Post-Media

As complicated and confusing as this was too me I actually found it rather insightful and it actually sparked a lot of ideas about medium in my own head. While , this is not what the author was trying prove, I found myself thinking that the new technology available in art is not the end of a media era but rather just an additional type of medium. If this is the case, should crunching numbers on a piece of paper with a pen, a medium of drawing and crunching numbers online, a new from of artistic medium be considered art. If these are both medium , a term typically used for art, then isn't everything we do utilizing them art? So, as human we are all artists. Another thing that intrigued me in this was his mention of how people receive this technological art. Based on their software and programming and, "because of the limited bandwidth capacity of the channel, the presence of noise and possible discrepancy between the sender’s and receiver’s codes, the receiver may not receive the same message as send by the sender". With technology the way viewers see art can differ so much from person to person. The art they see can be so wildly different then the art another person sees, even though its the same peice. Before this was possible, people could only see art in person , so their experience was guaranteed to be the same, the only shift would be the viewers perspective. Ultimately this new medium offers a lot of new direction in the art world.

Film Test

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4AWMPAUm4fM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://youtu.be/nIp5PLY4BR0

Abstraction Video

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO

Post-media Aesthetics

The first few sections of the reading resonated with some ideas I’ve been considering.  History places great emphasis on categorizing art.  The traditional categories of painting, sculpture, film, photography, however, may not be relevant to the status quo. We live in this world where we are constantly bombarded with shared information and images, where basically an anything-goes-mentality reigns what is considered art.  It does not really make sense to try to hang on to the Old World classifications when they can’t be evolved and developed fast enough for the new forms of art being created. Manovich discusses the particulars of how people should think about art but in essence, the categories revolve around how the viewer/user interacts and behaves to the art piece. Computers are intrinsically interactive. Our culture as one existing in the age of technology must consider and adapt to the changes the increased involvement of the viewer/user brings to Art. 

Post-Media

Most people on the blog agree that his article was just a long winded whining session. Most things either go away or change over time, even ideas. His phobia of the upcoming evolution in technology is sad, because he seems to be fearing something he does not quite understand.   

Out of Time

Post Media Aesthetics

From reading the article, I found the author's view of the perception of art somewhat strange. While it does seems as though the author is somehow involved in post-digital media, his initial commentary is very unflattering of the wave of new media. Maybe it's just my perception of the writing, but he appears to be displeased with the exponentially increasing categories of art, and it's as though he wants art to return back to the basics of painting, photography, sculpture, etc. Then a few pages later, he accepts that there are many new categories, but he wants people to embrace their individuality. And all this time he creates his own label for the new categories and tries to shelve them himself.

Like Ryan said in his post, I think the author is overcomplicating a very simple matter. If he preaches so much about people seeing art first hand and interpreting its place in the art world on their own, then he should allow them to decide whether or not they even want to listen to him. Not to sound rude, but people may just want to appreciate art as it is, instead of worrying over its naming process. I call my digital illustrations my "paintings," but some people don't understand why I call them that when I didn't pick up a physical paintbrush in order to create it. That's fine with me, though: I don't get flustered and argue over what the correct terminology is for digital art versus traditional art, I simply move on and thank the viewers for even noticing what I created.

To be honest, articles like this make my head hurt, because I wish artists these days could be less concerned about art in relation to society, and more concerned with creating the work itself. Like this woman:

So passionate...

(PS: don't take this video seriously)

Y-CART

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuYQriIAiNA&feature=g-upl&context=G2fac816AUAAAAAAAAAA


Video Y-CART

Collage

Visual music

https://vimeo.com/37348217

Experimental Film

Visual Music - Bottles

Visual Music Film-"Broadcast"

Post Media Aesthetics

The first portion of this article seems to be referring to the need of a new means by which we categorize art in relationship to its medium. I believe the author's argument is essentially that the labels by which we judge a work will also affect how we interpret it. The writing also seems to imply that modern media is being miss categorized by these labels and in turn not doing the works created the justice they deserve. However, the author's opinion is more or less just over complicating a simple matter. Though I do agree that how we associate something will change our perspective on it, I'm of the opinion that a successful work of art would stand on its own despite such preexisting labels.

I get the impression the author is coming from the perspective of someone who is heavily involved in post-digital media giving him better insight on the nuances between digital media that would otherwise be overlooked by general audiences. However, such insight leads to (as I mentioned earlier) the over complicating a simple matter. A trained eye can easily become annoyed over trivial injustices that a more ignorant eye would ignore entirely. This leads to a misuse of knowledge which could be better oriented toward other practices.

