That's all, folks.

So ends the semester.

Project 5: Self-Portrait

Since I'm always sketching and drawing things, especially little animal doodles, I tried to show that in my project.

Project 4: Zine Pages

Personal pages

Group page

Homework 9: Videogames

I am not the most avid of gamers. I don't have a huge collection of games (one of these days, maybe), I don't play a lot of the big-name titles (more out of penny-pinching tendencies than anything else), and I prefer to stick with old favorite titles rather than frequently trying out new ones. However, that's not to say I don't enjoy videogames, because I absolutely do. I love losing myself in another world for a while, whether I'm experiencing a character's story through their eyes, or forging my own in an open-world game like Skyrim. In fact, in another class, I'm writing a paper on the function of videogames as a narrative medium. It's no surprise then that I firmly believe videogames can be art, if only for the sheer amount of effort and creativity it takes to harmoniously blend visuals, sound, design, story, and mechanics into a good game. While that doesn't necessarily mean that every game has to be art, or that every art game is good (I refuse to play any game that sacrifices actual gameplay and instead tries to be a "deep", artsy-fartsy piece) the emotional and mental experience that some games can create is too notable, in my opinion, for videogames to be utterly ignored as an art medium. If some guy can splash paint on a wall ad make up a sufficiently-pretentious explanation to justify it as art, then the labor and creative energy that go into some games should justify its status as art as well.

I don't feel that videogames absolutely must have good graphics in order to be a good game. It helps create immersion, yes, but the game should not rely solely on visuals to succeed. Undertale, for instance, eschews cutting-edge graphics in favor of an old-school RPG design and a focus on character development and interaction. As of this writing, in fact, it is carrying a ninety-eight percent positive rating on Steam, out of over thirteen thousand reviews, without any kind of hyperrealistic visuals at all. In any game, the gameplay itself should always be the main focus of the development team. If it isn't, then that story may be better off being told in a non-interactive format, such as a film or graphic novel. Players can usually forgive subpar visuals if the game is still "fun", but if the core mechanics are fundamentally broken and unenjoyable, then the game itself has failed.

It's interesting that one of the questions for this prompt concerns videogames and film. As a matter of fact, the first scholarly analysis of videogames was done from a film studies perspective. I can think of a few games, such as the high-energy, parkour-focused, linear-story Mirror's Edge, that could have done equally well as an action movie. While it is true that videogames and film are both highly-visual, time-based art forms, they have one principle difference: interactivity. Movies are passive forms of entertainment--you grab some popcorn, sit back, and let the screen tell you a story. Videogames require that you become an active participant in order to move the story along. The Wolf Among Us, a fantasy-flavored film-noir-esque mystery game, plays out in an episodic format that could be compared to a television series. However, the game's branching narrative (in which the actions and dialogue the player chooses determine the course of the game) would be lost, taking the game's unique appeal with it. I agree that videogames have some similarities to film, but they should still be considered a medium unto themselves.

As a medium, I do hope that videogames achieve greater status in the art world. However, I also have an almost selfish hope that they never become too art-centric. I want videogames to stay videogames, something that the average person can pick up and have fun with, without needing a fine arts degree to understand. They don't belong in art museums behind glass cases for hipsters to come and stare at and make up pretentious theories about their hidden meanings. It's hugely fun to discuss videogames with other fans, but they should be played and experienced too, otherwise their primary function--interactivity--is denied. Videogames are art for the common man, and I never, ever want to see them become akin to the lifeless "modern art" that hangs in some galleries.

As for a particular game that deserves to be art, I'm not sure I could pick just one. I consider any game that provided a memorable experience to be art. But as an example, let's go with the Shelter games, of which there are two. The first has you taking on the role of a mother badger with a litter of cubs, whom you must feed and protect from danger, while the second focuses on a lynx family in a similar situation. The first game is more linear, moving you from scenario to scenario as the "story" progresses, while the second is open-world and allows you to roam freely through a variety of landscapes, with only the changing seasons to mark progression through the game. With minimal narration, and without ever attributing overly-human emotions and characteristics to the all-animal cast, the games paint a story of struggle, survival, and sacrifice against the backdrop of harsh and unforgiving wilderness. I would call this game art for it's harmonious balance of visuals and gameplay, as well as its surprising ability to create a poignant emotional bond to a bunch of polygonal baby animals.

