Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Progression of second project:
Chrissy, Nemesis, Ryan and I will be utilizing the arches in the campus center for our projection piece. After much discussion, we have decided on our concept. We met on Tuesday at the CC and Wednesday evening to narrow our topic and discuss how to actually make it work technically. Our concept involves a waterfall of color, utilizing the planters, arches and columns in the campus center. We are going to pour water into the planters above the arches in the campus center so that they overflow and the water goes down the brick columns. We will shoot approximately nine minutes of film.
In digital photography, if one shoots several shots of the same scene from the exact same position in RAW setting they can take these shots into photoshop and isolate the main colors. When overlayed, everything that did not move in the scene will have normal coloration whereas everything that moved will have a tri-color effect. We are going to try to do the same thing with film.
Some potential problems: Shooting in the daylight. Since we have to shoot at the actual campus center, if it is daylight, it might interfere with the projection quality of the bricks. Ideally, we will isolate the water (perhaps by getting rid of the bricks somehow) and just have the projection of the water flowing down
the wall.
After our in-class discussion:::
We have our concept.... Editing is not as complicated as we thought and at this point, we are trying to figure out logistical issues (like how do we get that much water and how do we safely loft the projector in the air without too much fear of someone knocking it over?). If need be, I would be willing to contact Bon Appetit and Physical Plant for the necessary supplies. This is a group effort and Chrissy and I's part is difficult to continue, since it was hammered out pretty quickly after the two productive conversations that Nemesis and Ryan and I had. We are playing with the idea of running the color onto the ground since we have to shoot from a high vantage point, anyway...
 |
| Patrick Connelly; Native American Museum |
Theoretically, or at least to start, we will take 3 minute segments and isolate a color and then overlay them again for the final product. We can then loop the clip, etc. The effect will be trippy tri-colored water spreading down normal colored columns of the campus center. We are going out to attempt this tomorrow afternoon and will post the resulting clip after we finish.
Some potential problems: Shooting in the daylight. Since we have to shoot at the actual campus center, if it is daylight, it might interfere with the projection quality of the bricks. Ideally, we will isolate the water (perhaps by getting rid of the bricks somehow) and just have the projection of the water flowing down
the wall.
After our in-class discussion:::
We have our concept.... Editing is not as complicated as we thought and at this point, we are trying to figure out logistical issues (like how do we get that much water and how do we safely loft the projector in the air without too much fear of someone knocking it over?). If need be, I would be willing to contact Bon Appetit and Physical Plant for the necessary supplies. This is a group effort and Chrissy and I's part is difficult to continue, since it was hammered out pretty quickly after the two productive conversations that Nemesis and Ryan and I had. We are playing with the idea of running the color onto the ground since we have to shoot from a high vantage point, anyway...
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Artist Research 2!
Rafael Lozano-Hemmer
Rafael Lozano-Hemmer is a forty-five year old artist originating from Mexico. He attended college in Canada and majored in Chemistry. Now, as an artist, he focuses on electronic works, often projecting onto buildings and playing off of the concept of performance art. He relies heavily on the interactive strength of works (as demonstrated in his piece “Under Scan”). He uses technology to create works inspired by phantasmagoria, carnival and animatronics. Phantasmagoria is defined as a progression of dreamlike images. Carnival is defined as a mixture of something stimulating or unusual. Animatronics is defined as constructions, particularly robots, that mimic animal characteristics. From the definition of these three terms, it could be assumed that Lozano-Hemmer focuses on making unusually mixed, dream-inspire, animal-like robotics.
Lozano-Hemmer’s work is well-known and sought after. He has been invited to several prestigues showings, mostly focused in Europe and most notably shown at the 2010 Olympics. His work, including kinetic sculpture, interaction video pieces, installations and photographs, has been shown extensively around the world. He is one of the most prominent artists from Mexico and has been featured in New York’s MOMA and the TATE in London. He has been recognized extensively for his work. Lozano-Hemmer has taught at Princeton, Harvard, and prestigious art schools as Art Institute of Chicago, one of the best art schools in the nation.
I am specifically looking at Lozano-Hemmer’s piece “Under Scan,” an interactive video installation in a public square where many passerby were able to interact with the piece. His piece uses technology to track shadows and then project video clips within the shadows. The people participating within the work were videotaped for later exhibitions. By the end of the project, Lozani-Hemmmer had compiled over 1250 clips of people interacting with the work. It was interesting to see how each person interacted with the work and to have a record of that for later use. I think that the cross-cultural interconnectivity between viewer is what intrigued me most. The projection in the shadow of the current participant would show a previous participant. The idea was that the shadow was, in some way, a reflection of the person casting the shadow. The projected person is to make eye-contact with the person in real-time and to look away when they walk away. The movements are timed to be convincing as an interactive work. According to the project description, every seven minutes the project resets.
