I’M SORRY, BUT OUR PRINCESS IS IN ANOTHER CASTLE

This was a triumph.

 I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.

 It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

 Aperture Science  —Contempory art

We do what we must

 because we can.

 For the good of all of us.

 Except the ones who are dead.

 But there's no sense crying over every mistake.

 You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

                I’m sorry, but the relevance of those lyrics was just far too great to overlook. Now, this is a farewell of sorts, since I doubt I will continue to update this blog in the future (and more crucially, I doubt anyone will read it). So, what have I learnt? Well, I reckon the most important thing I have learnt isn’t a fact, it’s something I used to know, but have long since forgot. I learnt to ask ‘why?’ why is art art? Why do artists do what they do? Well, in a lot of instances, there is no answer, but asking the question is sure to lead to enlightenment nonetheless. Good day.

SIMPLICITY IS COMPLICATED

Making something simple is very difficult. The best modern example of simplicity is the iphone (or the ipad, which is simply the same thing, only bigger), a very intelligent phone with only one button (well, four, really), apple have stripped away all the complex interfaces, leaving us with what we really need. Now, with my grade-bolstering apple flattery out of the way, I can move on.

LAWS OF SIMPLICITY;

LAW 10: the one

Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful.

                LAW 9: failure

Some things can never be made simple.

                LAW 8: trust

In simplicity we trust.

                LAW 7: emotion

More emotions are better than less.

                LAW 6: context

What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.

                LAW 5: differences

Simplicity and complexity need each other.

                LAW 4: learn

Knowledge makes everything simpler.

                LAW 3: time

Savings in time feel like simplicity.

                LAW 2: organise

Organisation makes a system of many appear fewer.

                LAW 1: reduce

The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.

(laws by John  Maeda, and stolen from http://lawsofsimplicity.com/?tag=laws) 

Hopefully you will interpret the structure of this post as an interpretation of these rules, rather than laziness on my behalf. In an ideal world, I’d have finished now, but I’ll write a bit more to be on the safe side. The more simplistic something is, the more of an impact it makes. Again, take the iphone, it’s simple touch interface changed the market, whereas the more complex design of a blackberry changed nothing. Another apple analogy can be made with the PC vs mac debate; apple is changing the game, simply because OSx is far more simple than Windows. Now, with windows 8, Microsoft are attempting to out-apple apple, providing the most simplified attempt at an operating system. Sadly, whenever I see footage of it, I am reminded of Law 9.

I’m sure I could have made some witty references to spaghetti hoops, or cake, but I simply couldn’t think of any.

THE INTERNET IS A STATE (OF THE ART EXHIBITION AREA)

                The internet is big business these days, with, literally, like a bagillionty people logging on each day. So, it follows that such a popular platform will undoubtedly have numerous artists standing upon it. The internet’s a peculiar place, where the likes of ‘Nyan cat’ prove to be more successful than traditional art. The rules and etiquette surrounding your typical gallery are thrown out the window, and the most absurd ideas have the most precedence. One artist in particular has embraced this modern notion, thus creating pieces that are both off the wall and up the roof; Stelios Arkadiou (or ‘Stelarc’) is a firm believer that the human body, like an iphone 4, is obsolete, he believes this to such an extent that he went and put a third ear on his left arm. Now, moving back to the topic at hand, I shall talk about a specific piece of art, one that so perfectly represents the absurdity of the internet.

                In a piece of art he dubbed 'Ping Body an Internet Actuated and Uploaded Performance’, Stelarc attached numerous electrodes to his body. These electrodes would stimulate movement according to traffic on a particular website. And before you think he’s insane, he’s an artist, he can do things like that. Of course, there is a profound explanation for his actions; "I mean, effectively the body and the machine become one operational system. There is a psychological collapse in distance and time. In this body's interaction with the world, it performs more or less subtle and sophisticated actions whose feedback either affirms or negates previous behaviours." Oh right; if ya say so. If you don’t mind, I’ll be watching the 10 hour rendition of Nyan Cat.