(This got really long and rambly I'm sorry)

Homework 8: Zine Thoughts

While I've never really been much into the fringe art culture, I can appreciate the freedom that zines provide to artists. Public, mass-produced magazines, art magazines included, are often subject to editing and restrictions in order to remain fit to print. By self-publishing, individuals and groups can express their ideas without having to appeal to a wide audience. Their cheap and easy creation also allows artists to focus on the art itself, rather than the need to turn a profit.

When we looked at zines in class, I didn't really "get" it--the contents were nonsensical to me, and I didn't find them appealing from an artistic point of view. I doubt I'd ever publish a zine myself. That's not to say they weren't good, I could respect the effort that went into the zines, they just weren't my cup of tea.

As for my own class zine page, I'm going to be combining Dr. Seuss's book If I Ran The Zoo with The Island of Dr. Moreau, a novel written in 1896 by H.G. Wells. In it, a shipwrecked man named Edward Prendick finds himself on an island of surgically altered man-beasts and hybridized creatures created by the titular Dr. Moreau. Therefore, my zine page is going to be a photo collage of Seuss characters stuck together into new creatures Frankenstein's Monster-style. I might include a little poem to go with it, if I can think of one,

Homework 7: Classmate's Monster

I used Dylan's monster lines for this homework.

Project 3: Illustrator Monster

(Click picture for full size)

Here's another creature to fall somewhere between cute and horrifying. Part eel, part anglerfish, part dog, maybe a little alligator thrown in too. His name is Fluffy.

Homework 6: Assorted Art

Ryoji Ikeda, "Test Pattern 100m Version"

I'm honestly not sure if this piece should be classed as visual art, auditory art, or (most likely) something in between. By translating digital data into base binary and syncing up the resulting lightshow with a soundtrack somewhere between a machine gun shootout and a techno rave, then displaying it in massive proportions, Ryoji Ikeda creates an epilepsy-inducing experience that is nevertheless a clever commentary on the pervasiveness of digital media throughout our lives.

According to the creator's website, the core meaning of the piece is "to examine the relationship between critical points of device performance and the threshold of human perception, pushing both to their absolute limits," and it certainly accomplishes that. The project is harrowing to walk through, and enrapturing at the same time. The endless barrage of light and sound leaves the mind dazed and confused, but thrilled at the same time. At its most basic level, it could be considered akin to watching an exciting movie or special-effects-heavy play or dance routine: it is an intense sensory experience born from (but not reliant upon) an underlying concept.

While it has little to nothing in common with traditional, "historical" art, it does make one think about the role of technology in modern society. The project seems to visualize the way technology surrounds us, inescapable and unceasing. 

Sondra Perry, "Young Women Sitting and Standing and Talking and Stuff (No, No, No)"

I'm sorry, I really am, but with the mask things blocking their noses all I could see was:

I'm not really sure what the artist was trying to convey here. Gossip is not a rare occurrence in modern society, true. But what were the masks for? To make them look like teenage girls who rolled their eyes one too many times? That's the only hypothesis I can come up with. I'm also having a hard time being able to tell if the subjects of their conversation (boyfriends, gay marriage, illegal immigrants) had any relevance to the meaning of the project, or if they were picked just because they were trending topics that might frequently be discussed among friends in reality.

Checking the artist's website does little to clear up the questions. The "thots" (thoughts?) page is a short rant that would be more at home on tumblr (you know which side of tumblr I'm talking about) expressing anger at "a racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist society". That might explain the focus on the girls' conversation, but aside from that, the entire thing seems rather disjointed and confusing. Perry obviously has problems with modern-day society, but if she is attempting to change it through her art, she may need to reconsider her strategies.

Project 2: "Bodies" Collage

In my photomanipulation, I tried to capture the effort and soul that an artist puts into their work. Each piece could almost considered, in a metaphorical way, to be a reflection of themselves, a piece of the creator. While what they visualize may differ from what is produced, in the end, it's still theirs, and that should count for something.

Stock Credit (I'm used to listing this out for my personal pieces and I feel weird if I don't):
BG: http://random-acts-stock.deviantart.com/art/Baroque-room-1-72942811
Dress: http://azreheal.deviantart.com/art/wedding-dress-2-84026953
Woman: http://lalunatique.deviantart.com/art/STOCK-I-paint-V2-395153021
Field: http://lylicagalatea.deviantart.com/art/Flower-field-pano-stock-83294259

Homework 5: More Appropriation

These questions were rather varied, so I'm going to do short answers rather than one essay.

