Second Life

Creating my avatar in second life was a challenge. I began by assuming that the skin only needed to be stretched around the template by expanding the cheeks and basically leaving the nose, mouth, and eyes sections alone. However, I later found out that it was crucial to the proper look of your avatar to manipulate all these sections to properly fit the grid. After my skin had been posted I also wondered why it did not look like me at all - until I found the head shape manipulation tool which sorting those issues out. My original self comes fully equipped with my own color hair and eyes as well as my "nerd-glasses" that I believe are inseparable from myself. My alternative or imaginary avatar I composed keeping in mind my future desires and, at the risk of sounding overly materialistic, I wished to define my imagined self as a rich 1920 steel tycoon. I think the connotation associated with this personality does accurately express particular aspects of my own character traits, however this is keeping in mind the good traits as well. All the objects on my imaginary avatar are from my own creation as I could not find suitable replicas I wished to adorn myself with that were to my liking of both aesthetic and cost.

Reading Ch. 2 Questions

1.) Historically the practice of art has been relatively centralized around the concept that art is found within the piece itself however, as stated in the reading, challenging that idea is the growing significance of concept and context. From this stems the art form of conceptualism as well as minimalism which both gradually remove the boundaries between what is commonly considered "art and every-day life." However, given this gradual regression or progression, is there a point where the representational difference becomes too insignificant to arouse popular support? Is minimalism and conceptualism too representational of "non-art" to succeed as "art" in itself?

2.) Vostell and Paik "re-contextualized" the monitor and sparked the beginning of intellectual, conceptual, and aesthetic discussion concerning the new medium of TV. This discussion opened up routes for sub-categorical deliberation among narrative, dairy, and other critique facets of the "new" medium of choice. However, throughout the critique development of TV, artists distinguished themselves apart from the "commercialized television engineers" by defining their actions and thought processes as purely "interested in the mechanisms of video as they functioned artistically." Yet, in the intellectual, physical, and cognitive actions of such artists especially in displaying of art through the video/TV medium, aren't the endeavors of such artists, be it intellectual, conceptual, narrative, diary-like, etc. paralleling the endeavors of "commercialized television engineers?" or is the difference between endeavors "artistically" approached and approached as "art" substantial enough to warrant these artists truly different from commercialized TV engineers?

Extra Credit Evaluation

Although it took 7 minutes, it was 7 hearty minutes of sincerity :)

3D "The Sequel"

 

 



This project was particularly troublesome and very time-consuming. I wound up starting and restarting over 4 different times. The trickiest part to overcome was the hot-keys crucial to success with Blender. I started basically by creating a cylinder and then modifying it slowly to add more faces and divisions in the correct areas. The creation of the tubes of the heart all came about the same way. Through the layout of a path and then attaching a circle to that line and extending it using the line as a path. From there I merged the objects and had a rudimentary outline of the my heart piece. However, there were still many issues, among them: resizing the heart (particularly the back), the merging of the tubes to the body of the heart, the creation of indentations and creases along the body, as well as final coloration and texturing.

Resizing was aided immensely by the sculpture mode offered by Blender and the grab tool which I used to grab large portions of the surface and thus modify large portions of the shape. The build-up of many other areas, as well as indentation was also done through the sculpting mode. However, it wasn't until strange glitching pixel parts appeared that I had realized there was a problem. Through later intense research I had solved it however by "enabling dynamic" sculpting which adds faces as the original face is stretched or modified in any other way. Seams between the tubes and body also posed a great issue to overcome. Through extremely tedious and laborious work however most of the seams are hardly noticeable. Indentations and creases throughout the piece were added by the crease tool in the sculpting brush library. This actually also helped massively with the merging of the tubes to the body as well. On the backside of the heart in particular I decided to crease the line of the back tube instead of adding another tube to the body. I think it worked quite effectively and I love the way it looks especially in comparison to the original. However, compared to the last issue of texturing and coloring these other hiccups seem very small.

