Vector Journal Response

“Welcome to the real world!” people say. I am not sure who originated the organization of those words, but I do know people always seem to say it with animosity. The words are said with a tone of failed expectations. Everyone has experienced an expectation not being met. It feels terrible. The faith is gone and met by doubt. The dreams and expectations of the world are built by movies, tv, radio, internet, journals, magazines, newspapers, billboards. The media is selling us a more complex version of life than needed. Our society in 2008 is faced with the reality. We are all being, “welcomed to the real world” whether you want it or not. Nine eleven, Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina are devastating. Imagine, your friend or relative, husband or wife, son or daughter being burned alive, shot to death, or suffocating as they submerged and breath in the ocean water. It is sad. I would argue all we need is love because our time on earth is short.

The Vectors Journal discusses these world issues. It does it though the Internet. It provides a perfect arena for topics like Nine eleven, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina. The Internet is an interactive outlet. I believe the Vectors Journal decided it was the best media outlet for these issues because it is the media outlet of 2008. Everyone is connected to the Internet. It can bring the most relevant information instantly. It can connect us to an issue because we are physically involved in by clicking our mouses or taping on our lap tops. It is current and up to date. It is today like these issues are.

I found two article/projects that are interestingly composed. They are not simply written. The articles have been manufactured to be interactive, which fits the theme of Vectors Journal. The article, Blue Velvet, by David Theo Goldberg and Stefka Hristova is written in the journal to be about, “Re-dressing New Orleans in Katrina’s wake.” It is a compelling article because you are faced with disturbing graphic animation. It demonstrates a part of the world that is not kind, and why it is not. The article causes you to navigate through it by clicking your mouse. It is not composed like the text you are reading now. You click on meaningful words, like race, civility, and disinvestment. You are clicking on these words and they animatedly plunge into a raging water were they sink to the bottom of the city. It is there the site argues the answers will be found. A paragraph or two populates and describes and educates the user about the issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina. The whole time haunting music is being played. It does not evoke a sense of security but of nightmare.

The second article/project from the Vectors journal that I want to talk about is called Killer Entertainment from Jennifer Terry. Killer Entertainment displays guns being fired in a war like environment. I couldn't help but think of the Iraq war while viewing the site.

I picked both projects to write about because I wanted to connect some very important structural methods the Vectors journal uses to make the content more effective. Blue Velvet and Killer Entertainment share the same outlet, the internet. Also, they both take represent their articles as projects, which is a charged word meaning work in progress. They don't just write their ideas using text for the viewer to interact with, but they alter the interaction of the user to generate different effects on the viewer. The project is connected to Blue Velvet based on aspects of content presentation.

Field Report: Act/React

The Milwaukee Art Museum's exhibit Act/React is technology based art. The artists associating with the Act/React exhibit express their ideas differently than conventional artists do. I consider conventional artist to be sculptors and painters When the word art is muttered from a mouth today. It is no longer just embodies those conventional outlets. Art in 2008 is expressed through the most diverse standards ever. However, the diversity has created many art impersonators. Is a hairstylist an artist? I believe art is a representation of an idea created totally free from influence. It is a new idea, not recycled ones. It is an idea that is not connected to this world yet, but a revelation from another place that is given birth through artistic methods.

Janet Cardiff has a piece of art called To Touch. You enter a dark room in the exhibit where a light shines softly on a barbaric looking table. The table is built with thick pieces of wood. The surface of the table is rough, nicks and cuts break through the tarnished finish. Before I even touched the table; I felt a very intimacy from looking at it, but when I touched the table I felt the moment increase in meaning. When I touched the table sounds started to come from speakers placed around the entire room. A soft voice of a woman sternly expressing her thoughts, "touch my breast," was one. Also, sounds of telephones ringing and squeals of car tires as they scream loudly to a halt. The sounds changed based on the way I interacted with the table. When I placed my hands on it and wiped them across the table, the sounds increased in dark variation and tempo. My presence and interaction brought the artwork to life.

Janet Cardiff decided to express her artistic vision using sound technology, sensory technology, and lighting. It is the technology of her art that allows for spectator interaction to become possible, and it is the interaction the spectator has with the artwork, that in this case completes Cardriff's piece. The technology involved with her piece caused a much different reaction than if she would have used a different medium like, painting or sculpting. I personally feel that because she expressed her idea using technology. It provided me with a dynamic experience that made be feel the both past and present.

In the room next to Cardiff's exhibit was another exhibit by Danial Rozin. He uses technology to create his artwork too. Although, the interaction with his piece is different than Cardriff's. I interacted with Rozin's piece by standing in front of a clear screen. It reflected my image in the technology produced falling snow, and when I moved around my image became blurred. I feel it was when I was standing completely still that I appreciated the piece the most. My experience with the two piece of artwork were very different based upon the way I was suppose to interact with it.

