EMAC Masha Khoruzhik

[tattedmariposart-deactivated201]

LILY’S HUGEASS I-USED-TO-BE-AN-ART-STUDENT-BUT-NOW-I’M-NOT GIVEAWAY

yoooooooo so here’s the deal. Once upon a time, I got a master’s degree in fine art. But a bunch of shit has happened since then… namely me becoming permanently disabled……. and because of that, I’m not really able to make art the way I could when I was a student. (I mostly work digitally now; it’s just easier on me.) Anyway, this means that I’ve had a shitton of fine art supplies just sitting around collecting dust! AND I want them the fuck out of my space already… so I am going to give them away! One winner will get everything listed below.

Pictured:

3 new or nearly new watercolor sketchpads 

2 new or nearly new oil/acrylic sketchpads 

apx. 25 partially used tubes of acrylic paint (almost all liquitex brand) in assorted colors

1 partial bottle of liquitex gesso 

3 partial bottles of liquitex acrylic mediums (one slow-dri and two gloss medium) 

6 gesso brushes 

a shitton of oil/acrylic brushes (assortment of natural bristle, soft natural fiber, and synthetic) plus 1 canvas brush holder. they are used but I took pretty good care of them and they are decent quality. (also sorry for the shitty blurry pic) 

1 palette/paint mixing knife (pictured with the brushes) 

1 set of partially used color conte crayons 

1 large tub of brush cleaner (I know it looks beat up but it’s actually barely used… sigh oil paint makes everything so dirty) 

assortment of willow charcoal

canvasmaking tools (2 pairs of scissors, staple gun and staples, paint scrapers and canvas pliers)

Not pictured:

5 new or nearly new paperbound sketchbooks 

2 new or nearly new wirebound sketchbooks 

apx. 12-15 small canvas boards (they’re kind of scuffed up but still very usable)

3 small premade canvases 

3 sets of small assembled stretcher strips (12 strips total) 

4 unassembled small stretcher strips 

small amount of unprimed/unstretched canvas fabric

1 small container of brush cleaner

assortment of graphite drawing pencils

Rules:

you do not need to follow me

likes count as one entry

reblogs count as one extra entry

winner will be chosen at random

I will pay for shipping to anywhere in the US

I will not pay for shipping outside the US (sorry about this but I just can’t afford it right now… however if you would be willing to pay your own shipping, you can still enter)

you must have your askbox open

you must be willing to share your address with me (hopefully that goes without saying but just in case!)

I would strongly prefer that these things go to someone who needs them, as in either a.) a current/future/recent art student, or b.) someone who otherwise has a strong interest in art but has trouble affording it. But since I have no way of verifying that, I’m not going to worry too much about who enters.

Even if you don’t want these yourself, I’d appreciate any reblogs you could spare so that more people can see it! The giveaway will end on May 1st, 2015, so good luck until then and thanks for reading!

[emacblogbymasha]

RIP: A Remix Manifesto

  Where is the borderline between remix and plagiarism? Why are adolescents deemed criminals and are charged for downloading music for free? Advancement in technology, specifically the accessibility of information on the internet, aroused these issues. 

   Internet is advancing with years. Charging citizens for piracy with huge amounts of money that doesn't even go to the artist but the big corporations is not going to stop the internet from existing. it will not stop people from sharing. Some changes like such should be embraced. It's part of evolution, as the documentary states.

   Art is meant to be shared. The whole idea of sharing is getting your idea out into the world so that other people think about it, elaborate on it, and help improve it or bring it out further into the world. Whats the value of an idea if it is shared but locked away? With so many people having access to the internet and possibility to share their ideas globally it is hard to stand out. But if one idea is accessible globally it can get through once people start talking about it.

   Now if an idea is expanded and really gets out to the first ranks, wouldn't the inventor or the brain behind the idea get offended if some individual took all the credit and profited from it? Of course he would. Personally if my work is stolen, not remixed, I would get offended and ask for my credit.  The only problem is the borderline between a remix and a theft. And that border is different for everyone.

