Third Assignment

Here is a link to your third assignment -- "Getting from A to B"

Response 4

Goodness...what IS a spectacle anyway? As I read this article the word "spectacle" showed up countless times in nearly every other sentence. This was distracting. This quote stood out to the me in the beginning. "The spectacle is not a collection of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by images. " This means the spectacle is not an object nor the meaning of an object, it is what an object makes of itself. How people react to something. "...goals are nothing, development is everything." This agrees with the previous statement. The spectacle is the development of the goal, what it takes to reach the absolute. What it takes to reach the finished product. Since it isn't a physical object/idea, it can't be the goal. --Very complex. It's like everything comes to be, because of things that yet aren't, but things don't just appear they must first go through an undefined and unofficial "process" TO be which isn't a thing. Haha. Brain hurts. Bed time.

Week 5 Response 4

The spectical, what is the spectical? After reading, the spectical is everything that is made and that isn't. One of the lines says, "Individual reality is allowed to appear only if it is not actually real." This made me think that everything that exists can exist, but only if it is not alone. Later in the article, it talks about how we are slowly destroying all of out countries natrual country side and that the idea of the small city is disappearing as well, urbanism. As we grow, there is really nothing that we can do to stop it. It also says, "Culture grew out of a history that dissolved the previous way of life." This is evidence of the ever evolving ways of life and says that we will always continue to grow.

Readings et al for Week 5

Here is a link to this week and next weeks readings: Guy Debord -- The Society of the Spectacle

And just to make sure that everyone downloads the .pdf, here is a handy graphic:



<-- Click on this to embiggen the image.










Also, here are the videos of today's mini-happenings. Great job, everyone.

(Non)Readings for Week 4

The good news is that there are no readings this week. The bad news is that you have more tutorials to watch on your own.

You will work through the sections...

6.) Basic Audio Mixing
12.) Creating Titles
14.) Importing
15.) Exporting

The Media Art Lab monitored hours are posted on the door. This is roughly two hours of tutorial, so make sure to plan ahead accordingly! Come into the lab and work through these three sections in order to familiarize yourself with audio, filters and titles. There won't be a pop-quiz or anything, but this is all stuff that you need to know that we will not be going over in class.

For Thursday, we'll use half the class for more tutorial videos and the second half for a work day. We'll be doing individual check-ins for our second project. I want you to bring in a short proposal (1 - 2 paragraph) outlining your idea for the project as well as how you imagine it to be executed within the parameters of our Intermedia Moment project. This proposal doesn't have to be finalized or fully fleshed out -- We'll talk about your idea and try to get you to a good place with it.

Additionally - We're going to shuffle some of our syllabi dates around due to tech issues impeding our learning experience... The second project, The Intermedia Moment, will be due Sept. 27th instead of the 20th.

Again: The Intermedia Moment Project will be due September 27th. One week after posted on the syllabus.

I will update this change on the syllabus asap.

Thanks, all. Here is a video to help you through these boring tutorials. Click

Graham Response 3

This is one of my favorite articles so far, I like how the author describes conceptual art it makes alot of sense to me. the last line "Conceptual art is only good when the idea is good" is really cool I think because alot of times a piece will be really simple, but its the meaning behind it that's important. I wish the author touched a little more on how art can be both perceptual and conceptual. Creating with tuition as well as pleasing to the eye.

Sol LeWitt

The last line of the first paragraph really expresses my way of thinking quite well, "..I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself". I'm very much the kind of person that would rather do things for myself than let someone else do it, especially when it comes to my art. I don't know whether this is because I'm unconsciously OCD about my work, or that I'm a control-freak. However, I do know that this way of working makes me proud of the things I create and pushes me to learn as much about my processes and techniques as possible.

Conceptual art has always kind of been a mode of art that does not come as easily to me as what Sol LeWitt calls 'perceptual art'. I love the process I go through when working with certain materials, and when I get a texture or hue or shape I love, it seems to make my work more enjoyable for others.

LeWitt's idea that if the 3d size is too large the idea could be lost in translation to the the viewer isn't fully true. Although, it can be true if the material being worked with is not understood fully by the maker, or the artist is unsure or indecisive and tries to counteracts those insecurities with size. Also, I believe that in my art, if given the opportunity to work large scale, I almost always take it. There's something mesmerizing about large scale work that really draws my attention, even if it is a pain in the ass to work on and complete.

