A journey through Art+Tech

Hi I'm Alex and I want to be an art teacher, look at my about.myself page 2 learn more

[lentzar]

TM15: Hyper Beam

RIP art+tech fall 2017, i will miss u, can’t believe this is the last trainer already

Technology surrounds us, but what happens when it fails? What happens when it is simply not enough to create equity?

I think that when technology fails, the responsibility falls back onto the people to create (or try to create) equity. I think that tech is an interesting way to try to create equity, but I think that technology can only do so much. Also, using technology to try to create equity, I think, is kind of avoiding the problem that causes the inequity I think it would be better and more equal if we changed the system, and removed systemic barriers rather than just treating the symptoms that are caused by those barriers. I don’t really know how to put into words what I’m trying to explain; but bear with me. I think that what it boils down to in an example is: there aren’t a lot of handicap accessible places to live in Richmond (to my knowledge. Even if there are, just bear with me). Wouldn’t it be better and more equal if we just revamped the system and made everything globally accessible, rather than placing the responsibility/burden of accessibility on the disabled? In our contemporary society, if someone has mobility issues and can’t easily use stairs, it’s on them to have a stair lift (one of those chairs that you sit in and glides up and down the stairs) put in. First of all, this is a difficult and expensive thing to do; so right off the bat, they are at a disadvantage and their residential options are limited because of the financial strain that this causes. Second of all, using this technology wouldn’t create equity in the first place, even if it didn’t cost anything and was hassle-free, because we are still making this person conform to able-bodied standards. It’s their responsibility to find a way up the stairs. They still have to use the stairs, even if the tech allows them to use the stairs in a different way, an easier way than would otherwise be available. Even if stair lifts were no trouble to have put in, and didn’t cost a cent, we would still be communicating to those that needed to use one that their body is “wrong,” and worth less than able bodied persons because in this example, it’s their responsibility to find a way to fit into able bodied society. 

I think that this example is useful because even though it is just one example, one instance of this, it can be universalized. The bodies which are less abled are always at a disadvantage because our society functions in service of and to meet the needs of those that are able bodied. 

We’re not changing the way we operate at all to level the playing field, but we are forcing those who don’t or can’t operate the way we do to play “catch up.” The tech in this scenario doesn’t create equity because it is perpetuating the idea that the way that the less able person operates within our world needs to be changed to be similar or equal to the way an able-bodied person operates. How can it be equal if we’re saying that able bodies are the standard; normal; right; and less able bodies only option is to find ways to replicate, mostly through technology that is costly in more ways than one? 

The only real way to create equity in the stairs scenario, to me, is to not have stairs. To revamp the system so that no one has any advantage over any other, and tech can’t really do that. Tech can only work to try to remove a portion of a disadvantage.

[lentzar]

[lentzar]

TM14: Blizzard

Oof this is maybe not my best gif of all time.

Also, my brain is feeling fuzzy since I am having a mono flare up and have a 100 degree fever and i just feel like I’m dying in general. But enough about me,,,,!

The Legend of Korra episode was so good! I love this show. I think that Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra both communicate vulnerability in a personable and realistic way. (Well, I don’t know about realistic, but definitely personable!) It feels real to me. I think that media with some magical realism is good for both kids and adults-- everybody’s stressed, and can use a break from reality once in a while. But, watching these shows doesn’t have to be a break from reality! It can be a really effective way to talk about communication and vulnerability with students. Especially if you watch this episode, where Katara and Korra are speaking to each other about Korra’s and Aang’s hardships, because I think everyone sometimes has thoughts similar to Korra’s here about their vulnerability not being worth it, and not seeing what there is to gain from trying to express yourself and work on bettering yourself. The scenes where Korra is fighting herself/her ghost can maybe show the difficulty of working to better yourself. I think that the same themes about difficulty and blockage of personal growth by something in your past exist in the Steven Universe episode too. I think that using popular media as a teacher does a couple things--I think it makes you seem more relatable to the students, since you both have maybe seen the same thing, and it can increase the respect level of the relationship too, I think. But more than that, if you choose the right episodes, you can definitely connect it to the learning taking place in the classroom and universal things that everyone goes through, like self-betterment, or the persistence of memory (especially bad memories). Popular media can be really effective in getting concepts across that may be hard to address in the classroom.

[lentzar]

TM13: Ice Beam

Sorry I didn’t turn this one in on time either, ahhh!! Feeling bad about it. I remembered it in the car on my 10 hour trip to Florida for thanksgiving the day it was due and couldn’t do it since i had no internet connection, but here it is anyway!