Coloring was a considerable issue due to the frame rate I had steadily been decreasing through the final product of (in sculpting mode) 2,936,468 vertices. Eventually I solved the issue by finding every color selection bar and turning it to the maroon color of my heart since I could not locate which one actually affected the surface appearance of the piece. Texturing was another issue and one that led to two restarts of the four total. I realized early on that I would need to finish my piece before adding any color or texture so I did, but when the time came to add a new texture I could not and it resulted in two computer crashes (even with a bunch of RAM.) I went through numerous loopholes to attempt to attach an image of my heart surface even without adjusting the "normal" so as to add texture. UV unwrap was impossible due to the unsymmetrical nature of my piece as well as the copious amounts of vertices, every other option as well displayed only the copy of the heart with no texture or image for me to paste or fit to that heart. I went through numerous textures and formatting issues wondering what it could have been but ultimately the texturing did not happen. I had also even downloaded a bump-map free program trial for a texture to apply. In it the initial input image gave me numerous results for texture application including specularity, displacement, normal map, occlusion, and diffusion. Should it have worked with the end result 3D model would have been amazing, I had tried it on a plane within Blender as well just to see and it worked fabulously, but given all attempts the following pictures for node mapping could not be applied (occlusion image not included):

 

 

However, through the many hours spent on this project and the numerous work-arounds I had considerable fun and am eager to learn more about the Blender program partially due to the many tutorials I watched to learn specific skills and witnessing many of the incredible things possible through it. I believe ultimately, despite the absence of a texture other than a light diffusion, that the 3D model replica of Passion was successful and very accurate in its resemblance to the original.

Persiasion Gallery Critique

            Persuasion by Priscilla B. Varner is a series of photographs each depicting a specific object or place. To demonstrate the power of persuasion next to each photograph there is a plaque with key words. The text varies between key words drawing the viewer’s attention to those that are noticeably different. In doing so Varner attempts to highlight specific cognitive interplays between suggestive visual stimuli such as the differing noticeability between the words and the photograph when viewed in differing orders.

            One particular photograph consists of a snowy scene around a monument. The photograph is also black and white which highlights the snow scape and barren trees. There can be seen small groups of people walking around the monument as well with the faint outline of the Eiffel Tower in the background. In this instance reading the words cold, dreamy, historic, soft, somber, unhurried, and whispers before viewing the photograph would undoubtedly fixate the viewer’s mind on the calm, cool, and collected nature of this photograph. Demonstrating a completely different opinion of the photograph, a reversed sequence of viewing the photograph and then the words may result in a completely different experience. In this way the power of suggestion does not alter one’s perception so that the viewer is hindered by competing thoughts and unable to determine their own opinion on the photographs aesthetics. The power of suggestion works in a unique way with this specific piece in the suggestion of related-yet deeper thoughts. Whereas normally a viewer may only see the surface-level visuals of the photograph, the power of suggestion can work as a guideline for viewers to engage in deeper thoughts and internal discussion about the piece.

            Another effective piece in this gallery that used this persuasive theme cleverly as well was a photograph of a plaza looking down with the words beside it of dangerous, incident, questionable, mysterious, scandalous, and vacant. As discussed with the first photograph, surface level viewer examination of this piece before viewing the words would offer a completely different view; one of everyday life and hurry. However, after examining the plaque and then the photograph there is a completely different feel to it. This particular pairing of words and visual, unlike the first photograph mentioned, does not seem to be an attempt to spark deeper thinking of the viewer, but rather misguided thinking. In this photograph and juxtaposing words it feels as if Varner attempts to see how far the limits are of persuasion, to state something ridiculous about a scene and then have the viewer determine whether or not to stop that line of thought, or continue with it. This is a subtle inner hint within this particular piece itself that is vital to expressing the overall theme of the gallery; the power of persuasion.

            Varner uses many pairings of words and photographs to evoke differing responses from the audience. The tactics used to do so include suggestive guiding so as to promote critical visual discussion from the viewer, and hyperbolized suggestions to better illustrate the true power of the persuasive words on the photograph through the conscious decision of the viewer to follow or disobey those persuasive connections. Both are effective in communicating the overall power of persuasion and ultimately make for an intellectually and visually stimulating gallery.

 

Writing and Presentation Research Project

Notes:

            I chose these two artists because the site interface for this particular group was very easy to navigate and had very easy hyperlinks to their galleries. I attempted to contact both artists, both with the same message covering basic elements I hoped to discuss that would prove more credible with first-hand opinion by the artists themselves. Joe McKay replied and I have cited our email in the paper (Furr) however, Lauren McCarthy did not, however research on her personal position was not too hard as the concept of the piece I chose to represent her work was not too complicated. I have posted videos and photos to correspond to specific sections of this paper and urge the reader(s) to use them to their own benefit.

