Thursday, November 11, 2010
An Internet Product for the Art Market
http://www.businessinsider.com/artsy-funding-2010-11
As far as I understand it, this is a product for the art market. Looks like it could be cool. But I don't think it approaches the realm of making art of and for the Internet.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Musings on the Fourth Quadrant - Open Collaboration
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/31every.html?_r=1&hpw
Did the majority of the most important innovations originate in open and collaborative systems? This is a very interesting article about progress that dodges left or right political alignment. It also brings to light the importance of informal, distributed, efforts that the internet promotes and embodies.
Images Skipping Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/technology/11photo.html?_r=1&hpw
As we consider the fate of images in a post-website internet, take note of the future of image sharing.
As we consider the fate of images in a post-website internet, take note of the future of image sharing.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
It's a Masterpiece, Whatever that Means... (LA TIMES)
Cool article discussing the loaded term "masterpiece." It starts by detailing the inaugural exhibition at the new Centre Pompidou-Metz, but the cool part is the second half of the article where SoCal art world folks address the idea of the term "masterpiece."
Not really Art 2.0 stuff... though apparently the show itself "grapples with notions of uniqueness in an age of endless reproductions" which is very cool.
A quote from the article:
"The concept of the masterpiece travels uncomfortably to more contemporary and experimental arenas, and it is certainly a last resort to describe and legitimize today's meaningful art production."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-masterpieces-20100905,0,4027735.story?page=1
Not really Art 2.0 stuff... though apparently the show itself "grapples with notions of uniqueness in an age of endless reproductions" which is very cool.
A quote from the article:
"The concept of the masterpiece travels uncomfortably to more contemporary and experimental arenas, and it is certainly a last resort to describe and legitimize today's meaningful art production."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-masterpieces-20100905,0,4027735.story?page=1
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Interesting Series
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/04/opinion/20100905_Windows-copy.html
A series in which writers from around the world describe the view from their windows.
A series in which writers from around the world describe the view from their windows.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Web Changing the Art Conversation?
This NYT article is about the effect the web is having on the peer-review publishing standard in academia. Here's a quote:
"In some respects scientists and economists who have created online repositories for unpublished working papers, like repec.org, have more quickly adapted to digital life. Just this month, mathematicians used blogs and wikis to evaluate a supposed mathematical proof in the space of a week — the scholarly equivalent of warp speed."
This is like the elite model of what happens on Wikipedia everyday and it is incredibly exciting. Obviously there are huge obstacles in the way of a process like this working in the art world (first, most art created today exists in the physical world and one must be in its presence to witness it correctly). But, with the emergence of digital art, things like this will contribute to the decentralizing of the art world and hopefully play a huge role in the grand art conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
"In some respects scientists and economists who have created online repositories for unpublished working papers, like repec.org, have more quickly adapted to digital life. Just this month, mathematicians used blogs and wikis to evaluate a supposed mathematical proof in the space of a week — the scholarly equivalent of warp speed."
This is like the elite model of what happens on Wikipedia everyday and it is incredibly exciting. Obviously there are huge obstacles in the way of a process like this working in the art world (first, most art created today exists in the physical world and one must be in its presence to witness it correctly). But, with the emergence of digital art, things like this will contribute to the decentralizing of the art world and hopefully play a huge role in the grand art conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Make Your Own QR-Codes! (Mashable)
This could be an awesome tool for artists... QR Codes. Make your own! (Via Mashable)
http://mashable.com/2010/08/23/how-to-create-qr-codes/
http://mashable.com/2010/08/23/how-to-create-qr-codes/
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Interview with Founder of deviantART.com (TechCrunch)
This interview isn't really about art per se, but it's interesting nonetheless to hear this guy talk about creating the most popular internet art space ever and what it took. "Don't be weak" (via TechCrunch)
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/22/stop-being-weak-an-interview-with-angelo-sotira-ceo-of-deviantart-com-tctv/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/22/stop-being-weak-an-interview-with-angelo-sotira-ceo-of-deviantart-com-tctv/
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Google Makes It Easier to Put Cool Fonts on Your Website
via Mashable:
http://mashable.com/2010/07/29/google-font-previewer/
Google has once again given an excellent new tool to designers and developers (and even CSS-savvy “common folk”) who long for better, more diverse typefaces on the web: a cool Font Previewer that makes adding a new font to your site as simple as copy/pasting a few lines of code.
http://mashable.com/2010/07/29/google-font-previewer/
Google has once again given an excellent new tool to designers and developers (and even CSS-savvy “common folk”) who long for better, more diverse typefaces on the web: a cool Font Previewer that makes adding a new font to your site as simple as copy/pasting a few lines of code.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
My Thoughts: Art with Broad Impact
**Disclaimer: because I view this blog as a sketchbook, many of my thoughts are half-baked at best (I believe this is true of most blogs anyway). Nonetheless, beyond my meager writing skills and Swiss cheese arguments, I’d like to think there are kernels of truth worth discussing.