What do you think it means to be an "appropriation artist"? Do you think all artists working today may fit that description? Why or why not?

Appropriation by definition is taking something someone else owns. An appropriation artist takes other artist's work and uses it in their own works. While the word usually carries rather negative connotations, I will admit that not every work that could be considered "appropriation" is necessarily art theft. I myself enjoy creating photomanipulations such as this (don't ask about the context, it's a long story) from free stock images available online, and many other artists do the same, some for profit (some stock providers allow their images to be used in commercial works, some do not), others for fun. However, there is a marked difference between using free stock images and providing proper credit to the original photographer, and outright stealing another artist's final creative product for financial gain.


This article gives examples about how the notion of appropriation can date back to as early as the 16th century; what do you think about that? Aside from the technological aspects, are artists working today appropriating any differently then those artists working then?

Unfortunately, there have been coattail-riders and ambitiously lazy people for as long as the concept of "art" has existed, and they aren't likely to go away anytime soon. With the advent of the computer, the internet, and photo-editing software, it has become even easier for appropriation artists to find new material to claim as their own.


The artist Marcel Duchamp (who we looked at when we talked about Nude Descending a Staircase) is often attributed to be the grandfather of contemporary art as we know it today. There are a couple major instances where he used a very blatant form of appropriation - can you find one (aside from the urinal)?

...So urinals are art now?

I'm sorry, Mr. Kass. Please don't give me an F.

Anyway, aside from the urinal, he passed off a bicycle wheel as art too.

What are the differences between "high" and "low" art? Do you think those definitions change when one is appropriated into the other?

I'm guessing high art is fancy, scholarly pieces with obscure and debatable meanings that is sold to museums or upper-crust private collectors for six/seven/eight figures, while low art can be understood and appreciated with a more-reasonable amount of effort. Seeing as I want to be a game designer/digital artist and not an art critic, hopefully I'll be able to stick with "low" art instead of quitting the medium altogether. When involved in appropriation, I would imagine that they become whatever the new "artist" intends it to be, or whatever they're willing to let the critics say.

What do you think the difference is between "appropriation" and "sampling"? What about "image transfer"?

The term "sampling" is usually used in music, but in general art, I imagine it would be using a small piece of a previous work or employing a technique used to create that work, as opposed to using the whole piece outright. "Image transfer" could either be tracing or electronically copying artwork (which is how middle-schoolers appropriate artwork), or using an actual method of mixed-media to create something new.

What do you think about Kelley's "Black Star Press" work? Does the notion of Kelley being a white artist either add a layer of context or take away from it? Do you think it "appropriate" for Kelley to be "appropriating" such imagery?

The article makes no mention of his race, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me to wonder what it was. Depending on how one chooses to analyze it, it could go either way. Personally, I'm curious as to what made him decide to work with these photographs and his feelings on their historical context. However, defacing iconic photographs seems just a bit disrespectful to me.


Think about the way Miranda Lichtenstein talks about "reappropriation" and this notion that almost anything can be termed "appropriated," especially if it's based off of something that has happened already in real life; in this terminology, any kind of documentary or viewing of documented film can be considered an appropriation. Do you agree with that assessment?

She certainly does have a point in that all nearly works of art from visual to literary to musical are built on the foundations of that which came before it. However, what makes art art, at least in my opinion, is the ability to create something that is entirely your own, even if it can be said to draw inspiration from another source. This should not be confused with creating something directly from another source (looking at you, Richard Prince).


Pick one of these other artists mentioned in the article, research them, and talk about their work some. Tell me why you chose them and what you find interesting about what they do:

Although I'm beginning to lose what little appreciation I had for "fine art", I did find the works of Sara VanDerBeek interesting, as (most of) her pieces demonstrate the concept of appropriation in a way that isn't outright thievery for once. She takes ordinary objects and assembles them herself to create a unique construct that is engaging to look at and ponder. While her use of magazine images in some works might be considered copyright violation, for the most part her sculptures are compared of random refuse arranged ornamentally, displaying creativity rather than thievery.

