Journal # 7

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Steven Severino

What do you think about this kind of everyday “surveillance.” Do you believe that services such as Google Maps “street view” is an invasion of privacy? Why? Or, why not? What do you think the future of surveillance technology might be in, perhaps, ten years?

I do not believe that services such as Google Maps “street view” are an invasion of privacy. “The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs” (Krages). This statement is taken from The Photographer’s Right , which is a legal document published by Attorney At Law, Bert P. Krages II, in 2003. The link to The Photographer’s Right document can be found here (http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf).

The New York Times Article in 2007 about Mary Kalin-Casey, referenced in our Journal 7 Topic for Discussion, is not a strong argument that Google Maps “street view” is an invasion of privacy. The technology behind Google Maps “street view” service is a panoramic camera, attached to the top of a van that photographs it’s surrounding in a 360 degree view. The van drives through the streets just as a normal car would and since the street is public property Google is not breaking the law or invading privacy. The fact that Google’s camera was powerful enough to capture, “a clear view of Mary Kalin-Casey’s cat, perched in the living room window, of her second-floor apartment” (digital journal) does not mean that the technology is an invasion of privacy by any means. As I mentioned above, “The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs” (Krages). Google is a big corporation and with any development in technology comes criticism and Google Maps “street view” is criticized for being an invasion of technology.

It can be said that Google is the leading innovator in terms of surveillance and will be at the forefront of the surveillance market in the next ten years. Google is developing a Self-Driving Car that has a camera, laser, and radar attached to the top and sides of the car that give it the ability to response to it’s surroundings, making the driver almost obsolete. This technology has already been developed and should be introduced to the public in the near future. A video demonstrating Google Self-Driving Car can be found here (http://www.google.com/about/jobs/lifeatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html)

(Steve Mahan, who is legally blind, rides in a Google self-driving car. Here, he says, ‘Look, Ma! No hands!’: By David Boroff / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, March 30, 2012, 12:32 AM)

Journal # 6

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Steven Severino

Topic for Discussion 6: Themes in Digital Art (Body and Identity / Databases, Visualization and Mapping / Beyond the Book)

My journal for Module 6 will focus on the theme of Digital Art: Body and Identity and I will be critiquing the work of a famous artist known as Stelarc. He believes that the body is evolutionary and should be redesigned through the extension of technology. Stelarc sees the body as a structure rather than an object of desire.

“Stelarc is a performance artist who has visually probed and acoustically amplified his body. He has made three films of the inside of his body. Between 1976-1988 he completed 25 body suspension performances with hooks into the skin. He has used medical instruments, prosthetics, robotics, Virtual Reality systems, the Internet and biotechnology to explore alternate, intimate and involuntary interfaces with the body” (Stelarc, biography).

( http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/stelarc-performance-art/?pid=6765)

The artist Stelarc reveals the current state of his ongoing “Ear on Arm” project.
Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired

One of Stelarc’s most famous and risky works is, The “Ear on Arm”. He describes it as a partly cell grown and partly surgically constructed ear that has been implanted in the forearm that recently has the ability to speak, communicate, and interact through technology such as Bluetooth. The surgery was dangerous and it took him quite some time to find the surgeons to preform such a wild experiment.

Marquard Smith of the MIT Press writes, “Stelarc’s art includes physical acts that don’t always look survivable—or, as science fiction novelist William Gibson puts it in his foreword, “sometimes seem to include the possibility of terminality.” Many artist mention too that Stelarc often times include the possibility of death in each of the projects that he takes on. I pose the question that does this possibility of death contradict what Stelarc believes about the body being evolutionary? If death is a possibility then is the body meant to be redesigned? How does this attempt to redesign the body through the extension of technology affect our identity as humans?

Works Cited

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/stelarc

Stelarc. Biographical Notes. In Stelarc’s personal website. URL: http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/biog/biog.html Accessed: 22 September 2009.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/stelarc-performance-art/?pid=6765

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKEfJRe4uys

Journal # 5

Posted on November 3, 2013 by Steven Severino

Topic for Discussion 5: Themes in Digital Art (Artificial Life / Artificial Intelligence and Agents / Telepresence, Telematics and Telerobotics)

Augmented Reality is a means of telepresence in the field of architecture. My journal 5 posting is going to explore the field of augmented reality as a means of telepresense and communication. Paul (2008) notes that artists quickly incorporated all kinds of “tele”-based devices into making art and that telecommunications art has been with us for “decades” (p. 154). For Paul (2008), and many others, the Internet represents “one huge telepresence environment” (p. 154). I developed and investigated this idea of “one huge telepresence environment” and discovered the technology of augmented reality.

