Art 245
Final Paper
Art is defined as the creation of beautiful or significant things; it is making something out of nothing; it is someones expression; it is lived and witnessed throughout the world (Google Define). Within the world of digital media, artists all possess innovative talents. These new and exciting technological approaches to art differ vastly from one another but are equally fascinating. The book called, Art in the Electronic Age, by Margot Lovejoy talks extensively about the increased potential of the interactive art possibilities and the use of technologies. With the Internet, CD-ROM’s, as well as the potential for artists to create their own software and hardware, the possibilities are endless (Lovejoy, 282). New software and hardware programs are allowing the artist to receive feedback from a person’s actions, voice, input, as well as touch and gestures (Lovejoy, 199). Artists can now create a space where a participant can obtain an infinite number of responses from a particular piece of interactive art.
Throughout the book, Lovejoy also talks about how these interactions can result in loss of control and how an artist’s intention can become diluted. With little control the audience can change and alter the meaning and desired outcomes of the artwork (Lovejoy, 199). In this revealing and art-rich period, questions arise about the role of the artist’s and the function of art. Although new technology art has many dangers, it has provided endless possibilities and great new artwork that reflects the 20th century at large. Some good examples of this kind of artwork include: Ken Rinaldo’s “Autopoiesis”, and David Rokeby's “The Giver of Names”
The first interactive installation example is by Ken Rinaldo called “Autopoiesis”. This particular piece interacts with groups of participants within a gallery space. Within this space, Rinaldo introduces the concept of self-making or self-interaction (Wikipedia). The gallery space was commissioned in 2000 and consists of fifteen robotic sound sculptures. These machine-like sculptures interact to the presence of visitors as well as each other. Rinaldo’s machines learn and understand each other’s presence, and communicate with each other through a computer network and audible telephone tones. Rinaldo expanded on the idea of the machines interacting with humans by adding a self-realizing component where the individual mechanical limbs work and seemingly communicate with each other. Rinaldo’s limbs do this by communicating with each other through a hard-wired network. The computer system ultimately creates a musical language for the group of machine limbs (Rinaldo). Not only do the set of fifteen limbs communicate verbally, they also physically communicate by bending towards one another. Furthermore, they are capable of organizing waves and other interesting group movements. By adding individual computer controls onto each machine, they seem as if they are real creatures. When left alone the machines still talk to one another as if they were alive. Another interesting aspect to this project is that the limbs can also operate individually. The “randomizers” within each machine allow them to continually change and automatically remake themselves. They also allow the machines to form a group consciousness, where what is said by one, effects what is said by the others. The randomizers are also used to give the viewer a sense of emotional state, where the machines use higher tones to portray fear and lower tones with relaxation and play (Rinaldo). As visitors walk up to the machines they will bend to greet them. Infrared sensors alert them of participant’s presence and more sensors on the tip keep them from hitting a viewer, or one another. The piece can become quite chaotic and at times overwhelming. This piece of work reflects Lovejoy’s idea of the new technology and the dangers relating to the work. This installation was done so well that Rinaldo’s computer system gives him complete control over the machines while still allowing the viewer to experience free will and endless possibilities.
