Digital Art, Chapter 2 "Digital Technologies as Medium" (p. 66-137)
Respond
responses due by 6pm Monday September 27
---> Respond with your comment to this post<---
Christiane Paul states that the artistic use of digital technologies as a medium "implies that the work exclusively uses the digital platform from production to presentation, and that it exhibits and explores that platform's inherent possibilities." (p.67)
How does this differ from artistic use of digital technologies as a tool? (as in chapter 1)
Do you think his analysis is useful? Why or why not?
Use examples from the book (&/or elsewhere) to support your answers.
(75-125 words)
Discuss
Conversation options are limited here on blogger (in terms having threaded discussion) but we'll try it out anyhow.
After everyone has responded with their comment to this post
(by class time on Monday Sept 27), participate in discussion with your classmates in this same comment thread with a minimum of two comments.
Please be thoughtful about your comments. You have a week to engage in this discussion, with all comments due by 6pm Monday October 4. (Needless to say, please do not wait until the last minute).
If you want to indicate that you are responding directly to someone's post, you can start with "@:" in front of their name ("@:Jennings")
Respond
responses due by 6pm Monday September 27
---> Respond with your comment to this post<---
Christiane Paul states that the artistic use of digital technologies as a medium "implies that the work exclusively uses the digital platform from production to presentation, and that it exhibits and explores that platform's inherent possibilities." (p.67)
How does this differ from artistic use of digital technologies as a tool? (as in chapter 1)
Do you think his analysis is useful? Why or why not?
Use examples from the book (&/or elsewhere) to support your answers.
(75-125 words)
---> Respond with your comment to this post<---
Discuss
Conversation options are limited here on blogger (in terms having threaded discussion) but we'll try it out anyhow.
After everyone has responded with their comment to this post
(by class time on Monday Sept 27), participate in discussion with your classmates in this same comment thread with a minimum of two comments.
Please be thoughtful about your comments. You have a week to engage in this discussion, with all comments due by 6pm Monday October 4. (Needless to say, please do not wait until the last minute).
If you want to indicate that you are responding directly to someone's post, you can start with "@:" in front of their name ("@:Jennings")
Chapter 2, "Digital Technologies as Medium" in Digital Art, I found to be particularly interesting. As an instructor of digital technologies, I am always attempting to explain the difference between using technology as a tool and not a means to an end. I liken it to the art and technology of photography. As a photographer, my camera is a tool I use in the process of creating my art. Photoshop is a tool I use to better achieve my point of view. If I took a photo and simply added a painterly effect to it, that is using the technology as a means to an end, not a tool, and it is not art. It is a digital response.
ReplyDeleteChristiane Paul's statement that "the artistic use of digital technologies as a medium "implies that the work exclusively uses the digital platform from production to presentation, and that it exhibits and explores that platform's inherent possibilities" (p.67) I feel is inaccurate. I consider myself a digital artist/new media (whichever one you prefer) and I usually begin with capturing images--images through video, cameras-both digital and film, and 8mm cameras (admittedly this is not my preferred method as of late) and then import them to Final Cut or Photoshop to continue working on the piece. It would be as if a painter used gesso to prime the canvas and then switched to paint to continue. I would still consider this a painting.
If someone employs 8mm film to capture imagery, because they absolutely love the saturated colors you achieve, then transfers the film to DVD, imports it into Final Cut Pro to be manipulated, edits it and adds sound through Audacity, then burns it on a DVD and projects it on a wall in a museum, Paul considers this not digital as a medium. I feel this work would be qualified as digital for it's medium. Maybe we need to categorize it more clearly. In writing this argument I understand the difference Paul is trying to get across digital technology as a tool vs. a medium, however, I don't feel it is that simple. With so many artists today mixing media--painters utilizing photographs on their canvas (still categorized as a painting), photographers painting on their photographs or incorporating them into a sculpture (and yet still listed it as a photograph) is there even really one media anymore. Haven't contemporary artists really blurred the lines on what is the medium?
Sorry guys, it won't keep my tabs for indentions on new paragraphs, but you get the point.
ReplyDeleteChristian Paul started out his analysis by assessing digital technologies as a tool, referring to the growing acceptance of computers to handle at least some aspects of a developing artwork. The author initially uses the terms 'tool' and 'medium' interchangeably (Chapter 1), leading to a certain level of confusion, and does not distinctly define digital medium until later, making his distinction finally apparent. With semantics aside, Paul makes several valuable arguments. Most notably, the usage of the digital technology as a tool does not necessarily mean that the final artwork may feel 'digital' in nature. Depending on how these tools are used, digital processing may be subtle and undetectable. And vice versa, some work that is suggesting to be a product of digital process in its entirety may have been constructed completely relying on traditional 'analog' approaches. Some cited works reference SinceScape by Charles Csuri - a product of mathematical manipulation, which incidentally, shares a common visual heritage with traditional line-based print making (example U.S. currency). According to author, regardless of the degree to which digital technologies are used as a tool, the work always materializes on a traditional medium - painting, photography, sculpture, implying the final presentation to be 'static'. In contrast, the use of digital technologies as a medium implies that the work is presented in a digital form, accenting digital medium's inherent characteristics - interactivity and dynamics. This implies that digital medium is subject to change and is customizable. This is the primary distinction, explicitly stated by the author.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think that Paul's analysis is a good introduction to discussing how digital technologies can be used as a tool and as a medium, but I also believe that the distinction is not as black and white as the author describes, primarily because medium does not have to be interactive to be viewed as digital, just like it does not have to be viewed as static to be perceived as 'traditional'.