                Now, a personal opinion! I think that the internet is fantastic. It gives one the power to do what they see fit; it reveals the true nature of humanity. Granted, this is something the fancy-pants artists have been doing for centuries, but not on the same level as the internet. Take a look at the comments under a youtube video (it doesn’t matter which one; they all pretty much read the same, anyway). You’ll see an argument of some description, foul language and terrible grammar. Now, I forgive you for wondering how I can find such a thing so fantastic, watch, I’ll swing it ‘round! The reason everyone’s so strongly opinionated is because they can say whatever they please, the internet is great because it offers freedom. Yes, our culture offers ‘freedom of speech’, but that’s not the same, so long as we have an identity, we hold in our innermost thoughts (well, we should, anyway). Take this blog, for example. If this were a traditional essay, I wouldn’t have made such prolific references to either cake or spaghetti hoops… oh, I’m hungry now. Well, that’ll do for now, I guess.

WORDS ABOUT AN ARTIST’S LESS THAN PASSIONATE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOTHER

                Last week we were shown a short film (well, a short excerpt, anyway) titled ‘The Passing’ by a certain Bill Viola. By and large, the film was mostly harmless enough, bar three sections in particular.

                The first scene that stirred controversy was the birth scene, which reminded me of awkward biology lessons no-end. While not socially unacceptable, it’s not something I would watch voluntarily, particularly in a gallery environment, where my stomach already has to contend with wine and countless hors d’oeuvres.

                The second of the debate-fuelling sections depicted a man drowning, a rather melancholic metaphor of life. Thankfully, this scene used an actor, and not actual footage of a man drowning. It was quite eerie and unsettling to watch, so I guess it fulfilled Bill’s intention. Although, I must say, artists tend to have such a pessimistic take on life. In my eyes, a man who thinks that life is a constant, painful struggle is a man who hasn’t tried spaghetti hoops.

                Now, here we are; the main offender! Unlike the other two, where the actual content of the video was disturbing, it is the context of this section that caused jaws to drop. At a glance, it appears to show a lady, perhaps a mother, dying. Most people would go ahead and assume that the artist used an actor, as in the drowning scene; however, this is not the case. Viola filmed his mother’s death. As you’ve likely noticed, I have provided my own interpretation of what went down:

                I jest, I jest. While I do appreciate the artistic integrity of the piece, I just can’t set aside the seemingly sociopathic act of Mr. Viola. If I were in his shoes, incorporating my mother’s death into a short film would be the last thing on my mind, jus’ sayin’.

                This paragraph has no significance; the justification for its inclusion is based purely on grounds of providing “filler”. Filler, despite being frowned upon, is a vital part of our society; sausages, for example, are composed almost exclusively from filler, with actual meat providing a very small percentage of the ingredients. Another, equally essential, form of filler is poly-filler, without which our windows would literally be caked in condensation. Now, I must go, all this talk of cake is making me hungry.

DOUBLE BLOG, ALL THE WAY

                Since I missed last week’s blog for reasons not to be divulged (FYI, laziness), I shall consolidate both due posts into one small and monthly repayment, umm, I mean one single post. So, what’s first? Well, let’s see… how about the concept of a ‘simulacra’? The term was first used in this context by a stylish looking chap named Jean Baudrillard, who says our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality. Of course, one can easily compare the concept of a ‘simulation of reality’ to the internet.

                The internet is increasingly being thought of as an actual place, somewhere we physically go; be it to communicate with others, seek entertainment, or even do the weekly shop. But that’s not the most interesting part, yesee, when somebody goes to the internet these days; they tailor their experience to cater for their interests. For example, a celebrity blogger is going to have a radically different online experience then an ex-film director hoping to make some viral videos. We each get our own mini, personalised internet; which I think is a lovely idea.

                However, some people believe that the internet’s encroach to IRL is far from a good thing. “Nothing beats traditional conversation!” they say, “It’s a waste of time!” they say, “Get a job!” they say. It seems to me that naysayers are simply Digital Immigrants - merely tourists in a foreign country they don’t understand.

                NOW, watch as the topic of this post shifts radically! Now, as if by magic, I’m talking about sound theory and practice. Boom. I’mma start with a quote from Walter Ong; “The world of sound is an event world and the world of sight is an object world.” The layman implications of this are as follows; when one looks upon a tin of spaghetti hoops, one sees a tin of spaghetti hoops, however, if one hears a tin of spaghetti hoops opening, one thinks not of an object, but of an experience, the tantalising tomatoey flavour, the contrast between the soft hoops and the crunchy toast. Arguably, sounds have a more profound effect on us than the visual.

                As I’m sure you know, sound can be exploited to create a visual image while simultaneously evoking an emotional reaction more powerful, even more personal than, say, a painting ever could. These techniques are commonly utilised by the likes of Boyzone, Westlife and Snow Patrol.