To try and make this short and concise, here’s the thought: Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be political in nature be judged to some degree on its ability to incite political interest in the public... outside the walls of the “art world” garden? Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be religious be successful in inspiring spiritual awakening in people who don’t frequent museums of contemporary art? Shouldn't art that claims to have relevance in the real world engage it? Shouldn’t its success be evaluated on its impact outside the vacuum of the institution, the gallery, the world of professional theory and criticism?
Certainly not all (not most?) art today means to discuss the plight, the motivations, the faith of everyman/woman. Good artists know that their conversation is often just about art or the plight, the motivations, the faith of the artist and his/her peers. This art is about small ideas that do just fine being confined to the “art world.” And small ideas are good. They only intend to impact a small group of people.
But then there are delusional artists who think they are making art that engages humanity on a large scale and it doesn’t. The conceptual aspect of an artwork only works if it’s intended audience receives the intended message of the artist. Millions and millions of people witnessing your artwork doesn’t mean it reached/engaged/impacted those people.
Now I’m speaking of art in a very strict sense here. I mean art that serves no function but to be art. Mainstream movies, books, and music are extremely successful at engaging lots of people (and I consider them art), but delivering a message in the artistic sense is not normally their primary function (entertain/make money).
Beyond that, precedents set by artistic movements like Relational Aesthetics and much interactive installation realize the success of an artwork only when the audience is moved to the point of participation. Artists must now consider their responsibility to curate an experience. They must consider that the engagement and directly inspired actions of their viewer as extensions of the artwork and a contributing factor to its success. Are these actions of the audience realizing the conceptual intent? Now I’m not talking about propaganda, where the work’s main function is to inspire a movement in one direction or another. I’m just pointing out that if an artist intends to make art for the public at large, their related actions are part of the piece... and if there is no action, is the artwork successful? If the audience is not acting, maybe the work is reaching them, but still not successful.
Artists must be held responsible for their delusions. Just because the “art world” understands an artwork and even acts on its behalf, doesn’t mean the work is successful. Too often the work is pretending to have a conversation with the real world, only the real world isn’t listening. And worse, the piece is considered successful because the only people that are listening, the “art world,” are the determining opinion in arts success. This is short-sighted and naive.
Worse than making art that is delusional is just ignoring the public because it’s too hard to make successful work that includes them. An artist might complain that they lack the resources to engage the real world like mainstream movies, books, and music do... they can’t get an audience beyond the institution (read: “art world”). It’s possible. It’s even easier now with the Internet. Reaching the public is a noble cause for art, but we need to raise the standards of success in order to really make art with broad impact.
To try and make this short and concise, here’s the thought: Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be political in nature be judged to some degree on its ability to incite political interest in the public... outside the walls of the “art world” garden? Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be religious be successful in inspiring spiritual awakening in people who don’t frequent museums of contemporary art? Shouldn't art that claims to have relevance in the real world engage it? Shouldn’t its success be evaluated on its impact outside the vacuum of the institution, the gallery, the world of professional theory and criticism?
Certainly not all (not most?) art today means to discuss the plight, the motivations, the faith of everyman/woman. Good artists know that their conversation is often just about art or the plight, the motivations, the faith of the artist and his/her peers. This art is about small ideas that do just fine being confined to the “art world.” And small ideas are good. They only intend to impact a small group of people.
But then there are delusional artists who think they are making art that engages humanity on a large scale and it doesn’t. The conceptual aspect of an artwork only works if it’s intended audience receives the intended message of the artist. Millions and millions of people witnessing your artwork doesn’t mean it reached/engaged/impacted those people.
Now I’m speaking of art in a very strict sense here. I mean art that serves no function but to be art. Mainstream movies, books, and music are extremely successful at engaging lots of people (and I consider them art), but delivering a message in the artistic sense is not normally their primary function (entertain/make money).