   Most art done today is a hybrid of different ideas. Just as Girl Talk remixes notes from different music compositions to make his own tracks, all other artists unconsciously or consciously repeat what has been done in the past. Originality is dead. Your art is deemed original when the rearrangement of old ideas or notes in your art is unique and works well. If all ideas just like all living things are patented what is left there to mold out of? 

   There is a patent for distributing movies on the internet to watch online that expires 10 years after the movie is released. What if there is a limited patent like that on music as well? This will give the track or album just enough time to make their mark and make some money. New music hits come about rapidly anyway and take over the audience. 

 The documentary makes a great point about patents on ideas or art that is globally renowned, like Mickey Mouse or the Happy Birthday song. These left such a big mark in the world already that most people wouldn't even think they were illegal to reproduce or recite. Why should big corporations chase after what had already ran away? 

  Another great point is the inclusion of countries that changed their patent laws, like Brazil. Im glad it was pointed out how embracing the expanding possibilities of sharing can lead to a better society. New medication for AIDS was sold for cheap to people in need and unlimited information sharing lead to more knowledgeable and inventive population. Who knows what kind of great changes free sharing of ideas can bring us. Maybe we could've already cured cancer by now, and solved financial situations; reduced crime and gave children a better education. Is money really more important than a better future? 

[emacblogbymasha]

Press Pause Play reaction

Larger quantity does not always mean better quality. When nowadays anyone can make music, video, art, and share it with the world the value of craftsmanship is decaying. The time put into the creation is decreased and the quality of the finished artwork is diminished. Popularity is defined by data; how many views did a certain artist get on their youtube video? When the number of tags on art put online determines the number of views, mediocre art gets in the way of talent. 

   Art making used to be a mystery. It took some research and struggle to produce a photograph before digital cameras. The ones who were truly passionate about a certain art form had to master the technical part. It took dedication and patience. Ones who were not passionate enough gave up. With bigger struggle success used to be more rewarding. Now there is no more secret. Anyone has access to the secrets of craftsmanship through google.

   Nevertheless, we can't help but adapt to the changing technology. However, the ones who know their craft like the back of their hand will have access to more than just basic functions and utilities of the advanced technology. Those will be the ones with expanded knowledge and an open mind. They will hopefully be the ones who emerge from the pool of mediocrity.

[emacblogbymasha]

We Live In Public reaction

People like Josh Harris, with revolutionary ideas about the world and motivation of high energy, come around once in a decade. A visionary with a troubled past that left him with contradicting personalities and anti-social manners, Harris atristically exposed the future of technology to the world. His public surveillance experiments represented his visions in the most extreme, physical way, which was contravertial for many.   Harris’s “Quiet” was perhaps his most extreme project. The only information the volunteers were provided with before registration for the hotel was the unlimited amount of food, drink, and guns, as well as Harris's right to intrude privacy with constant and ultimate surveillance. Many would say Harris used these volunteers as rats in a scientific experiment. However, given a combination of necessary and pleasurable human resources (food, shelter, guns, alcohol), it would be silly to dismiss the possibilty of conflict and abuse. In a month those people adapted to being constantly watched and completely gave themselves over to pleasure. Its astounding how only one month was enough to prove that ultimate freedom turned those people into animals. So is this absolute freedom something we should be striving for?    I give my respect for Harris putting himself through the same situation with "We Live in Public" experiment. He proved something to himself and not just made people realize how easily they can be influenced. He proved to himself that being watched by public and engulfing himself in the chat with public is psycologically traumatic. He also realized he doesnt have all the control he thought he had. Yet it seems even after this experiment he was publically in denial (esp. about his relationship with Tanya and his mother) of his surrender to his own experiment.    Harris inevitably played a role in making his visions of technology true. Pseudo.com was the beginning of expanding possibilities of the chat room and internet TV and Harris was the brain behind it. As a result people turned their attention to computer screens in order to gain attention from public. Of course with the chat now people could connect faster and communicate more efficiently. However with a possibility of getting famous also increased and so did the time people spend on striving to get attention. Harris gave these people their 15 minutes of fame and it is enough for them. What else is there to do? Who will be the next revolutionary thinker when everyone is busy consuming bits of everyone elses life on the internet? How do we make our mark when self-value is based on how many people online pay attention to us? Not many nowadays look up from the screen and really ask themselves where they are headed.   Harris set the wheel of social media turning and fled as soon as he realized the seriousness of his "profesies" and results of his radical ideas.   

