currently reading: chapter 3, digital art

sometimes in digital art, the artist disappears entirely from their own work. whatever they create takes on a life of its own.

like: the idea of emotional geography/psychogeography as an inspiration for artwork. the works that used direct emotional input of viewers were interesting and relatable. i liked that though the works are digital, they incorporated some aspects of humanity.

dislike: the work of sommerer and migonneau. they do evolutionary work which basically lets humans and computers "play god". i think that having control over evolution is kind of a sick fantasy of humanity and a pretentious concept, so their artwork didn't sit well with me.

first exercise in illustrator

assignment: trace an icon as a template.

photoshop project 1

"anywhere but here"

currently reading: chapter 2, digital art

points about digital technology as a medium:

not always collaborative work but usually participatory - sometimes the work relies entirely on the viewer.

every object is ultimately about its own materiality.

an entirely different form of aesthetics is needed to discuss these works. the works are interactive, participatory, dynamic, and customizable.

currently reading: chapter 1, digital art

a few interesting points the book makes:

digital art has the power to blur distinctions between media. the artist is able to combine and then manipulate several art forms.

the recontextualization available to artists through digital art forces you to consider the true relationship between the copy and the original.

because of the digital revolution, the concepts of authority, authenticity, and aura have all been changed dramatically.


sidenote: rapid prototyping sounds so badass. just saying.

photos for photoshop project

my idea is to composite me sitting at my desk, looking at the sunset on the wall behind.

currently reading: class reactions to artists

after reading what my classmates wrote, i gained much more perspective on the artists we were instructed to research. a lot of what i read i think i knew intuitively, but these are some new viewpoints and things i failed to verbalize:

crewdson's work is in part about what is possible but improbable.
he uses high contrast to emphasize his surrealist scenes.
his obviously outlandish setups have a cinematic quality achieved by working on a soundstage.

hocks's work shows his sense of humor.
he creates the feeling of atmosphere, and his works are somewhat weathered.
in his works, he portrays himself as the "everyman".

wall's work is more analytical.
he uses either random destruction or more controlled chaos.
he tries to create a feeling of "suppressed laughter" in his viewers.

sherman's work shows the artist-as-actress.
her bodily presence is the one repetitive element in her work.
she strives for a simple, "normal" appearance.