Shanken 182-193

The opening phrases of Scientists beginning to welcome artists more for their ability to represent data and aid in creativity in the laboratory.

This idea is one that I welcome, and hope to see truth from in my lifetime. I am fond of the sciences and believe each of them has extreme importance to them. But I also am aware that people don't give enough attention and consideration to the things that are being found out each day.

If there was a major break-through in the world of science, say with the discovery of an element in physics that would make string theory obsolete, word would spread. But this knowledge wouldn't be spread as widely and rapidly as the winner of American Idol or the latest episode of Duck Dynasty.

And when this word gets out, it wouldn't be understood. People may be able to say they know the basic fact, but they wouldn't know anything beyond that. And most people don't actually care.

That's where artists can help. With data visualization artists and scientists together can get statistical data into the world in a way that people want to read, that people may understand better without getting them to read scientific textbooks.

It is my hope that scientific knowledge, more in depth than the basics of knowing that tectonic plates cause earthquakes or that stars can be dead while we still see their light, will one day be understood.

I can't help but wonder what it would be like for society if everybody understood the basic concepts of string theory or genetics. Personally, I think some amazing things could happen.

-Thomas

Shanken 166-182

The digital frontier, simulacra, and the blurred line between the real and unreal is a double edged sword for me.

On one hand it can see the demise of important cultural distinctions being replaced by an over-commercialized version. Think of Chinese food for instance. The american Chinese restaurant is not real Chinese culture, or Chinese food. It's a distorted symbol of Chinese food. But when these restaurants have been around so long, they become their own entity. Then there is your own country's food, Chinese food, and Fake Chinese food.

A simulation becomes the replacement of reality or an entity of itself separate from the real.

That in and of itself is a potentially destructive process, with the possibility for the Chinese to one day be having "Chinese Restaurants" in their own country instead of their true cultural foods (for example).

On the other hand, I believe that the virtual reality aspect of simulacrum can be an infinitely positive thing.

Things that have been lost can be recreated, things that cannot be can all of a sudden be.
Within the digital realm there is potential for anything and everything.

This in and of itself has potential for harm, with people preferring the unreal to real, ignoring some of the inconvenient realities of the world. However it does have the potential to offer so much to people, in whatever way people want.

-Thomas

Shanken 140-166

For this portion of the reading, the ending piece of "The Animal, Vegetable, Mineralness of Everything" by Ken Fiengold is what is sticking with me. Regardless of underpinnings, the aesthetic alone is good enough for me.

It's weird, it's unique, and a little bit creepy. Imagining these heads pivoting around having these vegetable "thoughts" about either their own things, their own fears, or the object in front of them, all could lead to some really strange conversations. The work itself seems to me to be a simplification of the human condition, taking IQ back to the bare minimum and seeing similarities between these contraptions and ourselves.

With such a low IQ they're still curious, they're still afraid, and they still have their own obsessions.
Love this sculpture.

-Thomas

Shanken 120-140

Julia Scher's piece in this section is of interest to me, because through the DTC program I have heard a lot on the subject of surveillance and how pervasive and adjusted people have become to it.

In this piece I most enjoy the aspect of it that makes the viewer uncertain about who is being watched. Is it them, another person in the room, or somebody who isn't even in the room. This makes it a little different than other similar pieces that have been done because it adds in the less subtle aspect of not knowing who is and isn't being watched. Who we're watching is lost to obscurity as well.

This piece seems to be a very clear commentary on the concerns that people should have on the subject but perhaps don't.

-Thomas

Shanken 96-120

The piece that I enjoyed the most in this section was Tony Oursler’s piece The influence Machine.

Ironically, what I like the most about the piece is the visual, the face in the tree is relevant because there are many historical accounts where people believe that they see apparitions and figures in things such as smoke, toast, really anything. Some people give real weight to this kind of imagery, so this piece is a good handle on that idea. It was done in 2000, which is ironic because in 2001 when 9/11 occurred, many videos were posted showing concrete “proof” of the devil’s face in the smoke and explosions.

Perhaps this piece helped popularize seeing faces and such in strange things to help people see those things on 9/11.

I think it is also ironic that the piece says the materials were smoke machines, video, and a sound system. It doesn't mention the tree itself at all. Understandably, there was a lot more to the piece than just the tree, but the tree grounded the sounds to the piece and gave the work a place.

It’s the same as an installation pretending that the building and location wasn't important. It bothers me that the tree isn't mentioned as a material, but the piece itself is very cool. It’s very aesthetically pleasing. 

-Thomas

Shanken 78-96

Back to the digital art discussion, and its effect on the art world due to being reproducible and its potential loss of originals. This area of art always opens up so much discourse, it’s easy to forget what started the discussion. Digital art has its own place in the art world, and it can give so much to the rest of the art world. It’s different, it’s controversial, and that (in current context) practically makes it art in and of itself.

If it makes you think, if it can be art without being beautiful, then the idea of an original is less important to me. If the piece required a creative mind, a unique way of presenting an idea, then it is truly the only “one” of that piece that will ever be. Original can exist regardless of quantity of copies in circulation. There are thousands of copies of the mona lesa on tons of merchandise. People understand however, that there is only one. The Mona Lesa as an idea was one piece, one artpiece. That’s how digital art should be viewed, and I think the data bending, distortion, software rendered artwork all have potential to be so surreal and beautiful that it would be a terrible loss to pretend that it isn’t art.

-Thomas

Shanken 54-78 Part 2

Immediately on the first page of this section I came across a piece that works for what I posted about previously.

The work by Maholy-Nagy of the “Light-Space modulator”:

takes a bit of both the corporate art aesthetic as well as some true artwork. At first it can give off the look of a meaningless piece of corporate art, but when you read about it and look back at it, you understand that it has more to it. The piece itself has a beauty to it, the sharp metal is balanced by the diversity in the forms and the overall structure. What makes it truly interesting, for me, is that the piece is more about the shadow the piece than the actual sculpture.

It makes it seem like the artist is saying this piece isn't about them, it isn't about their work. It’s about the light and the way it behaves. The piece seems humble by giving the credit to something other than the artist.

I like it!

-Thomas