While I was browsing for different forms of digital landscapes, I couldn't help but come across this delightful clip about the water shrew. The animation is created by a group of german students at a film and technical school in Potsdem, Germany.
Check it out.
http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-30120.html
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
8/28 :: A History of Internet Art ::
Art Forum, by Rachel Greene
{A History of Internet Art}
This article covered a wide range of Internet Art through its conception and developments toward the future. I found some of the websites to be fun in interacting with. I did however have one point of misunderstanding which could develop to actually be my question. Is it normal to not be able to interact with certain sites? Is the target audience meant to be more intelligent? For instance, Shulgin's website had some interesting views, but I found it a bit difficult to interact with. There were lots of fun things in the site, but some were just absolutely pointless to me.
Also, Jodi.org was a bit complicated as well. http://404.jodi.org
It is lines of text or code that I didn't fully understand.
Another Question perhaps focuses on the idea of internet art with Museums. With the advancements of having Rubrics of New Media art, Museums started presenting online works with critical views. Have Museums diminished in exhibitions? {or} How have they been effected? negatively or positively in this change?
{A History of Internet Art}
This article covered a wide range of Internet Art through its conception and developments toward the future. I found some of the websites to be fun in interacting with. I did however have one point of misunderstanding which could develop to actually be my question. Is it normal to not be able to interact with certain sites? Is the target audience meant to be more intelligent? For instance, Shulgin's website had some interesting views, but I found it a bit difficult to interact with. There were lots of fun things in the site, but some were just absolutely pointless to me.
Also, Jodi.org was a bit complicated as well. http://404.jodi.org
It is lines of text or code that I didn't fully understand.
Another Question perhaps focuses on the idea of internet art with Museums. With the advancements of having Rubrics of New Media art, Museums started presenting online works with critical views. Have Museums diminished in exhibitions? {or} How have they been effected? negatively or positively in this change?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
:: Vectors Review ::
www.vectors.usc.edu
specific show
I found this website to be one of my favorites. It was designed with a very clean concept and I believe it to be easy to navigate through. The flash designs are especially fun to interact with. The intro has this preliminary type of interaction where you can draw with your mouse.
Continuing on.....The idea of actually integrating the gallery and perception of the viewer in order to see how others perceive art is incredible. In particular, there is one show that is called {The Virtual Window Interactive} by Anne Friedberg and designed by Erik Loyer. They have created a virtual space of how the 'world is framed and the importance of what is contained in the frame. Friedberg covers a timeline of how and what culture has visually seen over the course of 500 years.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
8-26-08 :: Net Art Article + Q&A
:: Question for Discussion ::
It is interesting that net.art isn't given much spotlight for artists. Is it because there isn't a gallerist helping assist and promote the art, or that the common viewer is unaware that net.art exists? People that aren't as educated about art usually don't understand the importance or even the work that is put into a piece. Perhaps, it is that people don't care enough? There are many interpretations to this idea of what net.art is.
Question 1. Since digital media entered the field of art has the perception of art changed?
I would say that ,yes, the perception has changed because art has progressed to using other media and processes rather than merely painting on a canvas. Now, works are created through computer art and information art. There are forms such as, Digital paintings, vector graphics, audio and video recordings, combinations of of collages, lithographs all through software using a mouse or graphics tablet. Artwork can even be created with 3D graphics creating realistic 3 Dimensional shapes. Mainstream media produces lots of digital art in advertisments and even film uses digital media to produce special effects.
Question 2. A relevant section of digital art represents Internet based art. The Internet hardly existed, but artists conquered already this new field for their artistic activities. Can the work of these early artists be compared with those who work with advanced technologies nowadays? What changed until these days? What might be the perspectives for future developments?
Of course the work is comparable to the advanced technologies. The work that was done then is technically seen as outdated, but all work in design and art alike evolve and change with the coming of new advances. Even though we have new advances that doesn't mean that the work that early artists did is seen as unimportant because it is important. One must learn to crawl before one can walk. Before 'these days' art was more primitive in design graphics. The net art was limited. Now performance and motion graphics, flash designs allow more pull and play with digital media work. Possible advances for the future could be too overwhelming to imagine right now.
Question 3. The term "netart" is widely used for anything posted on the net; there are dozens of definitions that mostly are even contradictory. How do you define "netart" or if you like the description "Internet based art" better? Do you think "netart" is art, at all, if yes, what are the criteria? Are there any aesthetic criteria for an Internet based artwork?
Net-art can be described as any art that uses the internet as its medium or inspiration, but not necessarily its subject. I guess it would depend on interpretation of how you would see net art as art. Net art is meant to have forms of interaction with its viewers, and that can take place in several ways not just being able to see a video or clicking buttons that make graphics move. The criteria would be again up for interpretation. There are so many forms of digital art that there is no one right method.
