MUSIC

Donna first

Jen Lorenz Musical Expressions

sound art

Lindsey's Musical Masterpieces...

Music

Clements: Sound Project

MUSIC

Computer Spirituality

music

Reproducing Art

As I read this article my feelings on reproducing art works kept changing. Overall, I feel that using advanced technological processes to recreate artworks takes something away not only from the original art, but also from the viewing experience. I do think that is it important to introduce artworks to viewers as they were at the time that they were first created. I think that kind of information adds perspective and interest for the viewer. However, the transformation that a work of art goes through over time should be acknowledged and not taken for granted. There are other ways for viewers of art to learn how it looked, and where it was, originally. All of these technological advancements for reproducing artworks take away from the experience of seeking out a work of art that one wants to see. Great master works of art need to remain just that. With that said, I do think there is room for reinterpretation of historical art works. I cannot get away from feeling like masterpieces from our history should be left at that – from history. Appreciated for what they once were, and what they are now.

Clones...

The technology that creates the replicas of these painting is pretty amazing! I read a book over the summer that had a character who would steal paintings from museums to sell on the black market and replace them with counterfeit paintings. To be so precise as to create an undetectable replica of a painting takes a lot of skill and I admire that about him. There seems to be a similar kind of mischevious attitude behind the replicas that are being created now. Although they aren't breaking the law, there is a sense of questioning and breaking down of the established rules of how art should be displayed and experienced. There is also a feeling of democracy in that the works are being brought to places where more people can see them and experience them. If you think about how often people see works reproduced in books or on posters, the clones are a much better alternative.
One of the most annoying things about seeing works of art is being crammed in a museum and crowding around a work. If the pieces can be replicated in their original settings, such as the Veronese that's great. I would much rather experience the piece in that sort of setting than in a museum. I do think something would be different about the clone of a master work, but I would not necessarily say it is something that is lost. When viewing the piece it would be interesting to think about how the clone is different. That adds a new level to the art viewing experience and it should be embraced for what it is. Also, I think that works like the Last Supper can be appreciated for the composition and the colors and the gestures of the figures. To me, not seeing the brush strokes wouldn't be much of a loss. However, if i were to stand in front of a DeKooning replica I don't think it would be the same experience. In a piece that is so much about the artist's gesture, and movement, and the depth and texture created by the brush, a clone probably could not provide the same experience.
Greenaway's piece is incredible. I can never quite wrap my head around how things like that are accomplished. I'm very low-tech as an artist and in my thinking, so I was blown away. It's great that he took a masterpiece like the Last Supper and re-interpreted it. I would absolutly love to have an opportunity to be present for something like that.

Clements: Week 4 Response

I think that the reproduction of masterpieces can be an extremely valuable tool, particularly in the realm of teaching. In most cases, it is impossible to bring your class to the original artwork...however, with today's technology and reproductions, you can bring the masterpiece to the classroom. I do however recognize that having the experience of viewing the original piece of art is preferable. When viewing an image of a fresco for instance, the beauty of the texture and even the aging is lost in translation. Unfortunately, many famous pieces of artwork have been mass produced and become commercialized commodities. In this case, I do not support the use of reproductions when they are so overly used that the viewer becomes blase the work. DaVinci's Mona Lisa and Monet's Waterlillies are just two examples of artwork that has been translated not only into prints, but tshirts, magnets, coffee table coasters, mousepads etc. I'm sorry, but there is something wrong when we are resting our coffee mugs a top these pieces of art.

Greenaway however, utilizes a masterpiece in a respectful manner. He has been inspired by the original painting and created another beautiful piece of art in response. I do think it is controversial however, that he was allowed to project his film on the original work. How can we be absolutely sure that this is really not damaging the piece...even if the "proper" precautions have been taken. It just seems too risky. It was however, only allowed once...so it's still debatable. His respectful and carefully reproduction of the original is allowing others to appreciate his work in as realistic a setting while still protecting the original painting. Maybe this is not the optimal viewing experience, but I'd say it's pretty close. When care, time, and expertise is applied to reproducing a piece of art it is acceptable. Particularly when the work may be aging...would it be better if it was lost forever? I don't think so. The context and use of a reproduction seems to be of principle importance.

