Thursday, June 23, 2011
Artist Post 3- Nikeplatz
0100101110101101.org is a group of media artists who use “non conventional communication” to obtain large amounts of visibility by using the least amount of effort possible. In the past they have had an artist dress up and rip off the Holy See, and have spread a computer virus as an art form. The article I read on Rhizome.com talked about one of their latest works known as Nikeplatz, which took place in Vienna.
In October of 2003 Eva and Franco Mattes (also known as 0100101110101101.org) created a disturbance in Karlsplatz, one of Vienna’s historic squares. The duo distributed fliers, and set up a website reporting that the square was to be renamed Nikeplatz as an advertising gimmick for Nike. This was not at all true and Nike claimed they had nothing to do with the work and started legal action to shut down the performance. Prior to being shut down, the artists brought in a huge hi-tech container building and placed it right in the middle of the square. On the outer windows a sign read “This square will soon be called. Nikeplatz, some inside to find out more.” Inside the building two people dressed in Nike regalia told about Nike’s new campaign where they would be purchasing streets, squares, parks, and boulevards and renaming them Nikesquare, Nike street, etc. The Nike building also informed citizens about the huge sculpture that would be implemented in the next year, a 36 meter long “Nike swoosh” made from steel and covered in recycled sneaker soles. The sculpture was to placed directly in front of Vienna’s historic and governmental buildings. Many Viennese people are confused and upset at seeing the historic square “sold” to Nike without any public consultation. As a result, many hand written letters were sent out to the Government of Vienna, and articles concerning the issue were published in newspapers. The artists behind the work were ready for this and responded by setting up an information line where people could call in and a female voice would answer questions and listen to complaints.
When it was finally established that neither Nike nor the city of Vienna were involved in the act, Nike released a report saying they would take legal action against whomever was putting on the prank on the grounds of copyrights. On October 10th 0100101110101101.org announced they were behind the event. They stated they wanted to use the entire city as a stage for a “huge urban performance” experimenting with people perception of reality. The performance was produced with the help of Public Netbase, Vienna’s “netculture” group who approached the project with the mindset that they were interested in manipulating everyday life to make people look at artistic freedom in a new way.
On October 14th, Nike released a statement saying all of the acting must cease and the project must be removed or they would claim 78,000 euros for damages. The artists were obviously upset, and pointed out that artists have always drawn from copyrighted material. He uses Andy Warhol’s famous Campbell’s soup as an example. Despite Nike’s warnings the artists decided to go on wit their performance and the Nikeplatz remained until the 24 of October of that same year. Interestingly enough, the instillation Nike Infobox, faced the “Viennese Secession” building on which huge gold letters read “To every time its art. To every art its freedom.”
The artists who created this project were definitely making a statement about the effects of corporate business on society. They took the idea to an extreme to get attention, placing corporate advertising above historical monuments and buildings. It is interesting how the artists chose to include the entire city at large as part of their artwork making the project very political. I also thought it was creative how the artists used only the Infobox as the tangible aspect of the art work and all other aspects were digital or created digitally. The minimalistic approach was fascinating in its effectiveness.
I think perhaps the idea of corporate business could have been communicated without the use of the Nike symbol though. I think it is a little harsh that the artists targeted just one particular company when their art is clearly making such a judgmental statement. However I did also think that the artists had a good point when they noted that artists have always drawn art from society. It also seems a bit unfair to upset the people of Vienna to such an extent. I think that the fact that the art was so extreme makes it seem more like a practical joke than a work of art, which can detract from the quality of it in some aspects.
In total, I believe the Nikeplatz project was an impressive work of art, especially in that it was collaboration between many net artists coming together for a common cause. The minimalism of it was very effective, given the response of Vienna and Nike. In many ways art is meant to be a political statement, and if that was the goal of these artists their work does a good job accomplishing that goal.
Link to the Rhizome Site on the Project
Link to the Rhizome Site on the Project
Monday, June 20, 2011
criticism on self portrait
maybe make the words follow the contour of my body and fit more into the background!
can be achieved by hitting enter or by making each line of text a separate text block.
can be achieved by hitting enter or by making each line of text a separate text block.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Artist Post #2- Peters Sinclair and G.H. Hovagimyan
A Soa(POP)era for Laptops
Peter Sinclair of Marseille, France and G.H. Hovagimyan if New York City came together in 1998 to create A Soa(POP)era for Laptops. Both artists work with cross-media and sound and began playing with computers and the internet to create art, shortly after it was developed. A Soa(POP)era for Laptops uses four computers or laptops to create a sort of play or performance. Each of the laptops are mounted on “custom made loudspeaker-trailers.” The laptops use programed voice and word recognition as well as text-to-speak programming to hold “conversations” with each other. The conversations often have long pauses where none of the computers say anything, when they do, their voices are very automatic sounding and it is difficult to understand what they are saying. Because the computers respond to key words that trigger responses as a way of imitating human conversation, the difficulty of understanding what the computers are saying often results in one of the computers misinterpreting what another computer said and the conversation taking on an entirely different track than what was originally being discussed. The artists interact with the computers by playing guitar and talking to the computers, and the computers software allows the computers to listen and sing along.
This exhibition was recreated by the same artists several times using different computers and staged backgrounds. In one performance the computers were mounted on remote controlled cars which were then driven around by the artists, in another performance all of the computers were seated on lounge furniture. Each new performance was given a new name and so the alternate titles of the piece are Exercises in Talking and Les Jaseurs. The conversation points of the computers are deliberately mundane, discussing cars, sex, shopping, politics, and food. The computers occasionally burst out into song at strange moments.
I believe the artists are making a fascinating statement about the advancement of technology, and how this affects society as a whole. I also think there is a certain commentary going on regarding human-to-human interactions and how in some ways these interactions can seem automatic or programmed. The fact that the computers respond to specific key words seems to be a very clever imitation of the way human interactions take place. However the little glitches in programming where the computers may respond in song or completely misunderstand what the other computer said and go off talking about something bizarre allow the viewer to think about why humans find these responses inappropriate. Why is it that we feel that it is not socially appropriate to burst into song at any given moment? Why must conversations stay on the same track for a given amount of time? These social constructions are definitely being explored through the (for the time period it was developed) new lens of technology. There are also underlying tones regarding the advancement of computers and the absurd potential of them becoming just like humans, able to interact in the same way but with the removal of any real emotional feeling or motivation. This idea seemed to be popular in the 1990’s as technology was new but rapidly being developed and people were unaware of the potential affects of it’s power.
The artists definitely add an aspect of sculpture to the piece by placing the computers on lounge furniture and providing them with “hair.” Each of the characters in the performance is defined mainly by their hair, as their voices all sound very similar. The lighting is dramatic and increases the idea that this is a performance. I also find it fascinating that the artists themselves become part of the performance as they go onstage and interact with the computers by singing and talking, almost mimicking a children’s television show.
While I don’t necessarily have any critiques of the piece, I’m not sure I would want to sit through an entire performance. The length of the performances is not provided on the webpage but it seems like it could be a long process. While I find the idea fascinating, I much prefer to study the instillation from the internet, rather than seeing it in person, the complete reverse of how I feel about most art pieces. However in this particular instance, the videos and well rounded website made it possible for me to have a very solid idea about what this piece consists of and how it operates. I think this piece is an interesting representation of how people thought about computers in the 1990’s and how some people feel about the advancement of technology today. Although I think most of the fears of technology becoming humanized has subsided this piece looks at several ideas regarding human and computerized interactions that are very relevant to modern society.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)