We are the documented generation Were being observed (no such things as an impartial camera)
Documentation,- Photography-tells us little of the events that took place, exploring the relationship Video- with 6 hours of footage, have to sit down with it, remaking the performance/changing it
camera vs video performance, he's using it as a mediation between him as the performer and the audience
It was interesting when he discussed the use of digital media and how people use digital cameras wither cellphone small camera video camera etc. (where do you have permission to do that, people believe its a audio visual passport)
How long will you watch before you act, was another interesting statement. Its reminds me of a discussion how people wont act when others are around because the believe someone else will do it, so if someone needs help they don't act instantly, believing someone else will act first.
Social networking-endlessly pointless in a strange way
As simple as this sounds, this statement has a really shocking effect for me. At one point in debating capstone ideas, I began asking myself why do we bother with all of this documentation and date storing? Do we need to be remembered? Is this the only motivation? I think that Henderson's statements in discussing documentation were really profound.
He also mentioned something that, the more I imagine it, is entirely true of video work. When you play the role of cameraman (or are in the performance and do not have a chance to watch live) you never have the chance to see your work through your own eye, it is always through the eye of another person or object. What does this take from the work (does it take anything at all)? Is there a way we can change this? In his own performance art, it isn't possible for him to see his own actions live because he is the primary performer. I suppose one would need to balance their own desire between participating in the action or having it documented because really here, the performance will always be seen different between many different eyes.
One last comment I will make is on the role that context and setting play in artwork. Raphael asked a very interesting question in that, does the creator have more control over the audience and how they view the performance in performance art vs. filmmaking, painting, etc.? I feel that, as was stated by Henderson, when something, anything, is placed in an art gallery, the audience will treat it like art. Something like performance art, is much more open because the audience is right within the performance indirectly and essentially can respond in different ways.
A topic that is commonly brought up amongst new media students is why today's society labels artists on a very slim spectrum i.e. just painters, sculptors etc. and why some experimental artists work is not seen as art. I only bring that up because Kevin talked about how he goes about mentally preparing for one of his pieces. He says he knows when his piece will begin, end, where he will show it and the likewise. He then says that if he were a painter this process would not change. He would know how big his painting would be, which colors he was going to use, what the composition would look like, where he would show it off to even minor details to how far it would be from the flow while hanging on the wall. This is a prime example of how Kevin, along with many other performance/experiemental artists are not properly labeled as artists even though they most all of their work was mentally prepared the same as a painter or sculptor.
We are the documented generation. Just as everyone else has stated, this definitely jumped out at me the most. Cameras are so ubiquitous now and even though I love photography it's almost like a dying art form because everybody has a camera and everybody is posting millions of pictures online. I know we all have engaged in "photo sessions" with our friends. We are always trying to document what we feel to be significant, picture-worthy moments in our lives. Digital is ephemeral. My laptop has crashed many times on me and I've lost everything including my pictures. Now I am members of so many different websites and social networks that I have the same pictures and videos in multiple places, and I think it's crazy. As Kevin says social networking is endlessly pointless. Nothing can replace one on one, flesh and blood interaction.
We are the documented generation and there are cameras in more and more places and are becoming easier and easier to access. Its as well becoming easier to and quicker to store and share documentation.
We use cameras as a way of engadging with the world.
How you interrupt a video performance determines on where it is presented. When you are in an art gallery your audience is looking for art where it is different when you perform on the street for example.
Creation of your own audience. The idea that there is some large audience for your work is something that is overly misinterpreted.
How do you let the viewer of your work get engaged to it. What makes your work personal to you? What makes it work for you? Everybody views your work different then you do.
We are the documented generation. While the number of camera's in England is amazing, after the first month or so I didn't remember they were even there. Which is sad in a way because being on camera has just become another aspect of our everyday lives.
Thresholds between private space and public space. The line between what is private and what is public is getting more and more blurred by the internet and the use of camera's.
Audience is responsible for what's going on in front of them.
People want to see the world through cameras. Were now living in a world where people would rather turn on a TV and see what's happening in the world rather than walking outside and seeing for themselves.
You can control everything but what the audience is going to do.
