Further process on phase 4

There's only a few days left until the final deadline of phase 4, and I haven't completed it yet! I am still in the phase of waiting for my image file to be sent around by e-mail from one participant to another.

I forgot if I had previously mentioned that I forgot to document one of the steps for the physical transformation section of my phase 4, but I have decided to go along with it and do one more documented phase to make up for it at the end myself. I plan to make a pdf document that presents each transformation and write a little blurb beside it documenting what has been changed. The rationale for the whole project would be included at the beginning to give a sense of what I am trying to accomplish.

As of now, I am happy with my phase 4 because the changes are becoming more interesting as it goes through the next step. It was the right decision to allow any changes possible because if I had restricted what they can do to the image, then it wouldn't be able to showcase so much fun and diverse ideas.

Phase 4 Process

Okay, I have decided to do the exquisite corpse (image based) for my phase 4. The image that I chose to work with is an image of the Hong Kong Disney Land that is lighted at night. I chose this image because it is the classical example of Jean Baudrillard's term simulacra, which is defined as follows: the key piece is that where images used to refer to something outside themselves, we have now moved into an era in which images seem to refer to things outside themselves but are in fact devoid of any reference — that is, they are simulacra, things which bear no relation to reality, so that there is no “re-presentation” because there is nothing which is “present” in the first place to be presented again (”re-”) in the second. “Simulacra” (plural of simulacrum) seems to refer to individual instances of the phenomenon, whereas “simulation” seems to refer to the whole system.

Disney land is a perfect example of simulacra because it refers to itself, which does not have a solid foundation. It is a completely made up thing with thoughts and ideas.

What I did for my phase 4 so far is that I have printed the image on a piece of paper and passed it around to my classmates not just in the facs class to make any changes to it providing them with a box full of materials such as paint, pastels, pencil crayons, and magazine/scissors. I want to complete the first 5 transformations in hard copy, then transfer the image digitally and ask people to make changes to it there. This allows for a wide range of changes that can be made. This process relates to how art can exist between the boundary of physicality and technology. At the end, although the image would be transformed, it in itself remains the same because it refers to only itself and nothing else.

Source: http://thebookman.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/postmodern-terms-saccade-to-typological-study/

A little about copy art

Last week we had a presentation about copy art. I didn't understand some of the information that was presented so I decided to research a little bit about this topic.

What is Copy Art?

Well, I had originally thought that copy art refers to anything the artist copies based on an existing piece and calls it his own, kind of like appropriation. Apparently I had misunderstood this concept...Copy Art is apparently something that is made using a photocopier as the main medium. The artist makes use of the light and distance of the original piece along with other modifications to create a 'new' image when photocopied.

What I think about it...

I remember in class, Carol posed the question whether the artist or the machine is the main creator of Copy Art. I would say that the artist remains as the main creator of the piece although it is the machine that does the physical manipulation. This is because the decisions made in the process are by the artist. Without these decisions and instructions, the machine wouldn't be capable of producing a meaningful piece (takes us back to the question of meaning).

Another question that was posed by Carol is whether Copy Art would live on in the future. My answer to this is definitely because its method is interchangeable with many types of technology that are present today, providing artists with new ways to experiment. In addition, all art is Copy Art in a way because art itself is a copy of our experience of the physical (and sometimes virtual nowadays) of the world. Copying something that is already copied is right in every way as it expresses our experience of the copied object. However, my ideas about cloning remain reserved as it is too complicated to discuss it right now.