Category: Art Theory

The word technology always brings to mind current devices and apps for smart phones. Technology is something we think of as current and that those creating it are all computer scientists in labs and offices somewhere in Silicone Valley. These incredible interactive devices like virtual reality headsets, choose your own adventure shows on Netflix, and Skype may not have ever existed without artists.

When I thought about my own perception of when technology started to interact with art I immediately thought of music videos from the 1980s and the computer generated graphics flashing on the screen over synthpop. I was blown away to find out that artists like Ben Laposky have been using tech in art since the 1950s.

Technology is ever changing and challenging our perception of the world around us. It changes what we think is possible to achieve and pushes us to explore new limits. Artists pushing these boundaries with technology ultimately are trying to create works that draw the viewer or participant to interact in a desired way, but the recurring outcome was that the same ideas were later used to benefit society. The best example of this for me was Lynn Hershman’s The Electronic Diary. In a form of recorded role play, Hershman’s work explored difficult to discuss topics such as abuse and eating disorders. Later therapists used her video art to heal patients suffering from PTSD.

Myron Krueger, in an effort to explore how to get the technophobic general public to interact with technology, developed engaging responsive sensory environments. The evolving series of environments started with lights, sounds, an unsolvable maze, and ended up with the first video conference experience. His project Videoplace laid the foundations for a myriad of helpful technology: online therapy, augmented reality, virtual reality, interactive video games, shared meeting space, and more.

As a creative person, I find myself being insanely interested in how the things I make, or appreciate, got its start in the world. So it does not surprise me that my main interest was the history of technology in art. I knew that artists have always been dabbling in latest technology, but I really did not know that it began as early as 1945. I always think of that time period as just war zone only, never an experimental time for artists.

The text says that science and technology in art got its start with “manipulating light, movement, and sound”. I think it is so amazing that we continue to use things that are already around us within art and find a way to showcase them in a new light for audiences, or even for ourselves. It is refreshing the world’s view on “everyday” things, just like art should.

As for artists that interested me the most, I would have to say Metzger’s story really grabbed my attention. Before him, technology in art was being presented in a useful way. Metzger took that, refreshed it, and made the world see how destructive art can be. I read in the text that most of his family “perished in the Holocaust”, so, to me, it seems as if he took the pain from that and chose to make a political point within his art, as well as introducing a new style of art. I believe that art should be outspoken and, if it is true to the artist, political at times.

I also enjoyed reading about Takis. Electromagnetic art has always been something that fascinated me because it introduces science in a more interactive way. It allows for the audience to see how we can interact with the forces of the world around us. Science, to me, always seems like such a far away and untouchable subject, so being able to bring it into an interactive art form is really special.

There were many New Media art forms in the reading. Some of the ones that stood out to me is the use of robotics, cybernetics, photography, projection, and video. I found the work by Myron W. Krueger to be interesting because his works involve viewers whether it is through capturing two people through cameras one being in the gallery the other a mile away at the other camera while a computer image overlaid the live image. I also liked Orian who got plastic surgery seven different times and took pictures over time to document this. I think Orian’s message was important to me as it was that beauty is self determined. Some of the New Media like Eduardo Kac’s bio engineered glowing bunny, GFP Bunny, crosses lines to some. I personally find it interesting, but I’m not really comfortable with how this could taken in very wrong directions. Artist that use that as art, would require some major caution as its definitely on the borders on what’s too far.

I also think there are several other artists I would like mention as they helped expand what is art and helped grow these new media. Nam June Paik, called the father of video art, was influence on video art. Wolf Vostell was the first to use television as a medium. Lynn Hershman progressed video and psychoanalytic monologues using various personas. Her first persona being Roberta Breitmore(1974-78). Then I read about Shirin Neshat who is a photographer from Iran. She had moved to the United States to get her education, and on her return she witnessed that Iran had been radically altered in culture and social conditions. Women of Allah was the series she created during her time back. She also made videos and films about religious codes and gender relationships in Muslim societies as well. Then she went to make a film Women Without Men ,which is a film based on a novel of the same name by Shahrnush Parsipur.

