Reich and Cage: Sounds/Noises

Reich and Cage write about acknowledging the everyday sounds/noises we hear everyday such as vehicles, rain, wind, etc, and using those noises as musical instruments. I thought the article was detailed and thorough but also more complicated. Also, the author/s writes about sounds, composers, and the technology that is being used to create “music” or organized sounds. 

I should mention Steve Reich's artwork, Pendulum Music, 1966, because the piece is something different than just organizing sounds and refers to what he writes about. I thought the artwork was fascinating because of how he kinetically and electronically produced various sounds. He produced different noises by moving microphones above speakers in a different pace.

I like how Steve Reich mentions that “every software has a story, every sound has an origin” and John Cage refers to a composer as an organizer. I find that respectful. The technology/software part of his writing was more difficult for me to understand since I am not familiar with composing music and using such technology myself; though, I am familiar with music composed by artists who use digital softwares in their productions. Most DJs only use digital technologies and manipulate gathered sounds. They could make music with the sounds of eating food by adding different beats and organizing them together for example. I think that music composers are talented organizers who juggle with various sounds and noises to produce a beat. 

Dziga Vertov’s Kino-Eye

The article is about the differences between the perceptions perceived from the camera’s eye’s and the human’s eye's visuals in time and space. I found it very interesting how Vertov introduces the idea of how more perfect the “kino-eye” than human eyes. Vertov’s examples of how and why the human eye is imperfect compared to kino-eye are interesting as well.

This article focuses on film and video productions. The most important factor to perfecting or improving the visuals’ perceptions with kino-eye depends on the cameraman and the producer. The reason why that is, as mentioned in the article, because of the kino-eye’s abilities to zoom in and out and capture images from positions that a human eye cannot reach. Also, kino-eye’s ability of reviewing captured images while cutting-out certain scenes and/or attaching different ones together project various perspectives. In my opinion, Vertov’s complemented the camera perfectly.

Digital Divide

It is no surprise that analog media has been evolving into digital media throughout time since anything could be considered a medium for making artworks. The idea of digital media deriving from analog media refers to the concept of medium-specificity. Photography is a media that has been used long ago before it was evolved into digital photography, similar to video and film artworks. 

There are many advantages and disadvantages to both mediums. Analog media requires more time and work than digital media. New technology provides, not just convenience, but more options such as the ability to manipulate images more with Photoshop rather than cutting and pasting print images. Also, similar to the ability of blending-in different video scenes with computers rather than physically cutting and attaching film pieces together. However, I personally think that the medium-specificity and its usage is necessary to consider in the art world. 

Of course, there are many ways analog media could be manipulated similarly without new technologies. However, digital media such as computer-games graphics overpowers analog media's characteristics. Personally, I consider computer-games graphics to be artistic and undervalued to be seen as art. Similar to what Bishop mentions in her article about how our perceptions have been changing with digital media art and computer-games graphics like Second Life, even though how creepy Second Life may draw users in this other world or dimension.

Our society is a wide spectrum of digital. 

Meaning, everything has some form of digital influence: art, food, ordering, delivery, technology, news, transportation, advertising, media, etc. - the list is endless.  The question is just how digital involved is that one aspect? Some companies are engulfed by digital benefits and produce the majority of their products solely on digital assistance.  While other companies choose the original way and prefer a more hands on tangible way of creating the product.  Everything involves some form of digital, just depends where on the digital spectrum - slightly digital (McDonalds)? completely digital (Uber)? or somewhere in between (Starbucks)? Wherever the product falls on the digital spectrum, I believe everything is headed in the completely digital direction and everyone that does not keep up with the trend will die out. 

Take Bishop's leading question: While many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what if means to think, and filter through the digital?

I think a lot of artists are using digital technology to their benefits, but not truly thinking about how their product will survive in a completely digital world and since the world is headed in that direction, what will they do?

Take the fashion industry for instance. 