Homework 4: Appropriation

In the world of art, whether visual, musical, or literary, it can be difficult to draw the line between being inspired by another piece of art and downright plagiarizing it. However, when one actually uses that original work in their own piece, things become somewhat simpler. Under U.S. copyright law, "fair use" allows copyrighted material such as art or literature to be quoted or used for the purposes of critique, news, education, and research. Plagiarism, in contrast, is defined as the wrongful appropriation, stealing, and publication of artistic material without providing due credit or pay to the original creator.

Under this logic, it becomes rather evident that Richard Prince is not a daring, provocative artist at all, but a thief who took advantage of the abstract concept of art and the resulting flexibility of the laws surrounding it to wrong another, more artistic mind. To take another's labor, change it just enough to claim ownership, and then sell it is piggybacking at best and outright robbery at worst. While one could claim that Prince's works are different enough, supposedly due to carrying a "hectic and provocative" aesthetic in comparison to the serenity shown in Patrick Cariou's original work, one could also claim that Prince's "art" is nonsensical, crude, and just plain ugly. Art's subjective like that. The bottom line is that Prince purposefully took another's works and used them for profit without providing credit or recompense to Cariou, and used the resulting controversy to create publicity for himself and as a springboard for further acts of plagiarism on Instagram. Clever? Yes. Disrespectful and lazy? Also yes.

It's true that by posting a picture on social media, that picture becomes public, accessible to everyone with an internet connection. That’s one of the risks that come with the ability to connect with others across the globe. One could also argue that those who post provocative or exposing images of themselves do so essentially for attention; by being featured in an art gallery, they’re getting all the attention they could ever wish for. But unless Prince is paying them royalties for using their pictures, then it’s theft, plain and simple.

Artistic appropriation can be a source of fear for any who rely on their creativity to make a living, whether they are new to the field or accomplished artists. People such as Prince being allowed to freely use another’s work for profit undermine the principles of artistic integrity and discourage the introduction of new ideas and content for fear of losing them to another. Laws protecting creative property should be tightened in order to prevent such acts from taking place in order to ensure that all can safely express themselves in whatever medium they choose.

So yes, Richard Prince does indeed suck. In fact, I'd like to say things about him far worse than that, but seeing as this is my school blog, that probably wouldn't be a very good idea.

Homework 3: Article Paragraphs

Mind-Bending Architecture Photos From A World Inspired By Escher

I chose this article to talk about primarily for two reasons: I love videogames, and I love M.C. Escher's artwork. The detailed, almost-dreamlike worlds and scenes he created enchanted me as a child, and they still do to this day. I never get tired of looking at them. Therefore, the idea behind Manifold Garden (formerly Relativity), a game in which one gets to roam a world modeled after his art, bending gravity to discover new locations and solve puzzles, is an intriguing concept. I also believe that a game like this further demonstrates how videogames are quickly becoming a viable medium of art and a means of narration. This doesn't necessarily mean that all games are art, or even that a game has to be artsy to be good. The primary purpose of a videogame is to entertain the player, and to try to take the 'game' out of 'videogame' essentially reduces it to little more than an interactive picture (though that might actually be interesting to see, as long as it doesn't pretend it's a videogame).

Thankfully, Manifold Garden seems to balance art and gameplay rather well. The player is tasked to roam an open world and solve puzzles by changing the laws of gravity and shifting through different gravitational fields. One example shown in the Devlog requires a player to keep a purple cube on a purple wall panel suspended off the ground in order to unlock a door. The solution involves using a blue cube in a different field of gravity as a shelf to hold up the purple cube--one field's wall is another's floor. Mind-bending puzzles such as this engage the player and give them a reason to explore the world, aside from simply taking pictures of any cool impossible architecture they happen to find.

I feel that games such as this are an excellent example of technology and art working together in harmony to produce something wondrous and engaging. They are more than just a videogame or a piece of art, they are an interactive experience. Manifold Garden has great potential, both as a game and as a work of art, and I hope to see it come to fruition.

Project 1: GIF

Ta-da.

Okay, so the explanation behind this...thing is that she's a creature I like to doodle every now and then. Mostly wolf, but with some bear and bighorn sheep thrown in too. And she has four eyes. For some reason. She's actually almost blind. Looks scary, but is a gentle giant and enjoys taking long naps in the sun.

