Digital Art and Culture @birgit-en-mirte-blog - Tumblr Blog

Wrap it up!

All of the discussed theories came together in the last lecture of Digital Art and Culture. It all started with the rhizome and ended with the sharing of information. Meanwhile there were lectures about celebrity, privacy, cyborgs and so on. We were in doubt about the topic of this last post, should we give a summary of all our previous posts or should we look ahead at the exam?

We read our previous posts again and although the subjects of the posts were all different, we did find a theme. In almost every post, we have given an example to explain a theory which was discussed in the previous lecture. We used different YouTube videos, such as the Flying Dutchman, robots who are playing football and the virtual hairdresser. But also different pictures and sites, like Devaintart.com. These subjects are so diverse, that we sadly can’t discuss all of them in this post. So we came up with another idea.

We are going to talk about Anonymous. Maybe some of you are not familiar with this organization, so first we will give you a quick explanation. Anonymous is an organization that contains members from all over the world. But probably you already expected; they are all anonymous. We don’t know anything about their identities. When they appear in public, they are all wearing the same masks. The members think of themselves as freedom fighters. They want to maintain the free access to information on the internet. In order to defend their interests they hack websites from different authorities, such as banks. Those banks lose control over their own websites and Anonymous gets power for a couple of hours. With this small amount of information, you can link different theories to this subject, for instance hacktivism (activism by means of hacking websites), the gaze (the way in which they get power) and identity (they are anonymous) on the internet.

With hacktivism Anonymous tries to make a statement trough hacking. They don’t harm the server, so after they are done, everything seems back to normal. But they showed the world that they can do more than we all expect. The companies are living in a panopticum where Anonymous has the gaze. They can take over the internet and so a part of the company. Take for example a bank; they will lose a lot of money when their clients can’t reach their own bank-account. They lose their faith in this company and go to another bank that isn’t hacked. And the weirdest thing is that nobody knows who the members of Anonymous are. The police can’t do anything about it. Their only identity on the internet is their membership. They are Anonymous, but it is possible that someone in your neighborhood is a member without you even knowing it.

This is only one subject to which we can link theories from Digital Art and Culture, but in everyday life you can link those theories to a lot of other examples. Take a look at the newspaper of today or tomorrow and you will find one. Digital culture is everywhere and it is not just something which we only encountered during our course. This was our final post and we hoped you have enjoyed our views on digital art and culture.

And if you want to join Anonymous...here is their Dutch website: http://www.anonymousnetherlands.nl/

- Mirte van Rooijen -

#dac12

Sharing

In our last post we talked about privacy and surveillance. We posted a short video of our teachers and some students who were in front of the class during our break. Nothing happened. We asked if it could be regarded as a violation of privacy. Next class we found out that according to our teachers it was. The surroundings of our lecture hall would be a too trusted one. So in their opinion it was indeed a violation of privacy. Besides this action could off course also give wrong ideas to others. Things which could be worse than this video could end up on the internet. Perhaps you have already noticed, but the video is removed. So what do you post when something was apparently wrong, although the intentions were good?

Just something good and old from YouTube? Our last blog post is easily to relate to the concept of sharing, discussed during class. With sharing a person or institution shares information or videos on the internet. This is off course what we did in our last post. A concept which rises with the concept of sharing is broadcasting. In this case there is a distribution of information from a centre. It is a case of one-way traffic. Nowadays however the concept of narrowcasting is more suited to describe the distribution of information on the internet. With narrowcasting there is an information flow from many to many. So the flow goes in both directions. Narrowcasting is a matter of consuming and presuming at the same time. Tumblr itself is actually a good example of this. People can post stuff like videos and look at others posts.

This post we will just share a video from YouTube with you. In the video you see a parody from South Park of popular YouTube hits. The real videos are cut in-between. Unfortunately there were no shorter videos, so be warned, the end becomes quite violent!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVVKs-fTzG0&feature=fvwrel

This video shows how popular videos from YouTube can become. The spread ability value from these videos is very high. People do nothing authentic or new in these videos but for some reason they do become very popular and a lot of parodies are made. The example above is a parody from South Park but there are also enough parodies from amateurs on YouTube itself. It is clear that in the process of sharing something new can be created. So on the process of sharing can become the creative act.

Because this is nearly our last post we hope you all enjoyed sharing it with us!

- Birgit Baetsen -

Privacy and surveillance

When you walk in England. You’ll be filmed about 300 times a day. Almost on every corner is a security camera. Even in the Netherlands a person will be filmed everywhere, for example in public transport, nightclubs, shops and even in a hospital. Our safety has become more important than our privacy.