 

 

The Dynamics of the User-Program Dilemma:

A Discussion In Comparative Digital Media

 

 

The elucidations, analyses, and explications of correspondences and variances composing two digital media pieces demand a discourse not only regarding the physical elements of the two pieces but also the philosophies and social commentary behind each specific piece. Discourse on such connotations of these mentioned pieces will reference particular New Media scholars’ questions and theories including Manovich’s theory of what “constitutes” the existence of a piece as a New Media novelty, Participative Systems, Rita Raley’s conceptual definitions of tactical media and applications to the pieces discussed, Claire Bishop’s question of “[is this] contemporary art responding to the modern age?” Discussion of the role of Digital Media and Aesthetic and commentary in both art pieces that will be discussed are consequentially intertwined but distinctions made between the two will enable a more specific scrutiny of differences as well as similarities. The two pieces to be discussed are the “Happiness Hat (2009)” by Lauren McCarthy and “Light Wave” by Joe McKay. As previously mentioned the discussion will centralize on the specificities of each individual piece, initially dismissing similarities so as to provide a better basis for understanding and later correspondences. In hopes to foster a better analytical perspective discourse begins with the individual compositions and their physical structures and aesthetic values followed by separate social commentaries (in references to questions and theories of Manovich, Participative Systems, Raley, and Bishop) with particular care to demonstrate similarities with components such as user-program relations and aesthetics later on.

The piece “Light Wave” by Joe McKay physically and aesthetically represents a tangible aspect of the digital medium. McKay uses an Arduino Mega system, and three 8-channel solid state relay boards to create a highly interactive digital sculpture for two participants. The aesthetic nature of this piece is highlighted by the varying components used in the digital sculpture. Creating a constant discussion between subject material and viewers is the lamps and specific lights used to create this installation. Lined up in a curved shape resembling a structure similar to an‘s’ are the lamps in this piece. The dynamic nature of this very simple curve itself adds to the aesthetic physical element so continuously prominent throughout the digital sculpture and reflects the fluid movement of this digital installation. The physical occupancy of “Light Wave” is intended to be a two player game installed at Long Island University Brooklyn Campus.  The installation is comprised of 23 lamps and two pedestals (McKay.) Players use foam hammers to hit the pedestal in varying degrees of force thus sending an electrical signal at various corresponding speeds to the opponent who attempts to respond at the correct time to continue the volley. Eventually a victor is decided due to the gradual inclination of electronic transference, and the game resets afterward. Aesthetically speaking the interaction of participants in the sculpture is basic to the appearance, and thus the function of the installation similarly must be discussed as a physical aesthetic rather than as a conceptual viewpoint.

 

The piece “Happiness Hat” by Lauren McCarthy uses visual elements as well as user-program response mechanisms to create a unique piece of art. McCarthy uses an enclosed bend sensor that attaches to the cheek and measures smile size (McCarthy.) In response to corresponding electrical signals delivered by the sensor a servo motor moves a metal spike into the head inversely proportional to the degree of smile. The device runs on Arduino, the open-source electronic prototyping platform. Curiously enough the electronics themselves are housed in what otherwise would seem a warm and tight-knit beanie. Contradictory in nature, the aesthetic value of juxtaposing function and form are compelling to the viewer. This feeling of softness is created partially through the material used, but also through the stylization and use of that material as well. The hand-knit quality of the beanie with ample room and multiple vertices creates a very plush appearance that is inherently misleading. The incorporation of New Media in this piece is done so through physical form and thus compliments the overarching aesthetic physical value of the sculpture once recognized after initial observation.

 

