Medien Wiki - User contributions [en]

File:Adler4.jpg

2020-10-30T17:38:14Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Adler3.jpg

2020-10-30T17:37:58Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Adler45.jpg

2020-10-30T17:37:43Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Adler34.jpg

2020-10-30T17:37:07Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 9

2020-10-30T17:36:51Z

Dariadordina:

BODY PERCEPTION

Describe which aspects of space were/are important for Walter Pichler (half a page).

critical evaluation, consideration and rework the very methods of how it is possible to work with space

work with limitations of spatial labor: it seems to me that the way to get away from the limitations of architecture for him was to reject the functionality of objects, and the way to get away from the limitations of sculpture - to bind the art piece to the human body and its movements

specific way of working with space, which is yet not strictly defined and does not belong either to architecture or to sculpture

visualization of boundaries and their spatial features

visualization of object properties through architecture (Haus für die zwei Tröge, Schädeldecke)

intention to use the space with the human body acting as a design parameter

to reflect social scenarios through space

Invent a performance "Body configurations" according to slide 36 from Valie Export. Perform it and have it photographed. Describe your experience.

I'd like to show here another (but similar) project i recently took place at, because it's firmly related to thema of body perception in architecture. There was a temporal (2 weeks) architectural installation, built around the former DDR-times concrete fence. The fence separates a popular park with a big playground from the former site of Rechnenzentrum, office building in the center of Potsdam. Right now the half of the building is demolished and the territory around apears as a wasteland where it's nothing to do. Normally people don't pay attention neither to this wasteland nor to the old fence.
During the design process the new object was concidered as a bar pavilion, with the fence top surface serving as a bar table. But soon we mentioned a particular effect it has on visitors and children: the fence has a huge potential as a playful spatial object. The fence was build by drawings of artists Karl Heinz Adler and Friedrich Kracht and has a particular design, concrete wall with romb-formed holes, at the same time permeable and steady; also there is surely a trace of recognizable DDR design. Several people told me that they never mentioned the existence of this thing before, even asked if we built it. I witnessed how adults and kids were climbing it, sitting on it, jumping, walking on the edge, playing and watching through holes. Albeit all of this was possible before, somehow people didn't concider it as an object for this "body performance". Somehow the temporary structure, designed with the accent on the existing object, legitimized the inclusion of this object to people attention.

[[File:adler34.jpg]]
[[File:adler45.jpg]]
[[File:adler3.jpg]]
[[File:adler4.jpg]]

File:Adler2.jpg

2020-10-30T17:32:07Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Adler1.jpg

2020-10-30T17:31:39Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 9

2020-10-30T17:31:13Z

Dariadordina:

BODY PERCEPTION

Describe which aspects of space were/are important for Walter Pichler (half a page).

- critical evaluation, consideration and rework the very methods of how it is possible to work with space
- work with limitations of spatial labor: it seems to me that the way to get away from the limitations of architecture for him was to reject the functionality of objects, and the way to get away from the limitations of sculpture - to bind the art piece to the human body and its movements
- specific way of working with space, which is yet not strictly defined and does not belong either to architecture or to sculpture
- visualization of boundaries and their spatial features
- visualization of object properties through architecture (Haus für die zwei Tröge, Schädeldecke)
- intention to use the space with the human body acting as a design parameter
- to reflect social scenarios through space

Invent a performance "Body configurations" according to slide 36 from Valie Export. Perform it and have it photographed. Describe your experience.

I'd like to show here another (but similar) project i recently took place at, because it's firmly related to thema of body perception in architecture. There was a temporal (2 weeks) architectural installation, built around the former DDR-times concrete fence. The fence separates a popular park with a big playground from the former site of Rechnenzentrum, office building in the center of Potsdam. Right now the half of the building is demolished and the territory around apears as a wasteland where it's nothing to do. Normally people don't pay attention neither to this wasteland nor to the old fence.
During the design process the new object was concidered as a bar pavilion, with the fence top surface serving as a bar table. But soon we mentioned a particular effect it has on visitors and children: the fence has a huge potential as a playful spatial object. The fence was build by drawings of artists Karl Heinz Adler and Friedrich Kracht and has a particular design, concrete wall with romb-formed holes, at the same time permeable and steady; also there is surely a trace of recognizable DDR design. Several people told me that they never mentioned the existence of this thing before, even asked if we built it. I witnessed how adults and kids were climbing it, sitting on it, jumping, walking on the edge, playing and watching through holes. Albeit all of this was possible before, somehow people didn't concider it as an object for this "body performance". Somehow the temporary structure, designed with the accent on the existing object, legitimized the inclusion of this object to people attention.