Kim’s work, I think broke the sound barrier by allowing anyone to experience it. I think that a lot of art that is created is definitely not made for people who are deaf. For example, in my time studio class, we had to create soundscapes. We created a stop motion animation, and presented it, then created a soundscape for that animation, and presented the piece with the sound alongside or directly after the piece without sound in order to create distinctions and differences in mood and meaning. In the crit for these pieces, a lot of people talked about the technical elements of the sound: Stuff like “oh, this sound should have matched with this action, but it didn’t!” I thought that wasn’t helpful. The person who made the art probably already knew that. (However, I’m getting of topic) My point is, that project, or those two projects presented next to each other wouldn’t be different at all to a non hearing person. How would a non hearing person go about creating that project? Were these projects at all accessible, or “universally designed?” 

Christine Sun Kim’s Ted Talk was the most interesting thing in the readings this week. I found myself thinking a lot about social currency, first asking what is it? Then I googled that really quick, and started thinking about all the things that we don’t assign value to because they aren’t a part of our able bodied world made for white able bodied men. As Christine Sun Kim said in their Ted Talk, ASL is definitely one of those. My high school didn’t have any ASL classes. and It rarely, if ever, had interpreters. 

I also really like about Christine Sun’s work how they express music visually. I thought it was really profound that her drawing of staff lines portrayed music, or at least sound(s) through just the “Accidental,” or “Messed-up.” (This also mirrors how we view less abled bodies.) The subtle smudges and marks, if played, would create their own sounds, the sounds of the creation of this drawing. 

I unlearned a lot while watching these videos and doing the readings. I unlearned what I assumed about ASL and it’s straightforwardness. I used to always think that context wouldn’t really matter in ASL, since everything “said” is being communicated non-verbally, and this just draws attention to the lack of social currency we assign to the things that we consider “less.” 

(this is a crumped up piece of paper, synthesized into sound,)

[lentzar]

marz boiz

come 4 the desol8n

curiosity boi (his name is rover) is lonelie

[lentzar]

ELITE 1: Photoshop

heck ya i <3 photoshoop

[lentzar]

TM12: Taunt

I don’t think that I’ve really ever had the need to be “in control.” I think it’s really easy to controlled, and it’s easier than speaking up--for yourself or for others. It’s easy to just say, “well, this is the way things are,” or “this is the way it has to be done,” when a lot of the time things don’t have to be that way and you don’t have to allow yourself to be controlled. It’s kind of a problem I’ve been facing in my life recently. It’s kind of a newer concept for me to be totally in control of my own body and decisions actions, and it kind of led to an existential crisis last year (and kind of continuing into this year but it’s cool, it’s fine, it’s okay, don’t worry about it, I’m fine) because if I don’t have someone telling me what to do or what to think, I have to start thinking for myself. What do I think? What do I do? I’m still struggling with that. I don’t think as much as I should; usually my brain is just playing some random song that’s stuck in my head. But now, I’m oversharing, I think. I like to be in control of my own self though. I think it’s a lot of responsibility to be in charge of other bodies and humans, and I don’t think I want that or am ready for that in this period of my life. I think it’s very important to be your own person, to be original and think your own thoughts and be your own unbridled self. In that sense, I like being in control--when it’s control over myself.

I think that the pressure to be in control, for me, comes from masculinity, and the desire for power that I think is kind of inseparable from the traditional notion of masculinity. I feel like there’s this idea (that I hate) that you can’t be a real man unless you can exert your power over others--that in order to have power, you need to use it and show everyone how powerful you are. Like one person can’t be powerful if others also have power. There’s this desire in traditional masculinity (I think, because of my experience as a “man,” and my experiences with traditional masculinity and just masculinity in general (also the hypermasculinity that exists in high and middle schools (that I’m not so far removed from, middle and high school weren’t that long ago for me))) to remove the power from others in order to, I don’t know, feel like you have more power in comparison? Feel like the only way for one person to have power and control is for everyone else to have a lack of power and control and not be in control of their own circumstances? Feel like taking power and comfort away from others and oppressing them makes someone more manly or more powerful?  “Look at me, I’m so manly. Want to hear my body count? Let’s talk about my sexual conquests. All my exes are crazy. You should smile more, baby.”

Sorry for my rant about masculinity. But it’s out there now. Masculinity is weird and makes me feel weird and bad and I don’t really feel that masculine ever but we’ll see how life goes. I don’t really want to be masculine either. 

