By BoLOBOOLNE payday loans
but I cannot find the post comment button.
i know its hard to believe, but even more words about art came out of my brain just now, its like a rushing torrent of insight and i cant stop itMarch 4, 2010 by jbaij
Charles Broskoski is working on a very real interest in painterly abstraction and the legacy of this type of work.
However, he is not blind to the fact that in employing digitally automated “painterly” tools on a computer, he radically re-orients the launching-off point for a consideration of these works.
The negotiation of these tensions—abstraction and automation—is, one could say, where the work occurs.
In the current design of Broskoski’s personal website, the artist displays his most recent painting—in this case, a layering of long, wide, generally vertical “brushstrokes” in the airy style of the late de Kooning into the form of a primordial “ball”—a locus of energy, both budding and dying, aggressive and nervous, which calls to mind Philip Guston’s early abstractions (as well as a muddied take on the reds, greens, blues and blacks from Guston’s palette in these abstractions).
The bottom edges of this “ball” seem to “put the brakes on” in an act of inertia, curling in against a threat of pure formlessness.
And, at the top, the brushstrokes seem to be shooting upward (as in transcendence), but—in a reversal of the physics occurring at the bottom—suffer a smooshing down (as in gravity).
The result is a stormy mass of energy simultaneously expanding away from its self and contracting into its self.
It has a kick.
But—as a painting—it also lacks a kick.
First of all, the painting is created on a computer with a mouse and a suite of digital “effects” rather than paint and canvas.
This is just to say that, despite the work’s painting references, Broskoski is not moving his body around the computer as if it were “an arena in which to act.”
Rather, he’s staring into a screen, moving his wrist and fingers around a bit.
I suppose one could call this action, but it lacks the erotic, spiritual (not to mention macho) associations one conjures up in considerations of expressionist painting.
Additionally, Broskoski’s paint is not paint—it’s pixels.
And if it’s printed on paper, it’s still not paint—it’s ink “painted” automatically by a machine—a printer.
So, where does this leave one?
Is Broskoski either (a.) a “fake” painter trying to pass for “real,” or (b.) a smart ass?
Or is there is there something else going on here?
A clue may be found in the caption to the work (the title to the work?)—a sort of clock reading “7 days ago…”
“7 days ago…” refers to the amount of time past since Broskoski uploaded the painting to his site.
Yesterday it read “6 days ago…”
The day before “5 days ago…”
Tomorrow it will read “8 days ago…” or perhaps “1 week ago…”
And so on until Broskoski uploads another work, thus resetting the clock.
What this counter adds to the work is a whole new type of anxiety—and a whole new type of way to think of Broskoski’s paintings as possessing meaning.
Like Josh Smith, Broskoski and artists such as Harm van den Dorpel are re-examining the possibility of a certain sincerity in painterly expression, but doing so not in the individual painting (well, not primarily in the individual painting), but as a performance—in time.
The deeper kick of the work, the kick that makes one remember why they care about art, is in Broskoski’s on-going struggle with the possibility of meaningful creation in painting and in the computer and in painting on the computer.
As one returns to the site again and again and again and again, watching him upload new work, trying things out, performing his creation, one begins to see it.
It turns out that what the computer shows me is not space, but time; not the digital painting, but digital painting.
By: Jeff Baij
Showreel is a video by Harm van den Dorpel depicting his own “version” or accounting-for of a collaboratively performed potlatch of screen captures shared-in-dialogue between himself as well as a group of artist friends–Charles Broskoski, Constant Dullaart, Martijn Hendriks, Pascual Sisto, and Ola Vasiljeva.
Van den Dorpel’s version of these events consists of an edited (and chronologically preserved) string of images filtered through the automatic effects of an intensified Ken Burns slideshow tool, ultimately resulting in an idiosyncratic, multi-layered representation of the time in which the images were collected and shared in the first place.
Through the continuous application of three automated functions in the slideshow software:
(1.) A slow dissolve into and out of a palimpsest of three to four (or more) image layers composed entirely of imagery appropriated from digital image archives.
(2.) A slow lateral movement over the majority of these image layers in both varying directions as well as varying rates of speed.
(3.) A slow zoom both into as well as out of approximately half of these image layers.
the video (or the extract of the video available on-line anyway) shows its viewer a reel of collaboratively endured time as, on the one hand, ineffable–a continuous flux of image layers merging with memories of image layers merging with emerging image layers—and, on the other hand, because ineffable, un-re(e)(a)l—always already just outside of one’s grasp.