[emacblogbymasha]

History of Hacking Reaction

From this documentary I got that hacking started out much like Fluxus art. It was merely for fun. Hackers like Captain Crunch hacked telephone signals and fooled stations that transferred calls. They invented their own small computers, small boxes which could be attached to any telephone.

 As computers started appearing a team of engineers interested in inventing these progressive technological devices formed underground. The members of this team were now getting more interested in possibilities the computer can introduce beyond the fun fluxus pranks. Some members were arrested for stealing software from emerging computer companies. The members split when first apple computers appeared and the members formed their own teams.

  This documentary slightly changed my view on hacking, It informed me on how hacking appeared as a prank and how it evolved into advances in technology and later criminality and net art. Im glad such people as Captain Crunch took risks and exploited technological flaws.

These hackers remind me of the Fluxus artists in a way that both took something that was perceived as serious such as art or technology and lightened this perception. They looked at it at a different angle and introduced new movements. This diversion from the normal perception of art can be referred to as "hacking" just as Captain Crunch hacked the systematic flow of telephone signals.

[emacblogbymasha]

Synth Britannia

This documentary captured the rising generation of synthetic music in an entertaining and informative way. The visuals were accompanied with related music. It started out with the historical background; the rise of futuristic architecture and media culture gave way to synthetic sound. It really made clear that usually history and art coexist.  BBC provided us with various examples of music videos made in the 1970's and further. Each event influencing the synthetic music culture was accompanied with various different interviews of musicians. The opinions were more or less balanced so I didn't get a sense of bias in this documentary. I enjoyed watching it but wish I was given a bit of information about how the synthetic music movement was coming along outside of UK.

[emacblogbymasha]

Survival Research Laboratories

   Every adult is still a child deep inside. The SRL crew unleashes this child through the construction of complex, aggressive robotic machines. They are playing with toys but to the audience these toys are rather massive, destructible, dangerous mechanisms.  Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. And if someone from the audience complains about the risk, well, they shouldn't have showed up to the performance. The SRL make fun of the modern production of machines that are too powerful to always be controlled by humans. They create exaggerated imitations of toys the modern world of technology plays with. 

   The process of producing these wild terrifying robots also pokes fun at the manufacturing of machines. The SRL steal the parts they need from factories. "You gotta bite the hand that feeds you", says one of the members. The stealthy stealing is often called "obtainium" by the group. They just get the parts they need.

   I liked the idea that the machines destroy their surrounding and then themselves. It reveals the senselessness of the machines going out of control. Similar to a children's play. SRL performances create war-like settings that are usually unexperienced by most people. They bring chaos to the mundane world and leave a huge effect on the audience. 

[emacblogbymasha]

Fluxus ReAction

  This documentary was the first time I heard about Fluxus. I was very surprised how one person, George Maciunas, started an entirely new art movement. Although it wasn't known by everyone (given that the old concierge of the ex-fluxus studio building, when asked about the movement, was clueless) is was well known among the artists. Fluxus art and performance was often a collaboration between artists of different fields. From what I got in the documentary it was almost a fun and creative get-together. The idea of Fluxus art is that it lacks much concept or reason. It is more experimental and absurd. The procedures can be connected to John Cage's chance operations. The difference between Cage's work and Fluxus art, however, is that Cage takes the mundane and samples it's beauty. He wishes to open up to people what they have been missing out on. Fluxus, in the other hand, takes anything and makes jokes about it, converts it into something absurd.    I find it funny how Maciunas, in his manifesto, wants non art reality to be fully grasped by all peoples. He crosses out "fully', knowing that fluxus is not meant to be fully understood and accepted. Yet he also takes that "non art reality" and transforms it into something other than the mundane, something which is often called art. It is both impressive and bizarre how Maciunas risked his life by borrowing money from the mafia to aid this movement. Although Fluxus was not grasped by "all of the peoples" and died out soon after Maciunas's death, it is part of the collections in many museums today, such as MoMa.   I respect this man for attempting to create this revolutionary, contradicting movement and bringing many artists together for collaboration. I almost think it is good that the movement didn't fully revolutionize art and ended so abruptly. After all, there is such a thing as too much comedy. After a couple of years this movement was meant to die out and open up the path to new art movements. 