I love the interactivity of this project (and also the fact that it includes a human). This project talks about gaze and how irony of how shadow can reveal light. Computers help the projections of people fit the shadows of the passerby and also, control how long the projection is maintained. Each figure stares at the person causing the shadow until they leave, when it looks away. The strengths of this piece are the fact that it plays with the meaning of light and dark and the very definition of a shadow. I also love the fact that the projection is assertive in how it looks directly at the viewer. I imagine that I would be slightly uncomfortable if a projection stared directly at me. It is almost as if you are being challenged by something that cannot touch you. Some of the people moved towards the camera that shot them, appearing to step toward the maker of the shadow. It is interesting to see the people jump back, as if the projection will actually touch them.
The only negatives that I could critique in this work would be the accuracy of the computer technology. I do not know how close one could the projection to fit the shadow, or how quickly. It seemed to take a while before it actually appeared. However, that being said, this work is pretty impressive in its use of technology and computers. I had no idea that we could even do something like this.
My group and I want to shoot or throw paint into the planters between the archways at the campus center so that it can drip down the center pillar. Since the campus center is usually bright at night, this is an issue that I brought up to my group (specifically Ryan). Perhaps we could have one person at the computer running the projection. When a student’s shadow covers one side of the projection (since two people of either side of the planter will throw paint) that is the part that will move. They will be able to see the projected person better and it will get two people to stand together in order for the projection to work fully. I think that this would further draw the viewer’s gaze to notice the architecture of the space.
Obscura Digitial
Obscura digital is a company that creates clever marketing strategies and projects for its customers. They are known for huge projections and for constructing their touchscreen displays. They constantly push the boundaries of marketing and promote themselves as being so innovative, they are magical. According to their own website, they strive to make data available and omnipresent. Obscura digital specializes in four main areas, video mapping, immersive environments, interactive display and augmented reality. They create software that compensates for the shape of buildings so that if their measurements are off, the program cannot correct itself and cover the entirety of the space that was originally intended to be covered. Surround sound and projection paired with a completely constructed structure allows the company to provide very specifically created advertisements for their customers. They take pride in how far they have come in touch screen technology and explain that they are able to create super sensitive and large environments that respond to users’ touch and are interactive.
I am going to specifically discuss Obscura Digital’s piece in Mint Plaza, a project for McAfee, I want to first discuss the differences in discussing a company’s work versus that of a single artist. In a way, I am very disappointed that I could not find an artist name in relation to this work. While single artists have help in arranging their installations and projections, they, that one single person, are the genesis of a mammoth project. When a company takes control, there is a team of people. No one single person can be given credit for the work because it is likely that so many people worked together that the one person becomes indistinguishable. I think that there are good and bad sides to this. While a company has more resources and so, theoretically, more opportunity to create and make art at a larger scale, there is less of an artist’s hand in the work. The commercial aspect of this does not bother me… It is more the fact that I appreciate a work being one person’s creation.
Looking at the McAfee ad, it is impressive to see how seamless the projection works with the building and how exact it is in matching the building blocks with the moving ones in the projection. The creative/design team really made the building’s flat, planar surface into something even more three dimensional. There are three main parts to this clip. The building blocks rearrange and move, paint or colored water splash around on the surface of the building and balls bounce between the windows. This projection piece is specifically relevant to the piece that my group is trying to make. We want to throw paint into the planter and have it drip down the column and the part of the projection most relevant would be the bouncing paint. In the clip, the architecture of the building and the windows are used to bounce the paint around. This was definitely one of the strongest points of the clip. It utilized the structure and architecture of the building really well. While I did not think that the projection of color against the building wall was very strong, it made me realize that we will realllllyyyyyy have to take into account that we are projecting on brick. I don’t know if we are going to be able to follow through with the colored paint idea simply because of the fact that we are projecting onto red brick. Throwing water may be more feasible.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Self Assessment!
The original genesis of this project was in the poetry of spoken of words. I wanted to create my own mash up of slam poetry, make my own poem out of pieces of other’s poems. However, something I did not take into account was the fact that slam poetry is about the spoken word. It is about the performance of the words, what inflection they have and how their sounds fit together. The problem with that is that when I isolated the words from the videos, they did not fit together. Each word sounded garbled when removed from its original context. From the critique I gained a little bit of insight into the making of videos (particularly mash ups). I learned that the audio of a video, with a consistent beat behind it, can sounds cohesive. I was reminded to keep it simple and I learned that I needed to watch wayyy more FinalCut tutorials.
