paula Allen Gallery on Broadway…called Untitled 1990 (Pad Thai)
His second show was called “Untitled 1990(Blind)”. a voice-activated tape recorder, a pair of binoculars on the windowsill and a floor strewn with discarded envelopes containing audiocassettes that Rirkrit had recorded; viewers could make use of these items or not.

Jeff Wall at the Tate Modern 25/10/2005

The Starr Auditorium 6:30pm
A journalist conveys the event, an artist conveys the representation of the event.
A photograph is a result of:
1. A space opening up for making this kind of image and allowing the photographer to investigate the moment.
2. Photography is one still image in the series of images that make up cinematography.
3. Black and White photography is the option of the photographer to denounce colour.
4. The ‘Digital’ frees or releases the image from the piece of film

In Photography, the subject is always there [present]
Wall’s work consists of carefully staged set pieces that sometimes reflect or are based on paintings e.g.
The Destroyed Room (1978) references Delacroix’s ‘The Death of Sardanapalus (1827),

‘Picture for Women’, (1979) references Manet’s ‘A Bar at the Folies-Bergeres (1881-2),
The Storyteller (1968) references ‘Dejeuner sur l’herbe’, (1863)

‘A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Hokusai) (1993) references Katsushika Hokusai’s ‘Ejiri in Suruga Province’, (1830-33)

He also bases work on literature: e.g.
Odradek, Taboritska 8, Prague, 18 July 1944 references Franz Kafka’s Short Story, “TheCares of a Family Man (1919)
After ‘Invisible Man’ by Ralph Ellison, the Prologue (1999-2000) references Ralph Ellison’s novel “Invisible Man”

In these set pieces he pays a great deal of attention to detail and resents criticism of his obsession with this detail. ‘When is there one detail too many?’
Does his obsession with minutia prevent him from seeing the ‘bigger’ picture? [or does it make the ‘bigger’ picture less important?] Of course, Wall does have the option to return to a ‘mannerist’, forced, distorted way of making images.
He makes video to aid his staging of the ‘subject’, but would not consider showing these videos.
Art in galleries should be static.
Movement is an illusion in art. Art presents the illusion of movement. Cinematography is something else. It is not narrational.
Photography is a way of revealing the world using chemistry…e.g. the luminescence of paper in a good photograph.
Wall has an aversion to the fixed but is not prescriptive in his choices. He waits for the ‘moment’ to allow him to ‘reveal’ the ‘subject’ of the photograph. [could be a theme, object, mood, notion etc.]
The ‘subject’ is a reason to make a picture.
On viewing a photograph: “You get the feeling of having a cognitive experience without cognition taking place.”
The photograph lifts the burden of cognition.
He studied Art History at the Courtauld as he was ‘too anarchic’ to become a student at an art school. He knew he wanted to do something with representation but wasn’t sure what? He did painting when he had a studio.

Gustav Metzger

GUSTAV METZGER:
He was a founder member of ‘Computer Arts’ part of The British Computer Society, First edition: vol.1 1969
He originated the movement “Auto Destructive Art” [ADA]
“Auto-destructive art is an attack on capitalist values and the drive to nuclear annihilation.”
In 1998, he had a one man show at MOMA Oxford consisting of models, photographs and video pieces.
www.t12artspace.com/metzger.html In January 2003, he had an installation in the East End of London, "100,000 Newspapers" a public-active installation, The exhibition took place in two adjoining spaces in the basement of an old building near Hawksmoor's Spitalfield church in East London. In the first space, massive piles of newspapers and magazines were scattered on the concrete floor. A forklift truck repeatedly picked up bales of papers, which then cascaded off the machine, mirroring the wasteful, repetitive, unproductive nature of most of the "work" in capitalist societies.
Visitors were encouraged to cut out articles and images: the cuttings, under headings such as GM foods, biotechnology, extinction, information overload, were then placed on panels displayed in the space. Tables and chairs were provided to facilitate this activity.
The next space presented a dramatic view of hundreds of decaying metal shelves in shafts sunk deep into the earth. These shelves were filled with newspapers. Viewers were able to move through this installation - a chaotic, sunken, library - and select newspapers for cutting and fixing next door.
The exhibition will be accompanied by an extensive series of talks, discussions and workshops expanding on the themes of this exhibition, whose central purpose is to introduce an aggressive, highly politicised aura into London's art world.