[[File:adler1.jpg]]
[[File:adler2.jpg]]
[[File:adler3.jpg]]
[[File:adler4.jpg]]

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 9

2020-10-30T17:30:36Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "1. Describe which aspects of space were/are important for Walter Pichler (half a page). - critical evaluation, consideration and rework the very methods of how it is possi..."

1. Describe which aspects of space were/are important for Walter Pichler (half a page).

- critical evaluation, consideration and rework the very methods of how it is possible to work with space
- work with limitations of spatial labor: it seems to me that the way to get away from the limitations of architecture for him was to reject the functionality of objects, and the way to get away from the limitations of sculpture - to bind the art piece to the human body and its movements
- specific way of working with space, which is yet not strictly defined and does not belong either to architecture or to sculpture
- visualization of boundaries and their spatial features
- visualization of object properties through architecture (Haus für die zwei Tröge, Schädeldecke)
- intention to use the space with the human body acting as a design parameter
- to reflect social scenarios through space

2. Invent a performance "Body configurations" according to slide 36 from Valie Export. Perform it and have it photographed. Describe your experience.

I'd like to show here another (but similar) project i recently took place at, because it's firmly related to thema of body perception in architecture. There was a temporal (2 weeks) architectural installation, built around the former DDR-times concrete fence. The fence separates a popular park with a big playground from the former site of Rechnenzentrum, office building in the center of Potsdam. Right now the half of the building is demolished and the territory around apears as a wasteland where it's nothing to do. Normally people don't pay attention neither to this wasteland nor to the old fence.
During the design process the new object was concidered as a bar pavilion, with the fence top surface serving as a bar table. But soon we mentioned a particular effect it has on visitors and children: the fence has a huge potential as a playful spatial object. The fence was build by drawings of artists Karl Heinz Adler and Friedrich Kracht and has a particular design, concrete wall with romb-formed holes, at the same time permeable and steady; also there is surely a trace of recognizable DDR design. Several people told me that they never mentioned the existence of this thing before, even asked if we built it. I witnessed how adults and kids were climbing it, sitting on it, jumping, walking on the edge, playing and watching through holes. Albeit all of this was possible before, somehow people didn't concider it as an object for this "body performance". Somehow the temporary structure, designed with the accent on the existing object, legitimized the inclusion of this object to people attention.

[[File:adler1.jpg]]
[[File:adler2.jpg]]
[[File:adler3.jpg]]
[[File:adler4.jpg]]

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-10-30T17:28:24Z

Dariadordina:

* [[/Assignment 1/]]
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-FOuUnxWfhhOrlfEaAL4z9tB5y432h88SBL6TmE0aQk/edit#slide=id.g7837b71a4b_0_44 19.05.20 presentation]
* [[/Task 2/]]
* [[/Task 3/]]
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wKTvxItxfPtDtwbiormmLgJmUMemZ9bz3bQ30VrHKAc/edit#slide=id.p 02.06.20 presentation]
* [[/Task 4/]]
* [[/Task 5/]]
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nqjgFVAX7W7zT4osGLUmn8ywXnHuu8NufiRO0JHCPao/edit?usp=sharing interim presentation]

[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RuValcEAodpmtY7hkeq1y00BJeYw8jxNhYNVNuSoPjo/edit?usp=sharing Prototype01]

How to play:
1) Start Presentation mode (Button "Present" in upper right corner or Ctrl+F5)
2) click on yellow texts/elements with yellow stroke.

* [[/Task 6/]]
* [[/Task 7/]]

[https://youtu.be/sxeeaIZS7u8 Prototype02]

* [[/Task 8/]]
* [[/Task 9/]]

File:Examplesddfdg.jpg

2020-10-23T13:36:02Z

Dariadordina: Dariadordina uploaded a new version of File:Examplesddfdg.jpg

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Examplesddfdg.jpg

2020-10-23T13:35:22Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 8

2020-10-23T13:34:59Z

Dariadordina:

BIOART

The first question that came up when looking at the bioart collection - what is the difference between the „normal breeding” and the “artistic breeding”? First two examples – delphinums of Edward Steichen and irises of George Gessert are most non-clear, since they are demonstrating pure art of breeding without any additional “statements”.
While looking at some works, for example, Martha de Menezes' „Decon“,at first the question arose, why in general it was necessary to use living organisms? Obviously there was a chance to use slowly processing chemical reactions; but then there was mentioned, that “bacterias could be seen as collaborators”.
Perhaps this is not a question about significance of cross-breeding (or genetic modification) as such, but about the objectification of living beings, about the boundaries that human culture establishes.

