"Innovation"
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
DTC 355 Stewart Pg. 231-256
As this section covers emphasis and the factors that need to go into construction of objects/sculpture, my mind is drawn to the sculpture on page 247 by Katherine Wetzel.
She created a robot sculpture from wood, glass, and porcelain. As I looked at the photo, I initially thought it was some kind of synthetic metal. When I noticed what it was made of, I was surprised. Aside from my initial thought not being anything other than metal, it's the wires and gears that are visible that stand out to me.
Either those are remarkably crafted, or the description left out some of the materials used to create the sculpture. Regardless, I think it's a beautiful sculpture and it has a wonderfully strange aura to it (at least in the photo).
As for the rest of the section, I think quite a few of the sculptures are wonderful, using materials in ways I wouldn't have thought of. I'm hopeless at sculpture so I have admiration for those who can create these things.
I think using nontraditional materials for sculpture is more impressive in a way, it shows innovation and an ability to work with a material that hasn't been proven time and again to be versatile enough to accomplish what you want.
It's a gamble, and that makes it more exciting!
-Thomas Holland
She created a robot sculpture from wood, glass, and porcelain. As I looked at the photo, I initially thought it was some kind of synthetic metal. When I noticed what it was made of, I was surprised. Aside from my initial thought not being anything other than metal, it's the wires and gears that are visible that stand out to me.
Either those are remarkably crafted, or the description left out some of the materials used to create the sculpture. Regardless, I think it's a beautiful sculpture and it has a wonderfully strange aura to it (at least in the photo).
As for the rest of the section, I think quite a few of the sculptures are wonderful, using materials in ways I wouldn't have thought of. I'm hopeless at sculpture so I have admiration for those who can create these things.
I think using nontraditional materials for sculpture is more impressive in a way, it shows innovation and an ability to work with a material that hasn't been proven time and again to be versatile enough to accomplish what you want.
It's a gamble, and that makes it more exciting!
-Thomas Holland
DTC 355 Stewart 198-231
For this reading, the picture on page 231 stood out to me most. It's
Apennine by Giovanni Bologna. When I initially looked at it I saw a rock surface and not the sculpture. Then after a second I looked at the entire picture instead of a portion and I saw it.
I think the placement is excellent, it seems to be in nature, not in a heavily populated area. One can imagine some kind of demi-god landing on earth and encased in stone. I suppose I like that it isn't in a museum, that the context it is in allows an individual to draw more meaning from it than if it were placed in a gallery.
As for the rest of the reading, it covered composition, light, negative space, color harmonies, and scale.
What I found interesting from that is that most introductory art books devote chapter 2 or 3 entirely to color theory, while it gets a mention in this book but that's all. (I prefer it that way, I feel other books beat color theory to death before moving on)
-Thomas Holland
I think the placement is excellent, it seems to be in nature, not in a heavily populated area. One can imagine some kind of demi-god landing on earth and encased in stone. I suppose I like that it isn't in a museum, that the context it is in allows an individual to draw more meaning from it than if it were placed in a gallery.
As for the rest of the reading, it covered composition, light, negative space, color harmonies, and scale.
What I found interesting from that is that most introductory art books devote chapter 2 or 3 entirely to color theory, while it gets a mention in this book but that's all. (I prefer it that way, I feel other books beat color theory to death before moving on)
-Thomas Holland
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
DTC 356 POL 401-413
What comes up in this section is a discussion of global markets and their impact on cultures.
It examines how cultures accept/reject U.S. brands invading their culture, and how derivative products come out to stand against these large corporations.
In particular, my mind focuses on the word "local". This word is so abused in present context that I am loathe to see it anywhere. It is used to sell us every product under the sun, and has no concrete definition.
As a result, that word is nearly meaningless to anybody who is to a degree aware of its usage. I had to write a paper once on the advantages of local food over traveled food. While the prospect was good (removing preservatives from the food, less trucks on the road polluting the air, and support for local farmers), I quickly found out that "local" had never been defined. Neither had Organic, but that's a different argument.