Cloning

I can understand the desire to clone artwork. The works being cloned are absolute masterpieces and are in styles that just aren’t produced anymore in the modern world and never will be again. I think recreating them to look as vibrant as the day they were unveiled, and properly displaying them pays respect to them. With the Wedding at Cana, cloning improved its appearance and displayed the piece as it was always meant to be seen. Greenaway’s Last Supper allows us to look at that piece in a whole new light and re-appreciate something we have seen so many times. With both of these cases, the recreations focused on appreciating the artwork, and the projects were tasteful and well-received. It’s a fine line though. Greenaway has the talent to be able to recreate a magnificent piece while still respecting it. Not everyone has this ability and not everyone should have the honor of messing with masterpieces. It gets tricky if cloning is done for the wrong reasons, like if one museum has a piece that another museum wishes it had, so they just clone it. Deciding which pieces are cloned and for what reasons should be a very selective process, and should never lose sight of paying respect to these masterpieces.

Last supper for everyone

Greenway's vision is unique. The more technology substitutes for experiences, replicates atmospheric details, like the cracks in the Last Supper fresco, the more capacity we have for living a hologram lifestyle. This type of lifestyle might become necessary for those who have no immune systems and cannot go outside.
It seems unfortunate that Greenway was criticized so harshly for making a virtual archive . If there is so much research done on the intent of the piece, its vibrancy and location, why wouldn't a replica of the lost color etc. be a significant manifestation or product of all that research? History is butchered so much anyway , if creative license is taken with other replicas of the suppers, why is this one considered doctored or copy-cat art? Who is really being threatened and why?

If Jesus was a modern man he would be institutionalized. If Da Vinci was a modern man he would be a draftsman or perhaps a re-inventor like Greenway.

Cloning

I found this article on the "cloning" of The Last Supper to be very interesting, while simultaneously being a little upsetting.  I still can't get over the fact that it was permissible to project light onto one of the most fragile and famous paintings in the world.  Although clearly they did their research and believed it to be safe, how can you really be sure?  In my opinion, if you respect the painting at all, you shouldn't even be tempted to risk it.  They were able to "clone" the painting, and project it in a separate space, so why not use the reproduction with the light installation?

As far as the notion of "cloning" paintings goes, I believe that reproductions are a useful tool in education, but they are in my opinion no substitute for the original.  Originals are handcrafted, and hold the honor of having been worked on, labored over, and would have lived with the artist him/herself.  Each brushstroke is indicative of the emotions that the artist was feeling at the time.  A reproduction, "identical" as it may seem, will never have the same magic as the original.

Cloning

Once again, Technology is reshaping the way we see things today. The ability to create a replica or “clone” of paintings and other art forms is giving old masterpieces more time to be appreciated by the general public. I think it was very interesting to think that we are now able to save old masterpieces from decaying and fading away forever and still allow the painting to live on where it was original intended to inhabit. Yes, I feel that being able to see the original has its own special experience, but if I’m able to experience that same painting in it original environment, that experience is just as special as being in front of the original.

Music

di Vinci Clone

I thought that it was interesting how he was able to clone such a large piece of work, with large scanners and printing it out. But if it was between a reproduction and an original, depending of the artwork, I would prefer the original, especially, if it is a textual painting. When it is a reproduction, I would not be able to see the texture and brush strokes. When I look at art, I usually look at the brush strokes more than the painting itself. I am always interested on how the artist got from a blank canvas to a canvas filled with color.

With the video on his work, I thought it was interesting. It reminded me of watching documentary on a history. When the camera goes up close to the image and has music playing in the background. It also make it seems like the person in the image is moving but really not moving.

THE NEW REAL

I have no problem with “clones” to the extent that they broaden the audience of art. As the article mentions, a century ago many museums were filled with collections of replicas. Obviously there is something to be said for seeing the original artwork in person, and of course this heightens the prestige of the actual museum as well, but museums are like libraries in the sense that they bring artwork to the masses; the more people that can view them the better.

