Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Thursday, 10 February 2011
First Trip to Stonehouse
I am currently doing a project with a group called part exchange called hidden city. I am going to be photographing the Stonehouse area of Plymouth. This is some of the results from my first shoot.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
The Will to Knowledge
"The Will to Knowledge" is the first book in Michael Foucault's series of the "history of sexuality". In it he looks into the idea that sex was repressed, and finds that in contrast to idea of complete silence on the subject there was an explosion of people talking about it obsessively.
He looks at the western practice of the Confession, the idea that you should reveal and confess every thought and desire, that you should continually search yourself for evidence of deviants.
He then examines how this was then taken up by the emerging field of psychology, which the categorised it and reinforced the idea of the pervert.
He describes this medicalisation of sex as creating a form of power knowledge, power created by knowledge, that became the main argument for repressing sexuality. He final state explicitly that sexuality is a social construction and that what we think as normal or natural is made purely by society.
He said that that their where 4 technologies of power used to create and control sexuality.
1. The use of contraception to control population, either by arguing that we need more or less people
2. The hysteria of women, how’s mind is constantly on sex
3. The creation of the perverse (the homosexual, the paedophile, the zoophile)
4. The idea of the masturbating child
His work has been a significant cultural and academic text and has been a major influence in queer theory. I am currently reading his second book, “The use of Pleasure” and have already brought his third book.
He looks at the western practice of the Confession, the idea that you should reveal and confess every thought and desire, that you should continually search yourself for evidence of deviants.
He then examines how this was then taken up by the emerging field of psychology, which the categorised it and reinforced the idea of the pervert.
He describes this medicalisation of sex as creating a form of power knowledge, power created by knowledge, that became the main argument for repressing sexuality. He final state explicitly that sexuality is a social construction and that what we think as normal or natural is made purely by society.
He said that that their where 4 technologies of power used to create and control sexuality.
1. The use of contraception to control population, either by arguing that we need more or less people
2. The hysteria of women, how’s mind is constantly on sex
3. The creation of the perverse (the homosexual, the paedophile, the zoophile)
4. The idea of the masturbating child
His work has been a significant cultural and academic text and has been a major influence in queer theory. I am currently reading his second book, “The use of Pleasure” and have already brought his third book.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Iain McKell and the subcultures
McKell grow up in a hotel in Weymouth and managed to get a job as photographer taking pictures of tourists. Capturing everything from photographers with monkeys to girls with “kiss me quick” hats on, McKell managed to discovered the essential British seaside holiday ten years before Martin Parr’s “New Brighton”. The book “home town dream” is full of the kitsch eccentricity complete with nostalgic 70’s fashion and facial hair.
There is also an element of voyeurism in his work, whether it young girls changing on the beach or photographing people in cars looking out with binoculars, that would make even Weegee proud.
He site one of his influences as the American photographer Diana Arbus, for instance this photo of a child in a Batman mask and swimming trunks has a unmistakable similarity. The mask hides his identity and makes his head look disproportionally large whilst his barely clothed body gives him an innocent fragile look.
There is also a large amount of violence in some of those photos, as he interacts on the various punk and skin head groups that were at large at the time. Stating that whilst he was behind the camera he felt invisible.
This series ultimately show him growing up into a young man mixed up in the various sub cultures and his love of music, women and horrible lens flare.
His latest series is of what McKell calls “the new gypsies”, people how are not descended from Roma but chose to live that lifestyle. They where an offshoot of the new age travellers how abandoned their buses and took up horse drawn carriages.
He spent just under a decade photographing them, originally planning to stay a mere three months on the project. This gave him the time period to get to understand this unknown and undiscovered tribe.
Capturing a group of people who live the hippy lifestyle instead of just preaching about it, they are at once connected to nature and disconnected from conventional society. He also states firmly that it is not a romantic life style but a practical one.
He concentrates on photographing people as it is evidently them who define the life, humanising this align subject instead of focusing on the dramatic differences in their modes of being. By doing this he has managed to break down the barriers to this strange group, the most notable example is when he took the super model Kate Moss to meet them, doing a fashion shoot in the midst of the camp. Thus he does what he does best, bringing this extraordinary subculture into the ordinary mundane world.
There is also an element of voyeurism in his work, whether it young girls changing on the beach or photographing people in cars looking out with binoculars, that would make even Weegee proud.
He site one of his influences as the American photographer Diana Arbus, for instance this photo of a child in a Batman mask and swimming trunks has a unmistakable similarity. The mask hides his identity and makes his head look disproportionally large whilst his barely clothed body gives him an innocent fragile look.
There is also a large amount of violence in some of those photos, as he interacts on the various punk and skin head groups that were at large at the time. Stating that whilst he was behind the camera he felt invisible.
