untitled antonio roberts video

Antonio Roberts made this. I think it describes the emotional mirroring overload of micro reactions I have skimming the internet when sh*t really hits the fan and so many people are scrambling && colliding && making sense of && pointing at *why this happened* and *what must be done*

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153223284537143

[ evidence ] y’all ready for .gifs // 2.1.2014

y'all ready for .gifs

y’all ready for .gifs

THREADS storefront installation

THREADS storefront installation

 

gif : but i can still remember those lips

gif : but i can still remember those lips

milwaukee avenue in logan square, 2.1.2014

milwaukee avenue in logan square, 2.1.2014

Exhibition of .gifs as storefront projection // Milwaukee Avenue, Logan Square, Chicago // storefront show of .gif art curated by Catalina Acosta-Carrizosa, Kyle Riley, and Brett Swinney for AnySquared // part of the 2d floor rear 24hours of art in Chicago // featuring work by Skip Hursh, Eric Fleischauer, Mathew Lucas, Scorpion Dagger, Laurene Boglio, Jessica Fenlon, and more . . .

I collected .gifs by other artists in the show at my tumblr.

exhibitionist : Y’all Ready for GIFs?

yall-ready-for-gifs

From the event invite over here ~

Short and concise, the GIF is able to convey complex narratives, unique points of view, and expand creativities through the summarization of large ideas in mere seconds.

This exhibition presents animated GIF works by talented artists from Europe and the US. Featuring works by Scorpion Dagger, Laurene Boglio, Mathew Lucas, Jessica Fenlon, Eric Fleischauer, Skip Hursh, and Samuel Adam Swope, among others.

Curated by Catalina Acosta-Carrizosa, Kyle Riley, and Brett Swinney

Part of 2nd Floor Rear, a 24 Hour Festival of Art in Alternative and Temporary Spaces in Chicago. For the full schedule visit http://2ndfloorrear.org/more-about-2014-participants-and-events/

2327 N Milwaukee Ave, THREADS Storefront

(revealing mystic truths) credit & author. digital art & fine art

Why do we like a single author?

When you look at Akira Kurosawa’s films, you don’t just see a Kurosawa film – you see a film created by a team that worked together for years. That team, assembled and managed by Kurosawa, we call that team Kurosawa.

It’s easy to market and sell Kurosawa’s films. We know what that name means. That’s the branding bonus of associating a body of work, an aesthetic, with a single person.

Why do we participate in the cult of “individual genius”?

Art history likes sole authors. It fits the art history model of storytelling. Through lens of hindsight, art historians, curators, and sales people play connect the dots with inspiration-lineages. Its easier when only one person made the work.

What museum docent wants to add “attributed to” or “studio of” to almost every work of art? Art education reinforces the single-author narrative relentlessly. Moreover, museum visitors ask for that story. School groups test their students on that story. If a collective made an installation, “who led the collective?” they ask.

Historians across many disciplines distill complex created objects down to single authors. Even the Bible has its mythic, single-author source, the Q document. World War II was about Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR.

~

Artists play the single-author game as we are taught. That game includes participating in the narcissistic illusion that every idea the viewer sees in our work is sourced only inside our mythic genius.

The gallery wants to discover & show the genius. Genius sells. Art making is incomprehensible to non-artists, anyway. Its easy, chalking it up to genius or ballsy charlatanry.

~

What do we do when the tools the artist uses to make the work could not be made by the artist? Wait, we’re at that place with painting and printmaking now because artists don’t make their own pigments or inks anymore, they use commercial stuff. . .

No, I’m talking about computers.

Should I give the platform credit? I do inadvertently when I say “final cut pro” or any other Apple software for digital video editing or animation. It only runs on Mac. There’s some badge of struggle, working inside of Apple’s walled garden.

Different platforms provide access to different tools. I switched to only-Mac for creative production in 2007. A toolset I used for datamoshing – Avidemux & FFMPEG, which I taught myself from a pair of YouTube tutorials – suddenly broke (in part) about eighteen months ago, even though I had retained Mac OS X 10.6.8 on a computer to keep that toolset available to me. After a bunch of troubleshooting, I adapted, retaining Avidemux with different codec approaches, and also adding bangnoise’s datamosh Quartz Composer plugin to my toolkit.

~

Besides spending a few hours going through videos I’ve published to the Internet, adding a ‘tech specs’ sheet to every work I’ve published there, I have another question. Does including tool-attribution in a grant proposal or show proposal interfere with curator’s perception of me as “author”?

Well, first I have to convince them the DVD isn’t broken. There’s a very small space for talking about technical tools when I’m asking them to consider video that is “damaged on purpose”. My next round of submissions may have the disclaimers stating “this video is damaged intentionally” at the lead-in, before the content. Screeners don’t seem to read the paperwork.

Where in that space is there room for discussion of authorship/tool credit?

~

How do I provide attribution in a gallery space?

