Using "Mission to Earth" as an example, note what is new or different about digital cinema compared to traditional film making? Consider the story and appearance of the film.
In addition to the more traditional camera shots showing the main character moving through her life, other sections of the visual frame contained illustrative graphics that were quite abstract. These aspects of the video could not be created without digital technology and the overall feel of the film would be different without them.
What about the construction of the film?
There seem to be two ways that the construction of this film can be viewed: the visual structure and the narrative structure. Both visually and in terms of the organization of the story's narrative the organization of this film was very unusual and could not have been produced that way without digital technology. Visually, the screen was broken into a grid pattern, displaying a collection of visuals simultaneously. Most prominently were the realistic camera shots, but we also saw abstract digital animations and frames of solid colors alongside what the camera had captured of the actress moving through her world.
What struck me as most interesting about this film was how the storyline was structured. We learned that the DVD contained a larger database of scenes than what is shown in one viewing of the film. At each scene change the next segment is pulled from the database creating a different story than the last time it was watched.
What other art forms (eg film, digital art, painting, websites etc) does this film remind you of? Explain the similarity.
This film reminded me of a collage, pulling together a variety of visuals that were chopped up, moved around and put together in one frame to create a new product for the viewer. It also reminded me of the way we often treat the computer screen with a variety of windows open all at once. Lastly, I didn't think of it myself but it seemed so obvious once a classmate said it: the way the grid of this film was organized looked quite a lot like a painting by Piet Mondrian.
Did I like it?
This is such a difficult question to answer, I suppose because nothing is really as black and white as "like" vs "not like." For entertainment value, I would not say that I liked this film, however for something that makes me think both about the world around me and the possibilities of film and digital technologies I liked it a lot.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Digital vs. Analog Photography
1) What are some photographic effects that can be achieved using digital or analog (darkroom, film, lights etc) technology?
Using light to alter an image can be used in a lot of different ways in analog photography. When taking a picture with a traditional camera a photographer can change the shutter speed to affect how much light is let in. Light can also be used to make interesting special effects during the development process and one can use techniques called dodging and burning to change how light or dark the final image is during the printing process of the photograph.
Photographers can also use a technique called double exposures where they capture two photographs on the same piece of film. This can be used to create interesting optical illusions, it can suggest powerful statements through insightful juxtapositions, and create false impressions by suggesting that two things were in the same place at the same time that in fact never were. A contemporary artist who does interesting work with double exposures is Tierney Gearon.
2) What are some photographic techniques that can only be done using digital technology?
To me, the most important feature of digital technology that traditional photography does not have is the "undo" button. The fact that photographers can make all sorts of alterations and quickly go back if they don't like how they turned out seems really incredible.
Looking at Photoshop, it seems like a lot of the features are inspired by techniques used in analog photography (like the example of solarization above) but the "artistic" filters are new techniques that could not be done without this technology. Here are some examples of what these filters can look like:
3) What is the difference between analog photography and digital photography?
The technical difference between analog and digital photography has to do with how analog photography uses light and chemicals in the development process to produce an image on film while digital photography involves manipulating a digitized image on a computer. As both technologies advance the difference visually seems more and more difficult to spot when they are used to depict a realistic image that has not been heavily manipulated. In a practical sense it could be argued that digital photography is a better pursuit at least to a beginner since you do not need to spend money on film or dark room equipment and it is much easier to correct your mistakes. Though on the other hand, the laborious process that can be involved with analog photography makes it more easily viewed as a true art form and not just a simple process of pressing a button.
Using light to alter an image can be used in a lot of different ways in analog photography. When taking a picture with a traditional camera a photographer can change the shutter speed to affect how much light is let in. Light can also be used to make interesting special effects during the development process and one can use techniques called dodging and burning to change how light or dark the final image is during the printing process of the photograph.
Photographers can also use a technique called double exposures where they capture two photographs on the same piece of film. This can be used to create interesting optical illusions, it can suggest powerful statements through insightful juxtapositions, and create false impressions by suggesting that two things were in the same place at the same time that in fact never were. A contemporary artist who does interesting work with double exposures is Tierney Gearon.
2) What are some photographic techniques that can only be done using digital technology?
