Reading Response- Extra Credit

Video Installation- "The Body, The Image, and the Space-In-Between"

Very useful read, especially with our final project. Margaret Morse really details the necessities in making an installation successful, in which sound and moving image are of main focus. Video Installation is defined as a contemporary art form that combines video technology with installation art, using as much external factors and environments to further stimulate the viewer. Morse goes further to state that the "disposition of bodies & images in space... and their...temporal and experiential passage,"   is the one of the most important factors of video installation. In others words, all factors and elements must be taken into consideration when installed, and taken down-"the passage of the viewer through the space is what creates the work." That last quote definitely hold true in the sense that your installations, whether video or not, is only as good as the space you place it in; it may not seem like it but the surrounding environment in which your art lays places subconscious impressions.

Reading Response - Video Installation Art

"The Body, the Image, and Space-in-Between" 

 This was a nice easy read. It gave some history and vocabulary but it also gave a good understanding of how your installation can make others feel. It’s completely different from a painting in a gallery. This is actually an “experience.” From the timing to the imagery you have to question whether your installation will be a memorable experience that the audience wants more of or will people walk out before it is over. This reading makes me think of how can I keep the viewer engaged. It’s not just one video they see it is the surrounding as a whole that will make the installation.

 From the historic John Hanhardt and his work on Wolf Vostell and Nam June Paik he set the bar in the early video installation age. "Electronic Superhighway" is one of my all-time favorite art pieces. He’s taught us that the world inspires us to make the “raw material” that we know as images. For my project I want to manipulate sound and images to make an overwhelming experience. All the things that surround me, the things that surround us all are going to be changed and we will present it in a new form. This new creation is something that you will only get the full experience from in person. It is a “you had to be there ….. ” moment. So what I took from the reading is that you have to make the moment right and special, because it’s just that “a moment” and it will either be a moment to remember or a moment to forget. What will yours be?

Reading Response: The Death of the Author

I did not enjoy this reading, it was a little hard for me to understand. Or rather I understood it but disagree with it. I believe the author can do whatever they want and the work will not loose it's "spark." The article states things like "the Author is supposed to feed the book." To me the author can distance himself from the story because they are creating something that may not be real and they may not put there all into it but they may have certain "writing skills" and can create this creative work without trying. The same goes for if you put your all into a work it could be undesirable. The article also states, "once the Author is gone, the claim to “decipher” a text becomes quite useless."  Why? there is still a story being told, there is still something there to be understood. The biggest disagreement is to this statement of the reading, "once the Author is discovered, the text is explained." We as people change, our creativity changes, and our work changes. It may be one work but you could be going through so much that it can have several different "vibes" from it. My question is who is the author, there are so many thoughts that it may feel like there are multiple people. Does this lessen the work? Or if there is a painful experience that you have lost that desire to put your all into the work and you distance yourself is it still worthless. I just believe that anyone can create art with a spark because no one can define art. No one can define that "spark" in the work. I believe that as long as you create it and put it out there for the world to see that "spark" is always there it's just up to the audience to decide when they will except it. Society loves the work of many artist who are dead because we can create in our own mind that connection between the artist and there work. When in reality no one even knows the true person who created it work their thoughts behind it. We give the work an author for our own satisfaction.

The Death of the Author Response

I really enjoyed this reading and the whole concept of what is written has been revealed. The article states that reading is best when the author is ambiguous and allows your readers to many interpretations. After reading this article, I could relate it directly to the Art, and think that the artist does not need to take viewers to understand the way he wants, but several possible interpretations. And that applies directly to our projects and our classes.

The Death of the Author

The Death of the Author was wildly thought-provoking and inspiring, and heightened my understanding of Fluxus.  The Death of the Author leading to the Birth of the Reader is profound, because I had never realized that before the modern day writer, the reader is always secondary to the writer, a kind of afterthought.  Yet, readers give power and life to the author's words: they analyze the author's thoughts, and without the ability to read, words are reduced to nothing.  I never thought that whenever I read a book, it is to hear someone else's story and escape to a different world, and writing is a personal activity involving documenting one's life, thoughts, and observation.  There is a beauty in that, but at the same time, the "birth of the reader" and the reader's rise to a role that equivalents the importance of the author is beautiful as well.  The modern writer removes himself completely, erasing a hidden meaning in his words, realizing he is not original, but his words (and they are merely that, words with no hidden agenda) derive from a "readymade dictionary."  Even the author's choice of saying the modern "writer"instead of "author" is intriguing, as if the word "author" has such a strong connotation as one of a God-like creator and thought documenter, the modern "writer" and practice of writing must be removed from that completely.  At the bottom of page 4, Ronald Barthes says the writer must "combine different types of writing"from this "Readymade dictionary," which reminds me of the intermedia and use of everyday materials of the Fluxus movement.  It was fascinating to read that critiques of an Author's work usually involve critiquing the man himself, rather than the words, which is so true.  I was reminded of Hollywood, and how celebrities are often criticized for who they are as people rather than artists.  Lastly, the idea that the Author and his work is viewed by the public as a work of the past about the past is moving with its truth.  The modern writer's removal from this, to create a comprehensive work that moves with time and doesn't involve the reader to analyze is an inspiring artistic notion that I will be more aware of when creating my work.

