Huge Mega Post for Final Readings!

The Television in Architecture reading focused on the evolution of television in connection to our culture, and how it has become a fixture to our homes and ubiquitous in our everyday lives, from dominating our home lives to appearing in animated billboards, waiting rooms, everywhere. Now they're even in NYC cabs and in checkout lines at grocery stores, television screens are everywhere. I found the first part of the reading interesting in talking about the so-called reflective nature of television, in their depiction of the real American family. It's sort of a strange loop where television executives put on programming that they feel will reach all audiences in depicting a typical American family, or any kind of unit or sub-culture, then said group watches so much of that kind of archetype that they begin to believe that's who they should emulate or aspire to be. So as society reforms itself to match television, television will begin to regurgitate that and throw it back out to people, who will then reformat around that, and it will keep going until apparently we'll all be some kind of marketing-infused unusually-processed media culture. Or maybe... IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. [dramatic music sting]

Television, Furniture and Sculpture talked more about television as a household entity, focusing on its command on our lives, and how it communicated ideals and ideas to us without us having to think them through. Television, prior to the Internet now, was something that kept everyone's lives in connection; at some given moment millions of people from all over the country could be doing the exact same thing in the act of watching a television show, and the thought of that is kind of mixed. While some part of me thinks that it's really neat that there can be this global connection and unity over something as simple as a television show, entertainment, there's also this weirdness to it in that television is making our lives more generic in basic. In watching television, we start to lose a sort of uniqueness in our lives.

Cultural Logic of Video

Performance, Video and Trouble in the Home

I was interested off the bat with this article in its reference to the Honeymooners and calling that in a weird way performance art; since a lot of articles and high-minded art folk seem to look down upon popular culture, it was refreshing to hear a new take on the matter. A lot of television and films that depict archetype characters like traditional husband and wife, teenagers, work-a-day Joes, these types of everyday people are creating these personalities that mirror people we know of, so in a way even the largest big-budget film has roots within performance art.

Aesthetics of Narcissism

This essay begins by examining several art pieces featuring artists either filming themselves against mirrors, or against pre-recorded video of themselves. In the former, the mirror image becomes just as prominent and equal as the real thing through a video lens. In the latter, through interaction of the "real" person to the recording, the recording becomes less a static unchanging entity and is given new life and meaning to the re-appropriation. I never took into account the complexities that arise if one were to record an already recorded video. Even though I DID do that in recording Joel's footage to use in my footage, since the fact that it was someone else's footage projected in a new environment, the piece has a different meaning. That being said, a video played over on a screen with the artist re-enacting it, or doing something completely different in contrast to the original, it's a wholly different concept, regardless of its original context.

I also enjoyed the comparison between object layering in video and other types of media. Jasper Johns' piece, a depiction of a flag using pieces of a flag re-appropriated on wood and presented in a gallery, is confined within its own gallery space. It's a reworked flag and reflective of that icon and its representations, as well as its new meaning presented in this fashion, but it's only as powerful as its surroundings. Video, however, is inherently self-contained within a screen, giving the artist complete control in its depictions. So in 'Centers,' there's nothing getting in the way between the artist and his mirror self.

Buffalo Heads!

Steina really sounds like an artist who has a lot of fun doing the kind of work she does, and that's something to be commended. The way she writes about her fascination with her various shooting subjects is pretty admirable. She makes a few points I agree with in terms of the display of art and how it can greatly impact one's perception of it. It seems in gallery spaces many museum heads can unintentionally pigeonhole a certain piece in a certain place that can detriment or even lose the meaning of it all together. Like this instance where Steina was told she would have the lobby, this magnificent wonderful place right front and center where it can be seen by everybody. Well that's all well and good, but sometimes a piece demands a more subtle and less frequented space, somewhere more quiet and intimate. I get the feeling that a lot of curators aren't sure what to make of video art; Steina talks about how there are many assumptions that some believe that the medium is always loud and outlandish. That doesn't seem fair, as every piece is different. I can relate this to my frustration over animation being constantly referred to as a genre rather than a medium; cartoons can run the gambit in terms of emotions, tone and genre, but are usually not appreciated as such. Same here with video art.

I also like her point about creating art for the masses and how that isn't always ideal. She connects this to our super interconnected world we live in, where now a lot of times we find ourselves communicating a lot with people we don't even know, and sometimes putting a lot of vested thought into such discussions. We really feel like we want to make connections with everybody, rather than make smaller, more meaningful connections with a few people. Look at sites like Facebook, people can pride themselves over how many thousand friends they have, but how many of those people do you really consider a close personal friend? Probably not many. Steina talks about how artists that communicate to a wide scale are somehow looked upon as better than those who don't aim so high, but I don't feel that to be the case. I feel the best work is the one that aims more specific; when you put out a work that is deeply personal and to your own sensibilities, isn't it really strange and rewarding when you find a person who really connects with it and shares and appreciates your ideas, rather than doing something pretty standard and typical that anyone can get something out of? It's more a phenomenon that way around, really.

Woody Vasulka reading

Martha Rosler and such

Bill Viola and such

Well THIS is overdue (Global Groove, Nan June Paik, etc.)

m,nbmbv

Video Screening

The first one, Vertical Hold, regained my interest at the very end when the artist inserted herself over the rolling bars, and I was curious how she was able to do that back in the 70s. However, this was after about fifteen minutes of nothing. Yeah, I did pick up some sort of feminist theme, but even if I wanted to process the information, who could with that metal clanging ringing through your ears. The length killed this one for me, and it wasn't very well put together; both points make sense since this seemed to be an experiment, but that still doesn't make it more a pleasure to watch.

The second one Moby Dick I was a bit more interested in. The silent movie aesthetics (no sound, title cards, reliance on old camera tricks and slapstick) was rather interesting, and the man's reformatting of his kitchen with props and setpieces kind of reminded me of a stage, sort of. Although to me this felt less like a work of art and more like a guy doing an extensive play activity with his daughter, but then again, that could stand on its own, and I think it did. The whole video seemed to play to a child-like audience (extensive slapstick again) and seemed rather slapdash and aimless. Whether it's art or not, I thought the idea of this father and daughter messing around and making this dumb movie to be kinda heartwarming. How cuuuuute.

Hey, a Post!

Hello there, Mike Amato here. I'm a third year DMA student. As a cartoonist and cartoon enthusiast, my work is always leaned more towards making things entertaining rather than "artsy," and the few videos I've done have reflected that, like my 50's educational video satire or silly stop-motion piece. I'm not sure if my work really falls under any specific theme, other than a general mockery over humanity and the society we've fashioned for ourselves, done in a mature, or more often immature, fashion. What fun!