After reading Chapter 2, I realized that at this point, I am using digital media as a tool rather than a medium in my work. Even the videos I made last semester are only skimming the surface of using the tools to their full capacity. But this book is definitely opening my eyes to the infinite possibilities of digital media. I appreciated how this chapter clarified definitions of words associated with digital media that are commonly misused, such as the words interface, interactive, and avatar.
ReplyDeleteThe pieces featured in this chapter I enjoyed the most are Jeffrey Shaw's "The Golden Calf," 1994, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer's "Body Movies: Relational Architecture #6," 2001, and Philippe Parreno and Pierre Huyghe's "No Ghost, Just a Shell," 2000-present. They are three completely different pieces, viewed and experienced in completely different means and settings, yet they are all using the digital as a medium to the fullest. "The Golden Calf," is set in a gallery, on a pedestal, but where there is no sculpture is instead a color screen. When viewers pick up the screen and look "through" it at the pedestal, they see the virtual sculpture of the golden calf. From any angle they can observe the sculpture, with the surrounding room and even their own reflections simulated into the virtual image. This piece is fascinating to me because it blurs the lines of reality and virtuality, while it also reinforces the rule that art is never to be touched. "Body Movies: Relational Architecture #6" was set outside at Schouwburgplein square in Rotterdam in 2001. Giant projections of people walking in other cities around the world were shown on the sides of the buildings in the square, while powerful lights placed on the ground in front whited out the images. The only way to see the projections was to cast a shadow onto the wall, making other people's images appear in your own silhouette. The reversal of the roles of light and shadow, as well as the interactive nature of this piece outside of a gallery setting make it an important digital work. "No Ghost, Just a Shell" is an awesome conceptual piece employing a digital anime character. The artists Parreno and Huyghe bought a manga character from a Japanese company, Annlee, but left her without description, open for others' interpretations. In the book, Christiane Paul says she has "no history and no life; she is a fictional shell with a copyright, waiting to be filled with a story." The artists then created some animated stories where Annlee talks about her own ridiculous situation, and then even distributed the character to other artists to create animations. I enjoy the cultural and historical comment "No Ghost, Just a Shell" makes, as its basis is the famous manga "Ghost in the Shell" by Masamune Shirow, but then continues on to talk about copyright, ownership, and identity in a commercial landscape.
Christiane Paul's analysis is useful because digital media as a tool is vastly different from digital media as a medium. In my own work, I've used it only as a tool for editing images for drawings, as a tool for sharing my work with others via website, or as a tool to create sort of 'moving drawings' with my videos. I have not explored the digital media as a medium yet, as it really involves knowing its full potential and making a statement about it. An example not in the book is one I read about in "Juxtapose" magazine some years ago: Mariko Mori's "Wave UFO", in which viewers enter (three at a time) a giant, pearlescent bubble form, reminscent of a spaceship. They lie down in reclining seats so as to face the ceiling, similar to a planetarium, however, instead of seeing star constellations, the three participants' left-brain patterns are displayed. Colorful, organic shapes intermingle with each other, elevating the viewers to a new level of interaction, a shared, heightened experience. Mori's piece is a perfect example of the use of digital media as a medium, as well as Paul's definition of interactive digital art, because without the viewers' input there would just be "a blank screen," as he put it. It is an interesting concept to make your brainwaves not only into a moving image, but to have them 'play' with someone else's visually. It seems that the digital medium is perfect for exploring perception and what is "real" in different realms of consciousness.
ReplyDeleteGreat observations, everybody! Useful ways to approach discussion here may be to identify and expand on thoughts/themes common to two or more comments; compare or argue for-against opposing views (or find common ground); or any other angle that meditates upon the variety of juicy ideas put forth above.
ReplyDeleteThere are some good ideas here as everyone seems to be a sorting out of what Paul means by 'digital tool' vs 'digital medium.'
ReplyDeleteQualities inherent to the medium that were identified by Paul (noted by Sahsa in her post) such as interactivity, reliance on multi-user input, customizability, and dynamic/responsive potential are central to the artworks that Paul puts under the umbrella of 'digital medium.' Vikki brings up Shaw's 'Golden Calf,' which I think, as an artwork, is such a clearly stated and elegant example of the 'virtual & augmented reality' characteristic of digital as a medium.