From there I started to do a little bit of research. It was suggested that I consider the poetry of visuals. When I thought of short video clip with impactful images, I thought about UnderArmour ads. This was most likely due to the fact that I was in the process of applying for a couple different ones, but it gave me a direction for my research. I started looking into the various creative directors of UnderArmour videos and advertisements. While the artist research was helpful, what was more helpful was looking at and watching dozens of successful commercials and music videos. Studying the minutia that made them successful helped me to figure out what elements needed to be present in my own work. The rapid succession of high contrast images was important, but what really made the brand stand out were the shots of athletes in motion that were then slowed down.
That being said, my vision and process did not fully come together until a friend of mine sat down to see what I had made so far and, after watching the convoluted mess that was my video (at that point) asked me the crucial question, “What is your vision?” I realized, in that moment, that I had not fully stopped to consider what I was doing before I started mashing together different clips. I had started with a video about an ultramarathoner who had completed multiple one hundred mile races (running!). The video started out with the sound of a normal heart beat (about 70 bmp) and then gave his (approx. 35 bpm). It flashed between posed pictures of him and as he started talking about his philosophy for running, it showed him (but mostly his extremely muscular calves) running up the hill. To be honest, the visuals of the first movie didn’t match the power and inspiration of his words. I put an electric violin song behind his words, and played with the volume of what he was saying. The music and his voice alternated. It was not simple, it was pretty distracting and I definitely did not have an alternate plan for the weak visual component. So, I brainstormed.
For me, this project was about learning FinalCut Pro. I needed to learn the basics of the program for future use and to execute concepts that I had actual come up with myself. Throughout my experimentations with the program, I was learning the different tools but the clip that I had, at that point, did not communicate that new knowledge because of its randomness and disjointed composition. I scrapped the video and started fresh. I solidified my idea: combining the visuals from a multitude of UnderArmour ads, cutting the voice from one and creating a new concept. I figured I could put a pumped up song behind the words and make it work with the visuals. From that point forward, my process involved a lot of downloading videos and matching image progression and changes to the music and the voice, to both of those. I tried mashing together a variety of athletic videos, expanding outside of just UnderArmour. However, the various styles of image quality and type of shoot reminded me of the different voices in my slam clip. It looked messy and disconnected and felt awkward and uncomfortable. So I removed them. I stuck with just the voices and shots from UnderArmour clips but rearranged everything and cut a lot of video and voice out to make my own narrative. Ideally, I wanted to make an advertisement showing the power of humanity but based on the feedback I received in my critique, the UnderArmour label was prominent to the point of distraction. While it was meant to be an ad, it was not successful in how it was conveyed.
The point of this project, for me, was learning Final Cut Pro. As such, I was successful. I learned the program and became proficient at the basics. The point of this project, from other’s point of view, was the communication of the meaning behind my piece. For me, this project was a success. While the conveyance of the meaning of the piece was a little rough, the technical composition of the clip was pretty good. The audio and images matched and the style was not significantly jarring in any way. I managed to edit everything to create a cohesive story and even if the meaning was a little rough, the piece flowed.
As far as the work that I put into this piece? It was hard to remember at times that I was working on it, as I just watched a lot of YouTube videos and took notes on the elements I liked. I think that I budgeted my time very well with this project and was very pleased with the result. I had to watch a lot of videos for this project and I helped myself work through the program by constantly looking up tutorials. In essence, I taught myself the program. Even though we went over many of the elements during class, I had to look them up and walk through them in the actual program to learn them. I saved a lot of “test” files. For this project, I worked a lot in my free time and the only part that I regret was that when it came down to my final revision edits (something I nearly never do) I was not able to focus very well and so I got distracted easily and they took me a little longer to complete.
Looking at this from a far, I would say that my strongest characteristic was the cohesiveness of the piece and the one that I could work on more was the transition between the images. Some of them were not cut quite as cleanly as I would have wished. It would be cool to experiment with what people had asked, about slowing down other shots and speeding the slowed shots up, but I wonder how the video quality would fair. I feel that at some point, it will seem fragmented and jolting if I slow it down too much. In any case, I will have to try to experiment with it.
I changed my idea entirely during the course of this project. While I followed a very commercial route in execution, I also moved radically from the execution of my first piece. My final project was not merely a revision of the first one but a completely different piece. I think that I deserve at least an A- on this project. I put a lot of time and effort in and, although disappointing that I did not challenge any political meaning or represent my idea as well as I hoped, I learned the program and created a piece that worked as a whole.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)