Van den Dorpel’s version shows me the way, beginning with what—to my mind anyway—reads as:
A transparent layer of vertical lines and an orange flame flicker moving to the bottom left corner of the yellow-tinted photo of a quaint bedroom layout.
This image layer collision might strike one as what has been called an “intellectual montage”—image layer A + image layer B=image layer C (the synthesis)—in which, in short, the representation of stability (the vertical lines, the photographic representation of a bedroom) is rendered as unstable (the flame flicker).
But, that’s “in short.”
“In time,” this intellectual montage is, as the flame itself suggests (in an act of short circuiting), already (a thing of the) past—a memory crystal fighting against previous memory crystals, emergent memory crystals, and the ever-present threat of future memory crystals.
As soon as one feels the zap of the intellectual montage, its power—it’s “truth”—is just as quickly zapped out of one’s mind by emergent image layers such as:
(1.) A computer keyboard inverted 90 degrees.
(2.) Interconnecting plastic tubes forming a storage unit set against a black void.
(3.) A plane of refracted light in swimming pool water set against a black void.
(4.) Two vertical white lines set against a black void intersected by both a white ring as well as a pattern of white lines and arcs resembling the shape of a dish rack.
(5.) Hans Holbein the Younger’s The Ambassadors anamorphically skewed in perspective in order to mimic the famous anamorphic skewing of the skull in the bottom of the painting’s own original composition.
And so on and so on and so on and so on until one catches on that their own picture of the work is itself ineffable–glimpsed and then buried in the flow of memory crystals and emergent memory crystals in its wake.
Van den Dorpel’s version shows me the way.
References to inverted computing equipment, interlocking structures floating in voids, refracted light on swimming pool ripples, and the skewing of The Ambassadors point to a picture of time and time’s pictures as maya.
By: Jeff Baij
50 50 by Oliver Laric is a version of the 50 Cent track In Da Club composed of 50 other versions of the same track—in this case, YouTube user videos in which a user (or users) performs a homemade karaoke performance of a pop song in front of a home video camera or webcam.
Laric cuts these versions together in such a way as to create a single, seamless performance of the track which has less to say about In Da Club and more to say about the fact that the world of images in 2007—the year the video was initially uploaded–is composed of versions of In Da Club as much as it is composed of the original track.
When one searches for a pop track on YouTube, more often than not one will find versions of the track produced by rank-and-file YouTube users as opposed to an “original” version.
And if one does find an “original” version of the track, it will still be versioned anyway through the video’s visual component—say a slide show of thematically relevant imagery or a static screen of text and graphic elements advertising whatever it is that the user sells.
This ecology of versions is what 50 50 shows me—confronts me with when I view it.
It is thus a work of—one could say—YouTube art or new media art as it turns on the question “what is YouTube?” or “what is new media?”
But is it a work of contemporary art?
Well, does it turn on the question “what is contemporary art?”
I’m not sure.
It could be exhibited as contemporary art, but the problem is that that’s all that it could be as contemporary art—“exhibited”–one more interesting thing.
The work doesn’t address contemporary art’s own issues and concerns; it doesn’t look contemporary art in the eye.
And to 50 50’s credit, it really shouldn’t.
The work works because it frames itself in the paradigm of the Web and contributes to the world of that paradigm, describing the Web to itself.
In this way it is not unlike 50 Cent himself who frames his work in the paradigm of pop music and contributes to the world of that paradigm, describing the sound of pop to itself.
However, the sculptural component of Laric’s work Versions—a series of variations not on a YouTube function, but on an art-historical reference—does—one could say—speak to contemporary art by describing the history of fine art’s own entanglement in the condition of versioning to its contemporary self.
By creating a series of identical casts from the molding of an art historical work—an icon from St. Martin’s cathedral in Utrecht which was damaged in a fit of iconoclasm during the Protestant Reformation—and altering only the pigmentation of each casting, Laric mutates one’s understanding of iconoclasm.
The art icon is no longer physically defaced in order to save it—as in the Reformation—it is spiritually defaced in order to save it—as in the version.
In the press release for an exhibition of Versions at the Seventeen Gallery in London, an anonymous author writes in regard to Laric’s sculptures:
After the conceptual event of iconoclasm, after the physical inscription of that event as damage on the very surface of these icons, the formal hierarchy between the original and its modification is fundamentally undermined. Instead there is equipoise; no single truth, no original; no derivative; just versions…
This is a statement about the world of art and its objects, describing art to its contemporary self.