The word is completely ambiguous, and could be used to indicate that the product was made in your neighborhood, your city, your state, your country, your hemisphere, your planet. That's a bit dramatic, but the scale can be indefinitely larger while still being "okay" to call local.
Corporations are the abusers of this word, as it is their descriptions that tag "local" onto products or services. It's a catch-all that consumers fall for, as it helps them feel better about the purchase (not incorrectly, it is understandable to be happy if you think your coffee came from the guy 10 miles away).
Thus, it makes the customer happy to hear the word, even if it isn't true (and can be used regardless of truth because it has no definition to be held to). Of course Big Businesses will drench the market with "local" if it will sell products and make consumers feel good.
For me personally, the whole thing leaves a bad aftertaste.
-Thomas Holland
DTC 356 Art Gallery Visit
When we went to the art gallery on Tuesday as a class, I thought that the work was interesting. I enjoyed the collage works, something I am familiar with. The photography on the other hand, was dark and I always have a weak spot for such things. They seemed somber, and as Sena Creston (the artist) said, they were surreal and imagined landscapes. She described them as windows to a little fantasy world, and as she said that I looked into one of her photographs of a little wooden bridge.
It made sense to me, and I could get that feeling of walking into that strange scene, walking that path, and having the feeling that anything could happen once inside. I thought the gallery got better the longer you spent inside of it, becoming less about the individual pieces and more about the entire room.
-Thomas Holland
Friday, October 11, 2013
People charging to see a Banksy
http://news.yahoo.com/as-banksy-tours-new-york-city--locals-are-charging-for-looks-at-his-artwork-134522157.html
News article got posted today about how a few people have decided to profit from one of Banksy's works.
They covered the work up with cardboard and are charging people $20 to get a look/photograph it.
Whereas other people carve banksy's work out of walls to preserve them, these people are motivated by sheer greed.
It's sad, because Banksy's work is on places it shouldn't be as a statement against the art institution and being told "where" to be creative. He has his own reasons for why he doesn't want to do work on a canvas and have people pay to get into a museum to see it. As such, these people are defeating the point of the work itself by charging for people to see it.
-Thomas Holland
News article got posted today about how a few people have decided to profit from one of Banksy's works.
They covered the work up with cardboard and are charging people $20 to get a look/photograph it.
Whereas other people carve banksy's work out of walls to preserve them, these people are motivated by sheer greed.
It's sad, because Banksy's work is on places it shouldn't be as a statement against the art institution and being told "where" to be creative. He has his own reasons for why he doesn't want to do work on a canvas and have people pay to get into a museum to see it. As such, these people are defeating the point of the work itself by charging for people to see it.
-Thomas Holland
Thursday, October 10, 2013
DTC 356 Lakoff Article
This article puts forward the question of the human mind using categories, what that means and how it isn't a humane way to go about cognitive reasoning.
As part of a book (presuming so through the reference of other chapters for the book to go to later), the scope of the argument isn't entirely shown.
For me personally, the idea is interesting. However; I'm not sure I'm on board with categorization as a evil or wrong. Yes, it leads to stereotyping and perhaps a less than worldly view.
But as the author describes, this kind of thinking is so far ingrained into our daily lives that this topic wasn't even a debate until recently.
Even if the entire debate convinces those who read it, I fail to see how a new way of thinking could be implemented. Few will understand the book, and I struggled to follow as I read (frequently wondering what the argument/problem was).
I'll say it's an interesting idea, but I don't see a constructive application of this information.
Perhaps this information merely existing is enough, which is fair.
-Thomas Holland
As part of a book (presuming so through the reference of other chapters for the book to go to later), the scope of the argument isn't entirely shown.
For me personally, the idea is interesting. However; I'm not sure I'm on board with categorization as a evil or wrong. Yes, it leads to stereotyping and perhaps a less than worldly view.
But as the author describes, this kind of thinking is so far ingrained into our daily lives that this topic wasn't even a debate until recently.