But where is the line between violation of privacy and the collection of information for our own safety? This can be a problem when someone is filmed without noticing it, as in the video above. This video lasts 20 seconds and really nothing is happening. But it can still be regarded as a violation of someone’s privacy. In this case the privacy of our teachers and fellow students. They had no idea that someone was filming them and I didn’t ask permission to post this video on the internet. Now everyone who visits this blog or shares this post can watch this video.

But the teachers were in front of the lecture hall and so they were aware of people watching them. This has an effect on their behavior. They know that they should act as teachers and should not dance or sing. But if this video would have been taken in their home, without their permission, it would be completely different. It changes from a coveillance (watching and being watched) to a sort of panopticum. The subject doesn’t know he is being watched so the filmer has the gaze (and so also the power).

This made me think of a Dutch television program that was broadcasted some months ago. They showed an emergency room in a hospital with patients which were between life and death. It was broadcasted without the permission of the patients or the family of the deceased. In most cases, the patients didn’t even know they were filmed at all. A lot of people were against this broadcast because of the violation of the privacy.

Many people are afraid to lose all their privacy. They were shocked that even a hospital wasn’t a safe place anymore. The filmmaker gets more and more power over a person, when he collects more and more knowledge.

Knowledge is power.

-Mirte van Rooijen-

#dac12

Robots

How many extensions can you put on a human body? When do you stop being human? Where does the human stop and the machine begin? Are these even opposites? These are some question which rose during our last class of digital art and culture. In this blog I will talk about certain robots and how they relate to some subjects that rose during our last class.

But first let’s start with a fun example. Since we are in the mood for the European Championship already, I thought lets link it to some technology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agHBb8KCTZg

Quite fun and interesting to see, those robots of Tech United Eindhoven. But I wonder if the robots are controlled by people outside of the field or if all the technology is inside the robots themselves. I got to say I think all the technology is inside the robots, but what if they would be controlled by people, would the robots be extensions of the human? When can we call something a robot and when can we call something a cyborg? A cyborg is something which is part organic and part technological. Therefore I think I can say these robots are really robots. They are not partly organic and they probably operate on their own.

During class it was also said that artificial life, like robots, is always based on human beings. I do not think that is completely true in the case of these robots. They do not look like humans at all and I even believe their technology to move is not based on human legs or what so ever. So are these robots abjects? The robots are objects created by us humans, but do they create fear, fascination or other uncanny emotions, like they would if they would look human? Or does looking like a human not lie in the physical appearance? Is it about the artificial intelligence which these robots have in which their being human lays?

- Birgit Baetsen -

seeing without seeing

Before you start to read this post, please click on the following link and then return while you are listening to rain and thunder.

(If you don’t like the sound of rain, you can also chose one of the recommended clips, like the sound of a forest with beautiful birds.) For a lot of people listening to these sounds is a way to relax. It’s perfect if you live in the city and want to hear something else than cars and barking dogs.

What does this sound has to do with the subject of last lecture?

Close your eyes and just think about what pops up in your head. There is a big chance that you remember something that has to do with rain. You remember exactly how it felt and smelt. Look at the comment in this video:

KumachanX3 almost believed it was real rain. It’s true, of you keep listening for a while, you’ll forget that the sound comes from your computer. You even want to check it outside.

So this sound really tries to play with your senses, but your imagination has to be involved too. If you keep thinking that this is unreal, there is no change that you’ll smell or feel the rain. It just stays a sound.

I also have another example, but first you have to stop the rain video. Then click on the following link. (It only works with a headphone and closed eyes)

Close your eyes and let yourself get carried away with the story, maybe you’ll get a nice haircut after this.

With this clip on youtube, you get the full experience of a real barbershop. You hear people walking away and the cutting of a scissor. This is an example of the 3D sound experience. Normally you hear the same sound on both sides of your headphones. With this clip, it’s different. You hear the barber only on your left side, but nothing on your right side. So your brain thinks the source of the sound is only on the left side. With the plastic bag in the beginning, the sound is the same on both sides and in combination with the words, you really start to think that the barder is putting a plastic bag over your face. You can almost feel it, just like the other elements in this virtual barbershop.

These examples are completely different from the ones in lecture. The biggest difference is that the sense of seeing is left out. Your imagination is doing the job, to let you feel or smell the things you hear, without really seeing them.

- Mirte van Rooijen -

#dac12

Artificial beauty

Last class we spoke about artificial beauty. We discussed an example of an artist who puts pictures of woman together to get to the most beautiful - and at the same time general - face there is. The woman was very pretty, but of course also very fake. ‘She’ was completely made thanks to computers. ‘She’ however is not a real person. But as we know the digital can not only make a beautiful fake person, thanks to photoshop etc. it can also make a new beautiful you.