Artwork in chapels used to be painted over and refurbished by hand all the time so that paintings would stand the test of time. Now with cloning it’s possible to recreate the artwork down to minute details with the help of technology. Essentially the same thing is happening but the original artwork is not being touched. And one could argue that “cloning” is another art form.

That said, I think Greenaway’s intention of revitalizing great paintings is a great one because, and I agree, “we have lost the knack of really seeing [the art].” Greenaway manages to do this in a very interesting and provocative way with recreating the play of light cast on the painting. And to have this performance recreated in the actual refectory I would image would be quite stunning. However, what bothered me about the Greenaway filming was that because Greenaway is a famous filmmaker he was allowed to project light onto the actual Last Supper when the average person can’t even take a picture of the painting with a flash. The refectory in it’s entirety could have been recreated and staged with the clone inside and would have produced the same effect.

I don't see Peter Greenaway's installation as trying "to be" the last supper as much as creating another interpretation of the masterpiece. It seems his intention was to bring back a mystical emotional connection that the veiwer participated in. By bringing the illusion of natural light into the room, and by adding other elements, he has as he says, created a diologue with the subject which it seems to me is not about "cloning" a work of art, but bringing his own artistic sensibilities to life in response and in conjunction with the original image. He has in a sense created a new artwork, the way a play or piece of music takes an idea as it's muse and then expands on it.

 The article discusses the importance of context and I think that in cases, especially of religious nature, having the painting in the environment the artist meant for it to be in makes huge difference in the way that work of art will be seen and felt. In those cases the argument for a superior reproduction seems to me well made if the original cannot be had.

 I've often wondered to myself if the paintings I was looking at in a museum were the originals. Would most people know the difference? I think the feeling one gets from looking at a real work of art as oppossed to a mechanical reproduction cannot be reproduced. Tracing the brush strokes, following the color shifts and textural variations is what makes looking at original works of art a transcendent experience.  It's not merely the image you fall into, but the process of it's creation. It becomes a bridge through time. When I look at an artist's painting I love, for example Van Gogh, I often have a profoundly emotional response. Is it because of the vividness of the color or the richness of the paint or all the tragic story of his life? I feel that "aura" if that's what you want to call it, or spirit or ghost or memory of the life that created it. If it's an imitation, then I guess the joke is on me. That connection is not a true physical one but a self-created one. Does that make it less real? I don't know but it would certainly be dissapointing.

I think the concept of who owns a work of art and whether or not it can be copied, is an interesting question, given the relatively modern ability to instantly reproduce all forms of art including writing and music, off the internet. It is extremely concerning and relevant to all artists.

Da Vinci Article

I think that making reproductions of work is ok, as long as it is know by everyone involved including the viewer. I have created a lot of reproductions of ceramic pieces for clients who just wanted a little piece of something they saw in a museum for themselves. I do believe that everything is just a copy of something else, so even the art works we cherish as "original masterpieces" are probably just copies of something older.
The piece on the last supper was really interesting. I think the artist was able to bring a contemporary audience to a work of art which is relished for its antiquity. This art work was able to allow the viewer to see the painting in a way it had never been seen before. This is what art is all about, right? Yay!

DaVinci Clone

As I said in class, this article and art piece was lost on me.  Reproductions are part of our everyday life, and even though this reproduction takes things to a whole new level, I don't think that being a "clone" makes it interesting by itself.  Also, if the artist was trying to re-create the original experience as it was intended to be seen, the added effects like the blood/wine dripping, and the glow at the end don't fit.  The fact that this reproduction makes the original more accessible and preservable is great, but personally, that is exactly what ruins it for me.  I am a very experience-oriented person, and cramming into a climate controlled room where the windows have been bricked up with 25 other people would add to the experience for me.  It would be a unique, genuine experience, and that is what I like about seeing great works of art.  So maybe I need to experience the Last Supper clone installation in person, maybe that would do it for me.  But as it stands, I'm pretty indifferent...I didn't think it was a great piece, but I don't hate it either.  

