Month: January 2019

24 Hour Video

So here’s what happened after I was given the 24 hour video assignment.

Blog Post #2: I Don’t Like James Bridle [‘s article]

Alright.

The article “There’s Something Wrong With the Internet” by James Bridle was actually really frustrating to read because I found myself disagreeing often. I don’t want this to entire post to be about why I disliked the article. However, right now I feel like this is the only way I can respond to it.

First of all, I think Bridle exaggerates a lot in this piece throwing around words like “abuse”, “disturbing”, and “violent.” I do understand that many of these automated videos can involve violent scenes–things that young kids should not be exposed to. But where I disagree is that it is straight up abuse. James–have you conducted studies on the effect of such abuse on kids in the future? I’m guessing not. You see, in my opinion, this violence can be completely avoided through better facilitation and adapting to such a new system in human history. I think that young kids should be separated from screen time for awhile, besides watching a movie with the family or maybe to play games here and there.

Otherwise, screen time is entirely unnecessary for the proper raising, teaching and developing of a child. In fact, studies have shown this.

Another thing to understand is that many, many systems created, especially as global and widespread as the internet, have problems when they first manifest. The management of data and especially that of automated data, is going to be challenging. The internet is so extremely vast. A system as complicated and impactful as the internet will undoubtedly have negative consequences–as well as a plethora of positive consequences.

I can think of systems that are much more abusive and lead to violence.

Money, anyone?

Money is a part of the human’s subjective reality. And ohhh boy does it cause problems for each and every human being on this earth. It can effect you as a kid if you’re growing up in a low income family or as an adult as you scrounge for retirement savings. People kill for money. People will do almost anything for it. That is an abusive system.

I feel as if Bridle doesn’t have a good argument or evidence. He makes general statements such as “What concerns me is that this just one aspect of a kind of infrastructural violence being done to all of us, all the time, and we’re still struggling to find a way to even talk about, to describe the mechanisms and it’s actions and its effects.” Um, what? Which mechanisms? What effects? Which infrastructure?

I do understand that the exposure of unwarranted content given to kids is an issue. But frankly there are ways in which we can adapt to avoid such “violent” effects of the internet. Like I said, the internet has its negatives, yet it has so many amazing, innovative positives. You can learn for the rest of your life on the internet, you can connect with people across the world, you can explore ideas and collaborate on an open source site with strings of code for anyone to use (and therefore make technology better and the internet safer).

It seems to me that we need to adapt in ways that will teach kids at a young age within families and even more important at schools, essentially making us all “internet literate.”

I know that the world is really fucking crazy, whether that be our subjective or objective reality.

I also know that we have created beasts like the internet throughout our entire human history and there’s no need to worry about it.

Blog Post #1: Art is Confusing

Something I think about quite often is what defines something as art. A confusing concept, in my opinion, especially as I wander through the Seattle Art Museum or the Art Institute of Chicago. I remember once in Chicago, I looked up to see a large five by five foot canvas. It had a presence of sorts but for me, but not necessarily in a good way. The canvas was simply painted green. It made an impression on me because it made me laugh. “Why is this even in the museum? Is this considered art? How much did they pay for such a simple and meaningless piece?”

 

Well, in reading In Defense of the Poor Image by Hito Steryl, I thought about this instance once more. She discusses the “poor image” and it’s role in the system of a new art involving the “ghost of an image.” While not labeling this new genre of art good or bad, she plays with the idea it exists and should be considered. Poor images may not be high quality, with data being lost in the swirl of sharing, but this is what defines it.

 

This pulls me into thinking about the world of fine art; a world of elites spending almost anything to get a Picasso or a Monet, juggling around the most prized and sought after pieces that exist today. I agree with the conclusion that the “poor image” has manifested a new type of art world because its ridiculousness is mirrored in the system of fine and elite art.

 

Yes, it is ridiculous.

 

I looked into some art pieces that have been sold for an absurd amount of money but are very much similar to the plain green canvas I saw in Chicago. In fact, I came across a piece by Mark Rothko (Untitled [yellow and blue]). This piece was created in 1954, sixteen years before Rothko passed away. This piece was recently auctioned for 46.5 million American dollars. Wow. Take a look at the painting here, so you can see what looks like an abstract painting of a Despicable Me minion. Don’t get me wrong, I can understand to an extent why someone would want an eight foot painting of a sea of blue and yellow. It is nice to look at. But why is it worth $46.5 million?

 

“This small group of ultra wealthy investors end up defining what fine art is,” is a great quote from the show Adam Knows Everything. In this episode, Adam explains how the world of fine art is really defined by collectors and rich people, and that art on the street is just as good or better as some pieces labeled as fine art. (You can watch the video here, it’s super short and interesting!)

So, this is to say, just as we label poor images with having little value, we randomly decide fine art pieces circulating among elitists are worth millions of dollars. Who’s to say they aren’t on the same spectrum of what defines art?

Maybe, the trouble with defining what art is, actually defines art itself.

Hello world!

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Washington Sites.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

© 2019 Abby Alishio

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Skip to toolbar