Detournement article

Okay I've just finished reading the detournement article by Guy Debord and I don't really get what this guy is talking about...

What I understood was that detournement is a fresh and innovative way to create new works by combining different materials. He argues that no matter how contradicting the materials used are, the finished piece will always link the materials together to form a new meaning (the contradiction can be the meaning in itself.) Another pro of detournment is that it can be mass reproduced as there are limitless combinations of works.

Then he starts to relate detournment with metagraphics and writing, which starts to get a but confusing for me. First of all I don't know what metagraphics mean...so I plugged it in on the wiki and it gives me the definition, "merges poetry (text) with more visual (graphic) ways of communication such as painting, illustration or signs." I understood this to be some form of mixed media art, possibly closest to the ads we see everyday.

After he talks about how titles are strongly linked to detournement as well. I guess that the title usually uses quoted material (similar to what we did in phase 1) to form a new meaning with the visual that accompanies it.

Shortly after, he talks about the laws of detournement.

From what I understood from this article, detournement relates closely to art and advertising. I can't seem to find anything that doesn't fall in the category of detournement besides original literature (but then what is original.) Detournement is a useful tool because it gives us a deeper level of understanding by linking the material used to create it together. Usually humor is raised when someone links the materials together if they contradict. However a down side to this is that if things are increasingly detourned, then what is the base of all things? This raises the problem questioned by Baudrillard's simulacra.

source: www.wikipedia.org

No Lecture...

Today I came to school and was told that the lecture got canceled... I came to school for nothing!! This was my only class for today >_>

Okay anyways, I want to talk a little bit about Milkim's psychology experiment where he tests how far someone will go to push buttons. The subject was told that if the person being tested (which is actually an actor) answers the given questions wrong, then he would push a button giving the actor an electric shock. The subject was given a voice recording as feedback, which depicts the other in increasing levels of pain. Milkim wanted to see if the subject were to use his discretion and stop increasing the voltage of the shocks even if he was given orders by an authority figure. We didn't get a chance to finish the clip, but from what I saw, the subject did hesitate to increase the voltage, however he continued with the experiment when he was told to do so.

I think that in this can be related to internet usage as people push buttons all the time and is given a visual feedback from the screen of the result. There is a need to question the result because it can be fake. The user doesn't experience the result in the same space which he/she resides so the user will never know what truly happen when the button is pressed. Therefore if the user is given instructions to follow, then mostly likely he/she will obey disregarding the consequences. There is a disconnection between the physical world and the virtual world and I think that the ultimate goal for the internet artist to form a bridge between the two worlds.

Phase 1 problems

I'm just trying to put phase 1 together today and I have encountered a few problems I don't know how to fix. I didn't want the frame boarders to show so I wrote framboarder="0" in my frame src, the frame boarder is gone...but is substituted by white lines.....I don't know how to get rid of these annoying white lines and it is very obvious against the black background I have put up. Another problem is that I don't know how to change the colour of the links separately and not as a whole. I have tried to put them in divs and change them separately on css but it doesn't work. I hope I will get these fixed in class on Wednesday.

I hope I am on the right track and I want to see what sort of things my classmates have done for their phase 1.

Not Art Not Technology?

I just finished a reading from another class titled 'Sculpture in the Expanded Field' by Rosalind Krauss and I found it interesting how she defined the term sculpture by using two contradictory words, then expanded it in to a diagram: here

I thought this provided a deep understanding of the term sculpture and I thought that it would interesting to come up with a diagram of my own.

The 2 contradictory words I am using is art and technology, and the 2 that are opposite to those is not art and not technology. I would place 'interface' between art and technology because they require the interaction between the audience and the piece. The word 'thought' would lie between not art and not technology because it is a free flowing process that occurs in the head, it has no physical manifestation. Now...the word between art and not art would be 'ready-mades', these objects are made purely to function, but can seen as art through different contexts. Lastly the term between technology and not technology would be 'skeltons of nature' because it isn't man-made to help us extend the functions of our body, but simple thing like dry branches can be used as a pen to write in sand.

Fluxus Movement

I thought it would be nice to research a little bit about my presentation topic around this time. I picked the 'Fluxus Movement' because the name implies that it is something flowy and fluctuating. To my surprise, the meaning of the actual words comes from the latin word meaning 'to flow.'

Well...after that discovery I'm starting to get a headache because a lot of results just googling the word. There is a lot of diversity to this term and many different perspectives, but I finally found something on the wiki that can briefly sum up what this is about:

1. Fluxus is an attitude. It is not a movement or a style. (then why fluxus'movement'?)
   
2. Fluxus is intermedia.Fluxus creators like to see what happens when different media intersect. They use found and everyday objects, sounds, images, and texts to create new combinations of objects, sounds, images, and texts. (Ooo this sounds like a lot of what we are doing in class)
   
3. Fluxus works are simple. The art is small, the texts are short, and the performances are brief. (I like minimalists :])
   
4. Fluxus is fun. Humour has always been an important element in Fluxus. (yay)

I'm beginning to like this topic, sounds like I will find a lot of information about it. I should probably check the library for books before heading to the internet.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus#Artistic_philosophies

More Phase One Quotes

Today I was reading a few articles for my Urban Culture class and I came across a few more quotes that I thought would be a good addition to my phase one idea.

"the process of inclusion necessarily implicates the rules of exculsion"- Couze Venn
"the only secure thing about modernity is its insecurity, its penchant even, for totalizing chaos" - David Harvey

It think that I won't use any border or allow dragging for the frames because I want this to emphasize on the different combinations of quotes. Too many distractions will mute this point. As for the colours, I would use red, black, and white, playing on the appropriation of the posters and billboards by Barbara Kruger.

