PIPILOTTI RIST

4. How has Pipilotti Rist used new media/technology to enhance the audience's experience of her work.

She uses all sorts of thigns to create an immersive, and almost interactive experience for the viewer. She uses things like large video screen projections on several walls surrounding the viewer so that he/she has to constantly turn around to try and catch it all, and as a result the viewer sort of gets a different experience every time. And she also uses digital sound effects to create an immersive ambience to with the visceral experience. She basically uses these new technoglogies to create a vivid assault on the senses which a two dimensional painting on canvas for example, cannot really achieve in the same way.

5. Comment on how the installation, sound and scale of 'Ever is Over All' (1997) could impact on the audience's experience of the work.

The whole thing is kind of a sensual bombardment. First of all, it's large, so that the vivid colours and tranquility of the videos is kinda hypnotizing and in your face, and the sound is kind of 'trippy' in a Yoko Ono sort of way, which I think adds to the whole trance like hypnotic experience for the viewer. And the installation itself is very interesting in general, because two moving images are projected simultaneously, perpendicular to each other, and overlapping somewhat. On one side is the weird trance video of the woman walking slo-mo down the street smashing windows and such, and on the other side, sort of butting in, is a tranquil moving image of flowers and fields, so I guess the viewer is kind of watching the narrative of the woman character in the street and her story, but at the same time experiencing a sort of trance-like state of tranquility, floating in a field of flowers and sunlight and timelesness, which I think is actually supposed to reflect the state of mind of the woman in the video. So the viewer is kinda experiencing her actual state of mind or something.

6. Comment on the notion of 'reason' within the content of the video. Is the woman's behaviour reasonable or unreasonable?

Well I for one think that the woman's behaviour is completely unreasonable, and totally unacceptable. In fact, I would have some very strong words for her regarding her conduct. She has absolutely no right to go around destroying other people's property just because she wants to 'express' some feminist free thinking notion about life or materialism or something. If I had a BMW, and she vandalized its windows, and then tried to explain her reasons to me with some liberal Euro-hippie crap, I would be very short with her, that's for sure.

As for the notion of reason within the video, I'm not sure. I don't think there's a clear stance on it in there. I think maybe the video's just saying that there is a certain state of mind within all of us, or at least all women, where reason doesn't really matter. I think the video's narrative is more of 'what if' kind of scenario. What if the outside world actually felt like we feel when we are feeling peaceful and tranquil and flowery inside, and are maybe a little tired of the mundane, and just want to go out there and float or something. I don't know, it's pretty vague, and I think it's meant to be that way. It's meant to be more of a visceral experience rather than an intellectual one. But I'm not sure. I'm a little wary of that woman's character anyway...I'm sure she's lovely, I just think she might key someone's car or something.

7. Comment on your 'reading' (understanding) of the work by discussion the aesthetic (look), experience and the ideologies (ideas, theories) of the work.

I'm not really sure I understand the idealogies of the piece. I think the overall theme here is a kind of feeling one gets. Actually I think from a feel based point of view, it's probably aimed more at women than men. That is to say that it's probably a lot more effective for women than it is for men. I for one would tend to look at this piece and think "Ok, some woman walking around being all arty and rebel-like, yawn, so what?' whereas a woman would probably look at it and go "Oh my god, I have so totally felt like that one time, like, she totally gets me." or something along those lines. I'm not really poking fun here. Well I am, sort of. But only a little bit. I guess what I'm saying here is that I think the work is designed specifically to evoke a certain kind of feeling in women. A feeling that is very free, maybe almost zen-like in the sense that it's a state of mind where nothing petty and materialistic and socialistic matters, because even though one is walking down a bleak and grey street, one is free because one has only sunshine and tranquility on the inside.

So it's kind of a statement about how maybe people have to be more aware that the daily constrictions and stresses of life don't have to get to one as much as they do, because one can have a core of tranquility on the inside. This is conveyed very effectively through the vivid, yet tranquil colours of the flowers and scenery running alongside the street scene, as well as the soothing ( or un-nerving ) soundtrack enveloping the viewer from all sides.