Designers use to buy, cut, sew, alter, and create a clothing piece directly on the model - molding the fabric to custom fit the physical model standing in front of them. However, the fashion world is merging with digital and merging rapidly.  Designers are now using 360 degree scanners to measure the model's sizes, rather than tape measurers.  Then digitally creating the custom ensemble on an online program to fit the model perfectly.  Finally, a 3D printer prints the fashion piece ready for the model to wear. Within a few hours an idea can become measured, created, produced, and put on a model all while never touching any of the tangible materials that made the final product. 

No longer does the designer have to gather the fabrics, thread, needles, etc. to create the piece but simply design it online and sit back and watch a machine create the masterpiece.

Just like Bishop said, are other designers truly understanding what impact digital technology can have on their creations?  If other designers do not use digital technologies will they survive?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfRVfqYEgNA

(video illustrates completely digital fashion shows - is that the direction the fashion industry is headed in?)

The Digital Divide

"While many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital? How many thematize this, or reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by, the digitization of our existence?"

I think the main point here is the word affect... Because no matter what medium or form new art is in, it's about how the deeper meaning provokes one to think, and how a piece affects the viewers... New age art isn't just about the visual aspects but the deeper meaning to the piece that is not scene on the surface. The meaning of a piece doesn't necessarily have to jump out at every viewer, but it needs to be there in some sort of way. This is why there is a digital divide because modern art has made it acceptable for anything to be considered "art" and there needs to be more definition between the two. When art is thoughtfully made to affect the viewer through the viewer thinking, seeing, and filtering, then i think the digital divide when be vanished. Since art truly is, "visual code that gets transcribed inside our minds into thoughts and emotions," it is important that we continue to make art for the affect and the meaning rather than just for the hell of it and for the visual aesthetic. 

The Digital Divide

art¹

ärt/

noun

1. 1. 

   the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. (according to dictionary.com) 

   
   

   
   

   In this world, everything is or can be made digital. To me, this includes art. While it may not be traditional paint and canvas, clay, pen and paper, the ways one is able to produce art has evolved and that's greatly due to technology. If art is the "

   expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" then just because it is produced differently doesn't mean there is any less expression in it. 

   
   

   I found it interesting when Bishop discussed how modern art samples from previous artists, taking bits a pieces to make something else. This has been the case before digital and will continue to be whether it's in music, tv, books, painting etc. because is there the capability of having an original idea at this day and age? 

   
   

   Bishop also discusses the fascination with analog, and I believe this fascination exists because there is constantly a desire to make the old new, our own. This is where originality comes back into play. Everything is shaped from something else that no one truly owns their art anymore because it was "inspired" by someone else's. 

The Digital DIvide

I found this article to be rather interesting with respect to what seems in my eyes to be a rather understated concept that I feel has penetrated a lot of various art forms today. What caught my eye that Bishop touched upon was this idea of art relying now much more heavily on a selective process of picking elements from previously made art, rather than time being invested to make your own new art.

To me this selective process is the very backbone of modern art. Various examples seem to fit into how this is true not just in your conventional sense of art but quite frankly this "sampling" is the basis of most digital art today. My current definition of digital art includes musical pieces as well as film. In today's music industry countless instrumentals are created solely by taking a previous piece and chopping it up and rearranging the sounds to form something new but still musically pleasant.

Artists such as J.Cole and Kanye West made a name off of sampling old soul records but the buck doesn't stop with music. Filmmakers have consistently borrowed various ideas, or even occasionally re-made former films in there own artistic way and by smartly using some iconic characters that would put people back in the seats to view a new take in a heartbeat.

Conventional art, in the sense, sculpture, drawing etc. also draws heavily from inspiration of other artists and previous works to bolster a certain direction for many. Seeing how greatly a good selection can impact the outcome of artists message it makes me without a doubt believe that selection is as much of a tool in today's modern art world as a paintbrush.