The similarities between these pieces are both aesthetic and meaningful in the social commentary employed by both sculptures. The social connotation behind the piece, “Light Wave,” by McKay, is one of engagement with technology in our society today and the interactions between users and programs such as “everyday technologies” (McKay.) McKay does so with a “playful” spin this interaction to draw a lighthearted attention to the matter. As stated in an interview, McKay also noted how games are effective in delivering this message and provoking realization of the excessive dependency and interaction. In this way “games that are new, and actually work as fun addictive experiences” have the strongest connection with viewers. McKay maintains an invitation for his “audience to play, and perhaps it will not be until they have left the gallery that they think about what it means that, for a moment, they forgot that they were looking at art” (Furr.) This fixation with the digital medium physically expresses the very dependency and prolific nature of technological interactions on a daily basis. In a similar way, “Happiness Hat” by Lauren McCarthy also offers a complimentary social perspective on user-program interactions. The very systems and structure of these interactions provide a base template for the commentary behind pieces such as the “Happiness Hat.” The recognition and use of technology as a medium through which to express these interactions and manipulate, evolve, and mediate these exchanges (McCarthy) parallels the conceptual elements of Joe McKay’s attempts to express similar interactions and potentials in the abundant realities of the existence of these interactions. In an immediate sense McCarthy is interested in the immediate discomfort when “patterns are shifted, expectations are broken, and participants become aware of the system” they are engaged in. McKay on the other hand is interested in a similar, but delayed, discomfort with the rigidity of interactions. While the piece “Happiness Hat” functions off the neurological premises of mirror neurons that fire when seeing others smile and instead initiating that act to sustain permanent neurological firing, “Light Wave” works by drawing the players into a game so engaging and addictively sustainable that it hopefully triggers a realization of this connectivity and nature of technological interaction. Both aim to break the pattern only on different time allotments.

Manovich discusses in his book, The Language of New Media, the proposal of a theory of the existence and applicability of the term ‘New Media.’  In this book Manovich offers a contemporary rerouting, comprehensive examination, and finally rigorous new definition of New Media. He discusses the multiple historical aspects of new media, particularly the basis of development off of older media in reference to mediums such as cinema in his creation of new theoretical constructs. Manovich discusses parallels between “what constitutes the novelty of new media” (Osharpe) for reasons of categorization and further scholarly discussion. The classification of New Media falls into to five sections: the principles of new media – numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding. While these specific principles are considered essential to effective New Media art both in aesthetics and commentary, they are not quintessential and instead stand as mere guiding tendencies (Lev, Manovich…) Manovich states that the mass production of art is an inevitable consequence of merging technological capabilities in the race of efficiency and effectiveness. However, there is a side-effect of unequal growth; the “individual customization” (Manovich 29-41) of new media art as result of user-program interaction. To test the legitimacy of the title of pieces from McCarthy and McKay the applicability of their form and function must be scrutinized.

1.)    Numerical Representation: all digital media pieces must be capable of numerical representation and is programmable through code. In this instance both pieces, “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” contain elements of numerical representation key to their aesthetic and participatory qualities as pieces. In a fundamental test one must observe what the piece can be absolved of (excluding elements capable of numerical representation) that still enable it to function as an effective Digital Media entity. In both these pieces the messages and interactions are numerically representational in their existence and thus would be able to function without the aesthetic aids of the hand-knitted cap, or the wooden lamp poles.

2.)    Modularity: all digital media pieces must be comprised of basic independent elements such as frame, sound, etc. that can be independently modified and applied in other contexts. “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” both contain multiple elements labeling them as modular pieces. Comprised of code as well as independent electronic and sensory elements these can be independently modified (as demonstrated by both piece’s use of the Arduino electronic prototyping platform.)

3.)    Automation: “The creative energy of the author goes into the selection and sequencing of elements rather than into original design” (Manovich 29-41.) Otherwise the human necessity of repetition to achieve the same output is initially programmed, but repetition is done on the part of the program. Both pieces similarly reflect automation in their function and thus aesthetic qualities. In “Happiness Hat” this is achieved through the sensory measurement of facial muscle tension and then response by a basic motor. In “Light Wave” this is achieved through the repetition of the program knowing to speed up the electronic signals corresponding between pressure applied by the mallet to the pedestal, and the timing of such signals between pedestals.

4.)    Variability: “a new media object is not something fixed once and for all, but something that can exist in different, potentially infinite versions” (Manovich 36). The potentially infinite versions of multiple existences come from the fluidity and initial existence of modularity and numerical representation. The fluidity of such programming is present in both pieces through external coding programming user-program interactions. Numerical representation is the language through which this is achieved. As result both pieces can be said to contain variability.

5.)    Transcoding: in a verbatim translation transcoding refers to the ability for one type of digital media to be translated from one format to another. In a broader conceptual interpretation transcoding also connotes concepts of the means by which culture and media are computerized. “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” both contain transcoding capacity due to the inclusion of previous principles discussed. Similar to how the numerical representation and fluidity of programming of these digital media sculptures would enable variability, transcoding (a broader branch of variability) is also possible.

