Tony Oursler
Grew up and now lives in NYC.
BFA from Cal Arts in 1979
www.tonyoursler.com
show: 'Diamond' Head 1977
'Crazy Head' - Dali influences
'Grand Mal' 1981
'talking light' 1996
'switch' 1997
'scary monsters'(with David Bowie)1997
'dum dum metalbreth wadcuter' 2007 - Dali again, reactions to war
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Response to Robert Wilson documentary
The Documentary we watched on Robert Wilson was thought provoking for a number of reasons. There is no question that Wilson is a visionary: innovative, talented, unique, driven, etc, but my question is this: what sets him apart form all the other innovative, talented, unique, and driven theater people out there?
The issue here is that Wilson, in the realm of Fine Art, is being praised for characteristics that are essential to Theater; namely that theater, on all levels, is a collaborative art form. Many of his works, particularly the earlier ones, put me in mind of Julie Taymore and Bread and Puppet. The key to these and other innovative performance groups (including Wilson's Byrd Theater) is that they seek out talented individuals and then tailor their performances to highlight these talents.
Likewise, I was similarly unphased by the way in which the documentary mapped out Wilson's personal experiences as inspiration for his work. I believe that if you look closely enough at any artist, their life experiences will somehow be reflected in their work. The trick, as an artist, is to figure out HOW to let these influences creep in, and on this point I felt that the film-makers were a bit didactic and heavy handed. Personally, I rely heavily on my experiences in my work. I think of my work as a way to celebrate and dwell on the things in my life that make me happy- I look to these experiences for inspiration, and as a whole the work is a reflection of my positive outlook and my values.
I did admire Wilson's use of time. I thought it was interesting to choreograph everything at such a slow and odd pace; it really goes to show how very little it takes to remove us from the ordinary. That is something I think about visually, and I'm sure I will think back on Wilson's work now that I'm working with video and have the opportunity to utilize time as a variable.
The issue here is that Wilson, in the realm of Fine Art, is being praised for characteristics that are essential to Theater; namely that theater, on all levels, is a collaborative art form. Many of his works, particularly the earlier ones, put me in mind of Julie Taymore and Bread and Puppet. The key to these and other innovative performance groups (including Wilson's Byrd Theater) is that they seek out talented individuals and then tailor their performances to highlight these talents.
Likewise, I was similarly unphased by the way in which the documentary mapped out Wilson's personal experiences as inspiration for his work. I believe that if you look closely enough at any artist, their life experiences will somehow be reflected in their work. The trick, as an artist, is to figure out HOW to let these influences creep in, and on this point I felt that the film-makers were a bit didactic and heavy handed. Personally, I rely heavily on my experiences in my work. I think of my work as a way to celebrate and dwell on the things in my life that make me happy- I look to these experiences for inspiration, and as a whole the work is a reflection of my positive outlook and my values.
I did admire Wilson's use of time. I thought it was interesting to choreograph everything at such a slow and odd pace; it really goes to show how very little it takes to remove us from the ordinary. That is something I think about visually, and I'm sure I will think back on Wilson's work now that I'm working with video and have the opportunity to utilize time as a variable.
Jennifer Steinkamp
Blurb from San Jose Museum of Art:
Jennifer Steinkamp’s colorful digital projections envelop museum visitors in a three-dimensional sensory experience. Steinkamp, a Los Angeles-based installation artist, works with 3-D animation in order to explore ideas about architectural space, motion, and phenomenological perception. Influenced by the work of Oscar Fischinger, Marcel Duchamp, Bruce Nauman, Hollis Frampton, and others, Steinkamp uses visual illusions to generate a dialogue about the nature of cognitive experience and the psychophysical limitations of human perception. Her manipulation of images exposes the shift between objective and virtual points of view, thereby encouraging viewers to contemplate perceptual and philosophical notions of the real.
Artist's Website:
jsteinkamp.com
Corcoran Piece "Loop":
www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/previous_results.asp?Exhib_ID=153#
Jennifer Steinkamp’s colorful digital projections envelop museum visitors in a three-dimensional sensory experience. Steinkamp, a Los Angeles-based installation artist, works with 3-D animation in order to explore ideas about architectural space, motion, and phenomenological perception. Influenced by the work of Oscar Fischinger, Marcel Duchamp, Bruce Nauman, Hollis Frampton, and others, Steinkamp uses visual illusions to generate a dialogue about the nature of cognitive experience and the psychophysical limitations of human perception. Her manipulation of images exposes the shift between objective and virtual points of view, thereby encouraging viewers to contemplate perceptual and philosophical notions of the real.
