About
Search for content
Artists and graphic designers present printed matter – such as books, posters or magazines – in the digital environment of web-portfolios. There are a few examples of printed matter which pretend they’re physical throughout the web, without ever getting produced or even being published in the “real world”. Thereby the digital presentation of those fictive products is guided by their analogue realizability. Actually there are no limitations to the enactment of fictive printed-products in the net. The exhibition “Print Fiction” wants to encourage artists and graphic designers to ask how utopias of printed matter can look like.
this seems relevant
(via paintedetc)
“The generations to come of age in the days of digital publishing and reading on screens have a much more complicated relationship with images. The human eye-brain system is capable of reading a large number of high quality images in a matter of split seconds, and this, alongside the hand-eye coordination—think about the pleasure of a touch screen versus inky newspaper pages—is rapidly developing to mirror our changing habits of consuming information. So much so that the contemporary heightened sensitivity to the way we read images can lead to an ability to, at times, ignore the quality of the images when inserted into a text, the way our brain glides over a typo in the flow of reading. The way we read images online is only one thing these magazines deal with in the process of publishing, but it is surely an element that dictates a large portion of the reading experience of these publications.
{…}
When requesting images for a print publication, some guidelines are quite clear: The digital image needs to be 300dpi, it needs to be of a certain size, measured in inches and centimeters rather than pixels, and (at least usually) the rights for it need to be cleared. Online publishing muddles all of these. While some of the publications contacted for this article attested that they have a photo editor or image editor (the leap to “image editor” in order to describe publishing in the online sphere is slowly being made. As Whitaker noted, “It points to an opening up of the field to include the non-photographic image”), their role is more curatorial than that of a traditional image editor. Are there any rules as to which images are published, the way they are retrieved, and their integration in the magazines? Surely, many images are harvested from a variety of online repository, Google Images being the obvious example. This nods to the flattening of the digital image in a complicated way. On screen, the different kinds of images—say, film stills, digital or analogue photography, digital renderings, and so forth—can be quite similar. While we are becoming increasingly visually literate, few are the people who truly interact with the distinction between the digital image and the physical print. No one is stunned anymore by the idea of a collector buying a photograph based on an image sent to him or her via email from a gallery. The printing process—moving from the screen to the physical object, that is—becomes a formality.”
Penelope Umbrico (by apertureeducation)
If I haven’t posted this video already (and even if I have) I’m posting it again now because it’s relevant to my life.
“Is it okay to take digital art ‘offline’ to give it value,” asked Mr. Johnson rhetorically. “No. It’s not okay. That’s a ridiculous way to monetize net art.”
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Miller were referring to a video that first piqued their interest in exploring the valuation of net-based work. They saw the video “How Do You Sell an Animated GIF,” which showed Rhizome executive director Lauren Cornell talking about selling the quirky computer animations that could be taken “offline” and enjoyed “locally” by collectors. While the conversation about limiting access to digital artwork or imposing restrictions on their display and transfer was not new, it forced people to have an opinion about the issue one way or another, including Mr. Johnson and Mr. Miller.
“We’re resistant to attempts to create value or applying a paradigm that exists for physical objects,” said Mr. Johnson who was seated next to Mr. Miller behind a table and partially hidden by an open laptop. Behind them was a large screen which displayed bright green vintage-like computer graphics. “In treating digital works as a physical work, you’re neutering the power of those works.”
…
They also passed around a flash drive and encouraged anyone with a computer to download all of the work that 0-Day has ever released.
“This might seem disrespectful,” said Mr. Johnson. “We have ultimate respect for the artists’ intentions.”
“I can’t reconcile your saying you’re trying to be respectful,” said a young man in the audience later, “when what you’re doing is not respectful.”
“If you’re anyone and you’re putting anything online,” said Mr. Johnson in response, “and you expect to control it, you’re delusional. I don’t see how holding a mirror up to someone’s delusions is disrespectful.”
the talk, streaming: http://artmicropatronage.org/talks
this is really great
Best known for her photographic and sculptural investigations of language,SHANNON EBNER has long been interested in exploring both visual and textual modes of representation.
For her first web-based artwork, Language Is Wild,commissioned by Dia and made in collaboration with New York-based designers KLOEPFER-RAMSEY, EBNER has composed an interactive sequence of still images prompting exploration of various combinations of language and image. Utilizing the cursor as a means to “rest” and “unrest” images moving continually across the screen, Language Is Wild asks us to negotiate with the work using a simple binary: “YES” or “NO. The project is online since April 12, 2012, here
(via We Find Wildness)
“We need to ask: What is intimacy without privacy? What is democracy without privacy? I think these are the questions of our time, the most important questions that we face in the decade to come.”
Are LOLCats and Internet Memes Art?
If you still want more awesome, watch our first episode: “Super Mario Brother is the World’s Greatest Piece of Surrealist Art”
http://youtu.be/a2bAN9pPeiEOf course. Why shouldn’t they be?
(via wired)
“The pixel is the fundamental unit of digital imaging, a square representation of a single color. Pixels are always the same size, and always arranged in orderly grids. This project looks at what happens when you change these universally agreed upon standards. More broadly, I’m interested in how the construction of digital images alters our perceptions of reality. Does computer-mediated vision change how we see without computers?”
(via new-aesthetic)
new one i wrote for LPV magazine
a blog post about art and social media, looking at work dealing with art and social media, now disseminated through an artist’s social media
includes work by Brad Troemel, Jaakko Pallasvuo, Louis Doulas, Dan Abbe, Ben Vickers, Anthony Antonellis, and Chris Dorley-Brown
…
- “The artist’s online brand tends to function as a kind of live-action role playing artist statement… a vehicle for creating an authorial context that viewers may use to better understand the vantage point an artist’s ‘actual’ work is coming from (i.e. what they’d exhibit in a gallery or show on their portfolio website).”
I’ve seen/heard numerous creatives say as much about their own approach to social media, and I wonder if it’s not a potentially useful development. Gaining a sense of an artist’s work via status updates and blog posts is, admittedly, a less direct, less coherent process than simply reading an artist statement. But so what? For those users willing to pay attention and connect their own dots, the “live-action artist statement” model provides a great deal of functional context for an artist’s work – and, as an audience member, sounds to me like a far more engaging and liberating prospect than trudging through an obligatory written text. (Which isn’t to say that we’d benefit from the outright abandonment of artist statements – it’s important that creatives be capable of developing and presenting articulate accounts of what they’re doing – but I do think the authors present a pretty interesting idea here.) …
(via christopherschreck)
redirects forever.