Beyond that, precedents set by artistic movements like Relational Aesthetics and much interactive installation realize the success of an artwork only when the audience is moved to the point of participation. Artists must now consider their responsibility to curate an experience. They must consider that the engagement and directly inspired actions of their viewer as extensions of the artwork and a contributing factor to its success. Are these actions of the audience realizing the conceptual intent? Now I’m not talking about propaganda, where the work’s main function is to inspire a movement in one direction or another. I’m just pointing out that if an artist intends to make art for the public at large, their related actions are part of the piece... and if there is no action, is the artwork successful? If the audience is not acting, maybe the work is reaching them, but still not successful.
Artists must be held responsible for their delusions. Just because the “art world” understands an artwork and even acts on its behalf, doesn’t mean the work is successful. Too often the work is pretending to have a conversation with the real world, only the real world isn’t listening. And worse, the piece is considered successful because the only people that are listening, the “art world,” are the determining opinion in arts success. This is short-sighted and naive.
Worse than making art that is delusional is just ignoring the public because it’s too hard to make successful work that includes them. An artist might complain that they lack the resources to engage the real world like mainstream movies, books, and music do... they can’t get an audience beyond the institution (read: “art world”). It’s possible. It’s even easier now with the Internet. Reaching the public is a noble cause for art, but we need to raise the standards of success in order to really make art with broad impact.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
My Thoughts: The Internet is about Context
**Disclaimer: because I view this blog as a sketchbook, many of my thoughts are half-baked at best (I believe this is true of most blogs anyway). Nonetheless, beyond my meager writing skills and Swiss cheese arguments, I’d like to think there are kernels of truth worth discussing.
The Internet is about Context
The Internet is about context. Contribution of content is necessary, but the vast majority of Internet users have traditionally contributed very little content of their own. It is true that, as social media grows, more and more people are contributing their own content (pictures, status updates, blogs, etc.) but the context of that content is growing in importance even more substantially.
The Internet is used interchangeably with the Web. As the term Web infers, it is a collection of content that is connected based on relational hyperlinks. In fact these days, with the exception of a few of the most visited sites, most web pages are only visited because they relate (are linked to) another web page. “I link, therefore I am.” Google ranks the websites that it indexes based on how many other sites link to it (the more linked to, the higher the rank). A web page’s importance is based on where it is situated contextually with other web pages.
But it’s not just importance of web pages that is based on context. The ease of distribution of content on the Internet has made it a hotbed for sharing. As I said before, very few people contribute their own original content, but many more share preexisting content. In this way content “travels” around the Internet propelled by users. While this is true of physical media as well, it is much truer of digital content (because it is even easier to share and doesn’t degrade as quickly) and even defines its very existence. Content on the Internet lives a life that is determined by the journey it takes as it is shared. It’s context(s) give it value.
Also, as I alluded to above, the rise of social media has only heightened the relevancy of context on the Internet. Where a person situates their profile (in relation to friends, interests, organizations, etc.) is what drives their digital experience. Tagging friends in pictures and commenting on a connected person’s content drives the interest of most social media users. The context websites like Facebook arrange us in is what gives social media value.
As artists, we can focus way too much on the original content we contribute... caring about what it looks like and what it means. But the Internet is about context and if we’re making art for the Internet or art of the Internet, maybe we should be focusing more on curating a context for the content we contribute instead of tripping up over the initial form of it.
The Internet is about Context
The Internet is about context. Contribution of content is necessary, but the vast majority of Internet users have traditionally contributed very little content of their own. It is true that, as social media grows, more and more people are contributing their own content (pictures, status updates, blogs, etc.) but the context of that content is growing in importance even more substantially.
The Internet is used interchangeably with the Web. As the term Web infers, it is a collection of content that is connected based on relational hyperlinks. In fact these days, with the exception of a few of the most visited sites, most web pages are only visited because they relate (are linked to) another web page. “I link, therefore I am.” Google ranks the websites that it indexes based on how many other sites link to it (the more linked to, the higher the rank). A web page’s importance is based on where it is situated contextually with other web pages.
But it’s not just importance of web pages that is based on context. The ease of distribution of content on the Internet has made it a hotbed for sharing. As I said before, very few people contribute their own original content, but many more share preexisting content. In this way content “travels” around the Internet propelled by users. While this is true of physical media as well, it is much truer of digital content (because it is even easier to share and doesn’t degrade as quickly) and even defines its very existence. Content on the Internet lives a life that is determined by the journey it takes as it is shared. It’s context(s) give it value.