In this response I am going to identify and develop the use of augmented reality in our lives. “Augmented reality is a live, direct or indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data. As a result, the technology functions by enhancing one’s current perception of reality.” (http://mashable.com/category/augmented-reality/)

Augmented reality can serve as a means of communication through the projection of space and environment. The projection can allow people to see the same space but in different physical locations. This technology is in being used today and has many applications and uses in the field of architecture. Architects, designers, contractors, and engineers are using this technology as a physical conference call of sorts and new means of telepresense and collaboration. This technology gives us the ability to see the same model or site plan in different locations at the same time and in real time. Here is a video showing how augmented reality software is being used in the field of architecture.

(http://www.archdaily.com/98241/armedia-augmented-reality-plugin-2-0-is-released/)

The most interesting example of augmented reality used as a means of communication in our everyday lives is a proposed project by OpenArch, “The completely digitalized smart house”. Tim Winstanely describes the digitally connected smart house as, “Designed to adapt to its inhabitants, all components of the house are connected to the internet creating a parallel home on the web” (Winstanley, Tim). This technology cans possible change the way live and projected to one day lead to a smart city. The link to “The completely digitalized smart house” can be found here:

(http://www.archdaily.com/193182/digitally-connected-smart-house/)

This telepresense and means of communication has many new and exciting possibilities so I want to propose for discussion the ways in which this technology can be a negative or non-effective means of telepresence. These are some question that I am proposing as the discussion for my Journal 5 posting. If everyone is submerged in their own world, using their own project environment, aren’t we making it harder to communicate with each other? Are there other ways besides architecture that this technology is being used as a means of telepresense? Are these augmented realities safe for public use and are they a secure means of communication?

Works Cited

Paul, C. 2008. Digital Art. 2nd edition. NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.

Winstanley, Tim. “Digitally Connected Smart House” 19 Dec 2011. ArchDaily. Accessed 03 Nov 2013.

(http://www.archdaily.com/?p=193182)

(http://mashable.com/category/augmented-reality/)

(http://www.archdaily.com/193182/digitally-connected-smart-house/)

(http://www.archdaily.com/98241/armedia-augmented-reality-plugin-2-0-is-released/)

Journal # 4

Posted on October 20, 2013 by Steven Severino

Steven Severino

Journal Entry 4

Topic for Discussion 4: Using Digital Technologies as a Medium: Film, Video, and Animation and Themes in Digital Art: Gaming

Digital technologies are being used more than ever in todays film, video, and animation industry. The software artists are using to produce their work include, 3D modeling, rendering, and compositing in both the audio and visual elements that make up a successful composition. I recently discovered an artist, named Alex Roman, who produced a short film that he named, The Third & The Seventh. The video can be found here: (http://vimeo.com/7809605).

Roman describes his work as, “a FULL-CG animated piece that tries to illustrate architecture art across a photographic point of view where main subjects are already-built spaces, sometimes in an abstract way and sometimes surreal” (Roman). Roman seamlessly combines his film composition with his own 3D modeled, rendered, and composited elements. Most of the film was recorded by Roman showing real architecture somewhere in the world however he also modeled, rendered, and composited scenes, that are not reality, and added them to the film in way that is virtually undetectable to the viewer’s eye. I chose Roman’s work because he provides the viewer with a, “Compositing Break Down” video that shows what is not real in his film and just how he incorporated the digital technology to make his masterpiece. The link to the “Compositing Break Down” video can be found here (http://vimeo.com/8200251).

(These are screen shots, before and after, taken from one scene of the compositing break down video that show the integration of digital technologies in the final film.)

Often times we think or film, video, and animation as separate and distinct industries that carry some overlap but not much. My journal 4 entry aims to introduce to the class to a young artist challenging this separation of industries through the use of digital technologies and in various mediums to create stunning architectural feats that tell a story. I interpret the story as the beauty of camera movement through a space and how film can take our architecture and turn it into art. Roman does an incredible job of incorporating these digital technologies in film and his work is definitely worth the share. The question I propose is which digital technology in Roman’s piece, the 3D modeling, rendering, or compositing techniques, are the most important component in the success of his work? Does the artist give away the elements that are not real with the scenes showing the method of how he records the architecture? Roman also composed the audio, so is the piece as powerful or captivating without this element? With these questions I want to explore the work of interdisciplinary digital technologies and their importance to making a film successful.