To me, the most important feature of digital technology that traditional photography does not have is the "undo" button. The fact that photographers can make all sorts of alterations and quickly go back if they don't like how they turned out seems really incredible.
Looking at Photoshop, it seems like a lot of the features are inspired by techniques used in analog photography (like the example of solarization above) but the "artistic" filters are new techniques that could not be done without this technology. Here are some examples of what these filters can look like:
3) What is the difference between analog photography and digital photography?
The technical difference between analog and digital photography has to do with how analog photography uses light and chemicals in the development process to produce an image on film while digital photography involves manipulating a digitized image on a computer. As both technologies advance the difference visually seems more and more difficult to spot when they are used to depict a realistic image that has not been heavily manipulated. In a practical sense it could be argued that digital photography is a better pursuit at least to a beginner since you do not need to spend money on film or dark room equipment and it is much easier to correct your mistakes. Though on the other hand, the laborious process that can be involved with analog photography makes it more easily viewed as a true art form and not just a simple process of pressing a button.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Playing With Digital Photography
Last summer I took a picture of my friend standing in front of Maya Lin's earthwork Wave Field. I thought it was difficult to see the waves in the earth in this photograph so I tried to use photoshop coloring to emphasize the changes in the landscape. I also tried to make the color fade into black and white as you look further into the background. And then I added some pops of color scattered throughout the forest just for fun and because I thought it looked sort of interesting and maybe makes the forest look a little less ominous. I would like to work on it a bit more and make the changes more dramatic but here is what I have so far:
A Week For Online Video Sites
Earlier this week the Guggenheim curators for their upcoming, groundbreaking exhibition YouTube Play. A Biennial of Creative Video announced the shortlist of 125 videos that will next be narrowed down to 20 on October 21st. The selected 20 videos will be on view at the Guggenheim Museum in New York for just a short time (Oct. 22-24) so it seems most people will be viewing them online through the playbiennial's YouTube channel.
According to the web page for the biennial, "It is the goal of YouTube Play to reach the widest possible audience, inviting each and every individual with access to the Internet to submit a video for consideration. The end result will hopefully be the ultimate YouTube playlist: a selection of the most unique, innovative, groundbreaking video work being created and distributed online during the past two years." With this mission statement in mind, it seems logical that the videos will be on view at the museum for only a few days.
For more information on the show and issues related to video art and online video in general check out the blog created in conjunction with YouTube Play: The Take.
Vimeo, another popular online video website just announced the finalists for its first ever Vimeo Awards. They have divided their finalists into 9 categories:
According to the web page for the biennial, "It is the goal of YouTube Play to reach the widest possible audience, inviting each and every individual with access to the Internet to submit a video for consideration. The end result will hopefully be the ultimate YouTube playlist: a selection of the most unique, innovative, groundbreaking video work being created and distributed online during the past two years." With this mission statement in mind, it seems logical that the videos will be on view at the museum for only a few days.
For more information on the show and issues related to video art and online video in general check out the blog created in conjunction with YouTube Play: The Take.
Vimeo, another popular online video website just announced the finalists for its first ever Vimeo Awards. They have divided their finalists into 9 categories:
- Narrative
- Documentary
- Motion Graphics
- Remix
- Music Video
- Experimental
- Original Series
- Animation
- Captured
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wikipedia vs Britannica
If I had to choose between these two sources for information to be the only encyclopedia for the world to use I would have to go with Wikipedia.
Although this encyclopedic source can be less reliable than the Britannica Online Encyclopedia in terms of being factual, I feel that Wikipedia has enough other benefits that are absent from the Britannica format to make up for this common complaint.
Links for Further Research
Though both encyclopedia sites feature hyperlinks throughout their content, connecting them to other related pages it is my experience that Wikipedia has many more of these. But perhaps more importantly Wikipedia generally speaking lists many more external links and long lists of additional resources. For me, encyclopedias have always been a starting point for researchers to obtain a base of knowledge on a given topic and then move forward to other texts produced by specialists in the subject matter at hand.