I find it difficult to distinguish between industrial farms for breeding goldfish with deformed faces and an artistic project that allows producing sterile goldfish, „the fish were not conceived as animals but made as objects”. Obviously in both cases the fish are not conceiving as animals. The art project seems to gain money in other way, besides of the traditional linear way of “production – sale”, it rather consider itself to being on a meta-level of these activities and therefore gets a right to make a statement about the whole process. Though I am not sure, how exactly works this procedure of getting the right to make statements. The question seems quite interesting for me, and it tends to be the mostly visible at the border areas such as bioart or ecoart. At the first glance it turns out that artists are appropriating the same opportunity to experiment with living things that has existed for thousands of years. But at the same time artistic experiments are carried out with supposedly "useless" objects.

Obviously such approach causes crutinizing for its ethics issues. What I found quite interesting is the statement of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals): "Transgenic manipulation of animals is just a continuum of using animals for human end, regardless of whether it is done to make some sort of sociopolitical critique. The suffering and exacerbation of stress on the animals is very problematic."At the same time artists can fend off that they make the work visible, and critics are shooting the messenger.

According to the institutional theory of art, the essential features of art should be sought not in the subject features of the work, but in the peculiarities of the context in which it appears and functions.
Typical introdution to articles about bioart: “...it's only in the last two decades that artists have started to collaborate with biologists “... So does this union turned something upside down or just gave legitimacy to use ethically problematic tools for art objects production?

Ionatt Zurr, Ph.D. candidate at artistic laboratory Symbiotica: "It was such a strong image for artists – a surrealist's dream becoming a reality. We realized that life can be used as a raw material."

[[File:Examplesddfdg.jpg]]

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 8

2020-10-23T13:34:13Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "BIOART The first question that came up when looking at the bioart collection - what is the difference between the „normal breeding” and the “artistic breeding”? Firs..."

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-10-23T13:31:47Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 7

2020-10-18T19:10:32Z

Dariadordina:

MEDIA ART ESSENTIALS

I really liked the first question (compare work Connect by Andreas Muxel with the Kinetic Sculpture by Art & Com), I think the answer seems easy but at the same time allows me to think about quite deep things.

The work Connect by Andreas Muxel represents the random itself in a closed system.
The artist sets only the physical environment of the installation (suspensions, balls, motors, magnets). No one can predict what happens with the installation at a particular moment; it illustrates the uncertainty created by a simple set of rules.
The work of Kinetic Sculpture by Art & Com is, in essence, a traditional sculpture that, ok, simply changes over time. The position of objects at any time is strictly programmed. It intentionally expresses values and things to grasp easily: first, the visitor observes “chaos”, then some “natural” geometric shapes and their movements, and at the end it’s assumed that cars are born from this beautiful geometry, like Venus born of sea foam. Such an applied thing can be successfully sold to any company: Pokémon, bottles of Coca-Cola or the Apple logo can be born from beautiful geometry with the same success.

The work “Connect” can only be claimed as an object of abstract art or, probably, as a popular science installation. For me, this work is more inspiring, as a whole, it seems as if something less perceptible. Like some statement about the randomness of life is embedded in it. In general, it seems to me that (probably) the more layers of associations the work touches, the more it is liked.

About the second question: in my opinion, all the work in this collection is somehow related to self-organization. Generally speaking, this is one of my favorite sets in this course, because almost all of these works has something to do with me. For some reason, the idea of observing an artificially created system with an artistically limited number of input data, or, so to speak, degrees of freedom, really fascinates me. It seems to me that this is a higher and more thoughtful level of work with translating ideas into a visual or symbolic language, because in this collection authors (mostly) work with abstractions. Such type of work is reallz appealing to me.

Separately, I want to add that in general, the work in this collection just expresses what I talked about in the discussion about algorithmic art.

A couple of years ago I was engaged in the project of the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow as an architect, but sometimes we held joint discussions with scientists who worked on the exposition. The idea of the new exposition was to convey technical and scientific ideas in the most understandable language for the audience; when I quit, the office was still discussing installation projects in the spirit of a model of a solar system with the scale of a room and with interactive screens for each object. But in fact, it seems to me that it is this collection that perfectly embodies the ideas that the team of scientists in Moscow thought about.