Of all the artists I think Shirin Neshat, Nam June Paik, and Orian were my personal favorites.

There many new media arts. Some of which include digital art, virtual art, robotics, biotechnology and more. The one that interested me most that I wanted to talk about was virtual art. Virtual art is the title given roughly to all art made in a virtual space. I found that this group of new media is very intriguing and still has great potential. Some media that may fall under virtual art includes virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality. The line between virtual, digital, and interactive is often not clear. Some artist use influences from all of those.
Virtual art can include virtual reality, animations, and more. One artist, Jordan Wolfson, made a virtual reality work called Real violence (2017). It was presented in the 2017 at the Whitney Biennial. By using VR, Jordan puts viewer in the space, and the space the viewer is put in is not one of comfort. Jordan describes it as, “You put it on, and you’re looking up at the sky, and you’re in an urban setting, people everywhere, and then it rotates backward, then it rotates to the crowd, and then it comes forward and you see me, and then you see me assault a man who’s about 15 years older than me. I assault this person to the point where to you, as the viewer, it is ambiguous whether or not he will survive.” By doing this people experience violence that may never have understood before. It’s suddenly far more real when things are not flat. I personally think VR has lots of potential in art for its ability to involve viewers. There is also the ability to completely surround and separate audiences from reality as in Shezad Dawood or Ian Cheng. Dawood’s VR works create environments, and Cheng’s VR works focus on reality itself. A great example of some augmented reality work is Marc Lee’s 10.000 Moving Cities – Same but Different focuses on how places are constantly changing through diversity, nature, and architecture.

Trash has become a new outlet in creating art. Many artists are using trash to create sculptures both three denominational and two denominational. This development has greatly impacted the way artists look at recycling. Some of these projects are made of found objects and some are crafted into objects that look like particular things. Many artists are starting to use this technique more and more. One of the coolest sculptures I have seen is big objects like lips that are made out of smaller objects like lipstick. This form of sculpture is also very cheap and can be found almost anywhere. This form of sculpture is very intriguing and is something i may eventually be intersted in.

When looking through all of the New Media Art forms, “Hacktivism” really stood out to me. It is a very self explanatory form of New Media. “Hacking” + “Activism” = Hacktivism. 

It can take many forms, but I believe the one most of us would be familiar with is “doxxing”, sometimes spelled “doxing”. This is where a hacker exposes information about someone they dislike: workplace location, address, etc. Anything personal that people can run with to tarnish this person’s reputation and take them down, these hackers will find out. 

I do not always agree with this approach to activism, however, it is very beneficial in some cases, although it is very harsh.

The WikiLeaks page is a solid example of Hacktivism, as it leaks documents pertaining to current media uproar, especially within the political world.

Another good example we are all familiar with would be the release of Ashley Madison users. 

Though there is a malicious and criminal side to it, Hacktivism’s original intent was just to work towards social change with computer programming skills. In the 90s, a Hacktivist group changed the US Department of Justice’s page to the “US Department of Injustice” and put pornographic images on the site to protest the Communications Decency Act, which would regulate porn on the Internet. Although that isn’t a fight everyone wants to be in on, it shows that they have a sense of humor while still fighting for something they believe in. 

Like everything in this world, Hacktivism can have its good and bad side. Not everyone will agree with how they go about gaining coverage for issues that matter, but no one can say it isn’t efficient. 

By S. Anoki Gibbs – Art Theory

Technology is ever evolving. Every day advancements are made to make tech faster and more powerful. As these advances are made the number of areas of our lives that are impacted by technology expands as well. One of the most interesting ways that technology impacts the human existence is through technology driven art.

Artists like Daniel Rozin are using micro sensors and recycled materials to create art that responds to the viewer. As they move around the piece the artwork tilts and pivots pieces in response creating a lively and fun experience for the viewer. Interactive art is increasingly popular in children’s museums. The High museum in Atlanta has several interactive art installations. One of these installations painted colors across several large screens in response to motion in front of the screen. Faster movements were bright reds and yellows, and slower movements were blues and greens. The viewer could create colorful but fleeting artwork of their own by simply moving in front of the screen in various ways.