Metaphors On Vision

I found this reading extremely eye-opening because it suggested the importance of the imagination our vision gives us and ultimately how it relates to an artist. It was interesting thinking about the lives of infants who do not label the world in comparison to the proceeding years of growing and learning. Artists strive to see the world how it is not how they know it to be, much like newborns. Babies are unaware of this, but they're limited knowledge is actually an asset that many people would be lucky to find. Imagination would be much easier to build off of with no boundaries of what people learn in life. This however is entirely ironic, but it is what we learn in life that gives us depth and a reason for living, which are key for producing art. Since it is impossible to have both we must learn the lesson of taking what we know in combination with simply our vision and simply what we see to create the ultimate imagination. With this all of our fears can be objectified and more easily disregarded so we can reach ultimate creativity, love, and happiness. Much like this reading was concluded, vision is a language and speaking it is a necessity.

Metaphors on Vision

I often think about some of the concepts that arose in metaphors on vision. Brakhage starts out talking about vision through the eyes of the unknown as a baby. Babies and young children are new to the world, therefore their vision has not been corrupted by the knowledge which adults have. We start out knowing nothing; Light, color, objects, movement, etc is are all up to the imagination until we put names and meanings to these things. Therefore the imagination of our mind becomes more and more limited. Thinking back to my world as a young child, my vision and memory seems like a blur or a dream, perhaps because my imagination was so large and un-relatable to my perception now. Artist and those who try to break-apart parts of the world in order to recreate them seem to be the closest to achieving this open and imaginative vision. It reminds me a lot of a project we have been working on in foundations with Philip. Our task was to bring in objects from home that interested us. We then had to spend 4 hours making sketch after sketch of this object recreated differently each time. Philip instructed us to think of the object like we were aliens with no idea what these objects were.  At first it was difficult trying to make multiple recreations of a simple box, however the more I looked at the box and played with it, the more interesting it became. 

Metaphors on Vision

I enjoyed this passage's exploration of the concept of vision and innocence. Stan Brakhage seems to believe that our "inability to see" comes from allowing outside prejudices and influences to corrupt our interpretations of the world. I don't believe Brakhage is suggesting we leave our mind completely out of the process of perception; using only our eyes. He just doesn't want our brains' doing all of the work when we look at something. I understand where he is coming from, because I too agree that predetermined conceptions of things hinder one's ability to create a truly original opinion. This leads me to see some similarities in this article to the FUTURIST MANIFESTO, in terms of the concept of artwork created in isolation (in this case, visual perception in isolation).

According to the author, there is a "pursuit of knowledge foreign to language and founded upon visual communication, demanding a development of the optical mind, and dependent upon perception in the original and deepest sense of the word." After reading this sentence, specifically "pursuit of knowledge," I eventually thought of the term "Vision Quest." Vision quests are rites of passage in many Native American cultures, which represent the turning point in an older child's life. When ready, he or she will go on a personal, spiritual quest alone in the wilderness for days. Supposedly, a Guardian animal or force of nature will come in a vision or dream, and give guidance so strong that upon returning from the quest, that child will pursue that direction in life. I think the reason I thought of Vision Quests when reading this passage is because I have found that many of my most profound moments of visual or mental clarity have come during times when I was alone. However, I also believe that every eye is unique in what it sees, and the way it sees, making the collaboration of multiple peoples' perceptions necessary for a truly comprehensive study on any given thing.

Metaphors on Vision

This passage makes an insightful look at the eye and how we see things. It gives an interesting idea of what it would be like to see without any preconceived notions of what things are. The human mind is so good at recognizing patterns that we see patterns in everything. Seeing the world without that pattern recognition would be an interesting experience. However he then goes on to say that we have blinded ourselves with materialistic goals and that it is up to the artist to carry on the tradition of visual perception. This seemed a bit idealistic and unrealistic because I don't think we have lost our view of fear compared to primitive man. I didn't really understand what he meant when he said "The ultimate searching visualization has been directed toward God out of the deepest possible human understanding that there can be no ultimate love where there is fear." Overall it was a very thought-provoking passage, if a little unclear.

metaphors on vision

This was a fairly odd reading. It gave me the impression that it ended in the middle of its stride with an abrupt end and forced conclusion. With that said, the author makes an interesting observation and that being the thought that we lose the full perception of sight as we mature. The sight lost was a more perfect sight that could see beyond "reality", beyond labels, to see visions and abstractions as a natural occurrence. At least that's the conclusion I came to from the reading.

