finale

The idea behind an appropriated mashup, to me, seems nothing out of the artistic norm. Every type of artist reaches into the past and pieces together fragments to create their own work. Artists are thieves pure and simple. The only reason appropriation in music is going under so much scrutiny is because music is a much more universal art medium. And with this universality comes the corporate overshadowing with copyright laws. I don't know of any paintings or sculptures that have have a "c" emblem painted or etched into them.

However, I do believe credit should be given to the original artist that's being sourced from but I don't think they deserve royalties and kickbacks for their work being appropriated.

ging nang boyz-aidonwannadai!

synth britannia

In a time where few things can cause a person to do more than a double-take I find the outrage behind electronic music to be very interesting. I forget all to often that the things I accept as normal were once wholly outrageous. Bands like Kraftwerk, though at their time were revolutionary, I find pleasing only because of their music. I suppose this is a symptom caused from a death of originality as we continue to attempt to revolutionize what has already been done.

The idea of craft also comes into play with this medium. As many members of the various bands interviewed found one of the greatest aspects of electronic music was that you didn't need to be exceptionally talented. I personally don't find an issue with this especially since such instruments as the synth required incredible amounts of time and skill to achieve just a sound. As we move more towards an electronic culture I can see the interiewers beliefs about electronic music being the next movement as very valid. I say this because as we immerse ourselves in electronics in every other way why shouldn't music reflect this trend as well?

PIXELS by PATRICK JEAN. - une vidéo Art et Création @ Yahoo! Video

post 10

surveillance art, to me, seems to bring an issue to my mind that has been so internalized that i still am struggling to find it interesting. The issue of privacy and its implication in modern day society has seem so removed from me due to only seeing word of it in the newspapers or elsewhere. However, "Big Brother Big Business" does help me see how truly monitored I am. Unfortunately, to me, this news falls somewhat flat as I can only appreciate this information but can do virtually nothing to stop it. It seems to have become the status quo to be monitored and recorded and call me blase' attitude generational ignorance but I can't really tie myself up with an issue that I can't change.
the idea of "big brother" is interesting to me only in the sense that it looks as if people are abandoning religion only to create this replica of religion in the form of the "all seeing and all knowing database". Unlike religion, when we are in the wrong it isn't our soul that will be punished but our physical self.

post 9

The documentary on the origins of the hacker reminds me that even the most frivolous activity can develop into something momentous. "Phone Phreaking" for example may be the most inane activity I could imagine but that activity, with its foundation steeped in simple pranksterism, became the catalyst for the home computer. Its this kind of spirit that can be most difficult to appreciate when viewing from the outside. To labor for long hours to simply see what a piece of hardware can do for your amusement can seem like a means to no real end. Then again to find "an end" is something no one ever really hopes to attain but would rather explore the means. The same kind of idea could be said for the arts for it too seeks newer processes to reach unlikely conclusions. This spirit of simple enjoyment within the medium is what, I believe, will ultimately progress a given activity.

Needs to be out there

Out Of A Forest from Tobias Gundorff Boesen on Vimeo.

post 8

John Cage takes out the esoteric nature commonly associated with art making to simply enjoy it on a very physical and cerebral level. His theory that anything can be art, or any sound in his case, takes a lot of the weight off of putting a grid on what kind of art one practices. Though I can see his beliefs about art do stem from very western beliefs of mimesis which I saw when he described art as "imitating art in her manner of being". To me the idea of taking oneself out of art helps to make it a more universally understood subject.