Bishop hopes to highlight how the digital world doesn't seem to be as appreciated when it comes to art because people have this preconceived notion of what are is. Yet the the digital aspect is prevalent in many new modern pieces of art. This mental "divide" is what I believe is preventing artists from truly getting with the modern times and doing more and more innovative things with there pieces and embracing the fact that selection of previous work plays in creating art for a different age. A digital age.

Digital Divide

What is digital anyway? Is it a complete new media form or just a new platform to exhibit and consume preexisting art? For example, cinema is an art form, but it can exist on physical film or completely in the digital realm. What is undoubtedly true is the substantial impact digital has had on not only the art world, but of all culture. It is truly a technological paradigm shift. And it's relatively young - it is continuing to evolve and develop. And to Bishop's point about artists not reflecting on this brave new world: it might be that we just don't know how to yet. Forest for the trees or something like that.

The fascination with analog is rooted in nostalgia and nostalgia is rooted in the postmodern condition. Bricolage, pastiche, repurposing - in the scary world of postmodernism, there is nothing new. Everything is a reshaping of the old. And with digital, the infinite mutability of every aspect of art is terrifying. "Questions of originality and authorship are no longer the point." It's futile to consider it. Now, energy has to been spent merely selecting what to use/reference/allude to.

Similarly, on the consumer side, we have to skim an entire sea of information. There is so much media in the world, it's impossible to consume it all. On one hand, having all possible information on a topic makes research a purposeful effort - the knowledge is absolutely out there. You'll just have to put a lot of work into finding it.

Kino Eye

The Kino Eye article presents a progressive and innovative perspective of what it means to experience the world through film. Near the beginning, the article states, "the main and essential thing is: the sensory exploration of the world through film." The key word here is "sensory. " The article calls into question the traditional ways that film has been approached, and goes so far as to state that, “until now, we have violated the movie camera and forced it to copy the work of the eye. And the better the copy, the better the shooting was thought to be.” This speaks to the extent of conformity in film styles up until a certain point. 

I Am Kino-Eye

In this writing Dziga Vertov is arguing that the kino-eye, or eye of the camera is more valuable then the human eye. The base to his theory is that "we cannot improve the making of our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera."

Vertov claims that you can capture so much more with a camera then what you can with a pair of eyes. Vertov wants to push the boundaries using cameras. I think his line, "until now, we have violated the movie camera and forced it to copy the work of our eye," means that he believes that we are only using a camera to record the obvious. Why would you film a ballet from a spectators spot when you could record it from the dancer on stage? He wants people to push and challenge the perspective by which they film.

Vertov wants to make the viewer see in the manner that is best suited for each specific phenomenon. If I don't say so myself, I think Vertov might be the head spokesperson for the modern day GoPro. The idea of why would I film someone jumping off a diving board from the pool deck when I could be filming in the perspective of the person jumping?

The camera has the ability to carry the viewer's eyes from one stimulus to another which human eyes alone wouldn't be able to do. Overall, it seems like Vertov prioritizes perspective and exaggeration of certain stimuli over everything. Vertov is taking a step forwards and want to focus on the cameras ability to create rather than copy.

Week 7

The kino-eye, being a lens that may only capture what is in front of it and no more, may capture reality with no sense of bias; however, I say it is no better than the human eye, as lenses may be subject to the same impurities as the eye. Much as eyes may develop cataracts, the lens may be tainted by a scratch or impurity in the glass. This subjects the kino-eye to the same misfortunes as the human eye if proper care is not taken of it.

And while the kino-eye captures images free of bias, it is subject to the bias of the filmmaker. If you manipulate what the viewer will be viewing so as to guide their eye, the whole reality is still not being presented to the viewer; however, new perspectives may be brought to life that the viewer would not have seen before (if the viewer were to view the actual spaces filmed with their own eyes). Either way it is viewed (with the human eye or the kino-eye), the space viewed would have to be viewed with bias, as what the kino-eye has captured would have to be viewed with the bias of the human eye, much as if the eye were viewing the space itself.