Two Make Art or Individual Death

Art takes two. Everyone is making art. You probably made art today without even knowing it. This is reflecting upon Marcel Duchamp’s written work, The Creative Act. It articulates how the art process is not created and completed by the artist alone, but the spectator assists by qualifying the art which completes the creative act. Therefore, art takes two.
The spectator determines the social value of the artist’s work. If artwork is not considered valuable to society, then it is just considered bad art, but it is still art. In light of this, we must consider what is believed to be art today. The definition of art is broad. It could be a movie on the big screen or make-up on a face. It can be both big or small, known or unknown. It seems anyone has the potential to be an artist and since Duchamp believes the spectator to contribute to art by viewing it, then everyone actually is an artist by these standards. In my mind, the qualifications of an artist are different.
I believe that art is independent from every idea, memory, or association with the artist’s existence. It is an invention of something that is not yet known. A general notion of our society is that everything has already been invented and we as humans are just recyclers of the past. We are re-inventors. We take what is in the world and modify it, or re-invent it, as a new idea. However, it is not a new idea, but an idea that has been influenced by the ideas of others. The idea only exists because we are continually looking into the past for answers. What if we forgot about the past and erased everything from our memories? We would all be innovators. However, we cannot erase it or not be influenced by our experiences. Since I cannot erase these influences, I try to disconnect myself from everything I know and open my mind. I discovered that to think independently means to think without any limitations. An open mind cannot be restricted to guidelines. A child is taught that coloring in the lines is good and socially excepted, but when we take away those limitations and personal intentions, then the possibility of an artistic moment might occur. If a person wants to experience something outside of what he knows, he must disconnect himself from everything but the idea. It is dangerous work to be a real artist.
I have viewed the work of several visual productions this month and although I enjoyed them, I don’t believe their works are art. My beliefs do not make them unsuccessful or diminish the accomplishments of their ideas. For example, Charles Burnett’s work, Killing of Sheep 1979, is designed with his viewer in mind. Burnett films African American life in the ghetto, leaving most of the film open ended with little unity. Brunett used the influence of his experience to capture moments of African American life. Paul Chan’s Waiting for Godot in New Orleans is another example, but he uses surroundings to educate and inform an audience. Although both works are beautiful and creative, I don’t consider them art because their ideas are based on past experiences.
Robert Schaller is what I believe to be closer to an artist then most. I plan to attend a week long field trip with Schaller this July. He will take individuals into the Colorado wilderness who are interested in finding artistic moments. He has created several pieces of film from similar excursions where he let himself become available to independent thought. The work he does mirrors independent thought and art. I have never seen film emulsion before being introduced to Schaller. After screening some of his work at a public event there was a discussion. He said what he likes about making hand made film is that you never have complete control. I feel this is exactly what an artist should embrace, because art is unpredictable. It cannot be leashed.
Contrary to general American belief, once a spectator sees a piece of art, it is destroyed. The creative act begins and ends with the artist. What the spectators see is whatever they want; it is completely separate from what the piece of art is. The spectator ruins art. They project there own understanding. They place conditions. The artist should not be concerned with expressing his or her idea to the spectator while developing it, because if it is true art, there can be no expectation. It cannot be compared or valued by anyone but the artist. The artist can’t control what art is or isn’t. They are at the mercy of individual enlightenment.
All in all, art is the death. The artist must be willing to give up normalcy in the world to reach a place were an idea is free, true, and pure. There is a romantic idea of the type of life an artist leads, but the reality of a true artist’s life is to be considered odd, freakish, and crazy. Would you cut of your ear to express your idea? Would you create and speak a language that is not considered a language? Could you emotionally cope with people continually pointing at you, persecuting you, calling you crazy? Could you sacrifice your social life on earth to create art? A single perspective can’t be harnessed to art, and the domino effect or chain reaction or circle of life does not embody art. Art is everything separate from that. It is independent of everyone except the artist, and that’s why the creative act begins and ends with the artist.

Journal

Hello reader,

I will be following a Journal for the couple of months. I decided to do this because I want to become more involved with new media ideas and standpoints. The Vectors Journal at http://www.vectorsjournal.org is from the University of Southern California. I chose to follow this journal based on the substantial information on creative media arts. I also decided upon this journal because it was a reputable resource. I will post periodic comments on the content of the journal. I will talk about it's ideas and standpoints on media and art.

Field Report: Charles Burnett and Killer of Sheep

October 06, 2008
Field Report: Charles Burnett and Killer of Sheep (1979)

Last Monday I watched the Charles Burnett’s film, Killer of Sheep (1979). I was excited. The film provoked me. It didn’t have the unity most main stream films donate, but Killer of Sheep opened a window into the life of an African American community. It showed the conditioning involved in growing up an African American, and the heart ache of growing old. He related both young African American children and African American adults to a theme of masking innocents in order to survive in their circumstances.

Charles Burnett mirrors the African Americans in the film with sheep. It’s an interesting metaphor, because the metaphoric value of sheep are innocent, loyal, and really embody a child like form. The children in the film are clearly good nature, but they battle the harsh conditions of living in a poor community. The entire film shows us just how these children are different because of their environmental circumstances. The young boys are rough and rude on the surface, but in the film when a young boy gets hurt from throwing rocks. The caring and sensitive nature of the boys seem to emerge, and the masked tough manly persona drops for a second. It seems Charles Burnett justifies the children's behavior by contrasting it with images of innocent sheep being unknowingly led to be slaughtered. It seems the hope for these children is to act fearlessly.

Now, I believe the father demonstrates what they will become it they hide in wolves clothing. Metaphorically, he has already been skinned, and he lives like a skinned sheep, dazed and shock. I believe Charles Burnett drives this connection by displaying the father shirtless in the opening of the film.

Later that week, I attended a panel discussion were Charles Burnett talked about his film making and inspirations. What I found most interesting; was that he didn't want to make a film (Killer of Sheep) drawing upon Black stereo types. Charles Burnett said, "I wanted to take a slice of life." I loved those words, because they are the epidermis of film making and art. He also put a lamp on the idea of truth, and it was talked about for considerable time.

Introduction

Hello everyone,

My name is Isaiah Wells. I am going to lead an in depth investigation on forms of electronic media. I will be attending several screenings both publicly and privately. You can expect to be confronted with many public issues that are sensitive subjects. For example, I will be posting a response to the film Killer of Sheep (1979) later tonight. The post will argue my personal feeling on the directors window into African American life.

I really hope you enjoy reading this blog. I will work hard to capture your attention, thank you.