"The highest purpose is to have no purpose." is both startling and frightfully reflective on our current state of being as we, inhabitants of an image saturated culture, have come to wonder whether injecting more images or stuff into the world is really necessary. To be purposeless, to me, implies that no longer is there anything to hold on to. No more obligations. With the abandonment of attachments in the literal sense, perhaps people can achieve a newer state of awareness as we zoom out to face the world as a whole instead of microscopic parts.

a childhood a lot cooler than mine

Papierkrieg from Makaio Tisu on Vimeo.

post 7

Concerning the photoshop project and theme. I've realized, once again, that legacy is a very large and broad theme. To narrow it down some more couldn't hurt. I've decided to tie the idea of legacy to something physical: old photographs. I feel by at least limiting myself to that realm I'll be less held up.

post 6

The FLUXUS movement is difficult. It's undisscussable. I say this because it walks such a fine line between art and life that merely talking about a particular piece will push it to one side or the other. I think it might just be impossible to talk statically about a piece and not prescribe it as either a work of art or an act of life. You may do this either directly or indirectly, therefore I find the FLUXUS performances to be extremely temporal. As soon as you have an idea of what it is to be FLUXUS you're already on the wrong track. I love this maddening state of confusion that this movement calls for. Even to call it a movement seems like a poor fit, for such a fleeting idea that exists only between the spans of half seconds where you're mind can rationalize, fleetingly, what it means, is more a miracle than anything else.

post 5

Just watched part of Zoe Beloff's curated show of the "Dreamland: The Coney Island Amateur Psychoanalytic Society and its Circle 1926-1972". the organization seemed to be a bunch of ordinary working class citizens from Coney Island yet all had the same aspirations to follow Freudian psychoanalysis of their dreams to "explore their inner life, to share their dreams with each other and in doing so attempted to free the psyche from the constraints of class and of cultural and sexual mores of their time."

I found this incredibly exciting especially since these explorations of the mind took the relatively new medium of film. These surreal films which depicted members' dreams are incredible insight into the lavish inner life of these ordinary folk. The film I saw in particular was called "The Midget Crane" where upon analysis discerned that the dreamer had a yearning to tower over his boss and employers.

It is this kind of cerebral exploration that I find incredible. Even in the mid 20's ordinary people were dissecting their thoughts and dreams in the hopes of making sense of themselves and the world.

Me and the Devil

found a video that reminded me vaguely of "glass jaw"

http://bettertastethansorry.com/2010/01/gil-scott-heron-me-and-the-devil/

post 4

Last class we watched Michael O'Reilly's "Glass Jaw" and Matthew Barney's "Order" from his "Cremaster" series. Both very different in their execution but still are able to give some type of catharsis. O'Reilly's film we see a light at the end of the tunnel after being barraged both mentally and physically by the outside world. In Barney's mythological "Order" we see a completion of some type of trial, yet we don't know for what purpose it was put into place and what the signicance of it was.

Despite their incredible budget variations (Barney was able to close down the Hirshorn while O'Reilly used a pixel vision camera found from a thrift store) both artists were able to achieve their vision. Compromise, something I once acknowledged but little else, is in fact one of the greatest opponents to artists and their creativity. To me, compromise is the outside world which limits and regulates your creative aspiration. However, it is a necessary aspect of the process and as these two artists can declare, that compromise sometimes does not negate creativity but rather gives it more substance.

post 3

Okay...so "being" is a bit much for a theme. I'm thinking to narrow down this theme into legacy, more specifically, what we as people leave behind. I just read an article by Benjamin from his book "Illuminations" and he stated, quite truthfully, that no one is poor enough to not leave anything behind when they die.

post 2

I've decided. I think. The theme is "being" and all that it entails.

post 1

The documentary "Man Ray: Prophet of the Avante Garde" puts into perspective truly how far an unwavering focus and the occasional serendipity can lead a human life. He took himself and his work rather seriously, but when questioned from outsiders looking in Man Ray, ingeniously, was able to convey through his work a varied spectrum of emotions. I think his genius lay in the fact that he could make fun of himself as well as the world he found himself prescribed to. Like any life, no matter how successful, I found it comforting to see that even Man Ray thought he had fallen short of the reputation he felt he deserved in his life time.

His extraordinary photos and objects are immediately brought to mind when I think of Man Ray. The fact that his first love was with painting, yet it brought him the least notoriety, brings him down to a much more human level in my eyes. Uncompromising in the face of culture yet ever malleable to his vision, Man Ray perpetuated an extremely beautiful version of what it is to live life your way which is an occurrence all too rare in today's society.