MUSIC

music

photoshop to music

cloning

After reading this article I felt that replicas of famous artwork could be helpful for educating and providing knowledge of artists and their work. However, I also feel that its much more satisfying to view the original artwork in person, if you have the opportunity. I know if I were in Italy I would not want to see the replica of the Last Supper, I would want to see the real masterpiece in person. With all the great technology we have now, why not try to create a replica of show what some of these masterpieces looked like before hand, as long as the audience is aware that they are viewing a clone. Technology is a great way to increase knowledge and educate people on artwork created 100s of years ago. Nevertheless, I feel that all credit should still go to the original artist. No one should be allowed to take credit for creating a replica of Leonardo’s Last Supper because it was not his or her idea.

Youtube Response

I think this article is right, that the line between tv and internet tv is about to disappear.  I know more people now that don't have tv's than I did five years ago, and it's not because more people are reading books or doing other productive things with their lives, it's because they can get what they want out of watching tv online.  Even when I watch something, half the time it's online, and I didn't even know how to do that four years ago.  I also don't think it's anything that anyone on "Madison Ave." can control.  If youtube was created by two guys in a garage, that means that the average person has just as much control over the future of the internet and its place in society as big tv executives do.  This is not a new pattern, either.  Take facebook, that too was started by two college guys writing a masters thesis.  Moving from tv, where the market is very controlled by money and who's in power, to the internet, where everyone and anyone could create the next phenomenon ... I think that's kind of exciting.  

Response: The Da Vinci Clone

I really appreciate the way in which Greenaway works.  I hope that he doesn't do it so much to inflate his own history but to inform our generation and continue awareness of the past.  I wish I could have been there to see the "performance" of the Last Supper.  It is probably the first time I have ever read something and believed that the aura or the "Bennie" factor of art could be recreated.  It re-conceptualizes Da Vinci's thought process and gives you a better perspective of his artistic intentions.  

It is hard to feel let down sometimes when you see a replica of a work of art in situ and then see it in the museum after.  This diminishes the aura for me, but is also an important part of retaining the history of an object or artifact.  The people of Venice saw the Veronese in the refractory of their church and it existed for their viewing.  Its existence now is overshadowed by the thousands priceless pieces of art in the Louvre and its over-exposed roommate, the Mona Lisa.  I hope that our expanding technologies can work to create a better awareness of art and allow people to fully appreciate it in new ways. 

Greenway

I really enjoyed reading this article. I think it is truly a conflicting debate over original and clone artwork. However, I think that there is a place in the world for both.

I was in San Giorgio Maggiore in 2007 and I saw the “clone” Veronese. Being inside San Giorgio Maggiore was an interesting experience. It was rather dark and empty inside but the island itself has amazing views. The “clone” painting like the original is massive and its placement is impressive. I really didn’t feel jipped at all. In this particular case because a “clone” was placed in its intended viewing place I believe that the “clone” begins to have substantially more value.

Also, after reading the article I watched a two minute clip of Greenway’s performance. I think that the concept of this piece is impressive and innovative. However, I do believe that subsequent showing with the “clone” are devoid of the artists original intent, which was focused on reviving the aesthetic experience.

My confliction in regards to “clone” art is based solely on the intention of the recreation. I am brought back to the fact that the Roman’s recreated many Greek art works and now they are viewed as treasures. Also, I believe that replicates are beneficial to artists. However, the practice of “cloning” on a mass produced scale is a slippery slope. One that is similar to the allusion and dissatisfaction regarding the Mona Lisa which crushes the once coveted aesthetic experience.

internet art...I'm catching up on readings I promise!

The internet art article was a little outdated I feel, but I still made some good connections while reading it.  My main response while reading it was to the part where she explains how the students responded to internet art, and its being or not being art.  She was talking about the fact that she was surprised at how little the students related to and understood internet art given their everyday use of the internet.  Of course, everything looks better in hind sight, but this is the outcome I would have guessed.  Nobody understands art that is the new pioneer medium or movement, and kids especially I think would have a hard time relating to it.  But I thought it was great that she was reflective enough to come up with new ways to teach them and learn right alongside the students.  I think that's the best thing you can do, and that's what I hope to do as a teacher.  