But I feel what truly discredits the author is when he states "In the present time very few have continued the process of visual perception in its deepest sense and transformed their inspirations into cinematic experiences." This statement is full of bias based on one man's opinion on a matter he himself defined. The entire reading is about how modern artists lack in as full a level of perception as previous generations of artists once had (which I could understand if he would've defended his point more completely). What I find bothersome however is in the statement I quoted he gives the impression that the modern use of true visual perception is only being used in cinema (which is the bias I spoke of). I'm of the opinion that no perception is typecasted into one type of media.

kino-eye and montage

When reading about the kino-eye, I couldn't help thinking about Hal 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey because of lines such as "I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it."

If I understood correctly, the concept of the "kino-eye" is that what the camera sees is something new and more refined than our own sight. A camera perceives and explores this world in a manner entirely set apart from what we are capable of seeing. When viewing film we submit ourselves to what has been recorded through the eye of the camera, all the while detaching ourselves from our own sight as we become more immersed in what has been seen by the camera.

From both readings, I get the impression that there is a purpose behind the process, to alter and affect the viewer. Through the kino-eye we experience a forced perspective, unnatural to our normal way of seeing. Through montage, our perception of time becomes lost, as a montage forces an unnatural rhythm on us by sound and film edits.

Montage

What I mostly took away from these readings is that a montage is obviously a film created by piecing together photographs or short clips of film. The idea of a montage is significant to me because I understand that they allow you to be very selective about the images compiled. You have the ability to take the best segments of something and rearrange them to compose something truly remarkable. They can also create various ways of seeing something from the makers point of view. Everybody sees the world differently so arranging fragments in a way thats unique to you allows these views to be shared. Additionally I found it interesting that the author of "kino-eye" said that montages can clarify things that are seen. Like watching a ballet, usually a complex experience to be seen, can be manipulated to help the viewer notice what is truly important or breathtaking. When sounds are added they can further enhance film and evoke certain feelings or memories in sync with the images. Regardless though. it is truly the camera that is infinitely adjustable and capable of capturing anything. It is not just the film or the editing but rather a combination that off springs montage.

Week Three Response

After reading the articles and going back over some parts a few times I walked away with a understanding of montage as a sort of pace that the video, song, comic, story, etc is put together with and the meaning we derive from it.

With metric montage, it seems to focus mainly on repetition, simplicity, and almost a subtleness in the overall piece that it is included in. That metric can be reused over and over again and we can still recognize the similarities even if the rest of the piece has been redone. Like for example remixes: once hearing the original we are still able to recognize elements from it in later remixes of the song. Themes of games are usually the same generally, but later games may add in elements that the older theme did not have, building on what was already there. It gives a sort of 'pulse', or basic element, of the work of art.

Rhythmic montage seems to be the sort of montage we see in movies, clips that have movement within them and tell of an action or a story. For example:

Animation seems to be a good example of rhythmic montage, a series of still clips strung together at length in order to convey movement and a story.

Tonal montage and Overtonal montage seem similar to me- they both focus mainly on the sound's impact on the listener's emotions, usually accompanying a scene that fits the qualities of the song. A high energy fast-paced song for a car chase for example, or a slow, sad song for a tearful scene. Without the music, the scene wouldn't gather nearly as much emotional reaction from the viewer. Even without a scene to watch, songs can impact our moods as well. We like to clean to fast paced songs, read to soothing background music, or maybe listen to slow paced songs during a rainy day. 

This song is a great example of how the creators used tonal or overtonal montage to make a scene gather more emotional response from the viewer. During the scene this is in, one of the characters, Fi, leaves forever at the ending-something that gathered a lot of emotional response from viewers because she had been there accompanying the main character throughout the journey. 

Listening to it now I can picture the exact scene and emotions-although not as overwhelming as the first time, that were present during the scene. 

Or overtonal montage could also mean using something small and hardly noticeable to foreshadow a greater impact event later on in like a film, book, comic, game, etc. Or perhaps an subtle object or theme that is tied to a specific element of the story. 

Intellectual montage is the information we piece together in our own head, and then figure out the deeper meaning of the symbolization that is presented to us. In The Great Gatsby, the green light that Gatsby reaches out towards is representative of his love Daisy, who he can never be with. Another example is a billboard advertisement in Queens that has deteriorated so much that only a pair of eyes remain on it, representative of the eyes of god. 

