Software Takes Command

While reading "Software Takes Command," I found myself constantly nodding with what Manovich was stating. Right off the bat he says, "Today, however, the lists of best-
recognized global brands are topped with the names such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. (In fact, Google was number one in the world in 2007 in terms of brand recognition.)" It's interesting that the most recognizable names are those companies that sell ideas, not goods. These days newspapers, magazines and TV stations are featuring articles about Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc. They are using these sites as part of their factual information. Just the other night, blogger perezhilton was being interviewed on cnn about his most recent post about the Miss USA competition... even my teacher mentioned an article about a senator who had embarrassing photos on Facebook surface. I've been warned to make sure my profiles on the internet don't have any photos on them that I wouldn't mind my grandma seeing. It's kind of funny when you think about it. Manovich takes this further though and reminds us that software is the connector, the backbone to all of these successful companies... the thing that makes it all work. And yet, software seems to go unnoticed. None of this would be possible without the engineering of great operating systems that help your computer do what you want it to do.

Alan Kay's "User Interface"

One thing I love about these readings is that more often than not they mention how computers will one day replace books. And here we are, doing our class readings on our computer.

Moving on, this reading about the GUI was really interesting. Of course, I already knew what a GUI is - I use one every day. But I've never sat down and thought about the process of actually creating a GUI. Kay states, "GUI exists and works only by understanding the human psyche, not just the scientist, to create a cohesive interaction." The fact that you have to have an understanding of how a person's mind works, almost predicting their moves, is pretty intense. I mean, if you think about it, the developer of the GUI has to understand a wide range of peoples' minds - from a child to an adult.

Rise of the VJ

Since I am writing about this article after our VDMX performance, my take on this article is from a different perspective. VJ-ing is extremely exciting and scary and new all at the same time. "However, live video mixing performances certainly address a hunger for immersive and synaesthetic sensory experiences where aural and visual elements work together to create a whole that is something beyond the sum of the parts." This is a perfect explanation for what I think the VJ and VDMX allows an artist to do. We are taking parts of a bigger piece, say the video, and changing it through filters and audio analysis etc in order to create something all our own. But what Vjs end up creating is far more than the original artist intended or even saw. I think the VJ's possibilities are endless. The only boundaries are the ones created by the software and hardware being used. It's something I myself am not used to - being able to easily create something different, and arguably better, every time I use VDMX.

Roy Ascott's "Behaviorist Art" article

Even though this article was written in 1966, I can see its importance and relevance to today's works of art. Ascott mentions that the "boundaries between making art, and the artifact itself, and the experience of the work are no longer clearly defined." This statement became even more true when interactive web art was introduced into the mix. (Even though perhaps Ascott had no idea that art could be headed in that direction.)

When I look at a piece of interactive web art, I recognize that there is in fact an artist that has created what I see on my screen, but the artist becomes more and more removed as I continue to explore the piece. I start to become the creator at this point. In certain situations, the piece can never be duplicated the way I do it. Then there are pieces like this where my affect on the piece is only slight and not really me at all, but my surroundings.

Acott goes on to say, "[the piece's] physical structure is such that its individual constituent parts can change their relationships, either by the direct manipulation of the spectator, or by his shifting viewpoint, or by the agency of electrical or other natural power." This leaves me to believe that perhaps Ascott did in fact see interactive web art in our future, or at least something that is very closely related. And I think that artists these days love to have the viewers immediate input in their piece, creating an ever-evolving work of art.

Love it

Advanced Beauty 6 of 18 / Directed by Robert Hodgin from Universal Everything on Vimeo.

Can't wait to get into Processing.

Reading Response: Walter Benjamin

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

In class yesterday we discussed Walter Benjamin's article and the entire time I found myself searching for the words to verbalize my thoughts. First off, before I begin my argument, we have to understand that this article was written in 1935, lifetimes ago as far as art is concerned. That being said, I can say that the aura of a piece of work is comprised of many different aspects, which Benjamin touches on in his article. Things like historical context and importance, uniqueness and authenticity are among some of the aspects that make up a piece's aura. Supposedly, those pieces that are original and authentic are inevitably more valuable in a person's eyes than a replica. We used the example of an original Van Gogh painting versus a replica of the same painting. Knowing that the painting is an original would enhance the overall aesthetic of the piece, even if you really couldn't tell a difference between the two. But in the case of today, digital art work can be "replicated" many times. What makes the piece an original? Is it the first version the artist posted to their website? What determines authenticity in an age where machines can produce the output of a piece versus the artist's hands, like photos in a darkroom versus photos in Photoshop? It's a tough question to answer, and the only thing I kept thinking was that the aura was not just limited to authenticity or historical context, but being present with the work. Experiencing it in its full glory - whether it be a film in a theater with the lights low or a print of a digital photo.