I’m presenting at the next Communications Graduate Research Conference at RMIT on Saturday the 17th. Its a chance to present what I’ve found and made over the course of my MA so far, outline how I will structure my final exegesis and get feedback from a panel of supervisors/experts in the field.
Here’s what I’ll be speaking about:
This project explores the use of real time interactivity and network awareness in screen based new media works through the production of new experimental works (Vidgets).
A common strategy used by various new media theorists is to compare new and emerging media forms with their precursors and predecessors. With this project, rather than focusing on the aesthetic and formal similarities and differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media in search of causality or correlation, I am examining similarities and differences in terms of the processes involved in the production and use media art works.
I am looking at ways in which aspects of real time interactivity and network awareness can be found in a range of ‘old media’ production processes, and how these may be used to inform the development of new works.
Using this approach I have found that my own real time interactive / network aware video works may share more in terms of process with sound and conceptual art than those of traditional and even experimental film making.
I plan to talk about the two main conceptual/practical shifts which have occurred over the course of my project.
- Moving from a ‘cinema + interactivity’ starting point to an approach that sees moving images and sound as one of many possible outcomes of real time interactive, network aware processes. I found that unlike those involved in cinema, the processes used in the production of sound art and noise music were often focussed on real time interactivity through the playing of instruments and noise machines, the use of chance, and an increased awareness of the environment and the work’s relationship to it.
- Moving from an ‘object’ based description and understanding of new media works to a more distributed ’systems’ approach.
More on this soon.
On Saturday I presented at the School of Applied Communications Graduate Research Conference at RMIT. In the past MA and PhD students have been assessed by their supervisors every six months or so as either not satisfactory, satisfactory, good or excellent. This was the first time the school has run a GRC which allows students to present their projects publicly in front of a panel, answer questions and receive advice and critique from other students and staff. In the past I have been along to see GRCs run by the design and architecture schools who make a big production out of the event, flying in special panel guests and really forcing students to defend their work with tough questions.
I found the process of getting ready for the GRC and presenting to be very helpful, making me look back over what I’ve been reading and doing and what I need to write more about. I made a couple of mistakes in my presentation, the main one was that I didn’t keep track of how much time I had. I was concerned about not rushing through my points without explaining them properly, and at the same time not repeating myself too much, I think I still repeated myself a bit. I spent a bit of time at the start of the presentation explaining my background and my initial ideas for the project. This was good on one hand because it framed my work and the developments I have made. It also put me at ease, since it was very easy to talk about. On the other hand it took too long which meant I didn’t have enough time to go into my latest research and Vidgets in enough depth towards the end of the presentation. For a 20 min presentation I guess you only have time for the highlights.
The general mood of the conference was pleasant and helpful from my experience and the presentations I saw. Unlike the architecture style panels which can be very intense, challenging the presenters on any mistakes or unclear points, my panel gave me opportunities to clarify a couple of points I explained badly in the Q & A session which followed and actually highlighted some links between ideas that I hadn’t identified.
HorizonZero Issue 08 : REMIX
HorizonZero is a Canadian online digital art and culture journal produced as a collaboration between The Banff Centre’s New Media Institute and Culture.ca. This remix issue is from April/May 2003 and features a number of interesting articles.
On Bricolage by Anne-Marie Boisvert (translated by Timothy Barnard) is particularly interesting.
“The remix depends, above all, on the way the artist interacts with his or her machinery; on the “samples” chosen and the way they are related; and on the relationship between the work (which is always a work in progress) and the audience.”
The journal itself consists of both traditional, written articles and interactive flash pieces.
It has been deathly quiet around dpwolf/blog land lately so I thought I’d bring some deathly noise.
Faxed Head are an extreme / death / black / noise / metal band from Coalinga USA with an excellent (very dark) sense of humor. See their bio on the site for their complete mythology and read how the members’ group suicide pact went horribly wrong leaving Mc Patrick Head confined to a wheelchair and permanently covered in plaid, Neck Head with no head at all and LaBreya Tar Pits Head with his face covered in tar.
The site also features mp3s and some video of their 1997 tour of Australia. I remember seeing them on Channel 31 way back then, hilarious 
Their most recent album features a ‘re-imagining’ of the 2pac/Dr Dre classic California Love as Coalinga Love. It looks like their site hasn’t been updated in a couple of years (maintained by ASCII Head!) so I wonder if they are still around.
Listening to Faxed Head also reminds me of Michelle Phillipov’s presentation at Critical Animals in Newcastle: ‘Septic vomit of chyme’: Death metal vocality and the disavowal of identification.
“Rock’s “authenticity” has long been predicated on its ability to “represent” the everyday lives of its audience, with the singing voice functioning as the primary identificatory locus of listening. Michelle Phillipov explores how death metal troubles this literal reading of the power of rock and voice.”
While I missed most of the actual paper, I caught the discussion which followed in a room full of lively metal enthusiasts. Christy Dena has posted a a full rundown of the Critical Animals Papers (including my presentaion) at the ANU underthesun collaborative weblog.
Again from the Electrofringe list (join here):
EXPERIMENTA
2004 NEW VISIONS COMMISSIONS
Call For Submissions
Deadline: 12 July 2004
Experimenta is inviting emerging digital artists, new media artists,
filmmakers, video makers and animators to submit project ideas for the 2004
New Visions Commissions program that reflects upon the concept of illusions.
Continue reading ‘Call for submissions: Experimenta New Visions 2004′
It looks like its “Calls for entry” season, I’d better get to work on some applications.
From the Electrofringe list:
CALL FOR PAPERS: CRITICAL ANIMALS - postgraduates working in the new medias.
Continue reading ‘Call for papers: Critical Animals’
While I have been known to quote Lunenfeld and write about how “unfinish defines the aesthetic of digital media”* and so on, the truth is that I’m finding it hard to post things to this weblog which are unfinished.
When I’m uploading little Quicktime experiments I want them to be finished before I reveal them to the world. Even when I’m just posting a link to a website I tend to store the link as a draft for ages before I write something about it and the post is finished.
I need to do something about this… just post it.
I actually like it when I read someone else’s half idea, or see a work in progress. I think it also makes for more interesting comments and discussion.
So watch for more activity and half finished ideas.
* Lunenfeld, P. (1999). Unfinished Business. The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media. P. Lunenfeld. Cambridgw, The MIT Press: 7-22.
