My plan right now is to make a pretty simple animation and then run it through the distortion that I made in Max, the pictures shown are examples of how the distortion changes the video using the webcam on my laptop instead of a pre-recorded animation. The last one is just transforming the video onto a cube which can rotate and do other stuff.
A common question in art is whether a certain thing is considered art or not. When it comes to propaganda, we generally consider it propaganda when it is first created, yet over time our perception of what something is can change. With soviet realism, it was originally known as propaganda, yet with the way it is being treated today, I consider it art rather than simply a means to spread a Soviet message. Yet art is also a means to spread a message,be it a generally emotional message rather than one that precipitates a specific action. In the same way, the appropriation by ISIS of Brian McCarty’s photo changes the message that it sends, yet it still sends a message. They changed his art into propaganda by making its emotional and semi-ambiguous message into one that was expressly active. Yet even with this analysis, it comes back to what I consider propaganda and what I consider art. After analyzing both situations the only conclusion is an expansion of the original question; can something be considered art if at one time it held a different meaning altogether? Furthermore, should something still be considered art if its presentation or connotations have changed with time or modification?
I forgot to post this a while back, but I finished my home project. It is on youtube and can be viewed in my gallery page.
Earlier in the quarter, we visited a gallery hosting some of Steve's work, and what struck me most about it was the seamless way in which he blended his abstract imagery with nature and man-made objects. The actual objects are clearly rooted in reality, yet the way that he envelopes them with other shapes is what is truly interesting. I try in my work to move my abstract imagery in a fluent way that syncs well with the music, but Steve accomplishes this in still imagery by using specific compositions and reflections that highlight how we see one thing within another.
Justin Bonnet has been an inspiration to me from when I first saw his animated equalizers for some of my favorite music artists. After messaging him myself, I learned the program that he used and have begun using it myself to try my hand at that style of work. He uses photoshop and after effects to make animated pieces, a technique that allows me to transition from my old method of simply using photoshop to a new method where I can add on things in after effects and make a much more polished final product. His work is animated over on his site and can be found at this address:
This week I figured out that After Effects is the best course to take for my future animations, but in the mean time I made some stills.
One thing that I try to solidify in my own work is a combination between organic and geometric shapes. I do this using abstract forms, but I recently discovered a different way of doing it involving landscape imagery and some simple image editing. A Polyscape is an image created through the layering of two or more images to form geometric patterns that are visually interesting. The most important thing is to make sure that the colors and shapes in the images fit well together, and the second most important is to not go overboard with the geometric designs as they need not be very complicated to be compelling, yet neither of these are hard to do and Polyscapes are almost more of a fun stress-relieving activity than an art form. As this technique was interesting to me I chose to highlight it instead of a specific artist. Many artists create polyscapes and I like to make them as well.
I do not own the rights to the image above, it can be found at this URL: http://sinisterbagel.deviantart.com/art/Alps-Polyscape-465498686
The first article was much more interesting to me in that it made more points that analyzed the content or revealed something below the surface whereas the second article focused more on the statement of facts or a historical account. Yet, the second reading drove home the fact that this subject is still important today. This was indirect, as it simply listed all of the shows upcoming about the topic, pointing out small things about specific artists, but it reinforced the fact, while the first reading spoke more about the universality of war across all time.
My favorite part of the articles was in the first one when they say that war or violence is a bad thing for everyone, no matter who is specifically depicted or involved in the fighting. Afterward they talked about the best way to represent war or violence, and whether it need include blood and gore or not. It is an interesting thought that someone can represent violence better without even showing it in their work, and instead focusing on something that strongly alludes to it. This could be seen in the second article with the Rock Drill example (which is terrifying).
In the first article, the woman who chose the art to go in the specific exhibit said, “a documentary photo or a journalistic photo is art when one is completely taken in by it and, at the same time, one is transported by it," I thought that this quote went quite well with the one from Goya from the presentation on Monday that went something like ,
"The best work looks and draws on nature in an effort to resonate with the human condition," which also showed no specific bias towards any medium. Goya worked in a variety of media and his work was referenced as being the best representations of war across all time, so there seems to be a consensus that the specific medium does not lead to a better end result in conveying the effects of war.
The second article focused less on Goya, omitting him from the discussion to focus on more recent wars like WWI, but they still reference photojournalism and one artist even defends his work saying, "It isn't photojournalism." While the first article focuses on saying that the medium doesn't matter, the second one simply includes what the artist says about his own work, possibly in defense to what is commonly thought of photojournalism as having less meaning as 'art'.
While both articles tackled the same issues in different ways, both speaking about war and violence, it is intriguing that it ultimately comes back to the issue of what we consider art. Should an artist defend their art as something that it is not so that they get better coverage or so that someone will assign more meaning to it than it actually has? Possibly questions for a future post.