Thus, Oliver Laric’s project encompasses both works made for the world of new media as well as works made for the world of contemporary art.
So, which is he–a new media artist or a contemporary artist?
Well, perhaps if one was forced to locate the beating heart of his project one could say that Laric’s art occurs in neither new media nor in contemporary art, but rather on his website– in his leaps from world to world, performing the role of the artist, describing time to itself.
By: Jeff Baij
Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled.
Copyright © by David Ross
I reserve all publication rights to any Web page or portion of a Web page (including tables) marked with the © symbol as copyrighted by David E. Ross. Republication or performance — electronically, in hardcopy format, or orally — is prohibited without my express written permission.
This notice applies to all photographs — including photos I have placed at Flickr — but does not apply to any other graphic unless a separate copyright notice specific to that graphic appears on the Web page displaying it. In some cases, the separate notice is embedded in the graphic and appears when a cursor is placed over the graphic.
A table is not a graphic. The contents and format of a table appearing in any of my pages is covered by this copyright notice unless an explicit statement to the contrary appears for a specific table.
This notice does not apply to any quoted material attributed to someone else. However, such material might have a copyright owned by that other person or by another party.
I will not consider any request to copy or republish the HTML of any Web page. I might consider a request to copy the contents of a Web page to another non-commercial Web page providing the other Web page contains an appropriate statement attributing the source to me. For commercial Web pages, I will consider such requests only if my granting authorization to copy the contents of a Web page involves an appropriate payment to me in an amount to be negotiated. In general, however, I will only consider requests to print, display, recite, or capture the image of a page as it would appear in a Web browser window when obtained directly from my Web site; again, I will grant such requests only if proper attribution is made or if my copyright notice appears in the image.
I hereby grant permission to anyone to link to any of my Web pages via HTML from another Web page. However, if the referring Web page is a frame, the link must display my copyrighted page in a separate browser window and not within the frame (e.g.: via
TARGET=”_blank” in the anchor). In any case, the entire page — including my copyright notice — must appear without truncation or alteration when any link causes one of my copyrighted Web pages to appear in a browser window. Without alteration includes not adding any banner, launching any popup or popunder, inserting any graphic, altering any link, or substituting any style sheet.
In the paragraph above, I make a commitment: Anyone may link to any of my Web pages. Anyone needing a PGP-authenticated statement of my commitment (e.g., for a skeptical ISP) should send me an E-mail message indicating a preference for RSA or DSS/DH keys. I will reply with a digitally signed copy of the above paragraph, using one of my PGP keys.
- I do prefer that other Web pages link to mine rather than copy my text. This way, as I update my pages, the latest version remains available via the link.
- However, I sometimes delete a Web page when its content or subject matter become obsolete. I cannot be held responsible for broken links resulting from deleted pages. I do archive many of my deleted pages indefinitely.
- On occasion, I restructure my Web site, moving selected pages from one directory within my domain to another. When I do this, I usually leave a truncated page at the old location for about two months, with a warning that the page has moved and that viewers should update their bookmarks and links. Again, I cannot be held responsible for broken links resulting from moved pages.
Why Copyright My Pages?
I thought my Web pages had scant commercial value. Why would anyone pay for a copy of one of my pages when it can be seen for free through the Internet? However, I discovered that indeed at least one of my pages was copied more than once for commercial purposes. So far, I have been successful in stopping violations of my copyright without taking legal action. If I were ever unsuccessful, I would not hesitate to seek compensatory damages equal to whatever fees the violator received, plus possibly punitive damages. I definitely do not want someone else profiting from my effort without them also paying me.
Money is not the only reason to claim a copyright. These Web pages are the product of my mind. As such, I want to control their dissemination and use. I want to prevent someone else from twisting my words in a way that changes my meaning. And I certainly want to prevent someone else from republishing my ideas and claiming authorship. This kind of control falls within the protections given by a copyright.
In addition, I put much effort into formatting my Web pages (in part, to ensure they are indeed viewable by any browser). I update some of my pages rather frequently. I research the subjects addressed by my pages and include links to other Web pages relating to those subjects (including some very authoritative sources). Whenever I modify a page, I then verify that any links are still valid. I do not want my formatting lost, my recent changes ignored, or my efforts contaminated with stale links. A copyright gives me control to prevent such corruption.
Yes, I do receive requests to republish some of my pages. I have agreed to every request (more than one) that meets the requirements described on this page. And, no, I have never been paid by anyone receiving permission to republish these pages. (Money would be nice. Nicer yet is preserving the integrity of what I have written.)