I saw an interview with a film director where he was talking about the same subject everyone here is(documented generation. He was looking for extras, and had to go to Eastern Europe to find people who weren't as conscious of being on camera as we are in the west. He mentioned how we preen unconsciously when we think we are being photographed. Kevin's comment about there being no such thing as a impartial camera plays into that, though his point may have been about surveillance and who is behind the camera than vanity. When you document a performance, are you viewing the performance itself, or are you watching a simulation of it? Also that people are interacting with the world through cameras more and more. That speaks of people's continuing disassociation with reality, as mediated through our computer screens.
I think our new fixation with networking and documentation is a reflection of our cultural affinity for individualism (and perhaps colonialism). In "the real world" nearly everything we do is some intentional form of self-expression, be it the shoes you wear, the way you talk to people, or how you cut your hair. The creation of networking sites and video sharing services created a new territory for self expression. Out of habit, people create digital versions of themselves to hold a presence in the web space. These digital versions aren't always honest. Sometimes they are fantasized, or outright lies. Regardless, one's online identity becomes something to tout.
This explains why the vast majority of accounts on youtube don't represent filmmakers or production companies, but individual people talking to the camera(us). Our obsession with documentation is our attempt to extend ourselves into cyberspace, and for most people the most natural way to do this is through the "video blogging" style of looking into a camera and monologuing. This isn't the only way of projecting ones' self into cyberspace. I'll admit that I'm also a participant in this documentation craze, but of the 50+ videos I've shared, my image or voice only appear in 2 or so; but this does not mean my identity is projected any less thoroughly. Viewing the video i create and share is as strong a method of self documentation as any.
I really like his conceptual idea of giving a camera to a random individual and giving them the freedom to capture whatever the want. Then from what I could tell taking that imagery and creating a composition with it. It's sort of taking the control out of your own hands and delegating it to someone who really has no real goal or idea of what they're doing. All of the conversation was interesting and Kelvin seems like he has a sort of static artistic style rather then having one individual niche or voice. I also liked the comment he made about being unable to control the audience, because it's true. There's no way to really predict how people will interpret or interact with the work that you create. It's sort of scary in that sense, but it's something to take into consideration when creating anything.
9 comments:
Kevin Henderson
We are the documented generation
Were being observed (no such things as an impartial camera)
Documentation,-
Photography-tells us little of the events that took place, exploring the relationship
Video- with 6 hours of footage, have to sit down with it, remaking the performance/changing it
camera vs video performance, he's using it as a mediation between him as the performer and the audience
It was interesting when he discussed the use of digital media and how people use digital cameras wither cellphone small camera video camera etc.
(where do you have permission to do that, people believe its a audio visual passport)
How long will you watch before you act, was another interesting statement. Its reminds me of a discussion how people wont act when others are around because the believe someone else will do it, so if someone needs help they don't act instantly, believing someone else will act first.
Social networking-endlessly pointless in a strange way
Kevin Henderson
We are the documented generation.
As simple as this sounds, this statement has a really shocking effect for me. At one point in debating capstone ideas, I began asking myself why do we bother with all of this documentation and date storing? Do we need to be remembered? Is this the only motivation? I think that Henderson's statements in discussing documentation were really profound.
He also mentioned something that, the more I imagine it, is entirely true of video work. When you play the role of cameraman (or are in the performance and do not have a chance to watch live) you never have the chance to see your work through your own eye, it is always through the eye of another person or object. What does this take from the work (does it take anything at all)? Is there a way we can change this? In his own performance art, it isn't possible for him to see his own actions live because he is the primary performer. I suppose one would need to balance their own desire between participating in the action or having it documented because really here, the performance will always be seen different between many different eyes.
One last comment I will make is on the role that context and setting play in artwork. Raphael asked a very interesting question in that, does the creator have more control over the audience and how they view the performance in performance art vs. filmmaking, painting, etc.? I feel that, as was stated by Henderson, when something, anything, is placed in an art gallery, the audience will treat it like art. Something like performance art, is much more open because the audience is right within the performance indirectly and essentially can respond in different ways.