A Photograph is never an unmediated representaion of reality

M.A. Digital Arts Forum

M.A. Digital Arts Forum;
There was a special invitation to the M.A. Drawing students.
The forum took the form of several presentations by the M.A. Students including the Online Group who participated through the device of web cams. This required quite a bit of ‘setting up’ electronically but allowed for a number of members present to contribute to the online chat which was projected onto the front screen along with the projection of another computer where various CDs and web pages were accessed during the presentation.
The mechanics did not always proceed smoothly?
The debate as established by the Face to Face Student proceeded along specific lines with contributions inserted into a wiki page: http://madigitalarts.wikispaces.com
1. Digital and analog transition/concepts [Paul Sewter]
2. Product, process [Jem Mackay]
3. Authorship, collaboration, licensing.[Peter Forde]
There will be a short introduction under the heading 'Digital Culture' at the start of the presentation, and time at the end for discussion.

One topic that elicited heated and compulsive debate seemed to be centred around the problem of the intention of the artist as perceived by the viewer/consumer of the piece.

In consideration of the question of the role of process… this can be the work as opposed to product [what is produced at the end of the process… e.g. Robert Morris in the 1960;s and Jonathan Monk at the ICA currently].

Phoebe explained that the work [commercially] was difficult to market as it was not only the presentation/representation, but also the experience of the piece as it was received. Otherwise, the work would be ‘one hand clapping in a forest’. In other words it was a reciprocal event, rather than just an object. She referenced an exhibition by Isaac Julien at the Victoria Miro Gallery. Although the exhibition was video on three screens with sound, there were only stills on sale. How to market this work?

Chirstina also showed work that has been published on the web. This work invites the viewer to participate by drawing on her images with a computer mouse thus ‘completing’ the work. She is addressing notions of family violence.

Luisa is also producing work that is completed by the ‘viewer’. But her work is executed in the ‘real’ world as opposed to a computer generated virtual world. This work is then recorded and ‘documented’ using digital media [web cams and digital photos and video footage.]

The drawing students voiced a concern that drawing in digital media deprived them as artists of the ‘experience’ of interacting with the materiality of the work. They descried the absence of paper and pencils citing the texture and dimensionality of work in the real world…. [the haptic quality of art]… although this was countered by both Paul Sewter and James who got a B.A. in Drawing.
Paul claimed that current technological advances have made it possible to reproduce work that is practically impossible to differentiate from work executed manually without the aid of C.A.D.
James asserted that he found it quicker, easier and more inspirational to do his work on a computer in a drawing package than with paper and coloured pencils/paint.
Is this a question of interdisciplinarity? The drawing students were wondering if a degree in drawing executed on a computer should rightly be called a degree in Digital Art or Drawing?

The discussion was lively and exciting, informative and stimulating.
Neal, a rep. from the Online Students spent some time explaining the mechanics of the structure of the course via his web cam, but no work was shown.

The online ‘chat’ was projected on the screen at the front of the room while the discussion was going on. I have to say, the comparison merely confirmed my opinion regarding these two procedures. The ensuing discussion was cogent, considered and thoughtful. The opinions were not overly punctuated with like, you know, I mean, kind of etc.
The interjections were not quick, one-line ‘fixes’ that didn’t ‘cut the mustard’ like those in the online chat e.g. cool, yup, [and emoticons such as ;-) :--( etc.] or idiosyncratic text abbreviations.
The discussion affords the participants time to think and expand their thoughts and ideas. They can consider the ramifications of their contributions, expand them, fill them out and explain them.
It isn’t enough just to label something as ‘interesting’… one must always ask IN WHAT WAY. justify, illustrate, and tease out meanings and significances.
Is debate dead?
It is also imperative to give references and attributions where relevant…quote sources. You don’t get something from nothing?
There was some concern voiced regarding hijacking, or ‘stealing’ ideas. The problem of copyright does loom large and some reference was made to Benjamin’s article ‘Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’.

DIGITAL ART FORUM

Some thoughts on the implications of 'ownership' and 'authorship' with regard to the construction of Digital Art.
Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:
After all, what is Digital art, but art that is made using a machine as a tool to construct the ‘work of art’
If we refer back to Plato’s tale of the cave, the object was an ideal which existed only in the ‘ether’ and any object that was created / made in the real world, was only a pale imitation of the ideal. Therefore the maker of the object e.g. the carpenter who made the table was held in higher esteem as an artist who painted a representation of the table was only copying a copy. Where is the authorship here if a work of art is a re-presentation of something else?
I am quite convinced by the argument that “there is no such thing as an unmediated representation of reality”.
But, perhaps not all ‘art’ is a re-presentation of objects in the real world?
Digital art is produced by manipulating a machine. The machine operates by means of a series of coded instructions. These instructions are based on binaries: zeros and ones. These instructions are based on mathematical information which remains constant, finite, immutable and ultimately terminally definable. They are also infinitely reproducible without the possibility of change or decay.
This does not detract from the contribution of the ‘author’ as the code must have some point of origin and causation.
In a sense there are several authors in this scenario.
There is the person who constructs the machine [hardware]
There is the person who composes the code or its variations [software]
There is the person who applies / exploits the code to achieve a ‘work of art’.
At what point can we assign ‘ownership’ ?
Where is the artist located in this series of creations? Or , in Walter Bejamin’s phrase, where is the ‘aura’ of the artist? Does it exist in the ‘eye of the beholder?’

