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>.
No comments:
Post a Comment