This however can also go another step further. The digital can not only help you to look beautiful in the digital or on a picture, it can also help you to become more beautiful in reality. Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpvx_zEPIQo

As you saw in the video surgeons nowadays make use of digital technology to help their patients see how they will look after they have had surgery. Personally I do not think this is a bad thing. Whether the result is exactly like on the monitor I do not know, but I do think it is a helpful device for people who want to get surgery. They can see how the result will be and make a better decision about whether they want it or not and how they want it and sergeants know the wishes of their patients better.

On the one hand I can see that the use of the digital is going very far in this. It is not a beautiful fake person who gets scrambled together, it is not a representation of a person who gets ‘photoshoped’, it is a real person who sees on a screen how (who?) they might become. I say ‘(who?)’, because perhaps a person can change after surgery. I do not mean only from the outside, but also from the inside. In my opinion surgery can get a lot of people a confidence boost, but perhaps also a lot of other character traits.

Again however the question arises: how far will we let this digital technology go and influence who we are? Do we still see ourselves if we look at a photoshoped image of ourselves? And what if we would take these changes and make them reality by means of cosmetic surgery? Would we still be us? But what about if we get ‘normal’ surgery which helps improve our physical health? Sergeants still make changes on your body, only they are on the inside. Do you become a ‘better’ representation of yourself? A kind of simulacrum?

- Birgit Baetsen -

fame

Today I will not write a post about a digital subject, but about a cultural subject, to be more specific, the celebrity culture. It’s all around us; it’s hard to escape from. We all know who Justin Bieber is, even though we are not belonging to his target. He is famous, but when are you truly famous?

Is it when only a specific country knows you?

Is it when a continent knows your existents?

Is someone only famous when the whole world knows that person?

And how long does someone have to be known, when can you call someone a celebrity?

A person can be famous for a few hours, like during the auditions in a talent show

Is someone only a celebrity when they achieve something, that at least lasts a couple of months/years/decades?

During lecture we talked about three sorts of fame

Skill

Pre-scribed

Ascribed

Is a person a better or a bigger celebrity when he gained his fame because of his skill? Or can an ascribed celebrity become just as big? And what if someone becomes famous without his intension? An example of this is the sister of Princess Catherine. On 29-04-2011 Prince William and Catherine got married, but they weren’t the call of the day. No Pippa Middleton got almost all of the attention, only because of her bottom. There is even a facebook page on the internet, where everybody can show that they like her bottom. It wasn’t her intention to steal away the spotlight from her sister, but she did. Can she be sorted into the list above?

And I also wanted to discuss another subject. We are a big part of the celebrity culture as well. Without us, there are no celebrities. But sometimes it goes too far. We almost know everything about them, like who they are dating etc. It almost looks like a vicious circle, because we are interested in their lives, the media will respond to this with more information. Therefore we become more interested in their lives and the media tells us more about them and so celebrities become more famous. That’s why everyone knows Justin Bieber. I think sometimes we forget that they are human beings. We think we know them so well, that we almost believe that they belong too our acquaintances. Look at this story of a Dutch columnist.

She was walking in Amsterdam and suddenly she heard her name. She turned around and saw a young guy. She never saw him before, but when he saw that she was looking at him, he asked her something: “When would you finally come to my place and eat some dinner?” Like I said, she never saw him before and it’s not normal in the Netherlands to ask something like this to a complete stranger. But she wasn’t a stranger for him, he had read all of her columns and knew everything about her; the names of her kids, that she has a cat and her favorite snack. He forgot that they never met before and he was surprised that she rejected the offer. She was surprised that he knew so much about her and even acted like a friend.

- Mirte van Rooijen -

#dac12

Forums and interaction

Quite late, but better late than never, as they say! Then again, as we learned during our last class: time in the digital is very different from time in reality. As this part of the course is in the digital, I might be forgiven ;).

Going further on this subject, not only time is no longer a fixed entity, also space is no longer fixed. Virtual information flows. Time and space here are no longer set concepts, they are processes. When it comes down to space the concept of ‘absent presence’ is of importance. This means that people from all over the world can interact whit each other on the internet without there actual bodily presence at different places. The interaction in the digital space influences the real social environment, but off course this also happens the other way around.

An example of such a digital space in which people interact whit one another are forums. At these forums people ask questions and other random people are free to react on them. This can be very helpful but also very deceiving. Nowadays people are for example more urged to search the internet when they have some sort of illness or complaint. Quite some time people end up at such forums. If people would just ask questions without a certain importance this would be OK. But when people are asking questions about their health for example, I think we are heading in the wrong direction. The people who answer the questions are most likely not doctors but just random people who probably do not know what they are talking about. In this case I think the influence from the digital is not good. People who need to see a doctor will not go because the people on the forum reassured him and people who do not need to go to a doctor will, because the forum made them scared.