Artist's Website:
jsteinkamp.com
Corcoran Piece "Loop":
www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/previous_results.asp?Exhib_ID=153#
Sunday, February 3, 2008
John Whitney Presentation
Images of Whitney with his Analog Computer:
http://www.siggraph.org/artdesign/profile/whitney/whitney.html
Stills from other Whitney films (#'s 3-6)
www.hirshhorn.si.edu/visualmusic/films.html#
Quote by John Whitney Jr. on using the Analog Computer:
I don't know how many simultaneous motions can be happening at once. There must be at least five ways just to operate the shutter. The input shaft on the camera rotates at 180 rpm, which results in a photographing speed of 8 fps. That cycle time is constant, not variable, but we never shoot that fast. It takes about nine seconds to make one revolution. During this nine-second cycle the tables are spinning on their own axes while simultaneously revolving around another axis while moving horizontally across the range of the camera, which may itself be turning or zooming up and down. During this operation we can have the shutter open all the time, or just at the end for a second or two, or at the beginning, or for half of the time if we want to do slit-scanning."
Information on other projects:
-in 1948 he was awarded a Solomon Guggenheim Fellowship.
- in 1949 he and brother James won first place at the First International Experimental Film Competition in Belgium for their film "Five Film Exercises"
- In 1952 he directed engineering films on guided missile projects.
- in 1958 he produced the animated title sequence from Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 film Vertigo, which is his most widely-known work.
link to 'vertigo' intro:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz46qS38OgM
Information on "Arabesque"
-the last film to be completed on the analog machine, and is considered the pinnacle of this medium
-funded by grants from the NEA and IBM
http://www.siggraph.org/artdesign/profile/whitney/whitney.html
Stills from other Whitney films (#'s 3-6)
www.hirshhorn.si.edu/visualmusic/films.html#
Quote by John Whitney Jr. on using the Analog Computer:
I don't know how many simultaneous motions can be happening at once. There must be at least five ways just to operate the shutter. The input shaft on the camera rotates at 180 rpm, which results in a photographing speed of 8 fps. That cycle time is constant, not variable, but we never shoot that fast. It takes about nine seconds to make one revolution. During this nine-second cycle the tables are spinning on their own axes while simultaneously revolving around another axis while moving horizontally across the range of the camera, which may itself be turning or zooming up and down. During this operation we can have the shutter open all the time, or just at the end for a second or two, or at the beginning, or for half of the time if we want to do slit-scanning."
Information on other projects:
-in 1948 he was awarded a Solomon Guggenheim Fellowship.
- in 1949 he and brother James won first place at the First International Experimental Film Competition in Belgium for their film "Five Film Exercises"
- In 1952 he directed engineering films on guided missile projects.
- in 1958 he produced the animated title sequence from Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 film Vertigo, which is his most widely-known work.
link to 'vertigo' intro:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz46qS38OgM
Information on "Arabesque"
-the last film to be completed on the analog machine, and is considered the pinnacle of this medium
-funded by grants from the NEA and IBM
Monday, January 28, 2008
... a bit confused...
This weeks assignments have left me a bit confused. Certainly this is because the readings delt with a world about which I know basically nothing, but even so- I found myself repeatedly asking 'what's the big deal?'
A few years ago I attended the 'Visual Music' exhibition at the Hirshhorn museum, and I remember seeing examples of hand-drawn 'films' that were WAY older than the ones made by Stan Brakhage in the '50's and '60's. Unfortunately I don't remember who created the earlier examples, but my question is- what is the difference between these examples and Brakhage's? What makes Brakhage's work so groundbreaking in light of these earlier works?
I was disracted by the two Brakhage clips that we watched on YouTube, but I suspect that had more to do with the quality of the YouTube video than the work itself. Surely it wasn't ment to be so pixilated, but I was so distracted by the pixels that I couldn't tell what was going on. This was most unfortunate in the "Dante" piece because I began to detect recognisable images. This flickering quality was probably part of the origonal intent, but my difficulty in identifying the images had more to do (again) with the pixeling and less to do with the rapidity of the shifting image.
I did, though, really REALY enjoy both the interview with Jeremy Blake and the readinig/clip of the Light Space Modulater. I wished that the video had provided a clearer shot of how the Modulator actually functioned... I wanted to really see the thing in action, but I could appreciate its projections none-the-less.
I was particularly interested in Blake's take on collaborative and cross-disciplinary projects.
On the whole, I think it would be helpful to have some kind of context for all of these works. It was easier for me to understand the Light Space Modulator in context of the Bauhous, for example... is there any similar information that would help me contextualize Stan Brakhage?
A few years ago I attended the 'Visual Music' exhibition at the Hirshhorn museum, and I remember seeing examples of hand-drawn 'films' that were WAY older than the ones made by Stan Brakhage in the '50's and '60's. Unfortunately I don't remember who created the earlier examples, but my question is- what is the difference between these examples and Brakhage's? What makes Brakhage's work so groundbreaking in light of these earlier works?
