Homework 3

I found Panera's article to be a relatively fair assessment of the culture at large, despite the "Get off my lawn!" mindset evident throughout. I think there's something to the idea that because we can now quantify what people enjoy and how much they enjoyed it through social media, we feel compelled to document that we were there. I personally try my best not to do that, simply because I too find it off-putting. I'll snap a picture or too here and there, but I don't overdo it, and I don't get the need to take a video at a concert (Horrible quality, no longer connecting to the artist on stage, etc.) But when even though this article is clearly a few years old (As evidenced by him putting "tweeting" in quotation marks), the assessment is just as true in 2016. He's right to point out that with each new technological advent, our attention span becomes less and less. Perhaps older generations took a look at more with an objective point of view, whereas we might instinctively expect to have it handed to us on a silver platter.

To that point, we may become attached to our phones because we have immediate access to anything we want to keep us amused. I agree with the idea that museum art loses interest with the youth because it lacks an entertainment factor, and while my instinct is to say that's not what art should be focused on, I question it more the more I think about it. I personally don't care for art in museums, or often the concept of "art" in general (Except of course for this course and Professor Roykovich), and the biggest general reasoning I can give is that it doesn't entertain me (Keep in mind that I thought MacGruber was a great movie and that Dr. Strangelove was boring, so my opinions on entertainment should be taken with a few grains of salt). And to a small degree, that can impact our "phenomenological" relationship (Which to me means how our relationship to the Earth goes beyond a basic physical one, but one of great psychological import) to the physical world, but keep in mind that the advancement of image quality and access to it can lend anyone a great appreciation for what the world has to offer in the palm of their hands.

And I actually agree with Panera about how our memories are lessened due to the phone becoming a constant life jacket for our memory. It's part of what he calls the "Fascism of the image", where we aren't even aware at just how much we rely on our phones instinctively, which I will support by pointing out how I and many others check our phones the second we get out of class like we were one of Pavlov's stupid pets. So I guess we can become more emancipated observers by using that immense time usually spent checking Facebook or watching YouTube videos of cats chasing a laser pointer and instead use it to familiarize ourselves better with culture, art, and history. It won't happen overnight, but as this technology becomes a great part of our lives, hopefully we learn to adapt along with it for the better.

Also, I have never heard the term "retinal masturbation" before reading this article, but I am considering renaming my blog that.

Homework 2

It's pretty amazing to me to be able to think of how GIFs have exploded in recent years, because it wasn't too long ago where they were relegated to being weird flame animations on people's MySpace pages that I found to be annoying as hell (I didn't even know what to call those at time, and the various articles helped me understand that's what GIFs were in their relative infancy). But they are important to my generation, as are most forms of communication that we are responsible for creating. They can be used to emphasize or surmise an entire point into one, simple visual cue. It's very common to see someone tweet "When you see two friends argue on the timeline" and attach this GIF to it.

GIFs work because of how hypnotizing they can be. When utilized properly, they trim any and all fat of a moment and instead merely show exactly what the audience wants to see. They appeal to our inherent laziness by automatically reloading without relying on a cue from the user, so we can pay attention to detail uninterrupted. And they serve any and all purposes. Humor, artistry, sports, and (because it's the internet) porn, amongst countless others.

Now, does that make them "art"? I suppose so, since defining art is famously difficult to pinpoint. Do I think people should be paying thousands of dollars for a GIF to display in a museum? No, because I think GIFs were invented with the purpose of ready availability to any and all who want to see them (And have easily placed watermarks for those who want their work acknowledged). But it does speak to just how much Tumblr in particular helped this form of communication reach insanely hot levels figuratively overnight. And it shows that anything that is condensed down to its quickest, purest form will always have a place in hearts worldwide.

Project 1

This gif is a very simple loop of Naughty by Nature's "Hip Hop Hooray", during the chorus. I chose partially as an excuse to insert any hip-hop reference I can into my work, but also because it speaks to something beyond that. That chorus is a staple at sports games ("Hip Hop HooRAAAAAAAAY--HOOOOOOOO"), and everyone is happy to do that move a la "YMCA". It's an anthem. It's uplifting. I know that lately when I've been struggling or down in the dumps, I can put this song on and it'll immediately lift up my spirits. To me, this symbolizes the power music can have on an entire community.

Homework #1

As someone whose knowledge of art is generally limited to Kanye West or Jay Z album liner notes, the concept of attempting to deeply conceptualize the concept of conceptual art will always leave me feeling uncomfortable at best, and equally uncomfortable at worst. But the concept of new media art can be easier to decipher than others for me because I, along with the majority of my peers, are directly involved in it, whether we know it or not.

With the podcast, what stuck out to me is the concept that the hosts discussed following the Sarah Lewis segment where the quality of the art presented is now not as big of a priority in lieu of what will get the most attention. I thought about how relatable that is on even the most basic level. If I make an occasional post to Facebook, rather than spend all of my time worrying about how funny or interesting the post will be (Which, as evidenced by this post, would clearly be “Not enough”), and will instead spend more and more time worrying about what will make it get the most likes, when to post it to get most exposure, etc. That doesn’t mean I completely remove my personality from it and post “Like if you think oxygen is a vital component to human survival”, but in a way, the component of artistic integrity has been compromised because of the ability to quantify approval. It goes along with the excerpt from the New Media in Late 20th Century Art book, where it talks about how rise and advances in technology have led to a tool for art previously used by technicians and engineers. The implementation of what is art is now becoming harder to define as the entire world is now on equal footing with theoretical equal access, and does having more, better looking art devalue it?

That also leads to the Smithsonian piece that caught my eye the most (Not literally; that would be “Monster movie”, which caused me to worry if I had downloaded a virus and feel like I had accidentally taken a psychedelic drug) was “Halo 2600”. This grabbed my attention because I’ve played Halo so much over the past 15 years that my right thumb has a permanent imprint of the Xbox’s A button, and it dealt with an interesting idea that stemmed from a novel concept. Halo’s success stemmed from its tremendous story-telling and expansive universe. It was an artistic accomplishment given what it was able to do for video games when it was released. But when Ed Fries remade the game with Atari 2600 capabilities (re: virtually non-existent), it led to another question to ponder: At what point does new media art become actual art? Does “Halo 2600” qualify as art, and if not, at what point did “devaluing” it lead to it losing its status as such? It shows that new age media art has a higher bar and expectations to reach due to the increasingly limitless possibilities.