---

“You see your nose all the time. Your brain just chooses to ignore it.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIcgyj1F9ms

Kino-Eye vs. Human Eye

Dziga Vertov proposes a different way of comparing the kino-eye (camera) and the human eye.  He provokes the ideas that the eye of the camera and the human eye are distinctly different but in ways that I do not agree with.  He claims the kino-eye is superior to the human eye because it can be perfected, altered, and does not elicit an opportunity for biases.

"We cannot improve the making or our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera"

I do not agree with his statement at all.
First, the camera cannot be perfected endlessly.  You will reach a point where the shutter speed cannot be faster, the exposure will no longer go higher, and the lens cannot extend further - the camera can be perfected to a point. 
Second,  the camera will still create biases like the human eye.  No not the camera itself is bias, but the person looking through the restricted kino-eye can still see something completely different than another person looking at the exact same scene through the lens.  And the picture the camera produces can still be interpreted differently by different people because one person may see something completely different than another even though they are both looking at the exact same image.
Third, the human eye can be enhanced just like the kino-eye thanks to the evolution of contacts, spectacles, and glasses. Both 'eyes' can be enhanced and altered due to technology.

To me, the human eye will forever be superior to the kino-eye because the human eye can capture a moment in 3D and connect that moment with other sensors like smell, taste, touch, emotions, etc.  The camera will forever chase the abilities that the human eye has.  The human eye will forever be faster, smarter, more advanced, not man-made, and an object the camera will forever strive to be, but never achieve.

Kino Eye / Metaphors on Vision

Let me get this out of the way: I'm a film major.

There are two schools of thought, that film should simply capture reality as is or it should manipulate reality. The former is espoused by realist film theorists such as Andre Bazin, who favored long takes and wide lenses to most accurately reflect actual human perception of time and space.

Then you have the Soviets.

A lot of Soviet filmmakers in the early 20th century were constructivists and saw film as a complex machine that can be manufactured to accomplish a singular goal or effect. Vertov illustrates these ideas by comparing the human eye with the kino eye (film camera). He argues that the camera has capabilities special to and beyond those of human vision, so filmmakers should harness those features and make total use of them; it is not enough to simply mirror the human eye.

For me, it depends on what serves the story. Sometimes it's good to have a passive camera that merely observes the on-screen action and other times frantic cutting and elaborate camera movement is called for - whatever induces the most faithful and effective emotional response.

//

So... semiotics... and postmodernism...

They say life imitates art. The world bombards us with information and we compartmentalize everything into a semantic network of shorthands, symbols, and stereotypes. It just makes everything so much easier. This translates to more conceptual ideals as well. What we consider "love" to be is an amalgam of not only our life experiences, but the media we consume. That's why we hold onto ideas like "love at first sight" or finding "the one" - it's all made up, but we believe it anyway.

It's the responsibility of the artist to convey some of these ideas, originally or not. They have caught a glimpse of reality and "figured out" at least enough of it to have something worth saying.

Kino-Eye Analysis

Both of these articles come from a standpoint that the kino-eye always sees the world in a perfect manner that the human eye is essentially numb to.

“The kino-eye lives and moves in time and space; it gathers and records impressions in a manner wholly different from that of the human eye,” Vertov said.

I believe that the camera has a perfect depiction of the subject it’s capturing. The lens has an unbiased filter that humans do not have, giving purer characteristics to what the camera can see verses what humans can see. Although in theory the kino-eye seems perfect. The camera can also show different perspectives of a subject portraying the truth, but giving the subject a different meaning. The human eye does this naturally by revealing different subject matter and meaning to an image based on experiences and knowledge.

The kino-eye projects the reality, and the human-eye depicts the true meaning through perspective.

But is the kino-eye ever truly untouched and unprejudiced if we are manipulating it to show us what we want to see?

“In the present time a very few have continued the process of visual perception in its deepest sense and transformed their inspirations into cinematic experiences,” Brakhage said.