I esp. like the bit at the end where LeWitt explains that these are just his ideas he came upon through his work and that they can change at any time by way of what he experiences. Change is good :)

jamere- response 3

I love this article because a lot of my work is conceptual, at least it begins that way. I always have ideas then my art begins and whatever i end up with, intended or not is what i like. I like the unknown factor of what it is i went through making it, and what i get out of the end product as well as the viewer. There were some things I learned as well from this article. For instance the facts how the relation between architecture and the 3-dementional functions. How once it's accessible and utilized, it's slowly seen, less likely as art and more so serves a purpose. I liked that observation. This article is great in the way it describes conceptual art. I agree with a lot of what Lewiit says about it.

Response 3

This article was very interesting. It really made me think about the differences between CONceptual art and PERceptual art. It makes me think about what I do in my own work. I believe almost all of my graphic design pieces are perceptual. I design what people will like to see, to draw in a viewer and LIKE what they see. Straight forward, simplistic art. My drawings though, I feel like are a lot more abstract or based off ideology. I start with an idea and it spreads, usually to evoke a feeling. Either way, can't art begin conceptual then become perceptual? Or is that the whole point of conceptual is it's strictly an idea and once it is made, the viewer creates their own opinion/if they like it? The line is a little blurry, but very interesting to ponder! :)

Derek-Response 3

The first thing I found interesting abou this article was the fact of conceptual art how everything is planned out before the piece is ever made. I feel like we do this with our own artwork more than we might realize. Another thing about conceptual art that interests me is the fact that it isn't necessarily logical. I like the fact of the art concept being hidden and lulling the viewer into a different idea. It relates to a lot of my artwork in the past especially through graphic design. It shows a lot of meaning through a simple idea. One thing in the article I didn't really believe in was the fact of size of pieces. When they say a large piece generally loses it's central idea, I didn't think the same. I feel like the size of the piece clearly depends on the artist and how he/she wants to portray their piece. Otherwise for the most part the article seemed fairly interesting as a whole and the different views of Lewitt.

Seth M - Response 3

This article was an excellent way to explain the intricacies behind conceptual art and the necessity of intention in every move and decision the artist makes. As LeWitt says towards the end of the reading, the article merely expresses his thoughts at that specific time as a conceptual artists and they definitely can not be said to apply to everyone. However, I did find that most of what he said to be very true and, if applied towards the genre as a whole, has me giving a lot more respect to conceptual artists. The way he describes the importance of size, position, gallery space, viewer height, etc. makes you really think about what it really means to create a gallery piece. We experienced a bit of this first hand in our critique last week, but coming from a professional, experienced, artist it's a bit inspiring to see how big of a part the gallery space plays in their roles as creators. I didn't quite agree with his stance on architecture, I don't think he meant to demean it as an art form, but it definitely came off that way. I believe the conceptual art plays a huge part in modern architecture, design, and the continuous striving to do something different that often pushes architects to create brilliant buildings. But as I said, I don't believe it was his intention to dismiss that; however, he aimed to point out the trial and errors of non-functional art in a gallery space. LeWitt's talk of different mediums, media, and tools adds up brilliantly at the end with, "Conceptual art is only good when the idea is good." It's humorous, though there is definitely some kind of truth to this.

Response 3

One thing that I like about this article is how it says, "In terms of idea the artist is free to even surprise himself." I feel that this happens alot to me because when I am working on something, the process of creating something and the end result can be totally different than what I was trying to do. Also, when other people see it, they say,"I really like how you did this," and it sometimes is totally different from the way that I had seen it. Another part of the article says," What the work of art looks like isn't to important, no matter waht form it may finally have it must begin with an idea." I can really relate to this because I have an idea sometime and when I start to create that idea, new ideas keep adding to it until I finally come up with something totally different that the original idea. I believe that conceptual art is something that we do alot of without even realizing that we are doing it.

Erica- Response 3

I appreciated this reading the most, I think, because of how humorous it was. The author is making fun of art critics while explaining conceptual art to the reader. This article made me understand that conceptual art is more about the thought process behind a piece than it is about the look of the piece itself; I gather this is something the author doesn't think art critics fully understand. This makes conceptual art all the more interesting to me because I think it would be very difficult to get a viewer to follow the same train of thought you had while making a piece. I think it would be near impossible to convey an idea without having some form of explicitly leading the viewer through a portion of the process. Like in the portion of "cornered" we watched where the artist talks to you as if your thoughts were clearly audiable to her and leads you around the idea of her installation. I think this is all extremely clever. The trick is, it seems, to make a viewer contemplate a piece in a certain way without them being fully aware that you are guiding them in that direction. The author here talks about regulating space and making fewer capricious decisions in the making of a piece in order to retain control; when I initially read that part I thought that the product would be boring, but now I realize there is more purpose to that simplification than I had originally noticed.

Graham- Response 2

These four articles were a little confusing to me at first, and I had to read them over again to grasp the concept. Its a little hard for me to understand fully because I feel like Dada covers such a broad spectrum of things that it could almost be broken down into different subcategories. It seems to me like Dada is about pushing boundaries and crossing mediums, but also about always changing and being devoted to what you do. Its closely related to the reoccurring question, "what is art/dadism?"