I was disracted by the two Brakhage clips that we watched on YouTube, but I suspect that had more to do with the quality of the YouTube video than the work itself. Surely it wasn't ment to be so pixilated, but I was so distracted by the pixels that I couldn't tell what was going on. This was most unfortunate in the "Dante" piece because I began to detect recognisable images. This flickering quality was probably part of the origonal intent, but my difficulty in identifying the images had more to do (again) with the pixeling and less to do with the rapidity of the shifting image.
I did, though, really REALY enjoy both the interview with Jeremy Blake and the readinig/clip of the Light Space Modulater. I wished that the video had provided a clearer shot of how the Modulator actually functioned... I wanted to really see the thing in action, but I could appreciate its projections none-the-less.
I was particularly interested in Blake's take on collaborative and cross-disciplinary projects.
On the whole, I think it would be helpful to have some kind of context for all of these works. It was easier for me to understand the Light Space Modulator in context of the Bauhous, for example... is there any similar information that would help me contextualize Stan Brakhage?
Monday, January 14, 2008
John Cage Review
Having just watched a portion of John Cage's film 'One11 & 103' I confess that I'm a little disappointed. For the most part I'm a fan of John Cage, but this piece fell short of my expectations. I found the theory, the parameters, and the ideas that went into the creation of the piece to be much more interesting than the piece itself. As I was watching it I was distracted and kept thinking "this is the sort of piece that makes regular people think that artists are weird". This piece is supposedly about light, but it's not. It's about the light produced by a small selection of theatrical lighting instruments, and I don't even feel that these instruments (or the room in which the piece was filmed) were used to their fullest potential.
That said, I did only watch a fraction of the entire piece, and I was more engaged as time went on. I'm sure I would feel differently if I watched the entire thing, or had the experience of watching it on a theater full of people (with a live orchestra?) as I believe it was intended to be viewed.
That said, I did only watch a fraction of the entire piece, and I was more engaged as time went on. I'm sure I would feel differently if I watched the entire thing, or had the experience of watching it on a theater full of people (with a live orchestra?) as I believe it was intended to be viewed.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Lev Manovich Review
Let me begin by saying that I took issue with much of this reading. I believe that Manovich took lot of liberties by making deceptively simple arguments without laying the appropriate groundwork for, or adequately explaining his points. I am with him through the first few pages while he is explaining digital film. On page 180, though, he makes an absurd leap from film to cinema without bothering to deal with cinema in its own right. This is a crucial issue, particularly in light of the fact that the essay is entitled 'What is Digital Cinema?'. I do not believe, as Manovitch seems to, that film and cinema are synonymous.
Secondly, as a painter I was of course offended by the light-fingered way Manovich equates painting, to digital photography, to digital film (in the breadth of one sentence!) His only point here is that the 'inherent mutability erases the difference between' the three, and while I agree that there are now more similarities between these three disciplines than ever before, they can hardly be considered one in the same. You could use the exact same argument to equate digital film with cooking, anyway, which is a flaw.
But I digress. I do have a rhetorical question to ask about this reading. I have put aside all my issues and am thinking specifically about the passage, on page 179, dealing with pixels. I am intrigued with the idea of pixels being a sort of universal unit that gives equal weight to (and unifies) 'raw material' from photographic, synthesized, and manipulated digital sources. My question is this: is there anything that can be thought of as a 'pixel' for The Arts (visual, written, music, 2-d, 3-d, performance, etc?)
The easy answer to this question is YES. We often apply words like tone and texture to a number of artistic disciplines, but my question gets at something larger. Could The Arts perhaps all deal with emotion? Or the human condition? Is there a common material that 'can be easily altered, substituted one for another, and so on'- between the traditional artistic disciplines- the way that a pixel can fluidly travel between different digital disciplines?
Secondly, as a painter I was of course offended by the light-fingered way Manovich equates painting, to digital photography, to digital film (in the breadth of one sentence!) His only point here is that the 'inherent mutability erases the difference between' the three, and while I agree that there are now more similarities between these three disciplines than ever before, they can hardly be considered one in the same. You could use the exact same argument to equate digital film with cooking, anyway, which is a flaw.
But I digress. I do have a rhetorical question to ask about this reading. I have put aside all my issues and am thinking specifically about the passage, on page 179, dealing with pixels. I am intrigued with the idea of pixels being a sort of universal unit that gives equal weight to (and unifies) 'raw material' from photographic, synthesized, and manipulated digital sources. My question is this: is there anything that can be thought of as a 'pixel' for The Arts (visual, written, music, 2-d, 3-d, performance, etc?)
The easy answer to this question is YES. We often apply words like tone and texture to a number of artistic disciplines, but my question gets at something larger. Could The Arts perhaps all deal with emotion? Or the human condition? Is there a common material that 'can be easily altered, substituted one for another, and so on'- between the traditional artistic disciplines- the way that a pixel can fluidly travel between different digital disciplines?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)