Why Authenticate This Copyright Notice?
While I obviously support the protection of intellectual products through the use of copyrights, I think some commercial interests have gone overboard in the protections they claim. In particular, a federal judge ordered 2600 Magazine (a Webzine) to remove links to another Web site because that other site contained a download link for software that might violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — not for hosting the software (which was hosted elsewhere) but merely for having a link to it. In another case, EBay blocked another Web site from having links to pages internal to the EBay site.
Because of these legal cases, some ISPs have become wary regarding Web sites they host. If such a site contains a link to a copyrighted Web page, an ISP may require its customer to obtain a license from the owner of the linked page. My own position is that, if I can add a link to a Web page to my bookmarks file, then I can cite that link in any of my Web pages. My ISP (ISWest) has never expressed any concern with my position. However, if your ISP wants proof that I granted you permission to link to my Web pages, you can not only show your ISP this notice but also authenticate it through an E-mail message bearing my PGP signature.
Enforcing My Copyright
I put much time, research, thought, and effort into creating these Web pages. Unlike some others with personal Web sites, I have no advertising. I make no money from what I have created here. So when I find that someone has stolen my work — plagiarism is indeed theft — for commercial use, I feel abused and frustrated.
- 2005: I found six commercial Web sites that violated the copyright on one of my Web pages. I succeeded in having all infringing material removed or having the entire Web pages deleted.
- 2006: I found 11 commercial Web sites that violated my copyright. In nine cases, the infringing material was removed or the entire Web page was deleted when I informed the page’s owner of the copyright violation. In the remaining two cases, the pages’ owners ignored my communication. One Web site was then blocked by its Web hosting service after I lodged a complaint of copyright violation with that service. The other site remained an open issue into 2007.
- 2007: I found three commercial Web sites that violated the copyright on one of my Web pages. One of those violations was by a real estate agent working in the same agency as the agent whose site remained the open issue from 2006. I notified the manager of that real estate agency. Another was by a real estate agent who is a long-time acquaintance; she was livid over the fact that she paid good money for what she thought was original content. In this latter case, not only was I successful in having the page deleted; but my acquaintance ended her contract with the Web developer.
- 2008: I found a commercial Web site — again, owned by a real estate agent — that violated the copyright on one of my Web pages. This was a complete copy of the text on my Oak Park page, including references to my daughter. The real estate agent claimed to have hired a high school student to create the page for her. She deleted the page when I brought the violation to her attention.
- 2009: I found another commercial Web site — again, owned by a real estate agent — that violated the copyright on my Oak Park page. Upon receiving my “cease and desist” letter, the site’s owner quickly changed the content to eliminate the violation. This was the third time I found a violation hosted by Dominion Enterprises or its subsidiary Advanced Access. Not only do these firms host the Web sites, but they also develop them. I am keeping a log of copyright violations and can readily establish a pattern of repeated violations by those firms.
*** Begin Right Sidebar ***
I am the unpaid Webmaster for a small charity whose Web pages are also copyrighted. In 2006, I detected three other charities had violated those copyrights. One charity had copied three of “my” charity’s pages, changing only the name of the organization. I was successful in stopping all of these violations.
*** End Right Sidebar ***
When I find a violation, I send a “cease and desist” letter (postal mail) to the owner of the Web site domain and a complaint via E-mail to the site’s hosting service.
One recipient of my “cease and desist” letter responded in anger because I had the nerve to be so formal and strong in my objections to his theft. I’m the one who should be angry that my hard work generated income for him but not one cent for me. No, I will not make public the name of this person. He did remove the plagiarism from his three Web sites. If he violates my copyright again, however, I will not bother with a “cease and desist” letter; instead, I will immediately refer the situation to an attorney.
I really do not understand why real estate agents in particular plagiarize my Oak Park Web page (all but one of the violations over the years). Yes, I’m somewhat flattered by the fact that they find the information well-written. However, they would be better served by merely linking to that page. Then, they would receive the advantage of any updates I make to it. Furthermore, there is no copyright involved in having such a link.
Warning: If necessary to protect my copyrights, I may indeed file lawsuits. If successful, I will request damages in the amount not only sufficient to cover my legal costs but also to recover whatever fees or other payments were received by whoever violated my copyrights.
Updated 1 June 2009
This page is copyrighted © 2003-2009 by David E. Ross
matching bandana and youtube frame