ORIGAMI SIMULATOR

The Program Mentioned in the Semiar, Origami Simulator, was written by Tung Ken Lam, a member of the British Origami Society. Background information regarding this program and a download of the program itself can be accessed at http://www.angelfire.com/or3/tklorigami0/.

Seminar Presentation

I am interested in translating / transferring notions of the complexity of knit to re-present them in a Digital form in a Virtual World.
Initially I thought it might be possible to mimic the motions of folding, convoluting, involuting a knitted substrate virtually on a computer which would involve a degree of interactivity, but,
I am not a machine coder and I quickly came to the conclusion that this was beyond my capabilities.
I have come across a very interesting program written by Tung Ken Lam, a member of the BOS who is writing his PhD thesis based on this program. He is a mathematician and his coding is based on mathematical principles. In fact, the art of Origami is underpinned by mathematics and a number of ‘folders’ are mathematicians. [e.g. Alex Bateman, Ian Harrison, Tung Ken Lam] Furthermore, there has been quite a lot of work done in this field. However, interestingly, the addicted paper folder, interacts with the materiality of paper in a very haptic way, in spite of the mathematical theories that underpin the discipline. I think the problem with Tung Ken’s program is that it removes the haptic element and thus defeats the whole principle behind Origami… but I’m not going to tell him that.

Digital Art, for me, is about creation and the communication of ideas and concepts in a visual field. I know there is a great deal to be said about interaction and participation, and, in a sense, the invitation I am interested in offering is one of introducing [putting forward/ suggesting] an altered perception of the role played by a knitted substrate. So, in that sense, a form of interactivity is implied in my work. However, I don’t consider it a fundamental element of my research.
At the moment, I am gathering together a variety of material which I hope will relate to form my final submission. I’m not sure, yet where this will lead me.
I only know that specific qualities will help to open avenues of vision.
The elements that I am considering at the moment are:
1. The graph - Maximum
2. The Stitch - Minimum
3. The formulation of the substrate - Construction
4. The manipulation of the yarn - Folding
5. The manipulation of the substrate - Interfolding
6. Additions, Deletions and Superimpositions - Accumulations
7. Alterations of a.Scale b.Speed c.Perspective.
In my presentation, I have assembled a number of still images which comprise of Sketches, Swatches, Samples, and videos of a piece of knitting and Riki Donachie [a Jubilee train driver for the London Underground] folding a ‘Kawasaki Rose’. I hope to manipulate these elements in a more interactive way to illustrate the concepts of multiplicity and the dynamic contained in the original constructions.
I think the timing of these elements needs adjustment, and there are other processes I would like to pursue i.e.; filming the unravelling of a piece of knitting and attempting to construct a model in a 3d modelling program in order to explore the visual possibilities of moving through this construction… i.e. generating the folding and interweaving of a piece of yarn to realize a knitted substrate.

OPEN CONGRESS

07-08/10/2005
This congress is focused on defining and assessing the relevance, viability, availability, applicability and perception of ‘Open Source’ vs ‘Free’ Software. Does it have a future? Is that future one that can be predicted?
I've definitely overdosed on coding, significances, the ascribing of information as properempoweringment, ownership...etc. It all gets a bit political and there seemed to be an obsession with constructing ‘tools’ to ‘make’ the ‘art’, and not 'art' itself... but there you are. Maybe I slept through the critical stuff? There was a chance for some very useful exchanges of views with other members of the course and that proved fruitful.

There seems to be a concern regarding the ownership of the tools. On the one hand, this concern with coding may be a result of singular passions to construct an edifice for the purpose of manipulating the properties found in virtual reality. On the other hand, the coding is ultimately a tool for facilitating communication. It’s use depends on both it’s usability [is it user friendly?] and its qualities and characteristics….does it do the job and does it do the job well enough?
Skills are necessary to convey meanings and perceptions, but unless the meanings and perceptions are clear, concise and significant, there seems little justification for embarking on these projects aside from curiosity.
That is not to say curiosity in itself is not valuable! Skill acquisition suggests ideas… what comes first? the chicken or the egg?
But I fear that an obsession with mapping out boundaries [or even destroying boundaries] of itself, is no guarantee of originality of thought…..the ‘eureka moment’.