I have an example of internet art that I really love.  I didn't know what to call it before reading this article, because I didn't know there was that distinction.  The artist's name is Julie Mehretu, and the website I'm talking about is  http://tceastafrica.walkerart.org/

She was the artist in residence at the Walker Art Center when she did this piece, and she ran a program for kids that led to the creation of this site.  The kids kept journals and took photos of different parts of their lives and Mehretu turned it into this interactive art piece online.  Take a look, it's really cool.  When you click on the bubbles it show a picture and a caption written by the child.  When you click on or move the pictures you get a historical fact about an East African Country.  Mineapolis St. Paul has the highest population of East African Immigrants in the nation...here's a picture of the site: ok, well I can only get it to post at the top, so look above!

The New Real

I agree with Greenway’s notion that we have forgotten how to look at and really see a painting, or any other work of art. An aesthetic experience can only happen when one can really see, and is completely aware of, a work of art. It is interesting to consider that part of the reason for this forgetfulness could be how artwork is exhibited. Tallman got me thinking about the importance of an authentic experience when viewing art versus the importance of viewing an authentic work of art. Which is more important? She notes how a surprising number of people report being disappointed after viewing the Mona Lisa, and wonders if this has more to do with the experience of viewing it than desensitization to it. People seemed, from Tallman’s description, to have a more authentic experience viewing the facsimile of The Wedding at Cana at San Giorgio Maggiore. What sort of implications does this have for how museums display and exhibit artwork? I wonder what would happen if other famous artworks were cloned an exhibited as they were originally intended. Would people have more authentic experiences viewing the artwork? Or are these experiences just different kinds of aesthetic responses, and one is no better than the other? Thinking back to my own experiences, I think that my responses to art set in its intended environment have been stronger and more memorable than to those artworks in museums and galleries. That is not to say that artworks in museums have not elicited responses. When the lighting, atmosphere, and setting is as intended for a specific work of art, I think it is almost impossible not to be fully aware and really see the artwork. I am leaning towards the experience of viewing the artwork being more important than the authenticity of the artwork. An original artwork is important and has it’s own aesthetic value, but I think viewers should also have an authentic experience viewing an artwork, and that an authentic experience is possible without an authentic artwork.

maria_homework_latish

Just finished reading and seeing the youtube videos from the wired article you tube vs boob tube.
And I have to admit I had never thought of it like that; that computer are taking the power away from t.v. I always thought that they sort of work together (zapping out the reality of our real lives). I agree that the lines are being blured between these two forms of semi mindless entertainment (that I love). I think that the computer democratizes who has the power in a way, we can post out own images or videos... but at the end of the day there is still a big boss making a lot of cash off the distribution of this stuff. It is google instead of cbs, who cares, same difference. Reality t.v. is t.v.s ansure and pop up comercials are the internets way to be competitive back. So we get to find a place to show ourselves off (other then public television) and that makes everyone happy, maybe 15min. of fame is not what we should be striveing for, I want real change, I wana go to the park! (but can't forget my digital camera, to upload my new photos onto facebook and share them with my friends)!!!

da vinci clone

The topic of this story is mainly on clones, and replicas of famous art works. I feel that replicas are fine to have, as long as you know you are looking at a replica. I do agree that it expands cultural awareness, and gives people a chance to see the "almost" real thing in person, if they cannot travel 1000 miles away to see the real thing.  Seeing an original is always going to be more appreciative, but I feel that some people really may not care as much to see a replica, because it can still evoke the same feeling as seeing the original in person.

The man who made the replica of the Last Supper is creating the painting in a different view, and using light to reflect it off the walls and make it seem as real as the original was on the wall. I think this is a great idea, and feel this can give people a different experience in looking at that particular piece of artwork.