Works Cited

(http://vimeo.com/7809605)

(http://vimeo.com/8200251)

Journal # 3

Posted on October 4, 2013 by Steven Severino

Topic for Discussion: The “Interactive” in Interactive Installations

Paul (2008) writes that although all art is “interactive” in the sense that it involves the mental engagement of the viewer, “with regard to digital art…interactivity allows different forms of navigating, assembling, or contributing to an artwork that go beyond this purely mental event” (p. 67). The purely “mental event” Paul writes about is the viewers ability to interpret artwork through reflection, question, and thought. These three processes are done mentally in the mind of the viewer.

Interaction means conversational and requires responsive movement or action. Artwork such as a traditional painting or sculpture hanging on the wall in a museum or exhibition engages thought but has no interaction. Interaction is created by artists through the use of digital technology and can then provide the user with an experience. Daniel Rozin’s Weave Mirror conveys this idea of interaction with the combination of traditional and digital technology in a very literal way. Most of Daniel’s works involve mirrors allowing the viewers to see themselves in the artwork. Looking into a mirror is the most common event or interaction we have on a daily basis. Our reflection is common because there is no question that the reflection we see in the mirror responses directly to our movements.

Daniel’s use of digital technology takes this common interaction and makes it a unique experience through real time interaction.“Weave Mirror paints a picture of viewers using a gradual rotation of 768 motorized and laminated C-shaped prints along the surface of a picture plane that texturally mimics a homespun basket” (Daniel Rozin). David work can be found here:

http://www.smoothware.com/danny/weavemirror.html

In a way Daniel is promoting the creativity of movement of the viewer and makes us think about how our movements affect our environment and surrounding. This mental and physical event allows us to question how we see ourselves and understand how we move. The artwork is created through changes in greyscale value on each C-ring” (Daniel Rozin). Moving slower and further away gives the real time technology a more accurate reading of the viewer with more contrast in grey scale. Moving faster and closer to the sculpture challenges the real time technology responsiveness and makes the reflection faint and more abstract.

It can be said that no two persons movements are identical therefore Daniel is able to give each viewer their own experience and interaction. The artwork that Daniel Rozin created is a great example of what it means for artwork to be interactive but also a mental and physical event or experience.

Works Cited

Paul. C. 2008. Digital Art. New York: Thames & Hudson.

http://www.smoothware.com/danny/weavemirror.html

Journal # 2: Digital Imaging and Reality

Posted on September 22, 2013 by Steven Severino

What is reality? Reality is defined as “real things, facts, or events taken as a whole”.

When something is real it means that it occurred at a certain place and time that gave it integrity. Ken Gonzales-Day’s work can be viewed as unethical because he fractures the integrity that it is built when an artist produces an original work. I do believe that altering a work to change it’s meaning is unethical. If we are to critique his work for being unethical then we must analyze his intent behind creating it in the first place.

The Bone Grass Boy: The Secret Banks of the Conejos River as described by Ken is a “fictitious frontier novel, set in New Mexico during the Mexican-American War.” In the novel Ken included imagery that attempts to depict the harsh brutal stories told from the reality of the war. He is creating works of art based off a time that he was not present for and does so with violence and nudity. Ken is implementing visual imagery and historical references to a period in time that was not properly recorded and therefore vulnerable and easily manipulated.

His interpretation of a reality and use of digital compositing techniques is why his work is considered to be “hyperreal” or an “awareness of the questionable nature of the authenticity of all images”. Hyperrealism is all around us and we are affected by it everyday but in a subtle way. Magazine beauty ads, television commercials, and billboard advertisements are all examples of digitally altered work created with the intent to affect us or make us feel a certain way. This can be said about Ken’s work however he takes hyperrealism to the extreme degree with the intent to create very compelling and unsettling images. This boldness to challenge the accuracy of a reality is shared by another artist, Mark Duchamp.

Mark Duchamp is responsible for the renowned piece titled the Fountain 1917. The fountain is a urinal used in bathrooms that Duchamp questioned or interpreted as something else.

Duchamp defends his work in the press by saying, “I created a new thought for that object.” This statement is what Ken Gonzales-Day was attempting to do but the work differs because Ken altered an original work and Duchamp did not. “He rejected the assumption that art must be linked to the craft of the hand and instead argued that a work of art should be primarily about the artist’s idea — a contention that became one of the most far-reaching principles of twentieth-century art.” (SFMOMA). Duchamp’s work is highly criticized by artists everywhere and it is argued that the work he produced can even be considered artwork. The piece is bold statement about what we perceive as reality but it’s an object that is simple and harmless. This attempt to question our perception, interpretation, and context is what puts these works in the hot seat but altering an original work to change its meaning is what makes it unethical.

Source:

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/artwork/25853#ixzz2ferufa8q

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

Paul. C. 2008. Digital Art. New York: Thames & Hudson.

http://www.kengonzalesday.com/projects/portraits/index.htm