Even if the entire debate convinces those who read it, I fail to see how a new way of thinking could be implemented. Few will understand the book, and I struggled to follow as I read (frequently wondering what the argument/problem was).
I'll say it's an interesting idea, but I don't see a constructive application of this information.
Perhaps this information merely existing is enough, which is fair.
-Thomas Holland
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
DTC 356 POL 289-301
This section was all about branding, from its history, usage, and meaning to what it has done to culture itself.
What I found most interesting in this portion was the term genericide and what it means.
The book says it is the term for when an owner of a brand loses control of the meaning, and the brand becomes a generic term.
The book uses Kleenex and Coke as examples for brands that the company no longer has control over. This was interesting to me because I do exactly this.
Whenever I see soda, I call it "coke". It doesn't matter if the carbonated beverage is actually a coke product, I refer to all carbonated soft drinks as "coke" as a generic term. It wasn't until a few years back that somebody pointed out that I was doing this.
I called it that because my mum has always called it that, asking me, "What kind of coke do you want?" as a generic question.
I always thought it strange how this happened, because now people think I'm strange if they catch me calling all soda "coke". To me, it feels natural and correct because for the longest time I didn't apply the term "coke" to anything more than carbonated soft drinks.
It is this idea of a company losing its control on their brand that amuses me. So much money is poured into maintaining brand integrity and updating/bolstering its image to the general public. When a brand becomes so successful it loses control of its own brand meaning, it must be incredibly frustrating for the owners.
In a way this shows how brands affect our culture, because corporate brands become our traditional lingo for certain things. This truly shows how pervasive the marketing and branding has been, as well as how successful.
So it's good and bad, because I'm not supportive of big companies (and thus like the idea of them losing control of something they tried so hard to hold) but at the same time it means they were very successful and managed to break into culture itself and set itself down in a more permanent way.
-Thomas Holland
Edit: I realized this was the wrong section to read, 100 pages off. So close.
What I found most interesting in this portion was the term genericide and what it means.
The book says it is the term for when an owner of a brand loses control of the meaning, and the brand becomes a generic term.
The book uses Kleenex and Coke as examples for brands that the company no longer has control over. This was interesting to me because I do exactly this.
Whenever I see soda, I call it "coke". It doesn't matter if the carbonated beverage is actually a coke product, I refer to all carbonated soft drinks as "coke" as a generic term. It wasn't until a few years back that somebody pointed out that I was doing this.
I called it that because my mum has always called it that, asking me, "What kind of coke do you want?" as a generic question.
I always thought it strange how this happened, because now people think I'm strange if they catch me calling all soda "coke". To me, it feels natural and correct because for the longest time I didn't apply the term "coke" to anything more than carbonated soft drinks.
It is this idea of a company losing its control on their brand that amuses me. So much money is poured into maintaining brand integrity and updating/bolstering its image to the general public. When a brand becomes so successful it loses control of its own brand meaning, it must be incredibly frustrating for the owners.
In a way this shows how brands affect our culture, because corporate brands become our traditional lingo for certain things. This truly shows how pervasive the marketing and branding has been, as well as how successful.
So it's good and bad, because I'm not supportive of big companies (and thus like the idea of them losing control of something they tried so hard to hold) but at the same time it means they were very successful and managed to break into culture itself and set itself down in a more permanent way.
-Thomas Holland
Edit: I realized this was the wrong section to read, 100 pages off. So close.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
"Duffin" Trademark Controversy
After reading so far in Lessig, I stumbled across this article on yahoo news;
http://gma.yahoo.com/doughnut-muffin-hybrid-causes-controversy-uk-193743001--abc-news-lifestyle.html
This article details a controversy stirred up by Starbucks' new food item, the "Duffin".
A Duffin is a hybrid of a Doughnut and a Muffin, and as the article details, a Google search of Duffin brings up many recipe's and variations of the culinary blend.
The issue is not that Starbucks is selling Duffins, but rather that they copied the recipe of Bea Vo's Duffin in specific (owner of Bea's of Bloomsbury, a bakery that has sold Duffin's since 2011).
