Locative Media & The City

The other day in Trebor's Sociable Web Media class (I recommend it) the notion of "calm" technology came into play. Theres something that I really like about the name in itself. Upon further evaluation, there also seems to be something pretty scary about the whole thing.

Ubiquitous computing or ubicomp sounds very promising. Perhaps pervasive gamers wont have their faces sucked in by the GPS or Palm Devices if this idea is ever realized. Maybe my milk can be delivered to my house when the refrigerator tells Wegmans that I'm low. Calm technology attempts to put everyday devices into the peripheral of our vision. What happens when they recede too far? In class we discussed how its possible to get reliant on these devices, but what happens when they begin to function without us even knowing it. Surveillance cameras are one thing, but hidden voyeur cams are another. They are out of our sight and out of the mind. They operate in a different sense. With the panopticon, you can always see the main observatory. Calm technology promises to operate without us even knowing or possibly seeing.

Even though I only get to see the pictures of Erwin’s projects, I often feel an invitation of going into the space of the project and explore. I really appreciate the emphasis on subjective and physical interaction with space in Erwin’s projects, such as MATRIX, FADEI and FADEIII, which are often under a technologically and artistically coded design. At the same time, I find it interesting to think about how cultural elements play their roles in his projects, which are set in real life spaces other than gallery spaces.
When I visit some places, I like to take pictures. I often so concentrated on the LCD screen of my digital camera that my experiences of the space at those specific picture-taking moments have been flatten or frame by the screen and the photo images. Under this kind of situation, my experience of the space is digitized and subtly loses its physical nuances. How does it feel to be in that space? I don’t know how to answer this question, because I am often too occupied by my digital image making of the space with my digital camera. I move my camera and take a shot. The space has then been framed. The changing of frames does remind me of different ways to look at the space. But still “the looks” cannot cover all the physical experience of the space. One may say that using a video camera may be able to help to document that physical sense of space better with depth, movement, sounds and so on…However, I just feel a bit overwhelmed by my forming habit of prioritizing technological documentation of space over the physical interaction with space. Then we are first cyborg not human. This statement may be a bit extreme. However, I feel a bit isolated or suffocated by my life saturated by media technology as a dominant device of experiencing space.

Seemingly, these objects inherently possess some kind of illusory properties that might not be so apparent at first glance. Most people can be caught up in the “WOW” factor. Look at this thing and what it does! This is cutting edge emergent technology that if it isn’t embraced, then de-evolution may occur! Lefebvre says, “Objects hide something very important, and they do so all effectively inasmuch as we cannot do without them; inasmuch, too, as they do give us pleasure, be it illusory or real (and how can illusory and reality be distinguished in the realm of pleasure?) (Lefebvre 81).” These objects are adopted because they fulfill what is believed to be a need. It can be said that these objects speak no truth about themselves. They are designed to create an otherwise unnecessary want. A project by Amos Bloomberg, Daniel Perlin, and Brett Schultz entitled, “Needies” immediately comes to mind. The needies NEED you. In an interview with Forbes.com, Amos Bloomberg says "For our target market, Needies are competing for attention with other plush dolls on the Wal-Mart shelf, they're like iPods--objects of desire. Needies will be priced as what they are-- designer goods for a discriminating market willing to spend on something smart (Hoffman.)" This is an interesting commentary on what appears to be the problem. There is in fact a market for those who wish to spend their money on smart objects of desire. The question still remains if these items are necessarily detrimental to a happy and meaningful existence or not.

Looking back on the film we watched by Vertov, Man With a Movie Camera has a lot to say when considering the context in which the film was viewed. After doing some research on what Vertov was up to with this experiment, I came to find out he attempting to abandon what he considered film clichés. He had actively criticized narrative style films supporting Communist ideas and as a result of this he lost his job.

The interesting thing about this movie is that it is not only very experimental for its time, but it was created under the politically oppressive rule of Lenin. This is interesting for artists like ourselves, because although we are free to express ourselves as we want, there is always someone watching. There is always someone who might not agree with what the artist is doing and will stop at no ends to either bring it to negative connotations or shut the operation down entirely. This can be seen with our dear friend Mr. Kurtz on the visual art side of the CFA. We have to be careful with what we are doing or be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. In our day and age, this might be a bit harder than it used to be.

In summation, Id like to thank everyone for a wonderful semester. A lot of great ideas were flung around, and I think I got a fantastically rich learning experience from our time together.

Where does that leave me with Locative Media? I have been thinking that locative media could be most powerful when considered in tandem with other art practices. For example, my studies in Tactical media in conjunction with locative media might be an interesting way to make an new and interesting artistic statements. Locative media is not only valuable in theory, but also in practice.

The interesting things that I picked up from this class are as follows:

The emergence of webblog is viewed by Ross Mayfield as one of the “most visible of disruptive technologies that make up the social software ecosystem.” While politicians and politically active individuals use blogs as a powerful social networking tool for change, some individuals often turn their blogs into more a “online diary,” in which they talk about their personal daily life. How shall we view this kind of blogs?
Sometimes I read this kind of blogs as personal literature. Some individuals are really great writers. It’s fun and interesting to read their descriptions or viewpoints on the world through their eyes. Through blogs, I read about a Chinese student’s “depressed view” on her “boring” student life in which she sleeps through a spoon-feeding style lecture on Marxism; I read about a French woman’s personal experience of getting lost in Israeli city; I read about a American man dealing with his fear of seeing his sister die of cancer. In some way, it forms an online history project, in which individuals tells their life stories to represent people’ life values and emotions as well as record the changes of the part of the world they are related.