As discussed by Manovich, the applicability of the term Digital Media follows guidelines rooted in the 5 principles of Numerical Representation, Modularity, Automation, Variability and Transcoding. Thus, both pieces “Happiness Hat” by McCarthy and “Light Wave” by McKay, despite the physical aesthetic dependence of both digital sculptures, contain sufficient modification, application, interactive, and automatic qualities to constitute both pieces as exploits into the digital medium.

            Participative Systems engage the growing issue of user-program to the fullest extent and are applicable to any responsive digital media piece such as “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat.” One subtopic discussed in the reading was the substitution of purely aesthetic visual significance with intangible significance. In this way the piece of art is not simply the piece, but also the reactions, contributions, live participation, etc. of audience members (similar to crowdsourcing.) The difficulty therein lies not with the creation, but the entitlement, of the piece. Who is to receive authorship? In both pieces discussed in this exposition the inherent interactive nature of the pieces comprises as much of the social commentary and aesthetic value of the piece as the surface visual aspects. The identification issue remains as result. However, as also discussed in the reading, there is a matter of gauging participatory credit as compared to creation effort. Through this lens the attribution of ultimate authorship undoubtedly lies with the creator of the interactive new media art piece particularly in such cases where the creator also carries the title of curator if in such cases curator efforts are essential to the participatory effectiveness of said piece.

            Rita Raley’s discussion as noted in the reading, Tactical Media deliberates on the meaning of tactical media and the implications of such actions and reasoning, both personal and public, which warrant such actions of aesthetic rebellion. The theoretical beliefs supporting calls for such actions emanate from origins of intellectual freedom and creative prosperity. Without the rebellion or “disruption,” (Raley) the events of a mundane uninterrupted life continue, gradually picking up pace, unyielding to show what visual phenomena are available at the blink of an eye. Raley suggests the uprising in current tactical media groups such as “Anonymous” arise from situations where the prolific nature of the user-program interaction has become increasingly program-oriented leaving little imaginative freedom for the individual expression or exploits of digital media programmers attempting to tip the scale more toward primary user interactivity control. The dominant nature of the computerized interaction processes limits capabilities for mass-coordinated demonstrations of user dominance, but as an adequate substitute Raley advocates strategic disruptive practices in the visually monotonous rigid lives we live. In the examination of such visual insurrection concerning “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” it is important to contemplate the applicability and practicality of either in position of a societally aesthetic disruptor. The degree of such disruption is set to the personal confines of the reader in real-world practices but for academic deliberation the minimal quantity will be the visual disruption of one human from the events of their daily life. In this ambit of generality both piece do offer visual disruption and thus function as tactical media. They do so primarily through the capability of participatory disruption, whereas on the general terms of aesthetic disruption anything can be said to be a catalyst, with participatory disruption (willing in “Light Wave” and unwilling in “Happiness Hat”) the role of tactical media is fulfilled on a new level of engagement and thus distraction from a normal routine.

            In Claire Bishop’s Digital Divide the matter of contemporary media representation in the modern age the representation of such in current society in reference of “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” is remarkably similar between pieces. In Bishop’s discussion of the representation of contemporary age media the author states that there seems so be a “sense of fear underlying visual art’s disavowal of new media” (Bishop) meaning that the status of mainstream art has a practiced, working, and rigid world of rules and standards and when introduced to the challenging new reality of new media, it typically causes a regression in the mainstream art community. This typically is shown through “[reassertion] in the face of [arts] infinite, uncontrollable dissemination via Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.” (Bishop.) The very five principles discussed by Manovich, particularly the multiplicity variables and possibilities of reproduction and unidentifiable authorship contradict the principles of most historic art practices of single authorship and limited quantity supply if not only a single unique, non-replicable, piece. In application to the pieces “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” the contemporary media representation is a key component in both pieces as both are aimed at commentary discussing the relationship between user-program interactions. Whereas “Light Wave” focuses on the interactions between people and technology every day in a playfully engaging way, “Happiness Hat” comments on the relationship between people and technology as well and the potential for more interactive and effective user-program experiences. Both pieces comment on the contemporary media representation and the dynamics between such interactions.