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 6

2020-10-18T19:08:29Z

Dariadordina:

ECOLOGICAL ART

It seemed to me that all the work in the Ecological Art set in general could be divided into three broad categories: 1) work directly with living beings/organisms, 2) attempts to translate data or energy into some language that is perceivable to a person - visual representation, sound or text, 3) and separately stand the work of Peter Fend, which I would rather call (attempts of) terraforming.

The work of Peter Fend at first confused me, and still seems embarrassing, mainly because Buckminster Fuller’s ambitions which are easy to grasp from his projects, at the same time with the lack of ingenious approach of the great engineer.
It seemed so puzzling so I looked at several sites and articles and found a review of the exhibition, which accurately coincides with my feelings from his work:

''...Cathy Lebowitz wrote: “Whether or not Rapid Response is able to build artist-designed alternative-fuel stations, the exhibition was successful in presenting an imaginative and in-depth look at concerns that affect everyone.” When I met Fend coincidentally at the exhibition, he said that, to him, this is precisely what qualifies his unbuilt projects as failures. RAPID wasn’t just meant to provoke thoughts. It was meant to become a functioning gas station.
...
In this context the art(ifact) itself is left in an odd position: is it illustration? Advertisement? Mere byproduct? And then if the “real” plans are never implemented, doesn’t the artwork revert to being the real work by default?''

https://www.art-agenda.com/features/238098/peter-fend-s-to-be-built

Works from the second category seem to me very common in its approach not only in eco-art, but also in contemporary art in general. They usually do not cause me any interest, probably they are based on logic, which I do not quite understand. For me, in most cases they come down to a quote from Hesse:

''War der Anfänger etwa fähig, durch die Spielzeichen Parallelen zwischen einer klassischen Musik und der Formel eines Naturgesetzes herzustellen, so führte bei Könner und Meister das Spiel vom Anfangsthema frei bis in unbegrenzte Kombinationen.''

So most of these things seem to me skillful, but still very straightforward exercises.

And the works from the first category, it seems to me, are desperately trying to overcome the framework of a museum or any institution. For me, as an architect, it was most interesting to think about the artwork Wheatfield. In the act of protest against global warming and economic inequality Agnes Denes, an artist, planted an expansive wheatfield. This work was done in 1982. Highline Park, which one associates nowadays with Manhattan buildings looking out from idyllic vegetation, was opened in 2009. In 2017, Zaryadye Park was solemnly opened. The park, designed by american architects, presented to viewers an amazing sight: a view of the Kremlin through rows of young birches. Isn’t this set of three images ironical?
It seems interesting to me how the opposition that Agnes began as radical gesture degenerated into Zaryadye or High Line projects that mimic to be horizontal and / or democratic, but in fact are state “presents” (and gentrification machines) from Putin / Sobyanin or Bloomberg to residents of Moscow or Manhattan. I feel uneasy when I think about it: will any radical gesture be reassigned by instances of power?

[[File:Examplsddge.jpg]]
[[File:Examdgple.jpg]]
[[File:Eddxample.jpg]]

It seems to me that all the important works (in my opinion) in this collection are very politicized. This is because ecology, and this is, i assume, its most noticeable difference at the moment, seems to allow people to find a positive agenda, and not spend all their energy on the (artistic) expression of critical negative statements. So by positive I mean something not based only on negation. And this is such an agenda that cannot be appropriated simply in the modern world. And it also seems to me that this topic has become so important because it serves as a macro metaphor for describing what is happening with individual parts of the world at different levels: not only with the outside world, but also with the relationships of groups of people or individuals.

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 5

2020-10-18T19:07:31Z

Dariadordina:

ALGORITHMS IN ART

After the compilation review, I felt rather bewildered and puzzled. Most of the conceptual work presented seem rather meaningless personally to me. I cannot understand why all these obsessional practices were used in their pure form. They seem to hint at a high level of abstract meaning embedded in them, but I cannot read it. Unless they were the embodiment of what was happening in the artistic environment that times, seemingly the filling of museums for the sake of filling museums. Sol LeWitt wrote that art is not utilitarian - it’s written in the first manifesto in the compilation; and at the same the compilation mostly depicts production of the things done with purpose make people in the gallery look at them. All this variety of “abstractions” - does it not pretend to be non-functional just to stake out a certain niche and a certain function? In order to maintain a certain narrative? I am not sure.

