This is the scene from the film "Hour of the Wolf" that I mentioned in class earlier. Enjoy your weekend.

Seth M - Response 6

It would seem that Krauss was a bit ahead of her time when thinking through the digital age as "narcissism." It's an idea that is clearly visible in her essay and also in Richard's "Boomerang" as well, but I think it might be even easier to identify today. Not just in that instance when we first hear our own voices played back to us or see our faces move independently on a screen, but in our digital lives also. With all of the technologies that exist today, most people are primarily concerned with their various selves; digital representations across all mediums have become just as important as maintaining our physical selves to some. They might not work quite like a prison, but they definitely surround us and sometimes may even have an unfortunately effect on reality/our tangible lives. More than anything, it's kind of interesting to see how in depth Krauss goes in to this, I don't think too many of us would have ever thought twice about centering, prisons, or narcissism next time we start up our webcams.

Graham Response 6

I liked the boomerang video, it was interesting to see how she reacted since everyone has experienced that on cell phones before. Holt describes a prison, from which there is no escape, a present time which is completely severed from a sense of its own past. I feel the prison analogy is a little extreme, but it's definitely weird to hear your voice play back to you. I was a bit annoyed during the video because I found myself wanting her to speak at a normal speed instead of so painfully slow. What I got from it though was she was doing it because she felt the weight of the "collapsed presence". I agree with Erica when she said it would be really interesting to see that conducted with technology today, instead of in 1976.

Erica- response 6

I understand when Rosalind Krauss writes about a separation of self caused by reflective video or sound. I was particularly struck by Boomerang because I have experienced the same effect with cell phone echo and I know what it is like to be very distracted by the sound of your own voice. I understand using a video monitor as a mirror to track my movements because I have done it while using skype or google talk. Krauss writes that video’s medium is the psychological effect it has on the viewer reflecting on (or participating in) these dissociations from text, history, and one’s surroundings. Doesn’t that mean that the majority of people using web cameras and cell phones for communication have unknowingly been a part of this psychological media just by experiencing the reflective nature of this technology? This article was written in 1976; I wonder what the author would think if she was writing about this concept in the present time. The use of video, especially in recording oneself, is so widespread today that I think it partially ceases to be as spectacular or profound as she makes it sound.

Readings + Video

Here is a link to Rosalind Krauss' Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism : LINK

Also, here is a video she references in the essay that we didn't watch in class -- Richard Serra's Boomerang (1974)

Make sure to watch this one -- it's too good to miss.

ALSO -- Here is a link to your fourth assignment, THE INTERMEDIA MOMENT II

RESPONSE 5

It is so great to think our world is constantly evolving and progressing. It is nice to know that art will not be left behind, and will constantly change. It is even GREATER to know that people aren't so close minded as time progresses, to wrap their mind around the consideration of different forms of art. People will always be drawing, painting, and sculpting...but it's the new forms of art that are taking the spotlight. It may take a little time for people to adapt to new art, but it will happen. They have no choice. After all, art is all around us.

Graham Response 5

Technology is ever changing our world today, and that includes art. This article about the progression of video art we really interesting, and I like learning about the development of art in general. I never knew that video has always been claimed as a recognized element in sculpture. One thing I found interesting that I'd like to see is "Monsters of Grace" which combines live stage action with 3-D. I just really liked how the article talked about the artists discovering film art and loving/needing the spontaneity of it.

Michael Rush

I've always enjoyed learning about turning points in art; I think this is because by now pretty much everything has been done, just like Hennessey Youngman (lol) said in his youtube video about Bruce Nauman. The ability to surprise someone or show something that hasn't been done before is getting less likely as time goes on, and although there seems to be so much material left to magically create, in actuality most everything has taken influence from someone else's work.

Although, looking at the distinct difference and progression of technology not only just with businesses and schooling but how it's affected art and how artists make art is really interesting. Coming from Portapak's in the 1960's alllll the way to what we're using in class, the handy cam, it's certainly quite a feat; and that's not even including the software used to manipulate such images. I also completely agree that in little time people will move away from being so shocked about video art/installation and move onto something else to label as progressive, shocking, and new.

Seth M - Response 5

A lot of the works that were mentioned in this article really gathered my interest and I'd be extremely interested in seeing them in action (particularly F@ust Version 3.0). Though the whole article laid out examples of the progress of intermedia, I really enjoyed the way Rush talked about the progression of art (video art, intermedia, etc.) as a movement that's not only influenced by artists but also culture, politics, and technology as well. That sounds kind of obvious but I'm mainly referring to the avant-garde, and how it seems to be something that desperately tries to stay afloat and always one step ahead of traditional art. We determine intermedia by a blending of mediums and art forms, but I feel that Rush defines avant-garde by the advancement and evolution of intermedia. It seems clear when he ends with, "In the future some artists will still paint; others will continue to sculpt with metal and wood; and others will likely make videos and create live performances. The avant-garde, however, will undoubtedly have moved elsewhere." It's just interesting to hear from a time when art and television technologies worked together to create something new, but now the avant-garde and intermedia are present in everything from video games to modern robotics; it would seem that Rush was right.

