These days there is a lot of participation between people taking place in artistic projects. For example asking people for visual material and use them as a source. The internet makes these participations possible, through youtube for example. Take the ‘leave gingers alone’ video for example. In this video a boy is claiming that South Park is insulting people on their red hair, after an episode where Cartman states that gingers have no souls. The boy’s mission is to ‘ boycott’ South Park and make everybody with red hair feel proud of their looks. It seems South Park thought it would be a good idea to make a parody of this video. The gingerboy from youtube wasn’t happy and told in another video on youtube;
‘YOU MUST STOP THIS PLEASE SOUTH PARK I’M BEGGING YOU DON’T MAKE FUN OF GINGERS AGAIN!!!! IT WILL RECREATE ALL OF THE PAIN WE’VE SUFFEREDAND MORE HATRED TORWARDS US AGAIN!!!’
I think South Park can thank the boy; because of his participation it was possible for the writers of the series to make a successful scene which referred to the populair website Youtube and its watchers. In addition the boy made some good advertisement for the South Park too.
There is a growing number of artists who incoporate biotechnological practices into their work. For this they use living materials as an artistic medium, which takes place in a laboratories. It’s an Avant- garde idea to overcome the boundaries between art and life. These concepts are called Bio-art and most of them are based on the primitive life forms, like bacteria. These so-called ‘bio-artist’ create for example living paintings or artificial meat. At the DEAF-festival artifical meat was exposed aswell and this really was an eye-opener for me. Though, lots of questions were popping into my head, for example: did bio-artists find a way to save parts of the environment? And will people accept meat which is made by humanhands?
Security camera´s are one of the topics that stress privacy. In a world like ours, we are being watched all the time. Not only by these camera´s, but also via gps or by the people around us. A lot of people aren´t even aware of the fact that there are eyes on them constantly. They have…
It looks like these certain people are against technology, no matter how these tools are able to help society; locking out criminality and other bad habits. What I’m wondering is why. I do understand that people don’t like the idea that they are being watched 24/7, but can’t they just accept that we are living in a time where technology is used as a useful tool?
Talking about the Panopticum in class and the role of society in general according to surveillance, I think we can also link this to religion. In my opinion, God stands for the tower in the Panopticum. We cannot see him but he looks down on us. He disciplines our mind through the bible and…
I’ve always considered myself to be a supporter of total internet freedom, but now you’ve got me reconsidering that position. Since the internet is available to everyone, one cannot forget criminals use it as a platform for illegal activities as well. Restricting this internetfreedom might get to them as well, but also to a lot of other (harmless) users..
One way of catching those pedofiles, like Martijn for instance, would be by monitoring the internet. But then the privacy of millions are at stake, and if the government ever decides to ban illegal downloading of music they could arrest everyone..
I like this statue a lot. It’s CardinalSin by the graffiti-artist Banksy. He made it to display the molestation of little boys by Catholic priests. I could talk about probably ten different interpretations of this statue, because I absolutely adore this work. However, I’m just describing it in context of this course.
The bust is a copy of a 17th-century statue of a cardinal. Banksy then wiped away the face and added a blur made of bathroomtiles. Especially the blur is really interesting. It’s an invention of the digital age. Before photography there was no need of a blur, because a painter or drawer created every aspect of the picture, while the photographer doesn’t have this freedom. The 17th-century catholic is therefore wiped out by a digital technique.
I’ll stop my analysis here, before I can’t stop anymore. Can you add something to my view of this brilliant piece of art?
- Simon de Vette
There is probably a lot more to add indeed, but the first thing that came to my mind was that the “blur” on photographs or moving images are always very 2 dimentional; while this blur is 3D. It doesn’t show up in a screen -like it doesn’t really excists- but is being pulled into the “real” world, something you can touch! Also, this pixellike mask also seems quite frightening, and not only cause it points out this is a criminal..
The idea of the internet freedom being constrained and strictly controlled is an idea which has caused a lot of uproar in the internet community. Through forums, blogs, facebook and other social media people are showing their discontent. Laws like ACTA and the more recent SOPA are often in the line of attack.
A natural effect of this, is the fear of being constrained from dowloading music, films and other media. While it is illegal by law, internet users have never considered it so, and through sites like piratebay.org movies and music are spread around the world.
I’d say the government can never stop this internet freedom; simply because they are outnumbered. The day piratebay went offline, a group of hackers immediately created a different ip-adress and the site was back online. Even in countries like China, where the internet is very much censored, this movement will rise. Do you think this can be stopped?
In class we discussed how identities can become more flexible by digital technology; people want to create an image of themselves in cyberspace. I’ve already discussed this subject in my first blogpost Another Facebook-thought, where we could state that identities are multiple and mutuble. Though, in this post, I would like to discuss some other sides of the story.
Other than social media, gaming is another way of creating identities. Game designers create characters that the players interact with. To relate your character more to yourself you can change the haircolour for example, or edit their strength or speed. Because of this you feel more attached to something you create rather than just an every day hero. No matter what a developer gives you, they will never have the imagination that you can pour into your own creation. Game characters give you the oppertunity to step into a visual world and create your own storyline.
This idea of gaming reminded me of a film I watched the other day called Waking Life. The main character shuffles through a dream meeting various people and discussing the meanings of the universe. I could relate the concept of dreaming in this film to the idea of online gaming; trough a digital game character you shuffle trough a visual world, meeting other people, and earn more power and information by gaining more experience. In my opinion it is great to see how the ideas of gaming these days is actually shown in films in a whole other perspective. It makes people aware of the time we are living in. What do you think?
Last week we discussed the importance of digitalization in relation to our reality. I have objections against social digitalization. In class it was seen as something enriching. And this is of course partly true. There is so much possible because of these innovations. Internet is a platform…
I agree with this. Like Elze said, there are exceptions where social digitalization is enriching, but apart from those few cases I don’t feel it’s a good way of living. Social behaviour, friends, lovers, family…all these are part of what makes ‘reality’ so intense, so beautiful and yes, maybe scary or not nice at times. But one can’t live in a dreamworld without feeling the depth of the reality; it’s not what we’re made for. Just the same our bodies aren’t made to sit in front of computer all day; we need to move! Experience things, get hurt, be happy, live! That is what being human is all about.
In 2010 graffiti artist Banksky released his own documentary called “Exit through the gift shop”. The movie seems to rotate around several (in)famous graffiti artists, one being Banksky himself, but slowly the one with the camera, Thierry Guetta, becomes the subject of interest. By filming all of these artists and by working with them he comes up with an idea: becoming a graffiti artist himself.
Now this is where the interesting bit really begins, and where we can put in the theory of David Giles on celebrities; celebrities can only excist because of the media. That is the starting point of fame. “Our gaze” determines if the person becomes an actual celebrity or not, the media simply gives the public it wants. Guetta however, turns the tables. By bombing complete cities with his works (the supply) he creates the demand for his works, instead of the other way around.
In other words, the medium of his works creates the demand while at the same time it supplies it. If you’re interested, I’d highly recommend this documentary, it’s one of the best I’ve ever seen. Click the link for the trailer.