Yep...and HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Boomerang

This Monday, Mark showed us a piece called "Boomerang" by Richard Serra. It was a short movie of a woman listening to her delayed voice on headphones. Her task was to describe her experience.

I found it quite amusing to listen to her speech because she would speak random nonsense as her voice was delayed. People constantly need feedback to confirm their actions, and with delay, the woman doesn't know how to respond or act. On the other hand, if she chooses to ignore the instant feedback as we are used to, her thoughts and speech would be cut off by her own words boomeranged back at her from a few seconds ago.

This relates to the concept of embodiment and disembodiment, the headphones have isolated the woman from herself by putting her in an alien situation. In a way, she was disembodied at the same moment words pour out of her mouth and was re-embodied when she hears her voice in delay. There is a pause in between as she doesn't speak.

This piece is a good example of how technology enhances art's intentions. It would be impossible to replicate this simple interface without the aid of technology. I think that in a way, art is art when someone believes it to be, it doesn't matter what medium it is in.

Phase One Idea

Phase one has to do with the intersection of art and technology. What I want to communicate to the viewer from this phase is the question whether art and technology enhances meaning and communication or does it destroy the originality and purpose of art. I want to take on a neutral stance and be the one who questions the viewer as there is no absolute solution to this problem.

As for the layout of the piece, I plan to arrange the quotations in frames one on top of each other in the formation of a poem. Each quote then links to another so each time the audience clicks on a quote, an entirely new poem will form. Sometimes the quotes will compliment each other and sometimes the quotes will contradict each other as the linking to the quotes are random.

I have begun to look for quotes in the articles that we have read in class and some articles I have found from previous classes that I have taken. Some interesting quotes that I have found are:

"The text itself is fluid" - C.A.E
"Plagiarism? I don't like the way it tastes." - Barbara Kruger
"Virtual thought ignores everything except the thought, and only the thought is, and is in its own medium." - C.A.E
"I can no longer think what I wanted to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images." - Duhamel
"The public is an examiner, but an absent minded one" - Benjamin
"Language is legislation, speech is code" - Barthes
"If art is anything anyone has ever considered art then it would include things other people would fiercely deny artistic status to" - John Carey

The original and the reproduction

I just finished reading the Walter Benjamin and the Critical Art Ensemble articles about the original object versus its reproductions. The ideas from the two articles clash against each other as Benjamin argues that the reproduction of objects make the original loose their aura, and the C.A.E (Critical Art Ensemble) argues that it the the reproduction (plagiarism) of ideas that produce new ideas.

Well here is my opinion: If Benjamin argues that the mass reproduction of objects cause the original to loose their own aura because it is shared with the public, I want to question him that if their is only one original and the public was to see that (i.e. the Mona Lisa in Louvre Museum), would the viewers sense original aura of the piece? To me, the answer is no because the only true aura of the piece and the only person who could sense that is the creator himself as he painted it based on his own thoughts. The painting to the painter is a symbol of his own thoughts and that is the true aura that emanates from the artwork. One can argue that they can sense an aura from the original, but I want to ask is the aura they see the intended original aura? If it is no, then what difference would it make if one was to mass reproduce the piece of art since the aura would be different anyways?

I think reproduction creates an aura of its own...

Benjamin also argues that film creates reproductions of the original act and that takes the aura away from the original actor/actress. I think that in film, the artist and the director is the creator and the one thing that they both want to accomplish is to portray the character story in their script. The camera then pieces together creating the aura they want to achieve. The acting out of the film is just a process, the finished film itself is the original. Therefore the distribution of film does not take away the original intended aura but it is a way to deliver the aura to the public.

The article from the C.A.E argues that plagiarism is the key to developing new ideas and I agree with that. From the original person's idea, we can constantly improve on it, and most of the time, people other from the creator makes the most impressive improvements from the original idea.

What captivates me the most is the notion that no one owns words. Words are an ancient tool passed on to us from our ancestors, which allows us to communicate to one another. Writing itself is giving words a physical body. The article then argues that if the author isn't the original creator of words, then why should they copyright it? Why do we get punished for plagiarizing if what we are doing is simply stating what we want to say? It is possible for two separate people to come up with the same idea, but why does one get punished for it because they came up with it a few seconds after? Those are some pretty min-boggling questions to consider when trying to take a side for plagiarism and I do not have the answer to this myself. It hurts my head...

Thoughts on Technology

What is technology?

I think that technology is a tool designed to aid people to do certain things that they cannot achieve otherwise with their body. In other words tools are in a way deviations of the human body as noted from Marshall Mcluhan. Most of the time when we mention the word 'technology', we think of computers and electrical equipment, but it can be items that we don't pay much attention to in our day to day life.

Some of the technologies mentioned in the tutorial include glasses (an improvement of the eye to help us see), and the cell phone (an improvement of speech and hearing). My personal favorite is the computer, which is in a way an extension of our brain.

Just an interesting fact, in Chinese, the word computer is translated to literally 'electronic brain'.


What role do you see technology playing in art?

If technology is an deviation of our physical body, then the role technology plays in art is a tool to extend our sensations and thoughts. It allows us to feel something that we cannot otherwise feel and have a discussion with artists and other viewers we cannot otherwise talk to from our location. Technology also creates a new medium for artists to make art. Referring back to the lecture, the artist Moholy-Nagy created a set of instructions that can be transmitted through the phone or the internet so that someone on the other end could create the same image with the exact proportions. It is the invention of the grid, telephone, and internet that has allowed him to accomplish this.

Hello!

This is a test blog...it works! :]