LOTS OF ONES

11/11/11 Now that doesn’t happen very often now, does it? Once every one hundred years, if I’m not mistaken. You may have a very short animation I made earlier to celebrate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTTt1QiZSq8). Anyway, moving on… This week, I’m going to be wasting your time talking about the recent acceleration of technological development. As an introduction of sorts, I’ll begin with Moore’s law. Coined in 1965, the law states that “the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years”, or to phrase that differently, computers become twice as powerful or complicated every other year. For the most part, this rule has proven to be quite accurate, despite the fact that it’s 46 years old. Of course, this exponential improvement comes with its downsides, the most annoying being obsolescence.

Don’t you just hate that word? It’s thanks to that word your computer is only half as good as everyone else’s a mere 24 months after purchase. ಠ-ಠ The other main downside to technological advancement is that it happens so fast, some people get left behind. It was this idea that lead to the theory of Digital Natives/ Immigrants. Thought up by Marc Prensky in 2001, Digital Natives are people who were born after 1985, meaning that they will have spent most of their lives surrounded by digital technology, so they should have a sound understanding of how it works. Digital Immigrants, on the other hand, will have grown up without digital technology and tend to remain sceptical of innovation. This theory suggests that there is a clear cut-off point where people are more adept with technology, meaning elderly people are more likely to use a manual tin opener to get at their spaghetti hoops rather than an automatic one (which is ironic, since automatic tin openers were designed for the elderly). But surely something like being able to use a computer can’t be decided simply by your birthday? Dr. Ofer Zur thought so, and thus  suggested that Digital Immigrants fall into one of three categories; Avoiders (Avoid technology and only involve it with their life when they really need to), Reluctant Adopters (Can see the benefits of technology, but still try to avoid it) and Eager Adopters(enthusiastic toward technology and comparable to Digital Natives). I think that this tiered approach to defining a Digital Immigrant is a lot nicer, and not only because it reminds me of cake.

WHAT IS ART? BABY, DON’T HURT ME; DON’T HURT ME, NO MORE.

               Well here we are again; it’s always such a pleasure. So, what is art? Is this art? Well, you could argue so, since it does disrupt and challenge the ideal methods of formal assessment. But, to focus on that question again; “what is art?” Defining this has proven quite problematic in the past, but I’m sure it’ll be easy now Google’s here to do our thinking for us! So, art is (as defined by Google) “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.” As I’m sure you’ve deliberated, this is quite a broad definition. Apparently, anything is art, so long as it’s manmade and required imagination to make. But, hold on, surely EVERYTHING we do requires some level of imagination, be it getting dressed, writing blogs, or deciding whether or not you should put the toast on before you heat up the spaghetti hoops.

            So, do those things classify as ‘art’? Evidently, the popular answer is “Umm, NOPE!” despite the fact that, from a technical perspective, these things seem to fit the definition. It’s this kind of thinking that sums up the “dada” movement. Artists like Marcel Duchamp really pushed the boundaries of what we consider ‘art’. One of his particularly famous pieces was simply a urinal with “R MUTT” scrawled on the side. Needless to say, this proved to be rather controversial back in the early 1900’s. Many believed it wasn’t art, that it no right to be in a gallery, but the fact that people were thinking about that proves that it is art. His piece prompted people to challenge their beliefs of what art is, in a sense, the art was not in the urinal itself, the art was in the question “What is art?” This lead to the creation of ‘anti-art’, art created specifically to provoke that famous question, and, of course, poke fun at traditional art. And, in turn, this created something called 'anti-anti-art'. The worst part is; I'm not even joking.

And here it is; Marcel’s (in)famous “fountain”, still controversial nearly a century after its creation.

                These days, we are all well used to conceptual art; it has actually proven to become quite fashionable, but Marcel Duchamp was the pioneer. His fountain was one of the first notable examples of conceptual art, the art being in the concept of a piece of art challenging our perceptions of art (Inception, much?). So, thanks to Marcel, we are now swimming in art that would not traditionally be classed as art. It seems for every genuine, wonderful idea (e.g. A Score for a Hole in the Ground- Jim Finer), we get some rubbish churned out by some money-wasting pseudo-artists (Interior Semiotics, anyone?). Needless to say, I enjoy the Finer things in life.