2a) Input: Reading Reviews

Title:

“Duchamp: Interface: Turing A Hypothetical Encounter Between the Bachelor Machine and the Universal Machine”

Author:

Dieter Daniels

Book:

Media Art Histories, Grau, Chapter 6, Page 103

Comments:

Again, why must every artist, writer, and educator define art?  This is clearly a dilemma with the writings and understandings of art.  However, our author Dieter Daniels along with Jeanne Haunschild not only provide an understanding of art but provide the concept of art with the portrayal of the artist in regards to new media technologies.  How does this differ from just the definition?  It differs because Marcel Duchamp by the author’s definition is one of the most influential artist of the 20th century and by comparison Alan Turing, a mathematician and co-inventor of the computer.The article will compare, contrast, and conclude the relationships of these two individuals in a relation to new media artistic technologies.  The overall linkage of this article is from the convergence of man and machine, but the linkage is by the interface, which is the communicative technique.  In respect to defining art the analogy is made by Duchamp’s work involving interpretation of chess players.  Here we have a double intender as the chessboard is symbolized like an artist’s canvas thus meaning that all artists are not chess players, but all chess players are artists.Next we have the diagram of the portrait of the large glass – this I do not understand.  What is the large glass? Without an actual image to draw conclusions from all we think about is the obvious a large glass to drink.  A diagram named the “green box” is provided in French and this too makes no sense at all.  This is very poor writing form our authors as they try and make these analogies.  Now they are tying the interpretation of machine sex as in the X-rated web as it compares to Turing’s test of machines that play chess.  Although the symbolism is clear the input processed by an interface will yield results.

Title:

“Projecting Minds”

Author:

Ron Burnett

Book:

Media Art Histories, Grau, Chapter 15, Page 309

Comments:

Sommerer and Mignonneau theorized that Process Oriented Not Object Oriented is what happens in interactivity and to the state of mind.  From their project “Trans Plant” an interactive digital installation in which a person’s body is displayed on a screen and as they walk around plants grow on their footprints.  And if the person stops, larger plants and trees will grow.  It is in this state that the question of interactivity takes place because it is difficult to analyze what the audience / participant is feeling.  To find the answer one would have to know what are the links among intention, design, and outcome between creator and participant. 

It could be stated that multimedia interactivity began at the conception of film in 1898 when it was realized that the viewer was engaging (with emotion) to the desired effect of a film by its producer.  Films at this point were only several years old, much like the interactivity that is now taking place amongst with digital artists.  Both developments ponder another question in terms of how the viewer saw the world, and then how they saw themselves.

0 Comments

Leave A Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.