Also, there are a lot of publications out there saying they detect a feminist undertone in the piece, cars being a male symbol and the cop being female and such, but I'm not really sure. I mean yea, there probably is some kind of undertone in there about men being part of the reason she wants to float down the street there and bash windows, and exchange a little Hi five with the femi-nazi cop etc..  I'm guessing most of those cars are owned by men, right? But overall, I think its a visceral experience. (I don't exaclty know what 'visceral' means, I assume it means something like 'not intellect-based' )

PIPILOTTI RIST

DO YOU THINK THE CONTEMPORARY ART WORL VALUES ART WORK THAT USES NEW MEDIA/TECHNOLOGIES OVER TRADITIONAL MEDIA?

Gee I don't know, that's quite a broad question. I guess both have their place. But I would have to say that when it comes to the practical contemporary art world such as the movies, TV, video games, mucis etc, then definetly yes. In those sort of fields, new medias and technologies have become pretty much the staple, and things almost can't be done without them anymore. And it's not just special effects in movies, or sound mixing on albums and soundtracks and stuff like that. Concept art for example, which is pretty much the foundation of any media enterprise these days, almost has to be done digitally these days in order to meet deadlines. I mean concept designs for characters, costumes, etc, can be and are still being done with pen and paper, but proper production paintings which set mood, tone and lighting, pretty much have to be painted digitally these days, because to paint them by hand would take at least ten times longer, and they have to be churned out a dozen a day almost. And the music industry these days relies almost entirely on computers, even if the music itself is recorded tradionally with instruments. And video games , which I would argue is also definetly art, is pretty much a new technology/media in iotself.

But I guess the question above is probably directed more at the world of contemporary fine arts, which is basically a minefield of grey areas.  I think that as it stands, new medias and technologies, which is really only used in installation kind of art, is despite its popularity, still more of an outside niche in the art world. I mean sure we see a lot of it, but after doing seventeen hours of thorough research on the matter, I'm getting the impression that tradionally crafted paintings and sculptures are still the popular majority in the fine arts world.
In fact, in a recent segment about Manhattan fine art in New York business journal, the numbers would suggest that traditional painters and sculptors are about ten million times more popular than installation artists using new media. Now obviously this is an unfair statistic in terms of artistic 'value' amongst the fine arts community because it springs from the notion that a famous painter in Manhattan can develop a following, and turn his paintings into profitable commodities, selling them for several million dollars apiece, whereas an installation artist can't. That is to say that he can develop a following just the same, and snag fairly decent commissions for an installation or two, but he cannot turn the installation itself into a commodity and sell it (at least not in most cases.).

So the study showed that tradional media is definetly more profitable in the contemporary fine arts world, and according to studies, also more popular and more heavily patronized. So I would have to go out on a limb here and guess that at this stage, traditional painting and sculpture is probably still the king of the fine arts world. And Im basing it on the fact that people simply hear about famous contemporary painters more often than they do about famous installation artists. But that can of course all change, because the whole new media/technology/ installation art thing is still a relatively new category in the fine arts field.

(unfortunately I cannot quote the exact title of that New York Business article because I was reading it in a takeaway shop a few years back, pretty sure it was 'The New Yorker' though.)

WEEK 5: Scientific revolution

According to Wikipedia, the scientific revolution was a time around the 17th century when big new ideas about Physics, biology, human anatomy, astronomy, and other sciences were being latched onto by the general population. This of course changed the way people viewed the world a great deal, because it replaced a lot of previous doctrines and superstitions, particularly the governing religious ones of the medieval era. The scientific revolution started in Europe near the end of the Rennaisance era, and continued through to the late 18th century, paving the way for modern science.

The scientific revolution was one of the most important developments in our history because it overthrew the previous itellectual beliefs and philophies of the western world, which were built around the minds of Aristotle, Ptolemy and Galen, and brought in a whole new age of intellectual and spiritual thought. And basically it brought in science and maths, because that's what this whole new area of enlightenment revolved around. It wasn't really a 'let's get rid of the church and put our faith in science' kind of thing- it was more the realization that wether one believes in god or not, the world functions around scientific systems and principles which can be explored and developed.

So we can still see the effectc of the scientific revolution all around us today because without maths and science we wouldn't have television. Or computers and stuff like that.