But anyway, I think that’s where the traditionally male desire to be in control comes from. I also think that it comes from the fear of the unknown, that we want to be in control to limit the number of possible outcomes that exist. You don’t know what’s going to happen, for example, when you’re going to be teaching. So, in order to have more control over that, one would practice. They could talk at themselves in the mirror, or time how long it takes per section of the lesson. Or think of possible questions that students might have to be able to have answers ready in advance. All of this, though, is done to limit possible outcomes, so that it’s most likely that the most favorable outcome for whoever is doing this is the one that will happen. To defeat the unknown, we have to have power over it.

Here’s a super mario bros 3 (the best mario) gif! 

[lentzar]

[lentzar]

TM11: Sunny Day

Honestly, I don’t know what technology and specifically media tech can do in reshaping the way we talk about and think about dis/ability. In the reading, it seemed like everyone writing about cyborgs and disability were problematic, or at least had some problematic beliefs about dis/abled people, and I think that one simple thing that media technology can do is putting a face on dis/abled bodies, and further humanizing them. I think that in the reading especially, dis/abled peoples and bodies were viewed as wrong and less than human and “weird,” which isn’t how things should be/are and is definitely problematic. Another thing that media technology can do is to help normalize the dis/abled bodies and/or peoples so that we (western mostly white society) View this as bad and wrong and deserving of some kind of pity or punishment. I think that just keeping dis/ abled bodies and peoples in the media and in our minds will normalize them and can further validate them and their experiences. I’m all about validation. And trying to be an ally. I can’t tell recently if what I do is what an ally does or what other people do but I’m trying—we will see.

In the gif Hiroshi Nonami by Daniel RedHawk, a topless caucasian female is looking at the camera head-on as if she knows being watched. At the same time, her hair, braids, and the other parts all move. Well technically they are hall moving in space, but in reality they are moving in place. It’s a perfectly looped gif that really shows all the movement one can capture in one picture. The picture is in a somber sepia and red that reflects the quiet nature of the work. The woman’s hair is all moving, as is the substance dripping over her braids  and chest.

[lentzar]

TM09: Bullet Seed

Anthropy tackles the relationship between education and video games by challenging the audience that video games are made for and the systems that perpetuate the exclusivity of mainstream games. Anthropy makes the claim that the sense that one needs training and college to make videogames is false. They claim that this is a narrative enforced by the “Big Games Industry.” Videogames are played by those who have time, already have put in the time to build a foundational knowledge of how videogames work and specifically work on the medium they’re playing on (xbox, playstation, etc.), and have sufficient financial means to keep buying new games. This ends up being a “mostly young, mostly male audience.” (10) This audience is more involved in the playing of games, and because of the exposure that they have to games, they are more likely to want to be involved in the Big Games Industry, so they can cater to their audience (the same audience that they came from) and perpetuate the exclusivity. But Anthropy’s claim that one doesn’t need any special training or education to create games challenges this narrative by telling the reader that they don’t have to participate in the exclusivity that videogame culture has acquired.

[lentzar]

TM10: Hidden Power

I think that media performance is different from other life performances in that media performance has more of an emphasis on technology, whereas other live performance art places more emphasis on the body. Some recent media performance has been doing both, with things like projection mapping onto someone’s face (like we saw in class) or projecting someone’s tattoos (also like we saw in class). The tattoos one has a different kind of emphasis on the body than is traditional for live performance art-- performance art, to me, is a lot about the actions that the performer takes, and there’s little to no actions being taken by the performer(s) in the tattoo projection mapping piece. I also think that while the media performance piece INORI (Prayer) is more similar to other live performance art in the sense that there are more and different actions being taken by the performers, it acts (like the other media performance pieces we saw) more as an advertisement for all the cool new innovative things that these projectors and programmers can do. But I feel that there’s not really much to be done about this, because the tools that are being used to create the most popular and advanced media performance are crazy expensive and can only be obtained with sponsorships from large corporations trying to sell their products. Until the more advanced tools for media performance are more accessible to artists, I think that the focus is definitely going to stay on the technology and showcasing what that technology can do, because why would a large corporation with the means to have one of these projectors sponsor some art project that isn’t going to benefit their sales?

[lentzar]

ugh afo

[lentzar]

TM08:

Video games have been for a specific group of people since their creation-usually an overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male in overwhelmingly similar video Theyu’ve been held for those who know how to use them. Video games were and are made by programmers who believe that what they’re doing is the only way that it can be done. But, being a developer isn’t the only way that games can and should be made. Video games should move away from the notion that only the “important” people, and ones that can afford the education or free time. One way that video games can move away from this is being zine-based and self-published. When they’re zine-based, one won’t have to put in 70+ hours to have a good time. They’re just invited to play a role in whatever game they decide is to their liking. 