I mean that personally I can not perceive these works in any other sense, except as a plenty of exercises on the topic of performing algorithms. I don’t understand, for example, why again take ideas from the avant-garde of the 30s, deconstruct them to formal exercises and attach such things to narrative about cybernetics or computers. The difference between these cases and, for example, Malevich’s suprematism seems obvious to me - suprematism worked with cosmology, it did not investigate, but proclaimed. The Black Square was a project to replace the icon in every home, and not an art for placement in a museum context.

In addition, the explanations of logical systems by artists who speak of cybernetics but do not include anything other than plain enumeration in their work seem very strange to me. Not a single algorithm touches on the idea of logical chains, branching conditions, they all look like host commands to a dumb servant: “repeat this (one action or a linear sequence of actions) for some amount of time”.

I can’t call these works too simple, but I don’t understand why they were done, if we assume that they were done sincerely. I do not perceive them as intellectual exercises, perhaps rather as tasks in a math textbook to repeat a certain chapter or something like this.
From the entire selection, I liked the work “Zen for TV”, works of Yanick Fournier, Samuel Beckett’s Quadrat and the video in which John Baldessari sings Sol LeWitt. I think I like them because they don’t engage in plainly flirting with “intellectual abstractions”, but include more layers in their work.

I also do not really understand the question about a simple algorithm from my daily life. Obviously, my daily life consists of many algorithms, both linear (a recipe for oat porridge in the morning) and individual instructions (if ... then ...). My favorite of these algorithms is probably an attempt to distance myself from my own experiences and look at the situation from the outside (while-loop: alienate from oneself until it helps).

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-10-18T19:05:50Z

Dariadordina:

PROVOCATIVE ARCHITECTURE

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

[[File:hhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg]]

Photo by David Lynch

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

[[File:nnbjhvExample4.jpg]]

Installation Paxpa by Ernesto Neto

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

[[File:nmnmExample5.jpg]]

Sketch by Robert Venturi

[[File:mmnmnmnExample6.jpg]]
from video HYPER-REALITY by Keiichi Matsuda

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 3

2020-10-18T19:04:40Z

Dariadordina:

MEDIA ARCHITECTURE PERFORMANCE

In my opinion, it is important first of all to determine what a "media project in the city" is and what it is aimed at. On the one hand, we can talk about objects of art as something that implies the active participation of city residents in the functioning of the installation. On the other hand, a "media project in the city" can be a personal exploration of urban space. It seems to me that these are two completely different approaches. We either offer the visitors to become a part of the game themselves, or we demonstrate to them a rather complicated and documented process done by the artist.

The first approach assumes that the object should be understandable at any level of involvement in the project topic. The visitor should not spend time comprehending the concept in order to take part in the action. At the same time, such installations also provide food for thought during just simple observation. It is important that visitors can show their individuality when they play or somehow interact with the object.
It seems to me that in this case technological effectiveness is not necessary and even unwanted. The object should be simple, egalitarian and talk about understandable topics: examples show that the common basis for such topics is human life. Presentation examples: '''Sand Box''', '''Before I die''', '''Career Path''', '''Two Too Large Tables''', '''Moment - performatives Spazieren''', '''Conversation Bubble'''. Projects are initializing communication during participation.
Sufficiently sophisticated technologies may appear in this type of facility only if the facility is not placed in an urban environment. In any case, people are allowed to simply watch what is happening, as in the '''Zoom Pavilion''' example. Technology needs a guard and a control center.

The second approach can allow the use of rather complex concepts that are completely divorced from the everyday life of people. The presentation includes such examples: visualization of a WiFi signal using a long exposure photo, '''Coffee Seeks its Own Level''', all the experiments with wearable devices. All these examples are a kind of art laboratory experiments with interesting results that are exhibited in museums (on the Internet?). The complexity of such systems must be reasonable. If we conduct our personal research, what is it dedicated to? Why is it carried out in this way? From the viewer's point of view: if art wants to be isolated, how does it justify it? In what ways can this experiment be recorded?
In any case, I think that such a separation into poles is more likely to work not as a division of works into 2 groups, but as a distribution of them in a coordinate system, where one axis is the involvement of the viewer, the second is an individual experiment.