I shipped my first multiple-room, large scale installation proposal a few weeks ago. It includes data bent and glitched work transformed into animated video installation for one of the rooms. Tool-credit was not provided in the proposal; each of the softwares used to create the glitch images are commercial softwares. Should that work become installed, I expect to wall-mount a ‘technical attribution’ plaque or wall text.

The ungun work needs a rich variety of broken images. I’ve produced well over 5,000 discrete images; I haven’t exhausted the visual vocabulary of the toolset I’m using, but I feel like its getting close. So I’m starting to use Processing, both writing some of my own sketches and using other people’s code from the community library.

Its not right to use tools provided to me without providing attribution. The ungun work is particularly ambitious in scope; if I were to re-invent the wheel for every tool I used, it wouldn’t get made.

~

There is a difference between credit and authorship.

~

There is a relationship between a toolset and the resulting aesthetic. How transparent I am with my process will communicate how intentionally I work. A significant question: “why did I choose Tom Butterworth’s (@bang_noise)’s tool”?

I tested several. His gave me the desired result, adequately replacing a process that was lost to me.

How many curators/art gallery people can ask that question – “Why did you choose this particular Quartz Composer patch?”

The choice of tools integral to my creative practice. This tool – this quartz composer patch – it’s not like an instagram or photoshop image filter. I transcode and composite my source to get to a particular starting point, then run it through QC & capture the result, then run the result through color correction and other effecting.

The choice of tools is absolutely integral to my creative practice. Incomprehensible as video codec manipulation may be to most, I couldn’t do it without tools provided by @bang_noise and, it looks like also @_vade, as I’m testing some tools from him later today.

~

video made using, among other things, datamosh effects with the Datamosh Kit / YouTube-instruction found here

video made using, among other things, datamosh effects with bangnoise’s Quartz Composer patch found here

~

Quartz Composer is a visual human interface for Quartz graphics processing in Mac OS. This means Apple made it. Quartz graphics processing happens in a layer of the OS that is closer to the machine hardware than to the user interface; (horrible analogy follows) in your car its not the steering wheel, its the cables and such that turn the tires.

As an underlying technology, it makes video effects editing possible; many of the effects used in Photoshop layer filters are taken from this programmatic toolset. I have no idea if I should include these notes in blog posts where I discuss the technical procedures related to my artwork. I think its important, though, for giving credit.

Quartz Composer as a tool has programmatic elements, called ‘patches’. To non-users they could be kites, for all they know. When I say I’m testing kites made by @_vade, or using bangnoise’s QC kite, I say that I’m downloading a kite and adding it to a library of kites that only Quartz Composer can fly. I’m trying those kites, to see if they do something interesting. That’s important, as an artist, that’s where it gets rich and interesting, sorting through that.

artist statement : we are all doors (2013)

Artist statement : we are all doors (2013) 6:40 : digital video for gallery projection.

Meditation : The body as container for consciousness. The act of dreaming our compass as we navigate inner space. How do we occupy our bodies?

Source images for the work made available to the artist by creative commons copyright support, a language of consent for content-sharing on the internet. Crowdsourcing implies, how does the royal we support the individual? How do we dream together? How does sharing support the creative mind?

 

 

 

Video dedicated to Aaron Swartz (Nov 8, 1986 – Jan 11, 2013) who assisted in establishing the creative commons in spirit and legal reality. Links posted at http://station-number-six.com/swartz.html connects source content provided by over a hundred and fifty photographers and videographers.

http://creativecommons.org explains what this artists statement (and work of art) cannot, about their approach to facilitating the movement and exchange of created content.

Poetry written and performed by the artist, recomposed and expanded slightly for the soundtrack. Audio mixed in Logic 9, video composited in FCP X, prepared for DVD with Compressor 4, authored for DVD in DVDSP.

Ultimately, the work will reside on the internet. Until then, I’ll be submitting it to screenings and gallery shows.

Jessica Fenlon

 

artist statement : the ungun project

I’ve been making unguns. I steal pictures of guns and make something else with them. Yes I’m trafficking in stolen guns when I do this. Aesthetic vandalism. Wasn’t the Matrix trilogy founded on that image of ‘bullet time’, the old Native American ghost dance promise that we could stop bullets?

The act of aesthetic vandalism neuters the image of the gun. The images become ~ if they were actual objects, were they actually fired, they would misfire, fire into themselves, or not fire at all.

Humans can express a nourishing connection with each other using guns only by relinquishing them.

I started working with still images, which I ‘broke’ using databending techniques. Then I started making gifs.Then I decided to make a longer video, pushing the image into word-definition space. The dance of illusion, projection, metaphor. I sampled audio from popular entertainment that uses guns so much in their narratives that, as a friend once put it, the movie is really “gun goes on adventure, gun beats the bad guys, gun gets the girl, gun gets revenge” . . .

I’m witnessing illusions of “political ramifications of ideas about guns” shatter social relationships between otherwise reasonable people. Histrionic reactions to the object, in many directions, prevent people from having reasonable conversation. The object, and whether or not or how it is regulated, shatters our ability to discuss the thing sanely.

trigger quilt