Another artist that Redl’s work reminds me of is Camille Utterback- www.camilleutterback.com . Her installations invoke the participant to think about their embodiment in the space, interact with each other, and create social relations with other participants bodies. In her installation, Untitled 5, which is part of her External Measures series that she has been working on since 2001, Utterback exposes the line between the corporeal and conceptual, much like Redl. The Untitled 5 project is described as a living painting and kinetic sculpture. The audience has agency in the real time painting process via a video tracking device. When the participant moves in the space, drawing software outputs a changing wall image. The gray lines moving on the screen depict the real body’s presence in the space, and a red line traces the person’s movements. Then, small circular dots that look like painterly blobs are formed across the line. When other people enter the space, they can change the placement of these marks based on their movements. However, like a magnet, marks will try to move back towards their original form and the blobs will smear across the screen as this occurs. Intersections of painterly strokes from the marks’ movements record real time moments of bodily interaction with the screen. If the participant is static, then smaller marks will be created and begin to erase the older strokes on the screen. Through kinesthetic explorations, the participants can begin to uncover the process of how their bodily presence affects the images on screen. Further, Utterback says that the experience of this project is the “experience of embodiment itself.” Utterback also explains that she hopes her piece allows for a positive interaction and experience with computers. In order to achieve this, she emphasizes the space and embodiment. Also, her 1999 interactive installation, Text Rain explores the space between bodies and the screen. Falling virtual letters appear to react and move based on the human’s interaction. The experience is described as “like rain or snow, the text appears to fall on participants heads.” Phrases and words can be caught when the participant builds enough letters that rest on their outstretched arms or legs. The letters that fall are parts of a poem about bodies and language. Like ubiquitous computing, the interface is easy for participants to quickly understand how they interact and change it; therefore the technology does not get in the way of the experience. All that needs to be understood is how to move ones arms and bodies, and to observe how the environment reacts. Participants, often strangers, sometimes try to steal each other’s letters or connect visually through their reflections on the screen, creating a social relationship with each other.

One of the things that I found most helpful and interesting in Redl’s presentation was that he explained his background, reaching all the way back to grammer school and his father’s occupation. When I visited his website before the talk, I felt somewhat disconnected to his work and didn’t understand what was the purpose of these large-scale lighting installations. However, realizing that he went through the frustration of feeling his nose hit the screen and inability to embody the virtual space brings another kind of life to his art. Also, I found the fact that he views his installations as coming alive when bodies interact and move through the space as intriguing as well. He said the visitors make the space a corporeal entity because of their organic body’s involvement with the technology. It makes sense to me that he wants to avoid taking any form, such as a circle, with his installations, because then more symbolism can be invoked. He said that already visitors sometimes claim to feel a spiritual experience by moving through the space, so what would happen to his intended purpose if they also found religious symbolism through a shape? In “The Texas Contemporary Art Journal,” Matthew Bourbon writes about Redl’s “Fade IV” of 2006 and says, “Controlling the modulation of light with a computer program, Redl manufactures a system of perpetual repetition. This constant fluctuation envelopes us in a task of detailed observation, dooming us to an unfulfilled, Sisyphus-like experience. There’s no denouement to this artwork— just ebb and flow, ebb and flow.” This Deleuzian ebb and flow concept seemed very plausible to me when Redl talked about his work, and I feel that it would become even more real to actually be in the space.

I thought there was a lot to be obtained from Erwin's presentation aside from what might be referred to as his 'business model' (which, of course, should obviously be a sound one). I found it very interesting to hear an artist--particularly an artist working mostly with visual materials--discuss work which is almost entirely concerned with the formal and structural components of experience. Erwin made it clear in citing his interest in the music of Steve Reich, other 'phase musics', algorithmic music (Xenakis), and computer music that his interest resides in this area. The music of James Tenney, I believe, is entirely pertinent to this discussion as well; this is a music that, in some ways, asks a listener to deal with structure and form in as direct a manner as possible (of note: early Bell Labs Computer music, Diapason, Having Never Written a Note for Percussion). This intention can be related, as Erwin discussed, to minimal artists such as Carl Andre, Robert Morris, or Donald Judd whose interest in 'form for form's sake' can be related (and perhaps traced) to Cage's interest in 'sound as sound' (to paraphrase: 'I don't deal with meanings I deal with sounds').

I found the lecture by Erwin intersting and informative. From a standpoint of "Art as Business", there are some valuable concepts to be abstacted from this artist. He is obviously successful at what he does, and has garnered some "cool gigs" as a professional artist; city contracts and large expensive endeavors that have considerable budgets. Perhaps his success can be observed through some main elements of his work. He has a distinct and signature style that has branded him well. Signature style is important, versus having a vague and varied display of works that seem to not define the artist in a distinct way. You may argue that his work is too similar and seems like the same approach from installation to installation, but his signature technology and aesthetic approach is working. There is a power displayed in the scale of his projects. There seems to be nothing timid about his confidence to tackle some serious spaces. This engineering confidence i'm sure serves him well in dealing with munincipalities, corporations,etc.. whom are a lot more apt to deal with an artist that can execute their work well.