Homework 2: GIF Paragraphs

Like the internet that spawned them, GIFs are a relatively new phenomenon that have practically exploded onto the scene in the short time since their creation. They are not quite a picture and not quite a video, rather a hybrid between the two that can only really exist in a digital medium. Their purposes are many: some capture short scenes, others evoke emotions, and some are simply humorous to look at. They can be beautiful, frightening, nonsensical, emotional, or a mixture of any of these. They are easy to find and share, and can serve to add tone or emotion to a bland text post, or even tell tiny stories of their own. Go on any discussion forum or browse the comments section of an image-sharing site, and you'll find that they are often full of "reaction GIFs" serving these exact purposes. In a nutshell, they are fun.

And yes, in some cases GIFs can be seen as having artistic value. The effort poured into works such as these gorgeous 8-bit-esque GIF landscapes is plain to see. There's something special about being able to capture a moment and repeat it indefinitely, studying every detail and absorbing it fully into your memory. GIFs allow for the preservation and sharing of such moments, potentially even calling into question the very concept of time, at least in the electronic realm if not the physical world.

However, the idea that GIFs are the latest and greatest form of art, that recording a few seconds of something "deep" and "meaningful", stripping it of sound (not to mention visual quality, in many cases) and calling it fine art, is ridiculous. While many GIFs may be pretty to look at, is a GIF of a model dancing in another model's hand really on equal footing with some of the works hanging in the Louvre, or any other classic galleries? Does a medium's newness automatically mean that it is good? I don't believe it does.The idea of GIFs (which are often freely available for viewing and download online) being sold for thousands of dollars is even stranger than the idea of them being considered fine art. The Internet's backbone is shared and open content, making a GIF somehow exclusive to one person removes it from it's own origin, like taking a fish out of water. The concept of GIF graffiti is equally odd, and appears at it's core to be little more than an attempt at grabbing a confused bystander's attention (as well as a waste of money--iPads aren't cheap).

GIFs are fun, but the vast majority of them are not fine art, and to be honest, to me it sounds an awful lot like snobs with too much money and too little common sense attempting to stay on what they believe to be the cutting edge of "art".

This isn't my project GIF, I just didn't have a very productive day. Do our projects really have to have an actual meaning behind them?

Homework 1: Magazine Paragraphs

It is undoubtedly true that more and more people, especially youth, are carrying around smartphones, tablets, and other screened devices. And it is also true that the definition of “art” is changing, as it has with every successive generation. It may be true to many young adults that art must be entertaining to be meaningful. With the rise in popularity of videogames and other means of interactive storytelling, merely looking at a painting or sculpture may be underwhelming to some if there is no underlying meaning or story. And in an era where memories can be recorded in audio, video, or photographs with a few taps of a screen or a press of a button, it is becoming increasingly unnecessary to commit every moment of an event to memory.

But is this necessarily a bad thing? By recording experiences, it becomes possible to share those experiences with others, or preserve a memory clearly and completely for far longer than the mind can. While the brain is an unquestionably powerful entity, it is also prone to forget. Memory fades, while pictures can remain clear for years afterward. However, this does not necessarily mean that digital recordings are damaging the human mind’s ability to remember. Rather, it could be considered a safeguard or backup, of sorts. The electronic mind can remember what the organic mind may disregard. It is up to the individual to decide if they wish to record a memory or keep it only in their mind, and which method is the more “sincere” way of remembering. And is “retinal masturbation”, as Panera calls it, really such a bad thing? We live in an age where video and audio are everywhere. We read graphic novels, play videogames, listen to music, and get spammed by ads. The internet has allowed humanity to communicate and share ideas, values, and memories on a scale never before seen in our history.

Admittedly, this freedom of exchange also means that we are monitored on a scale never before seen in our history. Some of this monitoring is accepted willingly: many people document their entire lives on social media, where it can be reviewed by anyone from family members to mortal enemies. Other times, our personal information is in jeopardy, whether from advertisers looking to focus their efforts on the most likely customers, or for more shady purposes. The same can go for media and memories posted on the internet: it is very much true that, once something goes up online, it can never be taken down completely. Photographs and videos may be used for purposes not anticipated or accepted by their creators. This is perhaps the greatest drawback to being able to contain a moment behind a screen.

But, ultimately, this new trend of digital memory is not something to fear. Technology and culture are always changing and innovating, for better or for worse. To become an “emancipated observer” is to embrace this new practice and utilize it for the progression of humanity, ensuring that moments meant to be seen and remembered always will be.

Project 1

Another test post!

Homework 1

Test post!