David Rokeby's “The Giver of Names”, commissioned in 1998, is another piece which focuses on the interaction of humans in an electronic environment (Wikipedia). Like Rinaldo’s, “Autopoiesis”, it is an electronic art installation which interacts with participants. With this particular artificial intelligence simulation, the audience is asked to interact with a small video projection, a pedestal, and a large amount of assorted objects on the floor of the gallery space (Rokeby). The participant is given directions to place any combination of the objects on the pedestal. As they place their chosen objects on the pedestal it then triggers the computer program to generate a series of sentence’s based on the objects’ shapes, colors, texture and proximity to the other objects. As the computer system tries to make sense of the objects, they are transitioned into even more abstract objects (Rokeby). The sentence is then transmitted onto the computer screen and read aloud. Within the space that Rokeby created he also creates an entirely new layer of interaction called self-interaction. There are enough combinations of objects and words generated by the computer to give the participant the impression that it is up to them to create the sentences. The artist’s intent was to change the viewer’s preconceptions of the objects and enable them to draw separate conclusions. He intended to draw the assumption between perception and language and show the way language inhibits our ability to see. Since the computer system tied with this exhibit has never experienced the world as we know it, it produces its own assumptions of the objects. Although the participant is given the illusion that they are in control, the artist has limited the computers vocabulary to 100,000 words and the constraint of making grammatical sense, thus limiting the possibilities of the sentences created (Rokeby). This interactive installation reflects Lovejoy’s idea of how the artist’s intent is not always fulfilled. As Rokeby is looking for open-mindedness in the audience’s interpretation, he also has an overall meaning of his work (Lovejoy, 282). By making the constraints so large, his participants ultimately do have free will to make assumptions and may not interrupt his gallery space as he indented. While this particular piece of work could be deemed risky because of its use of technology and the freedom the viewer has, it still provides control, meaning, and a unique experience that art has yet to define.
The artists previously mentioned all used various methods to create successful interactive installations that provide the illusion of endless possibilities. Within these artworks, the viewer is intended to create their own interruptions even thought this method of art is controversial. Although they both were risky projects to endure, both artists proved to be successful. Both installations vary in many different ways but they also possess many similarities. Ken Rinaldo’s “Autopoiesis” meaning “self-making”, summarizes both projects; Rinaldo’s work highlights key concepts within Rokeby’s installation of the “Giver of Names”, while elaborating on the element of mechanical self-realization, whereas Rokeby introduces and focuses more on self-interaction (Rinaldos). Within both works each artist gives the viewer the sense of control and provides a gallery space where they have to interact to get results. They both use new technology art installation and computer generated software systems.
There are differences too, however. Unlike the “Giver of Names”, “Autopoiesis” has less of an overall meaning or a specific intent. Rinaldo’s work is primarily constructed because of his fascination between living and evolving technological material and his intent for this project is just that (Rinaldo). Although Rinaldo’s Autopoiesis is very controlled, it’s less controllable because of the fact that it heavily relies on the participants input. While the “Giver of Names” needs a participant to operate, once it obtains its interactive viewer, it has more control because of its given constraints described above. Also we should take into account that the “Giver of Names” was created much earlier in time than “Autopoiesis”. The computer system is much more limited in its interaction and therefore is far less intelligent. Another difference between these two projects is the type of interactions they make. Although both interactions engaged a variety of the viewer’s senses, the “Giver of Names” has a more physical interaction. The participant has to physically place items on the pedestal, whereas the “Autopoiesis” is more verbal because of the communicative exchange between the participant and the machine.
Interactive installations are a unique new form of art, presenting audiences with a new way to both see and experience an artist’s ideas as well as a new way to visualize and interact with technology. Throughout the book, Lovejoy discusses this new type of art. Rokeby and Rinaldo are just two of the many fascinating artist using technology in their work. Both these artists engaged the audience by creating a new outlook for the world of art. They both take risks when creating such art. Some intent may be lost within the experience but by creating endless possibilities within their artwork they should come to expect such an outcome. Giving the audience the opportunity to interact with machines, electric devices and tools that are used daily, these artists allowed the audience to engage these machines in a new way, one which reminds the audience of the constant connection between humankind and technology.
Works Cited
Lovejoy, M. (2004). Digital Currents: art in the electronic age.
Rinaldo, K. (2000). Autopoiesis: Artificial life robotic sculpture installation . Retrieved from http://accad.osu.edu/~rinaldo/works/autopoiesis/autopoiesis.html
Rinaldo, K. (2000). Emergent Systems. Retrieved from http://accad.osu.edu/~rinaldo/
Rokeby, D. (2004). The Giver of Names Project. Retrieved from http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=4
Rokeby, D. (n.d.). The Giver of Names . Retrieved from 2010: http://homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/gon.html
Wikipedia. (2010). David Rokbey. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rokeby
Wikipedia. (2011). Ken Rinaldo. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Rinaldo
No comments:
Post a Comment