I think we should ask ourselves whether such forums are good or bad things, or if it only depends on the topics which are discussed. I also think this is a clear case of how far we let the digital space influence our real life ( and our real health). How much farther are we willing to let this go?

anouk-demelza-deactivated201301

In class we saw a video from Marnix de Nijs. Marnix de Nijs is an artist who plays with our expectations of technology and danger. The concept of technology combined with danger is something that I find very interesting.

I think there is indeed a dangerous part about the developing technology....

birgit-en-mirte-blog

I agree with this post, but I think that most of the people always prefer the "real" contact above the whats app..what is more fan than hanging out with friend? It's not the same on a phone..I think a person needs social contact, so he would never replace with a smartphone. I think people will always use it as an expansion of social live..but will never let it overrule it.

Google Earth art

When art is only visable with the use of the digital (or an airplane +binocular) here is an example: You should use these coordinates: Chili / 18* 31’ 45.21” Z 70* 15’ 0.072”W to find it in google earth.

But if you want to know it a little bit faster, than click the read more button

#Dac12 #source:list-o-pedia

What is Digital Art?

What is the definition of Digital Art? During lecture we talked about art that can’t survive without the computer. It uses the computer as a medium, but also as a tool. This made me think about the website DevainArt.com. This website is created by Scott Jarkoff, Matthew Stephens en Angelo Sotira in 2000. They wanted to create an art-community on the internet, where young talents show their work to other people from all over the world. The website has become a huge success and it has millions of visitors and members. But what is their definition of digital art?

The homepage of the website shows a small collection of their art. When a visitor wants to see more or something else, he has two choices: he can search on a keyword or on the artist, but he can also search in different categories. One of these categories is Digital art; the art selection is divided into the following groups:

3-Dimensional Art Drawings Fractal Art Miscellaneous Mixed Media Paintings and Airbrushing Photomanipulation Pixel Art

Stereoscopy Text Art

Typography Vector Vexel

The website almost looks like a museum. The category Digital Art is like a building, with different floors which represent the groups above. These groups have different corridors and they all have a different collection, like an abstract style or doodles. All of these works can be put under the head of digital art.

But digital art is bigger than what they show on DevainArt.com. Because all of the work shown on this site, is also available on canvas or t-shirts, without losing their specific qualities. They can survive without a computer. This is unlike the art of Jodi, which is also a form of digital art. This art is also a form of digital art, but without the right hardware and software it will disappear forever. It is not possible to print it on canvas, because the specific qualities of the digital medium won’t be there, only the meaningless numbers will remain.

Is the art that can survive without a computer really digital art or should we define digital art as art that only exists because of computers?

- Mirte van Rooijen -

#dac12

The Harry Potter books in a new medium..but it stays the same story.

#dac12

artlessonsfrombrittandnatha-blog

Scientist Mcluhan comments the basic model of communicating, which is about a sender having a message and sending it to a receiver and vice versa. Mcluhan states that the model is not this simple, because he thinks communication is not about the message, but all about the medium that is used....

birgit-en-mirte-blog

Do you think people can fake or manipulate their body language? So people can't see that they are lying. Or is the real emotion always visible? Or in other words..can people lie with their body (like actors) or is it always visible that they are lying?

- Mirte -

The medium is the message

In 1964 the Canadian scientist Marshall Mcluhan published Understanding media. A book in which he explains his theory about media. Mcluhan does not agree with the common communication model, which states there is a sender transferring a message to a receiver. According to Mcluhan communication is not about the message, communication is about the medium. Not the content matters, but the form. Continuing on this, the message has become the medium and the medium has become the message. This means that a medium imbeds itself in a message, creating a relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. Let me demonstrate this with an example. Try to read either the words or to name the colors fast:

As you all probably already know this assignment is harder than it looks like. It is very easy to mingle up the words and the colors. This is because in this example there are two media trying to get a hold of you: First there are the words and then there are the colors too (or the other way around). We perceive both and mix up the message which we are trying to perform.

We can also analyze this example differently. Let’s say the words are the message and the colors the medium. In this case the medium is such a big part of the message that it is hard to see these apart from each other. So, the medium has such a big influence on the message that it influences how the message is perceived. The medium has become the message.

This example can also be connected to the radical medium specificity theory. This theory states that a message about a certain medium can best be transferred through this particular medium itself. In the example above this would mean that the words and colors correspond with each other in the right way.

- Birgit Baetsen -

#dac12

Still resisting

Van Driel makes a distinction between certain stages a person goes through when he encounters a new medium.

All I hope is that I will be out of the resisting one fast!

‘Het Swiebertje effect’

As was said in class: ‘Tom Hanks will always stay Forrest Gump’

Now meet Swiebertje:

In Dutch this effect is named after this man. People could not see him apart from his charater.

#dac12

When something on that you only see on your television....becomes something real..or not?

#dac12

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Digital Art and Culture