Also, as I alluded to above, the rise of social media has only heightened the relevancy of context on the Internet. Where a person situates their profile (in relation to friends, interests, organizations, etc.) is what drives their digital experience. Tagging friends in pictures and commenting on a connected person’s content drives the interest of most social media users. The context websites like Facebook arrange us in is what gives social media value.
As artists, we can focus way too much on the original content we contribute... caring about what it looks like and what it means. But the Internet is about context and if we’re making art for the Internet or art of the Internet, maybe we should be focusing more on curating a context for the content we contribute instead of tripping up over the initial form of it.
Some Google Help for Artists
Google introduces an easy way to make your own Android Apps!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Want Your Art to Last at Least as Long as this Country Exists?
Mashable interviewed Abbie Grotke, a digital media project specialist on the Library of Congress’s web archiving team, to better understand what Internet content the Library of Congress is indexing and saving for future generations...
"Painting" on the iPad
Via Silicon Alley Insider...
More "art" uses for the iPad. I'm pretty sure I'd still prefer using a stylus to using my finger... but this is well done.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
New Project: The Internet Traveler visits Art2point0!
Internet Traveler tumblr: http://internettraveler.tumblr.com/
The project consists of a tumblr blog that is hosting the above image. The goal is for people to help the Internet Traveler visit new spaces on the internet by posting the image to their Facebook profile pages, blogs, or websites they have the ability to alter. These enablers of the Internet Traveler can then post a screenshot (and a link) to the tumblr of the new place Internet Traveler has visited.
If Internet Traveler can find his way to high-traffic websites like online newspapers or popular blogs, the hope is that others who are unaware of the project will catch on and they too will help send Internet Traveler to new internet lands.
Enablers are free to crop or alter Internet Traveler to suit their purposes.
My end mission is to track Internet Traveler's progress from a known point of origin (the tumblr) on to all his adventures in cyberspace. Please help the cause!
Google wins one for the artists?
Take note: Google's victory over Viacom and its implications on artists...
From NYT Article:
Google and groups supporting Internet companies hailed the decision, saying it would protect not only YouTube but also other sites that host user-generated content.
“This is a victory for the Internet and for the people who use it,” said Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, in an interview. “The decision will let a whole new generation of creators and artists share their work online.”
Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?hpw
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
How to Make a Meme
Have you ever considered creating a meme to function as an art piece? I know I have. Here is some advice on creating one (via Mashable)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
My Term: "Disruptive Formalism"
Think movements like impressionism or artists like Picasso and Jackson Pollock.
This term is a combination of the art world word "Formalism" and the tech world word "Disruptive" (click through the word to view the Wikipedia article for each).
I feel like Disruptive Formalism is happening constantly in art, though maybe not in such obvious ways recently has it has happened in the past... especially within the disciplines of painting and drawing. I like how in the tech world basically every new idea is evaluated based on whether it will be "disruptive." I don't think that art needs to be disruptive to have merit, but I tend to appreciate artwork that is on the more side (rather than the less side) of innovation. This is why I feel like the idea of Disruptive Formalism should be tossed around more in contemporary art conversations.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
How the iPad IS Changing Art and Music
I've talked a bit already about how the iPad would change art. I believe its importance to art goes far beyond its use as a sketchbook, but that is certainly its most obvious benefit to art. Here is a video (lack of pressure-sensitivity makes it far inferior to a Wacom tablet... but this is certainly something!):
Thursday, May 20, 2010
CAPTCHA Art = Awesome (Video)
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Try to Tell Me This Guy is Not an Artist...
Twitter cofounder Jack Dorsey talks in this video about conceiving, harvesting, executing, and editing ideas (like those he had for Twitter and Square).
To all my artist followers out there, isn't he using the same language we've heard in art school and describing the same creative realities that we navigate when we make art? Doesn't he make Twitter sound more like an art project than a business?
He's not the greatest speaker, but I'm astonished at how real what he is saying is at it applies to art.
The vid is 16 mins long...
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Open Source- Creating Art like Google Chrome
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/business/09ping.html?hp
The idea of open source art is a key one to the art 2.0 movement. Google's Chrome operating system is a good example of open source in the tech world. The concept behind Chrome (every action on the computer interfacing with the "cloud") will also be important to internet artists.