This series ultimately show him growing up into a young man mixed up in the various sub cultures and his love of music, women and horrible lens flare.
His latest series is of what McKell calls “the new gypsies”, people how are not descended from Roma but chose to live that lifestyle. They where an offshoot of the new age travellers how abandoned their buses and took up horse drawn carriages.
He spent just under a decade photographing them, originally planning to stay a mere three months on the project. This gave him the time period to get to understand this unknown and undiscovered tribe.
Capturing a group of people who live the hippy lifestyle instead of just preaching about it, they are at once connected to nature and disconnected from conventional society. He also states firmly that it is not a romantic life style but a practical one.
He concentrates on photographing people as it is evidently them who define the life, humanising this align subject instead of focusing on the dramatic differences in their modes of being. By doing this he has managed to break down the barriers to this strange group, the most notable example is when he took the super model Kate Moss to meet them, doing a fashion shoot in the midst of the camp. Thus he does what he does best, bringing this extraordinary subculture into the ordinary mundane world.
Friday, 28 January 2011
Eadweard Muybridge was famed as being the first person to create moving images but his influence has fallen far more into the realm of artist than film directors. He managed to create landscapes that where as technically accomplished and aesthetically pleasing as Ansel Adams, pioneering the way for photography as a serious art form.
These landscapes are a mix of the untouched romantic view of nature, the vast uninhabited tundra of Alaska and the mountains of the Yosemite national park.
Contrasting with his is his documentation of the modernisation of America, the building of the railway and the people, mainly Chinese labours, how built them.
It is also worth noting his inclusion of the indigenous population of America, in part this was due to their exoticism, and part propaganda against them. But it is not true to say he did not respect them, for instance he used the Native American names in some of his landscapes.
The focus of the exhibition was on his study of animals in motion, pictures of horses or people walking with a grid as a background. He showed movement from a scientific and objective point that is reminiscent of the Bechers photos of water towers. His subjects were depicted naked in an attempt to show them naturalistically and for their use as anatomical pictures for artist and physicians, but at the time the general public almost certainly viewed it as pornographic whatever Muybridge’s intention were.
Unfortunately these images were not as objective as Muybridge believed, he frequently showed the men doing athletic activities such as boxing and women doing less strenuous tasks such as bathing. This gender discrimination raises the question of the photographer’s ability to record objectively
Muybridge was a genius at marketing but what he sold most successfully was not his prints but the idea of the observational nature of photography. His early work was clearly modernist whilst his studies of animals in motion was evidently postmodern
Muybridge's work has influenced many artists, from Francis Bacon to the Becher school of photography. He was also a pioneer in make moving images and was highly technically accomplished and played a part in the emergence of both photography and cinematography.
His landscapes clearly inspired people like Ansel Adams whilst his studies of animals in motion could be seen reflected in the work of more modern artist. The question that remains hardest to answer is, is he a good modern artist?
These landscapes are a mix of the untouched romantic view of nature, the vast uninhabited tundra of Alaska and the mountains of the Yosemite national park.
Contrasting with his is his documentation of the modernisation of America, the building of the railway and the people, mainly Chinese labours, how built them.
It is also worth noting his inclusion of the indigenous population of America, in part this was due to their exoticism, and part propaganda against them. But it is not true to say he did not respect them, for instance he used the Native American names in some of his landscapes.
The focus of the exhibition was on his study of animals in motion, pictures of horses or people walking with a grid as a background. He showed movement from a scientific and objective point that is reminiscent of the Bechers photos of water towers. His subjects were depicted naked in an attempt to show them naturalistically and for their use as anatomical pictures for artist and physicians, but at the time the general public almost certainly viewed it as pornographic whatever Muybridge’s intention were.
Unfortunately these images were not as objective as Muybridge believed, he frequently showed the men doing athletic activities such as boxing and women doing less strenuous tasks such as bathing. This gender discrimination raises the question of the photographer’s ability to record objectively
Muybridge was a genius at marketing but what he sold most successfully was not his prints but the idea of the observational nature of photography. His early work was clearly modernist whilst his studies of animals in motion was evidently postmodern
Muybridge's work has influenced many artists, from Francis Bacon to the Becher school of photography. He was also a pioneer in make moving images and was highly technically accomplished and played a part in the emergence of both photography and cinematography.
His landscapes clearly inspired people like Ansel Adams whilst his studies of animals in motion could be seen reflected in the work of more modern artist. The question that remains hardest to answer is, is he a good modern artist?
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
What is Generative Art
This process could be carried out a number of ways, it could a computer algorithm, a random number generator or the opinion of another person. Generative works could include animations, images or music.
This form of art originally evolved from the minimalist movement, whose aesthetic was to remove as much as possible from the art work, which was often made using industrial materials and made by someone other than the artist. (Meyer 2005)
One such practitioner and founder was Sol Lewitt. He started of by building simple arrays of white lattice frame works and in his later life he made huge, brightly coloured wall paintings in basic block colours.