[emacblogbymasha]

I Have Nothing to Say and I Am Saying It (a documentary)

I will say something about this documentary because I do have something to say about it. Also, I sort of have to...  When John Cage performs "chance operation" music pieces, he is not an artist, nor a composer. He is an observer, a sampler of natural sounds. Artists create, and creativity is when pre-existing elements are rearranged into a new combination. He is an artist, however, when he molds those sounds into a composition tied to a theme. He created the Holocaust composition using the sounds of his "prepared" piano. He combined non-musical elements such as bolts and nails with the classical structure of the piano, creating his own noises. He is an artist when he picks various mushrooms and other natural foods and experiments with recipes just as he experiments with natural sounds.   I think John Cage is rather a philosopher, than an artist. He is a man with a unique character; unique in its primitive values and overall neutral attitude. In fact, he is indifferent to the labels society gives him. He considers himself part of nature, a neutral organism without a special purpose. "Highest purpose is to have no purpose", says John Cage. This statement is something that the modern human race cannot accept. It is such a simple idea that the advanced human brain denies it. Why would humans be the most intelligent species on earth if we didn't have a purpose? Why did we evolve from mere primitive animals into builders and creators? With this statement I think Cage is contradicting himself. If he considers himself a living being without a purpose why would he observe nature with such attention and have the will to speak his observations to the world? Or is the society giving him purpose?   Cage states he cannot stand harmony and therefore he left the conservatory. Nevertheless, nature is by definition harmonious and balanced. Many times humans distort this harmony through invention. Artists can imitate nature but do so through lies. Similarly, Cage attempts to sample the sounds of nature, but through the manufactured process of recording, the sound is inevitably altered; it is no longer the true sound of nature. Therefore, while Cage isn't a fan or harmony, he is trying to record the sounds of the harmonious nature.     The documentary was very informative and thorough in my opinion. It presented multiple views from various artists. However, it is not as neutral as John Cage's attitude might be. I wish this film touched upon some of the contradictions and arguments that Cage's work aroused. Most of individuals interviewed praised John Cage in one way or another. At one point I made a connection between Cage and Buddha, because of so much love given and received in this documentary. This is probably the only aspect I would add to the film. Overall, this film is no doubt very inspiring and evokes many questions on multiple topics such as art, purpose, and human psyche. 

[emacblogbymasha]

Glass Jaw: REaction

  This short by Michael O'Reilly is a successful video piece. O'Reilly vividly portrays the atmosphere of the hospital that engages almost all of the viewers senses. The balanced juxtaposition between the contrasting, almost abstract changing images and the monotonous narrative voice combined with soothing piano notes in the background create a psychedelic feeling of detachment between body and mind experienced by O'Reilly. If he decided to add an aggressive tone to his narrative voice, the video would probably have been too emotionally overwhelming for the audience. The contents of his narrative already express frustration with his situation and medical health care in general. The monotonous robotic voice imitates the factory-like atmosphere in a hospital, where patients are handled like broken machines by the disciplined doctors.    "Glass Jaw" also successfully portrays the feeling of mortality most hospitalized patients with serious injuries experience. Such people don't take their lives for granted. O'Reilly expressed this by focusing the camera on details, almost never showing the full picture. The cropped images change fast and the voices of people he encounters in the institution are speeded; the time seems to slip away similar to a fly's lifespan.    This video evokes great emotional response from the audience. This implies that O'Reilly had to go through these emotions again in order to create this  piece and evoke same frustration and discomfort in the audience.