digital arts

Digital arts has a promising future, but it also has some unfortunate problems as John Parker explained to us during his presentation. John talked about this medium in terms of technology, artistic value and effect on humanity. His introduction to digital arts was pretty broad and included everyday technology like cell phones and computers. But John made sure to expose the sometime problematic effects the digital arts can have on its creators and consumers.

John did not only tell us about problems that the digital arts cause, but offered innovative ways to combat these pitfalls.  Among the problems he raised, I thought the two most interesting ones were the zombie effect and how to find the art in digital media. Most people experience the zombie effect when they are glued to their cell phone, TV or computer. It happens every day to non-digital artists so I can imagine how removed professionals can feel. This technological divide that separates human interaction and virtual communication has become mainstream in our society but John really stressed that you have to be aware of this. He also talked about being aware of the history of digital arts and showed us one of the first computers then juxtaposed it with a smart phone. I was really impressed he took in to account and shared with us this idea of being aware. The other problem that I thought was current and applicable to society was how to find the art in digital arts. This can sometimes be tough because there is a lot of technology involved but there was one particular project John showed us that I thought was meaningful, beautiful and had great depth. The project is called “I want you to want me,” and was about compiling data from online dating sites and then using that data to create a master of different phrases and words that people used to describe himself. They used demographics like age and gender to determine the color and hue of their balloon; a 60-year-old woman would have a dark pink balloon while a 20-year-old man would have a light blue balloon. The way in which they put this information together was very eloquent and representative of humanity. The part I liked the best was when all the balloons came together to form a double helix.

Even though our topic for this week was digital arts I found David Byrne’s piano installation to be almost the antithesis of digital arts. Because he was in the music industry and production has gone almost exclusively digital it gives me the sense he’s trying to essentially do the opposite. He talks about how this instrument is a couple hundred years old so there is this obvious contrast between past and present. Furthermore, the scale of this installation is the scope of an entire building whereas digital songs and productions have become a tabletop operation. The vastness of the installation adds to its archaic perception and challenges the modern acceptance of digital productions.

When I explored the links to Paul Pfeiffer, not only was I touched and amazed by his work but he as a person had this sort of warmth that I found comforting. He seemed like a joyful person and wasn’t afraid to hide feeling, however subtle it was. I’m a sports fan so I found his work in those arenas very interesting. I like how he described his experience filming the Spurs about how he went to the game to get his own footage but ended up seeing all of the other things that go on at a basketball game other than the actual game. There’s the mascot, the fans and then he became fascinated with the professional cameramen. The boxing fight is what was the most incredible. The final product of the two “ghosts” fighting each other was a sight to see but thinking about how much time and effort went in to the production and recreation of the missing pieces is mind-boggling. Beyond the scope of being cool, I think Pfeiffer’s work addresses some important issues. He often removes the most important piece of the action but sometimes he just makes a subtle erasure. In terms of the big erasures, whatever he removes is usually a critical part of the video and it makes me wonder what the event would be had this person not actually been there. When you look at the boxing match, if you remove the fighters you’ve got nothing to watch, there would be no crowd, no employees, no bets and certainly no money so for me his work puts a lot of what ifs in my head and provokes what the implications would be had it actually been reality.

Janet Cardiff’s work was somewhat eerie to me. I do like her concept of having sound simulations that are meant to be creepily realistic in particular setting and I would love to experience that first hand but there’s something unsettling about it as well. The “Killing Machine” for example aims to explore the societal influence on killing and torture that I think speaks for capital punishment. The installation almost has a satirical attitude. The dental chair that seats a “patient” is covered in fur while a disco ball hangs from above. There are also TVs around casting a glow but I think it can be interpreted as media influence on this issue. While this is a big topic to try and divulge and is very important there is that creeped out factor that unfolds from watching Polly Pocket’s cracked out torture chamber attack someone.

In all of the media I’ve seen this week, there are a couple of similarities I’ve been able to extrapolate. One of them has to do with absence. John talked about how digital arts can be very consuming for both the consumer and producer which can create this “zombiefied” state of mind where there really isn’t anything going on up there. As a result of being glued in to the medium, you can compromise physical communication and create an absence of human interaction. This relates to Pfeiffer’s work because he physically removes vital pieces of events that leave a void. The absence of whatever he removed is deliberate and becomes the meaning of many of his works. His concepts are built upon the idea of absence. Janet Cardiff’s creations of events are filled with sound, props and all physical elements to make a scene be real—except people. Her installation “Opera for a Small Room,” features a small room (go figure) with music exuding out from it and the audience is not allowed in.  There is the sound of a person bustling inside but once again there is no actual person. However, I think the fact the viewers cannot go inside this particular installation speaks to the absence of involvement and interactivity that relates to how much of the public isn’t connected with music production. We may listen to it and we may love it but we can’t really get a good view of where it came from. To see this piece you have to look through windows and cracks, never really getting the full picture even though you see a shadow moving around. It just explains how as a society we hunger for information about things we’re interested but we may not be able to get it so it creates an absence of knowledge.  Finally, David Byrne’s installation lacks modern technology. The absence of an ultra-sophisticated sound system compels his piece to address why he did this and as I said earlier I think it works to contrast primitive to digital. It ends up making such a bigger statement than synthesizers could produce because it is out of touch with contemporary society.

I also found that between John and Paul they both found making digital art somewhat meditative. John was outwardly concerned with the effects too much technology can have but admitted there was a relaxing quality about coding and doing something sort of monotonous. Paul explicitly said he found even tedious work to be meditative.

I chose Avatar because it is a perfect example of digital arts being used in a mainstream setting for purely commercial purposes with intent to make a lot of money.