Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Da Vinci
I think that this issue of creating replicas of works of art to display in the place of the originals is a strange concept. I understand that we want to preserve the original works, but what is the point of having them if they are sitting in a lightless airless box where no one can see them. By preserving the originals we are prematurely ending their existence for the purpose for which they were made. I think that there is something to be said for seeing a work of art for the original purpose for which it was made. I am not sure if it is more important for me to see the original, or the context, or just the image. I am reminded of seeing the statue of Marcus Aurelius at Capitoline Hill in Rome. In the center of the piazza there is a large replica statue where the original used to stand. Inside the museum was the original. I was much more impressed by the replica in context than the original in a white room. I felt almost the same when seeing the David in Florence. The only thing this lacks is the general sensation that I am in the presence of the actual object that was touched by Michelangelo (for example), but that is a rather fleeting sensation for myself. This very similar to the digital replica of the painting discussed in the article.
I still think that digital technologies are not quite advanced enough to create an exact replica of most works of art. An extremely high resolution digital print of a renaissance painting might be sufficient to capture the physicality of the work. Renaissance artists painted very flat, but could this work for Van Gogh? Once depth is introduced into a painting then a digital print is no longer sufficient. It seems that we already have the technology to create an accurate representation of a flat surface, and I am fairly sure that we can scan three-dimensional objects and create a perfect replica. We need to combine the two. I think if we could create a 3D replica of a painting that captures the brush strokes and depth, and colors each stroke appropriately then I think that there is little difference between owning or viewing the real thing or a replica.
I still think that digital technologies are not quite advanced enough to create an exact replica of most works of art. An extremely high resolution digital print of a renaissance painting might be sufficient to capture the physicality of the work. Renaissance artists painted very flat, but could this work for Van Gogh? Once depth is introduced into a painting then a digital print is no longer sufficient. It seems that we already have the technology to create an accurate representation of a flat surface, and I am fairly sure that we can scan three-dimensional objects and create a perfect replica. We need to combine the two. I think if we could create a 3D replica of a painting that captures the brush strokes and depth, and colors each stroke appropriately then I think that there is little difference between owning or viewing the real thing or a replica.
You Tube
I found this discussion of YouTube to be rather interesting, though somewhat dated. The article was written in 2006 and I believe that YouTube has only grown in popularity since then. As far as I have seen, YouTube has changed little since its purchase by Google. The article discusses ways in which a monetary gain can be produced through advertising the way that television has commercials. YouTube has yet to introduce commercials before or after videos placed on the site. I think, and it would seem that the executives in charge agree, that this would be detrimental to its popularity. If YouTube did this, or charged people for membership with the sight, then competitors would create another site that would please users more. YouTube is not a revolutionary technology, but a revolutionary idea that happened to come about at the right time. Adding commercial spots, or charging would simply make for the right time for a competitor to succeed.
The idea of targeted advertising would likely be more successful. This, however, does not guarantee that a user would follow the link to the advertisers page. Likewise, television has developed easy to use technologies that allow viewers to skip commercials. TiVo and DVR have made it possible for people to record shows and fast-forward through commercials. I think that the introduction of non-intrusive targeted advertising on YouTube could eventually prove as successful as television commercials. If internet connections continue to improve, and streaming video technologies allow for better quality then YouTube could probably surpass traditional television in popularity. This coupled with many television viewers skipping commercials could make YouTube the new mainstream media. I think that television networks should start airing second runs of their shows on this platform. This would benefit the user with better quality, reduce illegal copying and sharing, and benefit the networks if targeted advertising can be implemented. Maybe something can be worked out that networks buy YouTube accounts and advertisers pay the networks to place ads on their “channels.” In this way, YouTube could remain user friendly, with limited commercial intrusions.
