Journal 2

Topic: Altering images ultimately changes the meaning of the original work. When a work represents “reality” do you think it is ethical to alter an image to change its meaning from the work's original context? In what ways do you believe this plays a part in Ken-Gonzales-Day’s works, The Bone Grass Boy: The Secret Banks of the Conejos River and Untitled #36 (pp.36-37)?

            Ultimately, it depends on the purpose of the alteration; otherwise I’d say that completely changing the meaning from the original work is not ethical. The fact that it could be changed to any meaning, including the direct opposite of the original ruins the purpose. For example, say if a piece was for just aesthetical looks, but someone else took that art and used it in a marketing design, then it not only does it not benefit the original artist, but the other person is making money without trying.

            However with works like Ken Gonzales-Day, one can look toward an entirely new meaning from the piece with just a touch of added content. The fact that everyone is different, each of us can conjure up a multitude of perspectives; it all depends on what we individually think on what makes “reality”. It can be from uncovering the disgusting actions of people such as racism, sexism, or pollution, to identifying stereotypes, television tropes, and pop culture.

            In today’s world, we have access to photo manipulating software like photoshop and GIMP, and although they may be fun things to do, depending on the audience that views the end product can produce a false reality. Take for instance, ads in magazines that feature models, not all of them are “picture perfect”, they are made that way through photo manipulation. This in turn can give people a false standard at which they need to look at. In other instances, some pieces can be easily spotted as photo manipulated especially if filters, and other objects are noticeable, which obviously deny reality. In the end, photomanipulation is going to constantly be around for years to come; I just hope we don’t abuse this or get lost in it.

Journal 1

Topic: What do you believe are the most significant ways that digital art / new media impact society and culture in the United States?"

In comparison to today’s society as compared to two decades ago, our generation of people have been more media and visual based than ever. In a previous class that I took for when I used to be an engineering major, we had to survey several people on the creation of a new toy. Throughout the various responses that I’ve received, the most common answer was that it had to be either visually attracting, or digitally based.  As mentioned in Digital Art by Christine Paul, the technology that we have today offers a multitude of new methods for creating visually stimulating pieces. (Paul 2008 p. 7).

Throughout my childhood in the era of the 90’s, although I didn’t notice until I looked upon the past now, the use of the computer gradually became more of a portion of my life. Whether it was the infantile stages of when the Internet was dial-up connection, educational computer games like JumpStart or The Magic School Bus, or even movies/shows that were coming out like Toy Story or Reboot, digital media has been ingrained as a major component of not only the 90’s generation, but inspiration for now and the future ahead.

However with today and everyone being on computers and the World Wide Web, digital art takes a different eye to look at rather than how one would observe the content of traditional media. “Digital art projects often require audience engagement and do not reveal their content at a glance.” (Paul 2008, p. 23). Apart from the computer art, the artwork presented upon sites like Deviantart, give an entirely different aspect for the pieces. The fact that Internet art is made to be seen by anyone who has access to the Internet, changes the whole “gameplay” of the necessity for physical galleries or museums; for instance, one could immediately access a piece of work anywhere that had Net access and would not have the need to package the art.

At the same time, I believe that sometimes with Internet art, there is a slightly dangerous aspect to it, whether you’re critiquing a piece or are the original poster, with the fact that people can hide under the Internet anonymity, responses can be as harsh as with a piece that can be placed in a museum. Another aspect about the Internet would be copyright/crediting issues; it is so easy for another person to steal another’s piece of art. However, positive responses can come up just as much in the similar situation.  Like with traditional art techniques or themes that became known to other artists shortly after their birth, the same could be said with digital art; especially with people posting tutorials online or creating Internet memes that people start using in real life. The main matter is, whether the artwork is traditional or digital, with technology being as advanced as it is today, digital and media art will continue existing in our lives and creating influence among our culture.

Here’s a link to a gallery of CG work that inspires me:

http://www.andywhiteley.com/

Paul, C. 2008. Digital Art. 2nd edition. NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.