Second Assignment: Intermedia Moment

Your second assignment is up on ICON.

Link: Here

Readings -- Week 3

Sorry all for the delay. Here are your readings for week three.

Sol LeWitt

Due Tuesday morning -- 10 am.

-- Christopher

Erica- Response 2

I'm finding Dada somewhat difficult to understand completely. I understand from the readings that it is nihilist in philosophy and spontaneous and completely based on the personal experience of the viewer. At the same time though, I'm not sure there could be a manifesto for something spontaneous and chaotic. One of the things that is shared between these four excerpts is that they all claim Dada to be a rejection of structure. The first few sentences of the last excerpt make sense to me:

"Dada wanted to destroy men's pretences at reason and rediscover the natural, unreasonable order of things. Dada wanted to replace the logical nonsense of men today by illogical meaninglessness."

But then I have to ask myself, how am I supposed to even try to understand something "meaningless"? It seems like the more I try to figure out Dada, the more confused i become.

Also am I remembering correctly that Dada is supposed to be a rejection of language as well? If so, why do all of these authors write so eloquently?

Response 2

One thing that the article "En Enent Dada" said that made me understand what DADA was about was, "He is not the same man today as tomorrow, the day after tomorrow he will perhaps be 'nothing at all.' and then he may become everyting." This helps me understand sort of what Dada is about because it is basically saying that Dada is what ever you want it to be and you can become anything through it without being told that you can't do something. Also I am still confused about it because I feel that there isn't a clear definition that fully explains every aspect of it.

Sean Logan

4 Takes on Dada

From these four excerpts I'm starting to gain an appreciation for all that is Dada. It's chaos, and not chaos at the same time, it's about being devoted and yet atheist towards conforming ideals. In a generalization, Dada is nothing and everything, although not necessarily at the same time, as Richard Huelsenbeck claimed, "He is not the same man today as tomorrow, the day after tomorrow he will perhaps be 'nothing at all' and then he may become everything". I think this is wonderful, whether it's dealing with art or life in general, it is not reasonable to expect people to be what they say they are all of the time. People need room to fluctuate their behaviors, their personalities. I'm not saying everyone needs to have multiple personalities because that can lend implications of transparency and dishonesty, however, the ability to empathize and understand different personalities and situations is pivotal in being an artist. I also especially enjoy Huelsenbeck's line about how the Dadaist is 'entirely devoted to the movement of life'. It's such a free sounding ideal, it doesn't seem constraining, but only focused on the betterment of one's life and art.

I also really enjoyed the excerpts from Tristan Tzara's Manifesto. By reading it aloud I really was able to get a better understanding of what he was saying. It was enjoyable how his words were so honest, exciting, and so poetic.

DADA

Reading these articles was really confusing to the point where I found myself re reading sentences and paragraphs over a few times. Eventually I think I grasped what Dada is and isn't in my mind. I like that it represents the nothing. Whatever may be nothing to you, or someone else. The simplistic, nature, anything could be dada in my mind. Dada is still a bit confusing to me, but none the less something I feel like I know. It's tricky.

J.E.

Seth M - Dada

In these four articles, I began to find it easier to understand the deeper thought process behind the Dada movement and perhaps even began to respect it a little more. An awful lot of it still seemed rather pretentious in its own right, though I do understand that Dada artists like Picabia and Arp were something like The Sex Pistols of their time or maybe even something that could have evolved from the rebellion of impressionists long before. Picabia's "Hiss, shout, kick my teeth in, so what? I shall still tell you that you are half-wits. In three months my friends and I will be selling you our pictures for a few francs." definitely aligns itself with the punk rock comparison in the music industry. Still, the one quote throughout all of these readings that really shed a lot of light on not only what Dada was but who Dada artists thought there were, was in the very first reading. Huelsenbeck wrote, "The Dadaist is an atheist by instinct. He is no longer a metaphysician in the sense of finding 'thou shalt'; for him the cigarette-butt and the umbrella are as exalted and as timeless as the 'thing in itself.'" that's something that I could really feel when looking at Dada art. I don't think "pretentious" is exactly the word I'm looking for, Dada seemed to be more like a sort of self-awareness. Present in all of these excerpts is a focus on who the Dada artist is and how they are living outside of society, almost like a set of rules or a way of life. It's definitely present in their work as well and it is elaborated further in Arp's comments on "meaninglessness." I think it's interesting that they were so quick to dismiss the illogical, especially given Schwitters' work; however, perhaps that was more to give the nonsense meaning by calling it meaningless.