Reading Response: The Art of Noises

I really enjoyed this reading. It was very clear to understand and the words were written "lightly" so you could have a clear understanding of what the information was about. It was nice to get an understanding of the history of sound and how we should understand how things should be used. The most important part of the reading that stood out to me was on page 7 where it said, "the art of noise must not limit itself to imitative reproduction." This is important to me because you can't just use real sounds that you "think" you hear in the perfect world because there is no perfect world. You have to combine strange things and not try to imitate what you think you should hear. It could easy make your work seem boring and cliche. The is what an artist strives to veer from so I thought this was an awesome tip to help use with this project. I keep going back to that page and taking notes because I can see myself using the normal daily noises we hear and I do not want my project to be that simple an boring. So the key here for me is to transform these noise and change the normal settings to enhance the sounds. This was a great article and I think we ALL should use this advice.

The Art of Noises

Since this reading is formatted like a letter, I would have been interested to read Pratella's, the composer Russolo seems to be writing to, response.  Focusing on noise's complexity compliments the experimentation and innovation of the Futurist movement, but I would have liked to hear the responding perspective of someone with musical knowledge.  I wonder whether someone like Pratella with musical knowledge, including familiarity with music's history, would be as eager to "discard" violins, pianos, double-basses, and organs as Russolo, or whether they would want to use those instruments in a new way.  As a violinist, I know that an instrument for the capacity of such beautiful sound also has the potential to produce dissonance and noise.  And perhaps I took some of this letter too literally or personally, but he classifies orchestral pieces as predictable and boring, which hurt the ethos of his argument, because he seems unaware of the subtleties and musical theory that lies underneath the "boring" surface of orchestra music, making traditional/classical music a lot less predictable than he may realize.  He elevates the Futurist composers and beautiful complexity of putting noises together as if that is the only kind of music that can be complex, when so many different kinds of music can "create life" the way Futurist music does to him.  However, there is something intriguing about going out in the world and finding music in the noises we face.  And Russolo calling the ancient world "silent" in that there weren't any constant noise is an abstract, amazing thought that I can agree with after hearing his argument.  With instruments such as the "musical saw" being incorporated into today's music, Russolo's call to action to take that a step further and consider noises like shrieks, creaks, and splashes into the music-making and art-making process is inspiring.  Although I'm not willing to shun musical instruments, the message to expand our horizons and blend the lines between sound, noise, beauty, uglyness, and what is traditionally perceived as music to finding the music in everyday life is an important one, and one we should be willing to experiment with.

The Camera Eye

    From what I gathered from the essay, the author focused on the camera eye, the human eye, and reality.  All of these are separate entities; yet they interact with each other to produce a stationary or moving image.  This was articulated when the author wrote, “Consider this prodigy for its virtually untapped talents, viewpoints it possesses more readily recognizable as visually non-human yet within the realm of humanly imaginable.” Perhaps there is no such thing as a “stationary” image though, because a photograph has a drive in some way and captures motion, and the technology is in a constant state of change.  This article, in the most poetic of terms, personified the photograph.  While I share in the general confusion towards the class, I feel like the author is baffled by images’ complexity as well, and sorting through all of their meanings and implications.  This essay reminds me of an essay I am reading for another class, Susan Sontag’s “On Photography” in which Sontag shares a similar thought with this author on “reality” as it relates to photography.  Both authors recognize photographs tweak some degree of reality based on the photographer’s perspective and how the capture the scene.  They captured an event, but it still a personalized version of the event that sways the audience’s reaction.

The Camera Eye

I have to agree with Madeline M. that the article was a bit difficult to get through. The writing was very flowery so it was a challenge to get to the main points. For example, this:

"And there (right there) we have the camera eye, (the imitation, the original liar); yet lyre sings to the mind so immediately (the exalted selectivity one wants to forget that its strings can so easily make puppetry of human motivation (for form as finality) dependent upon attenuation, what it's turned to (ultimately death) or turned from (birth) or the way to get out of it (transformation)."

I did appreciate the discussion about the editing process of films and how the end result ultimately bears little resemblance to the set and subject being filmed. It's something I noticed when I got my first camera which, granted, had a very basic video option. But I could tell from the first video I shot that the information being recorded wasn't at all like what I was seeing in person, nor what I had seen on television. The movements were captured very differently. It's an artistic process and a heavily manipulated one at that, given the current available technology.