The media gif creator won’t work for me. It’s been stuck on “saving and sharing” for 2 hours now

[lentzar]

TM08: Bulk Up (Safari Zone-d)

ThI think it’s super weird that this article is trying to critique video games as a whole, but then goes on to critique mostly triple A, huge, mainstream, large budget games (Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, most of the “men-shooting-men” games), but ignores a large portion of indie video games that include more artful storytelling and that aren’t about men or women or anyone shooting men—that are about experiences and relatability and humanity. It seems to be more of a critique of the culture and commercialization of large-budget games created by large companies; so why is it being represented like it’s critiquing video games as a whole? I think that independently published games should have been addressed.

“It should be terrifying that an entire art form can be dominated by a single perspective, that a small and privileged group has a monopoly on the creation of art.” 

This quote, again, makes me think that Anthropy is talking about the large publishing companies, because they definitely are mostly dominated by the same privileged perspective. I’ve been playing video games since I was a toddler, and I think that independently published games provide a different perspective from my own, which is the privileged perspective that reflects that of the companies, and that’s important to address, because maybe I just don’t realize the overwhelmingly just-my-perspective things that are produced by independent publishers, because I have that perspective. I’ve been trying to change my perspective for a long time to see more than just my own life experiences and projecting that upon everyone, and I think I’m getting there, but it’s definitely a lot of work to undertake, and while I’m making some progress, there’s definitely still ingrained things within me that I haven’t recognized or haven’t changed yet. 

However, I definitely agree that mainstream video games are dominated by the mostly male, mostly young adult population, and that the institution of video games needs to change to be more inclusive, but I think that we’re also already moving in that direction. One mainstream game that includes characters that don’t subscribe to the gender binary and fall in different places in the sexuality spectrum is Stardew Valley. You, as a player, get to choose where your avatar is in the gender spectrum and in the spectrum of sexuality, however, a lot of the interactions you have with people in this game are pretty one-dimensional, wherever your character is on these spectrums.

I don’t know what assumptions I had about video games before coming into this class. I think that mostly, I assumed that video games are really hard to make, (which I still kind of believe, even in gamemaker) and I think that I assume that video games are more inclusive than they really are.

(The Club Rothko 3D Mesh Builder site is down. I’ll upload a gif tomorrow if it’s up.)

[lentzar]

TM07: Hail

I think that the reading was pretty connected to the format it was presented in. While I’m not really making a lot of connections from the twine format to glitch art, it is connected in that it “breaks the system” in the sense that the common “system” of dissemination of knowledge on online articles is that it’s big blocks of text with maybe some pictures in it. There was some presence of that, (but how could there not be?) but usually, the article is unmoving and rigid and unaccommodating or inaccessible for many people. This article, however, warps to whatever you want it to be. It changes as and with your interests do in the article, and is very accessible, because when there’s something less accessible, you just click on it and learn all about it. This was helpful for me when it was talking about “Malfunction and the Machinic Assemblage of Girlhood,” which before it was explained for me, was just a big jumble of meaningless words, but now I understand it better because Wolfgang chose this format. This learning style that’s created by the style of the material, I think, is very effective and not only lets you learn at your own pace, but does so with your own interests and knowledge level in mind.

[lentzar]

another cool thing

https://twitter.com/GlitchTVBot

since we’re talking about glitch already, follow this really cool twitter account that posts sometimes really glitched and sometimes less glitched but equally cool content from this person’s broken TV

[lentzar]

TM06: Toxic

Strictly technically thinking, I think a glitch by definition is kind of accidental. Maybe not. I might be wrong. But to me, when you make a glitch on purpose, it then becomes an exploit. Most of my knowledge about glitches and stuff comes from video games so that’s where my opinion on that is coming from. The purpose of glitching in these contexts that are addressed in the reading is really cool. I like that the physical manipulation of the actual code of something is happening, because it mirrors the changing and challenging of the “codes” that our society subscribes to, as talked about in the video. Although I guess that if you’re glitching something on purpose to use in this, similar, or even not similar conceptual ways artistically, I think that it still counts as glitching. These were really cool readings. I liked the aesthetic of the video. I think the video was more fun to me than the twine game. I liked that the twine game was more accessible than the Eisenhauer readings, and that you got to choose how you read it and could get lost, but it didn’t really feel like a game to me. Which is fine. It’s an article, not a game. I enjoyed the stuff for this week though. I think it’s cool that they included Samus Aran in the video, because to my knowledge, she was the first in a line of controversial female protagonists in video games. She still buys into a lot of the gender norms that we have as a culture right now, even though they’re breaking, but at least she’s not a straight white buff dude (we don’t need any more of those as protagonists in video games, I’ve decided.)

The ascii one is really cool. I also like the one where the top and bottom of my head are twisting in different directions.