Erica- Response 5

Its refreshing to read something so straightforward after a couple weeks of readings that we had to pick through and analyze to understand.

I agree that video can play a large part in creating a production or display; it does add an interactive element. I think it's interesting that Rush describes 3D video as the most interactive technology a work can use. I know this was written in the late '90s but I still find it funny that there was specific mention for "digitized control boards". Technology has come pretty far in the last 12 years. It's strange to read an article in which the technology of television is mentioned like a big deal. TV is so common now that it feels weird for the technology to be mentioned without discussing in depth the content of a show or movie.

Sean Logan Response 5

Technology has moved so fast in our world today that it has helped to creat new and very differnt forms of art. The things that are being done today with video editing and effects were only made possible to the advances and the accesability to new equipment. Nam June Paik brought one of the first Sony portable cameras to New York and started a whole new way or art. This inspired many artist and allowed them not only to creat art but also make it a performance as well. This allowed for the american public to see more that what was just in movies and on the news. Also the advances in technology allowed artist to creat eleaborate performances at one time by having different lighting and visual effects during the performances. Yet the new technology has not left other art forms behind, but has also allowed them to evolove and cope with the changes.

Readings + The best series of photographs I've ever seen

Here is you reading for next week. Responses due 10 am Oct 18th. -- Link

Also -- this may be the best series of photographs I've ever seen. Notice h

ow in the very moment of terror, everyone who is with someone else is either grasping for / holding onto whoever is around them. Really beautiful stuff. Too bad it's viral advertising for some haunted house in Canada. Oh well. -- Link to flickr set

Miracle Fish

Here is that short film I mentioned in class today. Just a warning, its a little creepy (*ahem* Erica) But it's very well shot and just pretty great in general.




Miracle Fish

Seth M - Response 4

I don't think Debord's point is to set-up any clear, obviously, or concise definition of what spectacle is, but more or less what "the society of the spectacle" truly is. Through out the chapters, he switches from culture to religion and even from capitalism to time itself. All the while, Debord is continuously pointing out the intangibility of our society. Everything we've come to except as our world and it's definitions is just an image, perhaps once founded in physical space but is now only a mere representation of itself. These placeholders lack the authenticity of the original and only work to amuse our individual desires for the spectacle. I do believe that Debord is correct when he talks about our need to fill this void when he says, "human fulfillment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed." I doubt I've grasped nearly all that, honestly. However, my favorite part of this work, is actually near the end of chapter five when he talks about the power of the bourgeoisie and the way he refers to them as living outside of "historical time." He brings to light the flimsiness of time when he mentions Year One of the Republic as a measurement with "absolute origin." It was just interesting to me that Debord seems to almost worship this idea of restarting time from a solid point, almost as if it gives him some sort of reassurance. "The Society of the Spectacle" is filled to the brim with hundreds of thesis about various subjects, half of which I couldn't hope to properly understand without some serious research time. But I have enjoyed reading what I could get out of it.

Jamere- Response 4

Okay, that was difficult and I re-read at least every other part. So, the article is supposedly explaining what the "spectacle" is. What I felt like was every time I started to understand, it would redirect its point of view and then I'd be lost in the next sentence. I feel like this whole article is a spectacle in itself. What we take from the article is still exactly what the article is explaining. Just the fact of the way society views life and how we allow ourselves to follow different images and religions, etc. In my mind a spectacle is this outrageous action, and I feel like that's what the idea is. Our minds creating everything that exists and doesn't exist. We've created the spectacle in any and every situation. Even what I just said seems confusing to myself. The spectacle to me is existence in every aspect. It all just seems bigger than what my mind and maybe others can entirely grasp? I'm not sure. Just what I could get out of this. I feel like I could talk in circles about it. Too confusing.

graham response 4

So when I got to the end of this article I was really confused, and re-reading it didn't help much. Apparently the article is trying to explain what a spectacle is, but to be honest I don't understand the explanation at all. I felt like I was reading another language. I'm trying to contribute but can't come up with anything

erica - response 4

So this is trying to define for the reader what a spectacle is… but I feel like any sort of explicit explanation would be a lot easier to understand than all of this metaphor. I found myself having to read this in bits and then do something else and come back; I could barely read a whole page at once. Each section of this requires its own puzzling and digestion; the more I read, the more confused I felt. I was especially stumped by the discussion of time and the flow of time. This reads as if time were a physical thing, to be stored and spent. I assume that is more metaphor. How can one have a “surplus” of time? If cyclic time is to be avoided (I think, from what I understood of chapter 5), then how is pseudo-cyclical time something desirable? Isn’t all time consumable?