Follow by Email

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Processing Pink. How Pink is Pink? Escape the Echo Chamber.

Printed reproduction is not very accurate. That is, if you were to print the same image via a range of domestic printers (using home computing), the accuracy for ‘likeness’ is unreliable, essentially varied.

I tested this. I sent a PDF image of a pink star to a number of friends. My instructions: not to tamper with the image in any way (digitally), but simply print it as ‘what-you-see-is-what-you-get’. The following picture below shows the range of results. Different sizes, different colours - all printed out onto A4 paper.


Processing Pink (stars) at an art event in Shoreham by Sea (UK)
in 1998.

My main thoughts at the time, and which remain with me, concern our assumption that we all see the same thing, that we all assume that we watch the same image (quality) all at the same time (here I am thinking of digital or analogue moving images on various machines).

What I am getting at is that the collective experience in which we physically see things (especially via technology) is not as straightforward as we think. I wonder if you have ever seen a shop window in which the same TV programme is being broadcast via different tv monitors? The quality of image varies. For whatever reasons I can only surmise, - albeit the nature of the mechanical and physical features of the particular make and model, through to the default settings (perhaps altered) are aiding the variation of the picture quality.

It’s very obvious that we don’t really know what we are accurately seeing physically at the best of times. We are making conclusions and assumptions from our own physiological and cultural persuasions for example, from our adopted checklist of what is concluded as our norm. We make conclusions all the time, and these become our burden as much as our revelation. The ‘buzz word’ at the moment is a term called ‘echo chamber’. This is the means in which we reflect back our own self in the limited spectrum of seeing and hearing things, especially in relation to our use of the internet. ‘We are what we eat’ so to speak. The most alarming point in relationship to echo chambers is that the internet is a binary system of algorithms and cookies (no doubt much more besides) in which it prioritizes what we see and selects material that we ‘log’ and that we ‘visit’. The subtle and hugely dangerous fact is that we are skillfully manipulated in to thinking we are ‘free’ browsing – looking at material in which we are exploring, researching even. Unfortunately this is hugely misleading, as we enter in to a very narrow gaze.

Nonetheless, perhaps we have always been in the echo chamber, and occasionally breaking out (of our thoughts, of our customs). In this regard, I offer a contradictory thought to the one just posited. We always work within a tribe, a group or circle of people we have an affinity with. The trick, perhaps, and one that humans (can) do, is to jettison into new pastures and vary the mix, a little like the gene pool in which we swim, in which we re-engage the variation of ourselves. Every now and then, when we don’t mix well enough, when we are exposed to toxic shock, our DNA and our human condition alters and shifts. Some with tragic and devastation results of course. So the answer is to keep widening and mixing, moving and exploring, stimulating otherness and not locking oneself into the echo chamber of disease. From reading the Daily Mail through to sitting in the same barstool in a pub day in and day out, life restricts our relationship with ourselves, our brains, and ultimately our survival.

My project ‘Processing Pink’ was a reminder as much as a revelation in regards to the above. As a starting point in 1998, and as an artwork and experiment, its aim was to also elicit surprise and not just demonstrate a point. I am always keen to see what happens even when one thinks it will be one sure outcome. I find myself having to strongly remind myself that I have indeed adopted a prejudice mindset, fixed on belief systems etc… I have to explore and push myself into new corridors. I might be wrong, but I think this is the danger as one gets older (I am starting to realise…). 

More updates on further explorations and interventions soon. I'm seriously thinking of joining a flower arranging group just to change my world and my point of view. It's healthy. Escape the echo chamber as a matter of urgency!



Friday, 27 January 2017

ScartVideo - Experimental Video










ABOUT

ScartVideo: Mechanical modification / electronic impulses / human intuition. Made in real-time and without the aid of a computer: Video-Sculpture. DEDICATED WEBSITE LINK HERE

ScartVideo use low-tech audio and video analogue equipment, specifically designed, to generate material which is presented (and recorded) live. Two films are chosen to recreate new narratives and unexpected fusion – both in terms of pictorial and sensory distortion. The narrative is remade and given back to the viewer in which personalised fictions are re-established. Non-linear story making results without any prerequisite. The convention of prescribed and predetermined filmmaking, in which control is weaved and manipulated from the start to the end. ScartVideo take the films’ origins, playing and re-assembles them simultaneously. The result: To unlock unknown and self-determined narrative, that which occurs literally in real-time.


History: ScartVideo, (formerly ScartTrio (est. 2006)). Founder, Harry Palmer. Guest collaborator, Toby Lloyd (2010-).


LIVE WORK IN 2016:

On 17th June 2016, ScartVideo performed their new live work called ‘ENCHANTING ALICE’ at the Laing Art Gallery (Newcastle upon Tyne), as part of a series of events connected to the Alice In Wonderland exhibition. (‘A British Library exhibition with additional loans from the Victoria & Albert Museum especially for the Laing, Alice in Wonderland delves into the world of Lewis Carroll’s classic tale, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’).

The work used three cinematic interpretations of Lewis Caroll’s story to create an alternative version of the narrative, performed to a full house.

Thanks to Madeleine Kennedy (Art Exhibitions Officer, Laing Art Gallery) and staff.

You can view the full film here:




More info / artwork  www.scartvideo.wordpress.com

Question: Is the wax model of HRH Lady Diana any better than any other form of representation of her?




In regards to my blogpost ‘How will my life be observed in25 thousand years time?’, I would like to note that the photograph of HRH Lady Diana as featured may not be as some of us remember her. I found the picture of the wax model of HRH Lady Diana quite alarming, stark and synthetic despite attempts to the contrary (see picture). I would add that whilst it was made to look ‘real life’ (in wax), I thought that it was far from ‘real life’. I suppose that poses the obvious question: Can some real life pictures/sculptures/ photographs be more authentic than other attempts at real life? Does it matter? Is it more of a public thing, more of a stimulus – a memory prompting mission to engineer or awaken our sense of fiction, a belief and foster a strong sense of identification. Personification is the key, - a mechanism in placing mental connections, social and political hooks, and intimate histories, significant to those it concerns. Or mere titillation, - entertainment found in the corridors of  Madame Tussauds in London where you will find HRH Lady Diana as wax model.

The power of the image (not just physical) and the associations it provides foster a psychological in-road as to who we are and whom we identify with of course. It provides meaning, however real or unreal, fleeting, passing… We are movements caught in memories. They are stored and they return – ebb and flow, re-weave themselves into our lives that ultimately make us tick. We shape our moments, our approaches by the signs they signify, that impress, that formulate from our sublime to our ridiculous. We are what we believe. It’s what matters.


So returning to the artificial, the ‘real life’ wax version of HRH Lady Diana scenario, does the reaction that I find the picture of her in Madame Tussauds as synthetic really matter? Is she any less authentic as a wax model (or photograph for that matter) that in itself is nonetheless void of any real/accurate physical resemblance other than a prompt at our memory? Many will automatically take it as given that this is indeed the lady that was (physically). Indeed, the fact that we need to recreate a life-like appearance is curious in itself. It qualifies as skill, ingenuity and hi-tech which we marvel at perhaps. These days (in 2017) many people find the magic in smartphones and tablets. They are sophisticated, seductive, and clever (for the time-being anyway). I think I’ll go and have a series of portraits done or commission another life size, life-like wax model of HRH lady Diana copied from the picture I have. Or have a 3D model print out done. Let’s see what happens…