The open source ideal is extremely contrary to what art has traditionally been: A Master creating his own proprietary work of self-reflexive genius. This makes it an incredibly interesting idea to think about.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Getting Funding as an Entrepreneur Artist?
http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-kids-first-time-entreprenuers-dont-usually-get-funding-2010-5
I often compare being an artist to being an entrepreneur. Granting that there are definitely some big differences between the two, I think it can be very helpful to an artist to think of approaching a model of business entrance/sustainability from an entrepreneurial point of view.
With that said... replace "entrepreneur" with "artist" and "VC" with "Gallery/Patron"
Thursday, May 6, 2010
New Media Artist / Activist
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucsd-professor-20100507-53,0,4754225.story
Just an interesting article...
Monday, May 3, 2010
Awesome Photo / AJAX tiled composite?
http://gigapan.org/gigapans/48492/
This is cool because it's a gigantic picture of Dubai... but I'm mostly interested tech used to display this image and allow zoom/scroll. It seems to be very similar to the OpenLayers API that I used for the Ballentine drawing... just a lot smoother (maybe the tiles are just in a compressed image format?).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
FACEBOOK: "The Modern-Day Railroad"
A Couple Implications on Art:
Most obviously, the simple action (they say it's simple) of adding the ability for viewers to "Like" your artwork. This is a plugin that you can add to your site so people who appreciate your art and have a facebook account can "Like" it and broadcast its existence to their entire friend network. This could work wonders for promoting your work.
Further... the introduction of a new and more accessible API will give plenty of exciting options to New Media artists.
UPDATE: Watch F8 Keynote speech here: http://apps.facebook.com/feightlive/
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Future of Art Images is So Bright
The future of art images that cross over between the physical world and the digital and back again is so bright...
New tech coming to Google Goggles:
Google Buys A Startup That Can ID A Famous Painting From Its Photo
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-buys-a-visual-search-company-2010-4#ixzz0kvnWxK7D
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-buys-a-visual-search-company-2010-4#ixzz0kvnWxK7D
People will be making art with this as soon as it is available (again). Google please give us a Goggles API soon.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Artist Paints Google (not digitally)
http://kensolomon.com/gallery/index.php?album=main
Watercolor paintings of Google Image Search.
Cool.
See my own (digital) portrait of Google here
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Visual Artists Sue Google
NYT ARTICLE:
However...
Let this be a wake up call to future artists: We play by a different set of rules in the Internet World, whether you like it or not. I believe that good artists will embrace this incredibly efficient new form of distribution (call it pirating if you like) and use it not only to augment the viewership of their work, but also to add to their work.
I'm not really offering solutions, but I sincerely believe they exist. Here are some thoughts to start with:
As for distributing freely on the internet and still making money, an example that I appreciate is what rappers are increasingly doing with their music: producing unofficial mixtapes that are intentionally released to the internet for free consumption. These mixtapes are basically original music without quite the polish of an official studio album. This provides free marketing and it ingratiates the artists with an audience that, believe it or not, recognizes that pirating is real. This audience in turn buys the artist's official album whenever it is released (though it is probably available somewhere to pirate) as a show of support for an artist that embraced them... instead of reviling them. Lil Wayne released several high-quality mixtapes prior to the release of his multi-platinum selling official "Tha Carter 3" album. I truly believe this effect bolstered the official album's success.
As for actually adding to the artwork itself, maybe the money lost to pirating can be offset by additional content created by the Internet... By that I mean understanding that Web 2.0 is based on harnessing user-generated content. The same audience that is consuming your artwork for free is also offering up content they've created for free. They post opinions, reviews, remixed images, locational data, networks of friends, youtube videos, tweets, and are often happy to provide you with content specific to your needs if you just ask them for it. Accept their trade and make work that uses that content.
Returning to the article, I don't think that Google believes they are "pirating" these artists' work... Google thinks they are doing these artists (and society at large) a favor. In the future, artists should recognize that if they understand Google's point of view, they can harness the power of the favor it is doing them.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Web Curators and Their Future Needs
A great post about what web curation means, where it is, and where it is headed. While this may not seem to relate to visual art, I contend that these "bundles" (and related data) should be seen as internet drawings... or collages at the least. The benefit of web 2.0 as it relates to art is that art does not need to be static anymore. It's live. It's real time. It lives.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Two Sketches
Here are two recent drawings of mine that explore the browser space as a portal for viewing art. Both are hand drawn on my Wacom tablet.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Church 2.0
Sorry about the lack of posts recently... ski break. However, the vacation allowed me time to consider future art projects. Interesting article:
Monday, March 1, 2010
= Awesome.