Often he would not make the work himself but employ others to do it for him, giving mathematical instructions that resembled blue prints of a building, but he would always give credit to his assistants allowing them to become part of the art work. He also made logic games which he used to create his work. (Kimmelman 2007)
The use of other human interaction by generative artist like Lewitt is a key part of it's concept. Take generative art project called Dandelion, developed by a collaboration between Yoke and Sennap and is part of the Victoria and Albert museum's Decode: digital design sensation exhibition. It was a simple computer generated dandelion, surrounded by a appropriate landscape. Attached to this dandelion is a hair-dryer that, when pointed and turned on, simulates the wind in that direction and makes the seeds disperse and controls the camera angle. The use of viewer interactivity is key to this piece, but its makers had no control over how the people who saw it would react, just as Lewitt couldn't control how his assistances would interpret his artwork.
Now lets compare it with the PS3 game Flowers, developed by thatgamecompany. It involves flying around as a petal collecting other petals, this is done by use of a motion sensitive controller. These two art works are almost identical in their use of viewer interactivity and both use similar aesthetics, but only Dandelion would normally be considered generative art. The reason for this is not because of any conceptual difference, no you become a generative artist not by the way that you work but by giving yourself the title of a generative artist.
Galanter (2003) states that “if generative art also included art produced by any kind of ideas generating idea, then generative art would include all art, and it would loose its utility as a distinct term.”
Galanter forgets that everything is created by a process.
The truth is that generative artists, despite all pretence, remain completely in control of their work, and they have full choice over what they exhibit. They will understand the process that they work under to such an extent that the results will be entirely predictable.
It could be argued that this predictability means the artist regains control over his work and make his process no different from that used to make paintings or movies, as it is impossible to make anything at all without a process. And if this is the case would call into question the definition or possibly even the existence of generative art.
Even with out this there will always be differences in the way that your audience interprets the work you show them, whether in reaction to it or how they use it.
This faked autonomy only creates the illusion of being lifeless, in contrary to Orwell's bleak vision of a future where creativity is dead, replaced by emotionless machines, generative art has as much humanity as any other traditional art form. This façade's only purpose is to hide what is the genius of this art form, the language it uses to describe itself.
It is a language based on science and it talks about randomness, about sine waves and arrays taken from the fields of science and maths and enhanced by the increased use of software to create their art work, this language builds on formalism in the fact that it uses simple instructions to form lines and geometric shapes.
This new way of seeing has in recent years been adopted mainly by artist working with computer generated images.
One such example is Casey Reas who work is created wholly by digital software, much of this was done using an open source program he created called Process.
One project he made was called {Software} Structure and is inspired by the work of Sol Lewitt. It involves creating a structure that is then interpreted by different artists and then further interpreted by putting the same instructions into different software. The finished products are all unique but it is possible to discern their connection with each other. (Reas 2002)
The bases of his aesthetic is simple lines and dots, but they are defined computer code, a rational and predictable method that he uses to create his images.
In conclusion, generative art is a medium where the process is more important than the end product, but it is my opinion that when process is used for the sake of process it becomes harder to disentangle from other areas of art, for example between Yoke and Sennaps Dandelion and Flowers created by thatgamecompany. The clear line of what is and what isn't generative is blurred making it hard to distinguish between them.
It is founded on the idea of randomness and inevitable the mathematical way of looking at the world, which is almost unique to computer generated art. It has a diverse history starting with minimalists like Lewitt and has now been taken up with gusto by the IT generation, such as Reas, and it appears that it's still in its prime as a movement.
Bibliography
Orwell, G. (1969) Nineteen Eighty-Four. Bungay: Penguin.
Galanter, (2003) P. What is Generative Art? Complex Theory as a context for Art Theory [Online] Available from http://philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf [accessed on 09th April 2010 at 20.35]
Kimmelman, M. (2007) Sol Lewitt, master of conceptualism, died at 78 [Online] Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/arts/design/09lewitt.html [accessed on 13th April 2010 at 17.50]
Meyer, J.(2005) Minimalism, Hong Kong: Phaidon Press Limited
Boden, A and Edmonds, E. (2009) What is Generative Art. Digital Creativity, 20, (1-2), pp. 21-46
Reas, C. (2002) {Software} Structures Casey REAS et al. [Online] http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/map.html [accessed on 20th April at 21.31]
This form of art originally evolved from the minimalist movement, whose aesthetic was to remove as much as possible from the art work, which was often made using industrial materials and made by someone other than the artist. (Meyer 2005)
One such practitioner and founder was Sol Lewitt. He started of by building simple arrays of white lattice frame works and in his later life he made huge, brightly coloured wall paintings in basic block colours.