W. Bradford Paley has a piece called CodeProfiles created for the Whitney museum in 2002 which is simply Java Code written to display the code in text on the screen. It was updated in 2018 to include updated code and color. Charles Sandison projects jumbled lines of computer code and images on every surface in a dark room to create beautiful immersive artwork.

If the goal of art is to draw the viewer in and make them look for longer than a few seconds, then interactive art is a huge success. Artwork that draws the viewer in and encourages them to interact with the piece is engaging and enjoyable. The rise in popularity of augmented reality and virtual reality technology opens doors for the arts that weren’t possible previously. Artist George Beasley with Art Attack used a Virtual Reality drawing program and created a 3D rendering of Van Gogh’s Starry Night then shared the video of his creation on YouTube for everyone to enjoy.

Technology is no longer simply allowing artists to make art in new and different ways, but also opening new avenues for sharing that art with wider audiences.

Sanderson: http://www.arndtfineart.com/website/artist_1937?idx=s

Beasley: https://youtu.be/Woc0GZkDa7k

Rozin:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/9/16850280/daniel-rozin-interactive-art-interview-video-nespresso-last-chance-to-shine

Paley: https://www.digitalartarchive.at/database/general/work/code-profiles.html

I have always been fascinated by 3D printing and photography, and now there seems to be something that combines them both in a way that I believe is eye-opening or not, depends on how you “feel” about it.  Being able to touch art is something that very few get to experience, imagine children being able to explore with their hands, the blind being able for the first time to experience what a photograph is?  This is what Tactography is, the combination of photography and 3D printing.  Artist Gabriel Bonfim latest photographs have no color and are just white; his photos are in 3D allowing the blind to feel and see the pictures. 

This is not just for the blind, imagine exploring art with a sense other than sight, or sound.  There are textured works out there, yet this type of work requires you to touch it rather than the usual hands off.  This technology is called stereolithography; it is an embossing of 2D images to a 3D model.   CAD software is used to follow the original photograph creating an accurate image and then it is printed.  As with the image, about one can easily see the picture yet all are welcome to touch.   Combining stereolithography and images opens a new world for an artist to explore as never before. 

There are pros and cons to making to making controversial pieces, but when are they going too far? That is up for debate. I think crossing boundaries is important in art. It opens our mind to topics that are often avoided. Artists like Tracey Emin’s My Bed, Jennifer Morone’s Jennifer Lyn Morone™ Inc. are good examples of controversial works that question what art is as well as aspects of society. There are also instances that having shock value gets work noticed and relays the message better than simply painting it. A relevant example would be Sarah Levy’s painting of trump using her period blood. It certainly caught attention, and it drew lots of attention to her message against what Trump said about Megyn Kelly.

I also think there are points where it can go too far. I would say physically injuring someone or some creature against their will for a piece is a boundary that should never be crossed for an artwork. Willing participants might be different story; however, there are points that should not be crossed still. For example, killing someone is too far. Willing harm is hard to look at, but sometimes pain is key to an idea such as in Chris Burden’s work. I think for the most part boundaries should be broken, but the reason for it is important.

As for whether these boundary-breaking works are art, I think the reason behind it is important. If there isn’t an idea behind the piece, then it’s not really separated from something unusual or grotesque and is not as much art as just an act. I also believe it should not just be to shock people unless there’s a message or idea with it. I think if you break boundaries then make it worth it, change something.

I think that “shocking” art is necessary and vital to keep art fresh and exciting for both the artist and the audience. I will say that there is definitely a boundary to be crossed, and I think that boundary is crossed when children are harmed or sexualized or animals are harmed. However, if the artist themselves are consciously putting themselves in danger, I think that is fine. They know what they are getting themselves into and they know what point they want to make, like with Chris Burden’s Shoot. 
I do not think I am qualified enough to comment on someone else’s art. I do not think it is my place, since my art is nowhere near as shocking or controversial as others. If someone is making the art that they want and they feel good about, without harming innocent people, then that is good on them. Like with separating artists from their art, I am a little torn on where to create a clear line.