Artist makes paintings for satellites (Google Maps satellites to be exact):
Images
Quote from nydailynews.com
"I've spent a lot of time thinking, 'What does painting mean in the digital age?'" said Dilworth, who said she is intrigued that so many people feel a personal connection when viewing familiar places on Google Earth.
"It's weird, because it's such an impersonal technology, but then most people I know have had this experience where it's almost like watching your own home videos or listening to your own voice," Dilworth said. "It's oddly intimate."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wired Mag Article - The Google Algorithm
It was probably sometime before the turn of the century when my computer science professor mom told me to stop messing around with AltaVista (remember them?) and start using Google. Here is an interesting article on why Google has always been a better search engine than the others...
For the artist, I think it is important to understand that this algorithm basically governs the Internet's acceptance of your work... and should always be considered... even in its shortcomings (see Invisible Text projects at bradleycarter.com)
Monday, February 22, 2010
Experiments in Internet Scale - War and Peace
Continuing my musings into innovative ways of illustrating internet scale, I created a new sketch (one might prefer to call it a webpage). I started with the idea that the average web viewer uses the side scrollbar as a sort of measurement of internet distance... how long the content of a webpage is. One can tell quickly by looking at the scrollbar roughly how far they have come and how far they have to go.
My thought was that maybe I could parlay this basic contextualizing of Internet space into a greater realization by the viewer of how much content actually exists on the net. Further, my hope is that they could start thinking of the information they consume on the Internet in terms of standards of measurement used in the physical world, namely distance by inches, feet, and yards in this case.
The question is: Does the artwork succeed?
View piece here. (Be patient, it might take a little while for all of War and Peace to load)
IPad development class presentation (unfortunately, no sound)
This presentation (from a Stanford CS class) makes a case for the revolutionary nature of the IPad. For the artist, it provides some interesting food for thought: How should this device change our perception of how it is possible to present concepts digitally?
Stanford CS193P - Designing for iPad
View more presentations from Evan Doll.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Problem with Internet Scale
Much of my recent work is concerned with the idea of scale on the internet. I am in awe of the vast amount of information available in cyberspace. Not only does the internet already harbor larger amounts of data than the human mind can wrap itself around but, theoretically, it has the potential to keep infinitely more. Drawings that are too big to exist in the physical world can reside digitally, requiring only a modest amount of disk space. Ballentine the Bird attempts to attest to this reality but, ultimately, falls a bit short.
Ballentine is 30 feet long and 20 feet tall @72 pixels per inch (72ppi is the resolution at which I drew her... though I did in fact later print her at a size manageable in the physical world by raising the resolution to 300ppi). She is made viewable within the constraints of a small browser window by using a similar technology to the one that Google Maps uses: AJAX allows the viewer to zoom in to full size and zoom out to see the drawing in its entirety.
I thought that the idea of a T-Rex sized bird existing in cyberspace would stoke the imaginations of her viewers and make visual the concept of Internet Scale. Ballentine did not have this effect. Viewers failed to grasp her magnitude. It took a greater mental leap to imagine her relative size than I can reasonably expect of my work's target audience (this is the work's failure, not the viewer's). After conversations with my colleagues, it has become evident that, within the limited browsing capabilities of the common internet user, it is not natural to perceive the Internet as having spacial characteristics (other than perhaps scrolling down to read text?). Browsers do such a great job of distilling web content to consumable portions that the average user has little reason to think beyond what is rendered in their 900 x 1,200 pixel window. And search engines, by nature, do their best to cut the entire internet down to a few simple results. Because the average site is so easily cropped, shrunk, edited, and doled, web content is seen as having no size at all. Why should I expect viewers to look at Ballentine differently?
(It makes perfect sense that the internet has evolved this way, I'm not contending that something about this system is "wrong")
My recent thinking is revolving around this issue. Viewers shouldn't be expected to naturally ponder the concepts of Internet Scale, I need to find a more effective way to elicit such a response in my work. I have several ideas brewing...
