Homework for 8/28

A:
So I guess i'll start with an icebreaker discussion question, you know to get the juices flowing...
Anybody get that second site to work?
Or is that just an example of net art? A webpage that seems to be down? Post Modern websites. It's like Jackson Pollock with code. Fucking Genius.

In any case. Im not too sure If I feel that web art should be considered a valid form of art. Mainly because it's not something that's tangible. The final question in the interview asks how net.art can be purchased and owned if anyone can view it. Cosic's answer was that it was just merely a way of acknowledging a relationship between the museum and the artist. That seems pretty pointless in my opinion and also maybe explains why net.art has reduced in popularity at the Venice Biennale from 2001 to 2008.

B:

I reviewed various pieces from Expressioncity: Amophoscapes series 1. (2002) This series was found on the SoundToy's website. Created by a dude named Stanza?

Most of the pieces on this site were living paintings that constantly grew and changed. Some of the pieces were interactive where you could click and the painting would react in a different way- Causing the colors to move in a different way or even stop all together. What I thought was interesting about these works was that they evolved. each time I checked out a piece it was never the same as the previous time I viewed it.
Another thing that interested me was the use of sound. These pieces were soundtracked by ambient noises.
I'm kind of torn between how I feel about this. I love the Idea of putting sound to visual art. I feel when done correctly the two work well together: creating a powerful piece. However this series of net.artwork just used ambient noises. And If i listen to ambient-repeating noises for too long I want to bash my brains out with a rusty shovel.

All in all the Expressioncity series was interesting but still felt like novelty art.

C:
1; I don't think the introduction of digital media to the art world has changed the perception of art, but just merely expanded it to new grounds. New grounds where the same principles that have governed art before in the past still apply. Principles such as aesthetics and composition, Concept, and so forth. Digital media is just another medium just as photography or printmaking.

2: I think the work of old school digi-artists can be compared with the work of present day digi-artists. The real main difference is the technology allowed and the possibilities that more sophisticated technology brings to the art board. In order to compare the two successfully, one would have to have a good knowledge of history and what was available at the time as far as software and so forth. I think in the future holograms will probably be employed into the digital art scene.

3: I think I like the definition internet based art. However, I would like to discredit net art as being a real form of art. As widely available as net art is it is also just as restricted. If the power goes out, a server fails, or if even a viewer doesn't have the necessary soft ware (like me and shock wave) to view the art it is worthless. On the flip side it also has the potential to be viewed world wide overnight, without having to go through the entire gallery scene.

4: I think it would be interesting to find a way to merge the old school ways of presenting art with the new school. For example I would set up a fancy classic gallery scene with wine, drunk floozies, and canvas's on the wall, but then bring in the Digital by using projectors to project onto these canvas's. That way they had the physicality of a painting, but the futuristicness of a digital creation.

5: I would just rather not accept them honestly. I just cant see them as being anything other than novelty. (I know Im going to get my ass kicked for this one)