A little comic about The Great Gatsby from Hark a Vagrant also helps with the example naturally. http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=259

Gonna need a montage

Montage Mayham

Montage and Dziga Vertov

I found Methods of Montage hard to understand but what I got from it is this. The movement of a scene, combined with movement can affect the audience in several different ways, including intellectually and physiologically. There are different forms of montage that one can use in film to produce different effects similar to how colors can be used in a painting. I found one of his examples, the grain cutting scene in Old and New.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x8ggNe81Y24#t=4289s
It me to see the example of what he meant. The combination of the movement on screen with the music is very compelling.
Dziga Vertov discuses how a camera is different from the eye. He explains creative ways of using the camera that would not be possible for a live audience to experience. Many of these ideas are still being used today and make movies more interesting than possible in theater or other forms of entertainment. The idea of shooting a boxing match from the view of the contenders rather than the audience has been used many times, including in Rocky, where many the shots seem to be in the ring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25NmudB2fqg

Montage

I’m not going to lie. When I first started reading Einstein’s piece on montage I actually did not understand what exactly he was talking about. It wasn’t until the end of the piece, and after reading it for a second time that a got a better grasp on the meaning of montage. I am not very familiar with film and/or instruments which may be part of the reason why this idea was new to me. When Einstein starts talking about how montage comes from rain, wind, the walking of feet, I started to gain more of an understanding. Montage is the impact and relationship of a sound. Whether it is the sound of an orchestra, a simple note on the piano, or even the honking of a horn, a feeling/statement arises from this. I strongly agree that even something with no sound can have montage. A still painting can be louder than any song on the radio. The job of an artist is to create montage through inventing a combinations of techniques that become a whole- just like the way a chef throws together a series of ingredients to make a gourmet meal. This is the connection that all artist have: Their ability to make montage. Whether it be a photograph, food, painting, drawing, poem, clothing, film, design, etc, these productions all have a common connection: montage. I am very glad that I am familiar with this term know because as an artist I most defiantly notice montage everyday when I come across something that catches my attention. Whether it be something like the agitation of water, the blowing of trees in the wind, the clanking of bracelets on a wrist, the appearance of an acorn, the typing of keys on a register, and the list goes on, I can start to understood why things catch my interest.

“I am kino-eye.

From one person I take the hands, the strongest and most dex-terous;

from another l take the legs' the swiftest and most shapely;

from a third, the most beautifu| and expressive head-

and through montage l create a new, Perfect man”

“I am kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye l, a machine, show you the world as only I can see it”

These two quotes written in Vertov’s piece really encompass art and the use of montage just as Einstein explains. The kino-eye in my opinion is the gift and ability to create montage.

Reading these two articles reminds me of a project I did my senior year of high school in my dark room photography class. Our assignment was to pick a poem we liked, a shoot a series of images in relation to the poem, than put the finally production together as a video. Little did I know that I was putting my images together in sequence with the sounds of the poem through montage. 

Cut- Sylvia Plath

Modern Examples of Montage

In order to increase my understanding of Eisenstein's methods of montage, I went on a hunt to find some more modern-day montage examples. I'll admit that I had a lot of trouble discerning the different types of montages, so don't be surprised it I got the completely wrong idea from the reading! Feel free to correct me if you think these examples aren't correct.

This is probably a stretch, but I think the following video featuring Upular, a remix of the movie Up by Australian DJ Pogo is an example of metric montage, because the clips are cut at specific beats (especially around 1:45), regardless of how much information is given by the video, so the viewer is barely able to discern what's happening.

The getaway scene from Drive seemed like an appropriate use of rhythmic montage, which as I understand it, allows for visual continuity. The editing follows every movement of the getaway car so that the viewer feels like the passenger during the course of the chase.

The final scene from the Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was an example of tonal montage; from the reading, it seemed like a tonal montage was used to evoke specific emotions from the viewers. In this example, the setting turns from sunny to torrential, the colors dim from the green backyard of a German family to a dark, damp gas chamber of a concentration camp, people quickly begin to become frantic and panicked, and all the elements build up to an explosively powerful ending that leaves the viewer in an intense state of heartbreak. 

The ending of the Usual Suspects was an example of overtonal montage. From the clip I saw of Mother, where the ice in the streets alludes to the ending of the film, I thought that overtonal meant using small clips of a seemingly innocuous object to almost foreshadow its deeper meaning later on in the film. In a way, The Usual Suspects used this method in the ending scene of the film, where they added up clips of all the "meaningless" objects in the detective's room to create a profound ending.

Finally, an example of intellectual montage was the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the main character is shown as an old, dying man, who eventually passes away and is rebirthed as a baby floating above the Earth. In my opinion, this was meant to show that a person can only experience the limitlessness of ultimate reality through death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXS8P0HksQo

Again, I don't know if I interpreted the reading correctly, but I certainly don't find any harm in at least trying to make sense of it on my own!

Methods of Montage

I found these examples of Eisenstein's different types of montages helpful when trying to grasp what the text was getting at.