As far as digital as a tool, which is the name of this class, the distinction lays, for me, in the way that digital technologies have simply and quickly infiltrated our culture, becoming mundane and common. We utilize them without necessarily unpacking their theoretical baggage. They become a means to an end, as Jennings remarked, helping her to get across what she wants to communicate. Some artists communicate via paint on a canvas. The thing that interests me about using digital is its integration the very fabric of contemporary culture (and by extension, as pointed out by Ivan, of the art world).
I think the fact that Photoshop is officially used as a verb speaks volumes to Ivan's and Leslie's discussion above regarding "digital and its integration into contemporary culture" and the way " digital technologies have simply and quickly infiltrated our culture." Here a software-digital technology was created by Adobe, released to the media, adopted by the advertising world and accepted by everyday computer users and now has been integrated into our vocabulary so much that the word "Photoshop" a title of a software, has now officially become a commonly used verb-to Photoshop.
ReplyDeleteAmazing to me, if you think about it.
Technology has filtered itself so much into contemporary culture that everything we do today has been touched by technology. As a photographer it has completely changed the way in which I am a photographer. Photography by far, was one of the most expensive disciplines in art to study, and extremely time consuming. Film was expensive and you worried so much about how to set up the shot, were you getting exactly the right angle, did you need more light, because you only had 24 exposures. Now you can pop off 100 versions of the subject with different lighting and different angles for no extra money and no extra time needed. It has pushed photographers back into the time of Polaroids, when the process was pushed out and the focus became about the image itself. As someone who has spent the past 15 years in advertising, a food photo shoot would take all day--at least 7- 8 hours of grueling work. Food stylists painting the vegetables or fruit, assistants running around to make sure we had the lighting set right, and no crumbs or silks off the food on the ground. Hours of prep work for one, maybe two quick clicks of the shutter and then it was off to the lab for processing. You had to keep the shot still set up until the next day (and that was if it was a rush order at the lab) and then you could look at the transparency to see one, if you even got the shot, and two was it right. If there was just one crumb left, one silk off a piece of corn on the cob, you had to do the whole shoot all over again. Now, that same shot today-no assistants, no food stylists, no labs are even needed, and if something is on the floor, well, then, you just "Photoshop" it.
Going back to the author’s analysis and reading through interpretations of my fellow classmates, it became apparent that the context in which digital technologies as a tool and as a medium were defined was limiting. If the definitions were applied to works cited by the author, then the entire analysis could be logically reduced to digital medium as that which lacks tangible substance, or ‘virtual.’ In contrast, I can think a few substances that are inherently interactive, with an observer frequently serving as a necessary element. A plasma lamp, for example, emits bright light and changes its scatter in relation to spatial proximity of an observer. Without any software or pre-programmed behavior, the unpredictable and often fascinating light sculptures can be created that meet all criteria assigned to digital medium, yet are completely natural.
ReplyDeleteTaking an even broader approach to understanding the basis of ‘digital’ made me perform a query as to the actual meaning of the word. Since Wikipedia can’t be wrong (an ironic statement) I have made a startling revelation that the concept has been realized long before the first light bulb was turned on. The oldest digital code recorded is the genome (DNA).
After reading everyone's comments on the chapter, I find that understanding the difference between digital media as a tool and a medium can be quite confusing. By all and any artist, it can be used as a tool. But digital art, used as a medium isn't so common. It takes more delving into the digital realm, as well as people's perceptions of it. Maybe how it subversively turns around on itself and our understanding of it is a better way to explain it.
ReplyDeleteI understand Jennings' first point about the blurring of lines between medium categorization, (as many artists are shoving all traditional divisions of mediums in a blender,) as well as her point about how anyone can 'photoshop' something faster than you can say 'photograph.' However, using the digital as a medium kind of references itself. I think its similar to when painting referenced itself as a painting in modern art.
Ivan and Sasha also pose great questions as to whether the digital as a medium is a valid distinction from the digital as a tool. A lot of the pieces mentioned in chapter two are interactive, but not all of them. They are not all in the intangible realm either. Some of them involve a great deal of physicality, in the literal and not-so-literal sense. Wolfgang Staehle's piece "Empire 24/7" is the perfect example of all three. It is a live feed of the Empire State Building projected on a gallery wall. Virtual, but showing absolute reality, no interaction involved. It makes us question, though, how we feel about experiencing something real although we are not there in its physical presence. How we are accepting of webcams and streaming live news feeds. The piece isn't at all about the building we are looking at, it is about the reality we are experiencing through a digital medium. How more and more of what we experience is through a digital version of reality. I am intrigued about Sasha's last sentence, though, about how the oldest digital code is the genome. It flips the question of reality versus digital back onto itself... Ironic?
The digital as a medium is inherently conceptual concerning itself, and I am looking forward to reading the third chapter about the themes in digital art to deepen my knowledge and understanding of the possibilities technology has allowed us to create through. (But I'm admittedly more excited about working on my new website first!)