Greater Spectrum of Topics
When it comes to prominent figures, events, and other well established and widely recognized topics it may be that Britannica is a better source than Wikipedia but when it comes to lesser known subjects they seem to be omitted completely. While Britannica has substantial entries for many historic figures, when it comes to contemporary individuals the site is seriously lacking. Wikipedia, in contrast, provides in depth information on significant figures in a variety of fields. Personally, this type of information has been important for me as I have entered various internships in art museums, with a quick search one can learn the key facts related to the institutions director or perhaps prominent curators. With an openness to anyone as an author, Wikipedia provides an opening for the creation of pages on topics that perhaps only a limited population would know of or think to create but these topics could end up being interesting and of value to a greater population once published.
Low Costs
As mentioned in a 2005 lecture on Ted Talks, Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) explained that while they have a very significant number of authors contributing to the site's content, Wikipedia's actual staff consists of just one individual. In contrast, Encyclopaedia Britannica employs "trained editors and fact-checkers, more than 4,000 experts," according to Dale Hoiberg the senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. as he stated in a 2006 discussion with Jimmy Wales published by The Wall Street Journal. Along with cost of production goes a cost to access the information. While Wikipedia is free for all users, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a proprietary source and users must pay for full access to the information that it provides.
Easier and Faster Correction of Errors
Perhaps the most common criticisms of Wikipedia is the question of the site's accuracy of information. It is true that many more errors or misinformation appear on Wikipedia than on Britannica's site but being an open source, these things can much more easily and promptly be corrected on Wikipedia than on Britannica where errors that do pop up take much longer to see corrections.
Broader Collection of Authors and Perspectives
With such openness in terms of authorship, it is much easier for Wikipedia to combat the sort of bias that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has been accused of often in the past. One example of this bias that has been given much attention is Britannica's portrayal of Hinduism that some have disputed as inaccurate and negative.
Provides a Platform For Information Storage
Wikipedia is a great place for individuals to compile and record information on a given topic that might otherwise be lost. For instance my high school has it's own Wikipedia page where individuals can record various facts and accomplishments of the school that might not otherwise be compiled all in one place.
Although this encyclopedic source can be less reliable than the Britannica Online Encyclopedia in terms of being factual, I feel that Wikipedia has enough other benefits that are absent from the Britannica format to make up for this common complaint.
Links for Further Research
Though both encyclopedia sites feature hyperlinks throughout their content, connecting them to other related pages it is my experience that Wikipedia has many more of these. But perhaps more importantly Wikipedia generally speaking lists many more external links and long lists of additional resources. For me, encyclopedias have always been a starting point for researchers to obtain a base of knowledge on a given topic and then move forward to other texts produced by specialists in the subject matter at hand.
Greater Spectrum of Topics
When it comes to prominent figures, events, and other well established and widely recognized topics it may be that Britannica is a better source than Wikipedia but when it comes to lesser known subjects they seem to be omitted completely. While Britannica has substantial entries for many historic figures, when it comes to contemporary individuals the site is seriously lacking. Wikipedia, in contrast, provides in depth information on significant figures in a variety of fields. Personally, this type of information has been important for me as I have entered various internships in art museums, with a quick search one can learn the key facts related to the institutions director or perhaps prominent curators. With an openness to anyone as an author, Wikipedia provides an opening for the creation of pages on topics that perhaps only a limited population would know of or think to create but these topics could end up being interesting and of value to a greater population once published.
Low Costs
As mentioned in a 2005 lecture on Ted Talks, Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) explained that while they have a very significant number of authors contributing to the site's content, Wikipedia's actual staff consists of just one individual. In contrast, Encyclopaedia Britannica employs "trained editors and fact-checkers, more than 4,000 experts," according to Dale Hoiberg the senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. as he stated in a 2006 discussion with Jimmy Wales published by The Wall Street Journal. Along with cost of production goes a cost to access the information. While Wikipedia is free for all users, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a proprietary source and users must pay for full access to the information that it provides.
Easier and Faster Correction of Errors
Perhaps the most common criticisms of Wikipedia is the question of the site's accuracy of information. It is true that many more errors or misinformation appear on Wikipedia than on Britannica's site but being an open source, these things can much more easily and promptly be corrected on Wikipedia than on Britannica where errors that do pop up take much longer to see corrections.