            The nature of the digital media user-program riddle is the tipping point of the connectivity between minimalistic control and maximized imaginative freedom. The discussions of “Light Wave” and “Happiness Hat” have illustrated the effectiveness of differing and similar dynamic relationships between aesthetic, participatory, and functionality digital media art. Similar social commentary through juxtaposing approaches in aesthetics as well as functionary applicability have shown the range of perspectives capable of displaying effective Digital Media. Through theoretical propositions and analytical questions as discussed by Lev Manovich, Rita Raley, Participative Systems, and Claire Bishop this examination of specific intertwining aesthetic and participatory systems and perspectives within digital media offers specific scrutiny of theoretical approaches and principles taken to categorizing and achieving effective art through the digital medium as demonstrated by the analysis, comparisons, and explanations of the two digital media pieces “Happiness Hat” by Lauren McCarthy and “Light Wave” by Joe McKay.

 

 

Works Cited

Bishop, Claire. "Digital Divide Claire Bishop on Contemporary Art and New Media." Scribd.com. N.p.. Web. 13 Apr 2013. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/115513943/Bishop-Claire-Digital-Divide>.

Furr, Mason. "PLEASE HELP!." Message to Joe McKay Studio. 11 May 2013. E-mail.

"Lev Manovich: "The Language of New Media." A Review." Frame 25 The film dabbler. WordPress.com, 22 Apr 2012. Web. 12 Apr 2013. <http://thefilmdabbler.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/lev-manovich-the-language-of-new-media-a-review/>.

Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. San Diego: MIT Press 2001, 2001. 29-41. Print. <http://art245spring13.blogspot.com/2013/04/final-reading-manovich-language-of-new.html>.

McCarthy, Lauren. Happiness Hat 2009. 2009. Photograph. n.p. Web. 12 Apr 2013. <http://lauren-mccarthy.com/happinesshat/>.

McKay, Joe. Light Wave. N.d. Infographic. Joe McKay StudioWeb. 12 Apr 2013. <http://joemckaystudio.com/lightwave.php>.

Osharpe, . "A summary of ‘The language of New Media’ (Lev Manovich) and ‘In the Blink of an Eye’ (Walter Murch).." Portrait of a Photographer. WordPress.com, 15 May 2012. Web. 14 Apr 2013. <http://osharpe.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/a-summary-of-the-language-of-new-media-lev-manovich-and-in-the-blink-of-an-eye-walter-murch/>.

Raley, Rita. Tactical Media. University of Minnesota Press 2009, 2009. 1-30. Print. <http://art245spring13.blogspot.com/2013/03/reading-6-tactical-media.html>.

 

 

Two by Land Gallery Critique

This gallery by Nicole Donnelly and Katherine Sandoz features a variety of interesting pieces all in dynamic narrative discussion with each other. This discussion fixates around the imaginative element of recreated/varyingly interpreted landscapes. A creative spin off the typically rigid confines of traditional sculpture paintings Donnelly and Sandoz seem to venture into a new realm of aesthetic representation concerning landscape images.

The work of Sandoz reflects the subject interpreted (Coastal Georgia) through the typical horizontal elements of traditional landscapes but the simplicity creates conversation throughout the work despite the minimal size of the paintings. Interpretation in this way involves the viewer. The palate choice as well creates much room for interpretation. Whereas with typical coastal images there is predominant natural colors, with these pieces there is a mixed degree of colors juxtaposing each other and non-merging as is expected in typical landscape paintings. The cut out rigidity of these images really highlights the overarching beauty of the specific areas the paintings are based off of. Similarly, Donnelly explores many of the same visual aspects in her own pieces, together, creating a very unified gallery experience with many continuous visual themes throughout.

Donnelly on the other hand has a style and interpretive landscaping technique that also reflects her own surroundings of differing places within Philadelphia mainly. The very pop art colors used again are very atypical of traditional representation. Combined with minimalistic silhouette approach, especially featured on such pieces as the battleship sitting in the bay, this very basic rudimentary style compliments pieces from Sandoz. The representational qualities expressed through these pieces of work are very contradictory to the natural detail typically seen in such paintings. Through these pieces a fundamental transcendence can be noted in patterns of complexity regression and imaginative expression.

The core imaginative representational qualities demonstrated by the pieces of both artists complement each other through similar exploits in unnatural colors, basic representational components of the landscape, and additional imaginative elements (particularly obvious and aesthetically crucial drip marks and brush strokes.) In an ultimate opinion of this gallery, I found it highly effective in the delivery of an alternative to traditional landscapes and very aesthetically pleasing the fluid connections between two very different, yet in some ways similar, artists.