Often he would not make the work himself but employ others to do it for him, giving mathematical instructions that resembled blue prints of a building, but he would always give credit to his assistants allowing them to become part of the art work. He also made logic games which he used to create his work. (Kimmelman 2007)
The use of other human interaction by generative artist like Lewitt is a key part of it's concept. Take generative art project called Dandelion, developed by a collaboration between Yoke and Sennap and is part of the Victoria and Albert museum's Decode: digital design sensation exhibition. It was a simple computer generated dandelion, surrounded by a appropriate landscape. Attached to this dandelion is a hair-dryer that, when pointed and turned on, simulates the wind in that direction and makes the seeds disperse and controls the camera angle. The use of viewer interactivity is key to this piece, but its makers had no control over how the people who saw it would react, just as Lewitt couldn't control how his assistances would interpret his artwork.
Now lets compare it with the PS3 game Flowers, developed by thatgamecompany. It involves flying around as a petal collecting other petals, this is done by use of a motion sensitive controller. These two art works are almost identical in their use of viewer interactivity and both use similar aesthetics, but only Dandelion would normally be considered generative art. The reason for this is not because of any conceptual difference, no you become a generative artist not by the way that you work but by giving yourself the title of a generative artist.
Galanter (2003) states that “if generative art also included art produced by any kind of ideas generating idea, then generative art would include all art, and it would loose its utility as a distinct term.”
Galanter forgets that everything is created by a process.
The truth is that generative artists, despite all pretence, remain completely in control of their work, and they have full choice over what they exhibit. They will understand the process that they work under to such an extent that the results will be entirely predictable.
It could be argued that this predictability means the artist regains control over his work and make his process no different from that used to make paintings or movies, as it is impossible to make anything at all without a process. And if this is the case would call into question the definition or possibly even the existence of generative art.
Even with out this there will always be differences in the way that your audience interprets the work you show them, whether in reaction to it or how they use it.
This faked autonomy only creates the illusion of being lifeless, in contrary to Orwell's bleak vision of a future where creativity is dead, replaced by emotionless machines, generative art has as much humanity as any other traditional art form. This façade's only purpose is to hide what is the genius of this art form, the language it uses to describe itself.
It is a language based on science and it talks about randomness, about sine waves and arrays taken from the fields of science and maths and enhanced by the increased use of software to create their art work, this language builds on formalism in the fact that it uses simple instructions to form lines and geometric shapes.
This new way of seeing has in recent years been adopted mainly by artist working with computer generated images.
One such example is Casey Reas who work is created wholly by digital software, much of this was done using an open source program he created called Process.
One project he made was called {Software} Structure and is inspired by the work of Sol Lewitt. It involves creating a structure that is then interpreted by different artists and then further interpreted by putting the same instructions into different software. The finished products are all unique but it is possible to discern their connection with each other. (Reas 2002)
The bases of his aesthetic is simple lines and dots, but they are defined computer code, a rational and predictable method that he uses to create his images.
In conclusion, generative art is a medium where the process is more important than the end product, but it is my opinion that when process is used for the sake of process it becomes harder to disentangle from other areas of art, for example between Yoke and Sennaps Dandelion and Flowers created by thatgamecompany. The clear line of what is and what isn't generative is blurred making it hard to distinguish between them.
It is founded on the idea of randomness and inevitable the mathematical way of looking at the world, which is almost unique to computer generated art. It has a diverse history starting with minimalists like Lewitt and has now been taken up with gusto by the IT generation, such as Reas, and it appears that it's still in its prime as a movement.
Bibliography
Orwell, G. (1969) Nineteen Eighty-Four. Bungay: Penguin.
Galanter, (2003) P. What is Generative Art? Complex Theory as a context for Art Theory [Online] Available from http://philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf [accessed on 09th April 2010 at 20.35]
Kimmelman, M. (2007) Sol Lewitt, master of conceptualism, died at 78 [Online] Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/arts/design/09lewitt.html [accessed on 13th April 2010 at 17.50]
Meyer, J.(2005) Minimalism, Hong Kong: Phaidon Press Limited
Boden, A and Edmonds, E. (2009) What is Generative Art. Digital Creativity, 20, (1-2), pp. 21-46
Reas, C. (2002) {Software} Structures Casey REAS et al. [Online] http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/map.html [accessed on 20th April at 21.31]
Monday, 13 December 2010
Andrew Price's Marketing Advice
Andrew Price is a free lance digital 3d graphics artist. He has a website that has several thousand hit a day called Blender Guru, which offers tutorials on how to use a piece of free software called Blender. He recently published a video that was recorded at the blender conferance in Amsterdam, it is targeted at people how use 3D software but i still learned a lot about viral marketing from it.
How to Raise Your Profile as an Artist from Andrew Price on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)