Broader Collection of Authors and Perspectives
With such openness in terms of authorship, it is much easier for Wikipedia to combat the sort of bias that the Encyclopaedia Britannica has been accused of often in the past. One example of this bias that has been given much attention is Britannica's portrayal of Hinduism that some have disputed as inaccurate and negative.
Provides a Platform For Information Storage
Wikipedia is a great place for individuals to compile and record information on a given topic that might otherwise be lost. For instance my high school has it's own Wikipedia page where individuals can record various facts and accomplishments of the school that might not otherwise be compiled all in one place.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
"Modern Times" Response
1. What are the benefits of the new technologies (industrial machinery, feeding machine, closed circuit cameras) shown in the film? Who gains from these technologies?
2. What is the effect of these technologies on the main character’s life/mood/body?
3. What effects does using computers and the internet have on your life/mood/body?
Though I feel that computers and the internet are extremely useful in my day to day life and generally increase my knowledge base and efficiency as well as simplifying my communication (especially while abroad) I think that it also has some negative effects on how I live and approach my life. Just as some people claim that the way we watch TV today with frequent commercial breaks and flipping through channels with a remote control leads to ADD, I think that the way we use computers and the internet (or at least the way I do) also can have that effect. I typically have nearly a dozen tabs open at once on my internet browser and am clicking between news articles, blogs, videos, photo albums, online chats and my e-mail constantly. I also tend to have my music programs open and sometimes maybe a game of Solitaire or something on the side. When I'm reading from a print source I find that I am much more focused, accomplishing one thing at a time. Another negative effect of the internet is that it is so easy to look up the answers to any questions that I might have that I am less likely to find someone to ask or walk over to the library. This makes me less social which affects my mood and also less physically active, affecting my body.
- time clock: helped both workers and employers know that people were getting paid fairly for the amount of hours they put in.
- conveyor belt & factory set up: helped accomplish work more efficiently
- feeding machine: feeds you while you work "be ahead of your competitors, eliminate the lunch hour, increase your production" mostly benefits the company owners because they can get more work out of their employees (theoretically).
- video monitor: helps the boss communicate with his workers from his office and also keep an eye on them to make sure they stay on task.
2. What is the effect of these technologies on the main character’s life/mood/body?
- Before lunch he seems to get stuck in the robotic actions of his work as he sort of flinches and tics about.
- When the feeding machine malfunctions it hurts him physically.
- I would expect he does not feel good emotionally about the eating process, perhaps humiliated by the lack of control, especially with so many important figures (his boss, the men who made the feeding machine, etc.) watching him.
- The style of work appears to make him go crazy (later we find out he suffered from a nervous breakdown) from working so frantically and mindlessly, not at a natural pace or in a natural way.
3. What effects does using computers and the internet have on your life/mood/body?
Though I feel that computers and the internet are extremely useful in my day to day life and generally increase my knowledge base and efficiency as well as simplifying my communication (especially while abroad) I think that it also has some negative effects on how I live and approach my life. Just as some people claim that the way we watch TV today with frequent commercial breaks and flipping through channels with a remote control leads to ADD, I think that the way we use computers and the internet (or at least the way I do) also can have that effect. I typically have nearly a dozen tabs open at once on my internet browser and am clicking between news articles, blogs, videos, photo albums, online chats and my e-mail constantly. I also tend to have my music programs open and sometimes maybe a game of Solitaire or something on the side. When I'm reading from a print source I find that I am much more focused, accomplishing one thing at a time. Another negative effect of the internet is that it is so easy to look up the answers to any questions that I might have that I am less likely to find someone to ask or walk over to the library. This makes me less social which affects my mood and also less physically active, affecting my body.
Introduction
Hello! My name is Molly Nelson and I am an exchange student from the United States. I am a senior at Beloit College in Wisconsin and there my major is Art History with a focus on Contemporary Art. I have lived all over the United States from San Francisco to New York City and am very excited to add Hong Kong to the list of great cities I have lived in.
Here is a picture that I used digital technology to combine an image of my face with Lady Gaga with Photoshop. I think it is appropriate because I am very interested in what digital technology means in the worlds of both photography and music in terms of both production and distribution.
I keep another blog where I post fun images, videos, music, and articles that I find (usually related to art but also just random fun things that I like). If you're interested you can check it out by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)