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.

Manovich Reading #7 Questions

1.) Manovich discusses one of the five principles to be automation. In this discussion he notes how low levels of automation require certain degrees of user interaction and minimal computer response. Basically the initial creation of algorithms resulting in media interaction used to be more uniquely created. However, with high automation there is, what the author notes to be, minimal user interaction and a certain extent of algorithmic automation in response, essentially the scale of effort in the process of automation tips. Given the level of automation in response functions and algorithmic creations currently in use with web-surfing and other media experiences, is the new media world destined to an increasingly automated system especially through the expression in art? Does the movement toward a minimal user-program interaction and increasing program-user interaction jeopardize the legitimacy and appearance of New Media Art?

2.) In discussing the “fractal structure of new media” when dealing with modularity, the author notes the potential breakup of multiple facets of a once unified whole. Similarly, this transcoding of an image, object, sound, etc. into “infinite” numerical (or even spatial) data creates a multitude of units each applicable to assignment of specific quantization. While the digitization of entities will always yield infinite numerical possibilities, the interaction with the user when concerning detailed digitization elements in creating an interactive media experience is developing to be more simplistic and unrevealing of the algorithmic and/or numerical complexities. Does this dichotomy in the numerical digitization representation and user simplicity define the New Media Era? Or is there the possibility or current occurrence of, a regression toward a fascination with the acknowledgment of digitization complexities as well as more involved user-program interaction?

Reading #6 Questions

1.) The text talks about the importance of tactical media as a distraction from a neoliberal market philosophy demanding the use of technology on a regular basis. Given the nature of the use of technology the intervention of "disruptions" as viewed socially and massively applicable are very useful and effective. However, there are other widely used mediums in our daily lives that offer the possibilities of creating similar "distractions." What is another prolific medium capable of similar tweaking to provide mass social "distractions?"


2.) The visualization of electronic civil disobedience has been aided through a number of digital mediums, including Cartesian cartography programs and programmers, in attempts to locate specific areas of dissent and power maps in society. However, it has also been stated that "authoritarian government cannot be crushed, it can only be resisted." To the general public the messages in these 'hacks' seem to be lost in the illegality of such demonstrations by such notorious groups as Anonymous. But the seclusion and seemingly harmless nature of most of these "distractions" result in their appearance of nothing more than "pranks" and if they are widespread are seen as malicious "hacks." Is there a middle ground to be reached? Are there ways (given no limitations in response) to avoid electronic acts of civil disobedience labeled as either simple pranks or malicious hacks?