The idea of targeted advertising would likely be more successful. This, however, does not guarantee that a user would follow the link to the advertisers page. Likewise, television has developed easy to use technologies that allow viewers to skip commercials. TiVo and DVR have made it possible for people to record shows and fast-forward through commercials. I think that the introduction of non-intrusive targeted advertising on YouTube could eventually prove as successful as television commercials. If internet connections continue to improve, and streaming video technologies allow for better quality then YouTube could probably surpass traditional television in popularity. This coupled with many television viewers skipping commercials could make YouTube the new mainstream media. I think that television networks should start airing second runs of their shows on this platform. This would benefit the user with better quality, reduce illegal copying and sharing, and benefit the networks if targeted advertising can be implemented. Maybe something can be worked out that networks buy YouTube accounts and advertisers pay the networks to place ads on their “channels.” In this way, YouTube could remain user friendly, with limited commercial intrusions.
Beauty And Brains
I’m not sure that I understand the real significance of the findings described in the article. It seems to me that knowing which part of the brain is affected by aesthetic beauty will cause little change in the art world. First, I would imagine that this is subjective. I can’t believe that we can do a couple of brain scans while people are looking at a work of art, and suddenly decide that it is universally unpleasing to the aesthetic receptors. It could tell you whether an individual person believes that an individual work is beautiful or not, but I think on the whole we would gather little more.
Second, the article suggests that the value of works of art can change overnight, but I think the value of a work of art is not simply in its aesthetic beauty. While I do consider that highly important in a work of art it is not the only consideration, and I do not believe that art is valued in this way. I am a big fan of Marcel Duchamp, I know the article mocked his fountain, but I do not place beauty at the top of my list for the reason that I appreciate his work. Some of his works have a beauty to their construction but some are merely a snow shovel, or a urinal. According to the fears of art critics as described in the article, if I were to be tested I would discover that I do not find this work that aesthetically pleasing and therefore hate it.
I believe that there are many factors that go into deciding whether or not a work of art is valuable. When I assign value to a work in my mind I know that the decision is being based on beauty, skill, originality, concept, etc. This process determines one of many factors that go into this decision.
Second, the article suggests that the value of works of art can change overnight, but I think the value of a work of art is not simply in its aesthetic beauty. While I do consider that highly important in a work of art it is not the only consideration, and I do not believe that art is valued in this way. I am a big fan of Marcel Duchamp, I know the article mocked his fountain, but I do not place beauty at the top of my list for the reason that I appreciate his work. Some of his works have a beauty to their construction but some are merely a snow shovel, or a urinal. According to the fears of art critics as described in the article, if I were to be tested I would discover that I do not find this work that aesthetically pleasing and therefore hate it.
I believe that there are many factors that go into deciding whether or not a work of art is valuable. When I assign value to a work in my mind I know that the decision is being based on beauty, skill, originality, concept, etc. This process determines one of many factors that go into this decision.
Monday, April 6, 2009
response: Neuroaesthetics
It's very strange that that the word, beauty, has been used as the focus of this study. My idea of beauty evolves from the first impression as I gather more knowledge and experience. To me, this applies not only to people and places, but to artwork as well. I would be curious to understand the different neurological effects of artwork seen for the first time versus artwork that is familiar to the viewer.
Zeki's research should also take trends into consideration. It's hard to believe that pleated bleached jeans and blazers with shoulder pads were once beautiful to many [raises hand]. The fact that some people, once again adopt these fashion beauties today makes my neurotransmitters chuckle.
The article mentions that the directors of auction houses may be most threatened by the research, but fails to offer that perhaps people who go to auctions have a similar aesthetic preference. This makes me wonder if Zeki himself has a narrow definition of art, despite the mention of his extensive work with artists.
It's inspiring that research is being done in an attempt to bridge the gap between art and science, but I don't think a study like this can be very useful without also investigating many important factors.
Zeki's research should also take trends into consideration. It's hard to believe that pleated bleached jeans and blazers with shoulder pads were once beautiful to many [raises hand]. The fact that some people, once again adopt these fashion beauties today makes my neurotransmitters chuckle.
The article mentions that the directors of auction houses may be most threatened by the research, but fails to offer that perhaps people who go to auctions have a similar aesthetic preference. This makes me wonder if Zeki himself has a narrow definition of art, despite the mention of his extensive work with artists.
It's inspiring that research is being done in an attempt to bridge the gap between art and science, but I don't think a study like this can be very useful without also investigating many important factors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)