Question 4. Dealing with this new, and interactive type of art demands an active viewer or user, and needs the audience much more and in different ways than any other art discipline before. How do you think would be good ways to stimulate the user to dive into this new world of art? What do you think represents an appropriate environment to present net based art to an audience, is it the context of the lonesome user sitting in front of his personal computer, is it any public context, or is it rather the context of art in general or media art in particular, or anything else.? If you would be in the position to create an environment for presenting this type of art in physical space, how would you do it?
Well, first off I would say in order for someone to 'dive' into the new world, one must be computer literate. That is to say one must need to begin learning and experimenting with using the internet and its means. There are lots of ways that this could be successful. For instance, galleries putting up work for net based art is a way for the audience to see work, another is the lonesome user, and even other forms of context. There isn't just one way that this should be done or presented, art is always changing and evolving and finding new ways of making it available is the key. It would depend on the matter in which the art is created.
Question 5.
As Internet based art, as well as other art forms using new technologies are (globally seen) still not widely accepted, yet, as serious art forms, what do you think could be an appropriate solution to change this situation?
I believe that the more a subject is studied the better understood it becomes. Net art is used all around us, but because it isn't fully accepted it is seen as unserious. Any art is to be taken in to consideration. Perhaps more exposure is the key, or maybe it's just time that is needed.
It is interesting that net.art isn't given much spotlight for artists. Is it because there isn't a gallerist helping assist and promote the art, or that the common viewer is unaware that net.art exists? People that aren't as educated about art usually don't understand the importance or even the work that is put into a piece. Perhaps, it is that people don't care enough? There are many interpretations to this idea of what net.art is.
Question 1. Since digital media entered the field of art has the perception of art changed?
I would say that ,yes, the perception has changed because art has progressed to using other media and processes rather than merely painting on a canvas. Now, works are created through computer art and information art. There are forms such as, Digital paintings, vector graphics, audio and video recordings, combinations of of collages, lithographs all through software using a mouse or graphics tablet. Artwork can even be created with 3D graphics creating realistic 3 Dimensional shapes. Mainstream media produces lots of digital art in advertisments and even film uses digital media to produce special effects.
Question 2. A relevant section of digital art represents Internet based art. The Internet hardly existed, but artists conquered already this new field for their artistic activities. Can the work of these early artists be compared with those who work with advanced technologies nowadays? What changed until these days? What might be the perspectives for future developments?
Of course the work is comparable to the advanced technologies. The work that was done then is technically seen as outdated, but all work in design and art alike evolve and change with the coming of new advances. Even though we have new advances that doesn't mean that the work that early artists did is seen as unimportant because it is important. One must learn to crawl before one can walk. Before 'these days' art was more primitive in design graphics. The net art was limited. Now performance and motion graphics, flash designs allow more pull and play with digital media work. Possible advances for the future could be too overwhelming to imagine right now.
Question 3. The term "netart" is widely used for anything posted on the net; there are dozens of definitions that mostly are even contradictory. How do you define "netart" or if you like the description "Internet based art" better? Do you think "netart" is art, at all, if yes, what are the criteria? Are there any aesthetic criteria for an Internet based artwork?
Net-art can be described as any art that uses the internet as its medium or inspiration, but not necessarily its subject. I guess it would depend on interpretation of how you would see net art as art. Net art is meant to have forms of interaction with its viewers, and that can take place in several ways not just being able to see a video or clicking buttons that make graphics move. The criteria would be again up for interpretation. There are so many forms of digital art that there is no one right method.
Question 4. Dealing with this new, and interactive type of art demands an active viewer or user, and needs the audience much more and in different ways than any other art discipline before. How do you think would be good ways to stimulate the user to dive into this new world of art? What do you think represents an appropriate environment to present net based art to an audience, is it the context of the lonesome user sitting in front of his personal computer, is it any public context, or is it rather the context of art in general or media art in particular, or anything else.? If you would be in the position to create an environment for presenting this type of art in physical space, how would you do it?
Well, first off I would say in order for someone to 'dive' into the new world, one must be computer literate. That is to say one must need to begin learning and experimenting with using the internet and its means. There are lots of ways that this could be successful. For instance, galleries putting up work for net based art is a way for the audience to see work, another is the lonesome user, and even other forms of context. There isn't just one way that this should be done or presented, art is always changing and evolving and finding new ways of making it available is the key. It would depend on the matter in which the art is created.
Question 5.
As Internet based art, as well as other art forms using new technologies are (globally seen) still not widely accepted, yet, as serious art forms, what do you think could be an appropriate solution to change this situation?
I believe that the more a subject is studied the better understood it becomes. Net art is used all around us, but because it isn't fully accepted it is seen as unserious. Any art is to be taken in to consideration. Perhaps more exposure is the key, or maybe it's just time that is needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