A topic that is commonly brought up amongst new media students is why today's society labels artists on a very slim spectrum i.e. just painters, sculptors etc. and why some experimental artists work is not seen as art. I only bring that up because Kevin talked about how he goes about mentally preparing for one of his pieces. He says he knows when his piece will begin, end, where he will show it and the likewise. He then says that if he were a painter this process would not change. He would know how big his painting would be, which colors he was going to use, what the composition would look like, where he would show it off to even minor details to how far it would be from the flow while hanging on the wall. This is a prime example of how Kevin, along with many other performance/experiemental artists are not properly labeled as artists even though they most all of their work was mentally prepared the same as a painter or sculptor.
We are the documented generation. Just as everyone else has stated, this definitely jumped out at me the most. Cameras are so ubiquitous now and even though I love photography it's almost like a dying art form because everybody has a camera and everybody is posting millions of pictures online. I know we all have engaged in "photo sessions" with our friends. We are always trying to document what we feel to be significant, picture-worthy moments in our lives. Digital is ephemeral. My laptop has crashed many times on me and I've lost everything including my pictures. Now I am members of so many different websites and social networks that I have the same pictures and videos in multiple places, and I think it's crazy. As Kevin says social networking is endlessly pointless. Nothing can replace one on one, flesh and blood interaction.
We are the documented generation and there are cameras in more and more places and are becoming easier and easier to access. Its as well becoming easier to and quicker to store and share documentation.
We use cameras as a way of engadging with the world.
How you interrupt a video performance determines on where it is presented. When you are in an art gallery your audience is looking for art where it is different when you perform on the street for example.
Creation of your own audience. The idea that there is some large audience for your work is something that is overly misinterpreted.
How do you let the viewer of your work get engaged to it. What makes your work personal to you? What makes it work for you? Everybody views your work different then you do.
We are the documented generation.
While the number of camera's in England is amazing, after the first month or so I didn't remember they were even there. Which is sad in a way because being on camera has just become another aspect of our everyday lives.
Thresholds between private space and public space.
The line between what is private and what is public is getting more and more blurred by the internet and the use of camera's.
Audience is responsible for what's going on in front of them.
People want to see the world through cameras. Were now living in a world where people would rather turn on a TV and see what's happening in the world rather than walking outside and seeing for themselves.
You can control everything but what the audience is going to do.
I saw an interview with a film director where he was talking about the same subject everyone here is(documented generation. He was looking for extras, and had to go to Eastern Europe to find people who weren't as conscious of being on camera as we are in the west. He mentioned how we preen unconsciously when we think we are being photographed.
Kevin's comment about there being no such thing as a impartial camera plays into that, though his point may have been about surveillance and who is behind the camera than vanity.
When you document a performance, are you viewing the performance itself, or are you watching a simulation of it?
Also that people are interacting with the world through cameras more and more. That speaks of people's continuing disassociation with reality, as mediated through our computer screens.
I think our new fixation with networking and documentation is a reflection of our cultural affinity for individualism (and perhaps colonialism). In "the real world" nearly everything we do is some intentional form of self-expression, be it the shoes you wear, the way you talk to people, or how you cut your hair. The creation of networking sites and video sharing services created a new territory for self expression. Out of habit, people create digital versions of themselves to hold a presence in the web space. These digital versions aren't always honest. Sometimes they are fantasized, or outright lies. Regardless, one's online identity becomes something to tout.
This explains why the vast majority of accounts on youtube don't represent filmmakers or production companies, but individual people talking to the camera(us). Our obsession with documentation is our attempt to extend ourselves into cyberspace, and for most people the most natural way to do this is through the "video blogging" style of looking into a camera and monologuing. This isn't the only way of projecting ones' self into cyberspace. I'll admit that I'm also a participant in this documentation craze, but of the 50+ videos I've shared, my image or voice only appear in 2 or so; but this does not mean my identity is projected any less thoroughly. Viewing the video i create and share is as strong a method of self documentation as any.
I really like his conceptual idea of giving a camera to a random individual and giving them the freedom to capture whatever the want. Then from what I could tell taking that imagery and creating a composition with it. It's sort of taking the control out of your own hands and delegating it to someone who really has no real goal or idea of what they're doing. All of the conversation was interesting and Kelvin seems like he has a sort of static artistic style rather then having one individual niche or voice. I also liked the comment he made about being unable to control the audience, because it's true. There's no way to really predict how people will interpret or interact with the work that you create. It's sort of scary in that sense, but it's something to take into consideration when creating anything.
Post a Comment