Starbuck's offered no credit to Bea in their debut of their Duffin, and even went so far as to trademark the name Duffin.
That is where it gets interesting for me. Taking the idea of what should be copyrighted and what shouldn't be in the art world is one thing. But thinking specifically on food items brings a new angle to the issue. The article includes Bea Vo commenting that we'd have 100 names for Caesar Salad if we started trademarking names of kinds of food.
She likens it to "owning" the word cupcake so that nobody else can make "Cupcakes".
(I must say here, that there is no question that Starbucks did not invent the Duffin, they were simply the first to Trademark it and tried to slip it through the masses.)
So on the one side, you have the very real and logical argument that it would be silly if only the first creator of an "Omelette" was allowed to sell "Omelette"s because they trademarked it after they cooked it. (And the fact that we would then have a thousand names for Omelette)
On the other side, we have large restaurant's and other food/drink establishments that need to preserve the integrity and value of certain creations. McDonalds wants a "Happy Meal" to only be available at their restaurant for example.
Yet again, some people need the Copyright, and in other cases it is just silly.
Even in the culinary world this stuff is important!
-Thomas Holland
Monday, October 7, 2013
DTC 356 Lessig 213-234
In this portion of Lessig, the problem of Congress extending Copyright laws indefinitely is discussed in depth.
This problem, as outlined, only benefits a small percentage of Copyright holders and otherwise assures the majority of copyrighted works will be forgotten.
The issue lies in the form that the materials are currently being held under copyright, and the lack of ability to track down and obtain permission from those who hold the copyright.
In essence, only a few works have any commercial worth at the end of their copyright life (in fact most stop gaining revenue after their first year). But because of the money that is still being made from a few works, the holders of those copyrights pour their money into campaigns for people in congress who will extend copyrights. When the law goes through to extend the Copyright, all the works that aren't making any revenue (98% from the text), are going to be destroyed due to the wear of time on print materials.
Problems in this issue lay in the loss of records of our culture, Congress being bribed, Congress having too much power, and interference with creativity and derivitive works.
I think this problem is in a way related to the 1%, where the people with the money can make the decisions because politics is about pouring money into campaigns more than individuals. The same money = power factor is in play in this Copyright law extension situation.
-Thomas Holland
This problem, as outlined, only benefits a small percentage of Copyright holders and otherwise assures the majority of copyrighted works will be forgotten.
The issue lies in the form that the materials are currently being held under copyright, and the lack of ability to track down and obtain permission from those who hold the copyright.
In essence, only a few works have any commercial worth at the end of their copyright life (in fact most stop gaining revenue after their first year). But because of the money that is still being made from a few works, the holders of those copyrights pour their money into campaigns for people in congress who will extend copyrights. When the law goes through to extend the Copyright, all the works that aren't making any revenue (98% from the text), are going to be destroyed due to the wear of time on print materials.
Problems in this issue lay in the loss of records of our culture, Congress being bribed, Congress having too much power, and interference with creativity and derivitive works.
I think this problem is in a way related to the 1%, where the people with the money can make the decisions because politics is about pouring money into campaigns more than individuals. The same money = power factor is in play in this Copyright law extension situation.
-Thomas Holland
DTC 355 Stewart 149-176
In this section of the reading I thought that the suggestions for creating artwork for helpful.
Adding certain things, or looking at three or four variations you can do to your piece seems like it could be a good idea for when a piece just doesn't "feel" right.
I also liked the artist focus at the end on Roger Shimomura, because he faces racial stereotyping directly after being affected by it as an Asian-American. His work is also visually pleasing, and while his message is a sad one, the pieces have an excellent style to them.
-Thomas Holland
Adding certain things, or looking at three or four variations you can do to your piece seems like it could be a good idea for when a piece just doesn't "feel" right.
I also liked the artist focus at the end on Roger Shimomura, because he faces racial stereotyping directly after being affected by it as an Asian-American. His work is also visually pleasing, and while his message is a sad one, the pieces have an excellent style to them.
-Thomas Holland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)