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Why the Apple iPad will Revolutionize Art
First, as you know, I have a passion for digital visual art (especially when it exists online). The iPad makes viewing the internet more accessible than ever. To "hold the internet in your hands," as Steve Jobs puts it, in a format large enough appreciate the average website, as opposed to smartphone size, is to become more intimate with cyberspace than we have ever been. People can take the internet with them in public and share it with friends in a more natural way.
As opposed to laptops and desktops, the iPad is truly mobile and that means that, along with the internet, digital art can be carried close to you at all times.
It's touch screen functionality is also more intimate and puts artists and viewers into a more traditional relationship with what is being displayed. I've been using a Wacom tablet for awhile now because it allows me to draw on the computer with a stylus, giving me more freedom of movement and better control than a mouse or track ball. While I'm not sure that the iPad will allow you to work with a stylus, it will definitely allow you to making natural drawing gestures with your fingers directly on the screen. This lends itself to creating a perfect sketchbook out of the iPad and leaves a great opportunity for developers to make drawing apps (finger painting!).
Because it is being offered at a relatively low price point($499 starting vs. $1k for a comparable Wacom tablet), it will be widely available. And the more artists work digitally, the more credibility digital art of any sort will have.
Art created digitally will surely lead to work that makes use of the digital world's unique advantages. Works can be dynamic, interactive, cloned and shared, and viewed instantly all over the world. Artists will find that leaving their work in a digital format (as opposed to printing it out or otherwise bringing it into the physical world) can heighten it's poignancy and sharpen it's effect.
And why should artists have to make the work into a physical object when the iPad could easily double as an electronic picture frame? When it's not being used, people can plug it into a dock and view digital visual art (presuming somebody makes an app for this purpose).
These are just a few reasons why the Apple iPad is making the future of art more exciting.
Grains of Sand
I'm working on a couple scribble drawing projects right now. One project is taking my representations of natural objects to a very basic level: drawing grains of sand or bits of dirt.
Each grain is to scale with my other large drawings.
For me, this is an obvious progression. I am interested in bringing the physical world into cyberspace and what better place to start than from such a basic building block as dirt. Plus I'd really like to see what a "dirty" browser window would look like!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Ballentine in the physical world
Ballentine printed and mounted at my parent's house. Amateur gluing job I know... I need to fix it somehow. View Ballentine in her natural habitat here
Sketches
Here are two sketches I've recently done. Using only lines to make my drawings is my current answer to two important questions associated with computer-aided drawing:
1.)How can an artist get past the stigma that using the computer to draw is merely a shortcut?
2.) How can an artist have the most possible control over their drawing on the computer when computer programmers (artists?) have already decided most of a computer's functionality for you? ie: those who make the drawing software basically already decided what the circle tool does, and the parameters of the paint bucket tool.
My solution is drawing with one pixel-wide lines. I do this because then "physically" I touch every pixel that is modified in the drawing, undermining the idea that computer drawing is a shortcut. And the line is a very basic function... it's about as close to full control as an artist can get while still maintaining a free-hand drawing experience on a computer. Also, computers do lines very well. I feel like lines are an innate action for computers.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Art 2.0
Art 2.0 is a reference to the term Web 2.0.
According to Wikipedia "Web 2.0 is commonly associated with web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaborations on the World Wide Web. Examples of Web 2.0 include web-based communities, hosted services, web applications, social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, mashups, and folksonomies. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or to change website content, in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them."
Since Pepperdine, I've been interested in Internet art. A painter or draftsman by trade, I wondered specifically what an "Internet drawing" should look like. I'm not talking about uploading photographs of static drawings made in the physical world. Rather I'm interested in drawings that use the Internet itself as a medium... like charcoal or graphite. Think of the possibilities: interactivity, infinite duplication and sharing, and unlimited size to name a few. The definition of drawing that I prefer to work with is "A mark that transforms a ground." By this definition, a website could most certainly be considered a drawing.
I'm not the first artist to contemplate the potential of the Internet as a medium, in addition to a space, to make art. In fact, I'm probably part of the third or fourth generation of Net Artists. I do, however, have a certain loyalty to traditional drawing techniques that might lend me my own niche.
www.BradleyCarter.com is my showroom of sorts, but it is my hope that this blog will help in the process of creating my artwork. In art, digital art especially, it's so easy to overlook the process of an artwork. But the process of creating an art piece is important to an artist. It might even be the most important part... even more important than the finished piece. Something like the saying "it's the journey that matters, not the destination" I guess. Well, this blog should document some of that journey, and it is my hope that it will increase the significance and power of the art it documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)