For me personally, the question of which strategy to prefer depends on what I want to say with this or that job. Accordingly, the choice of criteria varies from case to case. But, probably, in any case, the most important thing for me is to somehow reflect my associations, feelings and thoughts regarding the object that I am engaged in.

---------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the problem with the Software exhibition was partially that in fact, it takes quite a lot of time to comprehend the new. At the moment reinforced concrete was invented, it was still not understood as a tool to create a completely different type of architecture. Another type of architecture was followed by a different typology of the city, and after it - a different structure of society. And on the contrary: when in the USSR architects realized what volumetric expressive means are fraught with reinforced concrete and began to design and build houses with a flat roof and wide windows - construction technology and economics still did not allow achieving the simple requirements of flat roofs not leaking, and wide windows not freezing rooms. Everything happens, in fact, quite slowly. Therefore, it’s rather strange to read about “The computer has only been used to copy aesthetic effects easily obtained with the use of conventional media, although the computer does its work with phenomenal speed and eliminated considerable drudgery. The use of computers in the arts has yet to produce anything approaching entirely new aesthetic experience ".

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 2

2020-10-18T19:00:51Z

Dariadordina:

INTERACTIVE ART

I think, the vast majority of art pieces in the list works with code in a varying degree, so I will highlight 4 works that I personally found the most interesting.

'''n-cha(n)t'''

Here is a description of the installation, written by the author: “group of intelligent agents, hanging out in some corner of the internet during their idle time, jamming with their synthetic wits... trying out language on each other... perhaps finding their own patois... making this alien language somehow their own”
Software functions are voice recognition, free association and language generation. It seems to me that the most important function of this object is the development of a new language in which agents communicate with each other, even if in this case the generated speech is not a product of AI and serves only artistic purposes.

''...conversation occurred between two AI agents developed inside Facebook. … “There was no reward to sticking to English language,” says Dhruv Batra, visiting research scientist from Georgia Tech at Facebook AI Research (FAIR). As these two agents competed to get the best deal–a very effective bit of AI vs. AI dogfighting researchers have dubbed a “generative adversarial network”–neither was offered any sort of incentive for speaking as a normal person would. So they began to diverge, eventually rearranging legible words into seemingly nonsensical sentences.
“Agents will drift off understandable language and invent codewords for themselves,” ...''

'''Listening Post'''

Listening Post is a ‘dynamic portrait’ of online communication, displaying uncensored fragments of text, sampled in real-time, from public internet chatrooms and bulletin boards.
Here the main task of the program is to select significant pieces of correspondence and turn them into a symphony: also re-cutting and reassembling, as in the previous example, but at the different level, the texts are cut into sentences, not words, and the meaning of the symphony is attributed to the significance of the selected constructions “I am…”.

'''33 Questions per Minute'''

"33 Questions Per Minute" consists of a computer program which uses grammatical rules to combine words from a dictionary and generate 4.7 trillion unique, fortuitous questions. The automated questions are presented at a rate of 33 per minute --the threshold of legibility-- on 21 tiny LCD screens encrusted on the support columns of the exhibition hall or mounted on a wall. The system will take over 271,000 years to ask all possible questions.
This is an obvious reference to the story "9 billion names of god", where Tibetan monks believe the Universe was created for the purpose of listing all names of God (which are just all possible combinations of letters in sacred alphabet, the number of combinations is 9 billions), and that once this naming is completed, God will bring the Universe to an end. The monks wish to use modern technology to finish this task more quickly and pay to programmers for creating such a program.
In combinatoric problems, the meaninglessness of the single result fascinates as much as the allusion to the sacredness of the whole set.

'''Robotic Chair'''

The Robotic Chair is guided by an overhead vision system and controlled over a wireless network by an external computer. Various algorithms govern the chair’s behavior, while the software is structured in such a way that the system can learn from its environment.
This object stands out in my collection by the fact that, firstly, it does not work with text, and secondly, it is present materially. Like the first example in which the generation of a new language was artistically displayed, it seems to me that this example artistically reflects an approach to things in a world where things can assemble themselves from their own parts. One involuntarily wonders what these things are. I come to the answer that these things are probably related to the war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, at least half of art pieces in the list works with human individuality in a varying degree, so I will highlight 4 works that I personally found the most interesting.

'''Good Morning, Mr. Orwell'''

It was the first international satellite "installation": 30 minutes of electronic experiments form taped sections of celebrity performances, sound- and video art.
I’m not sure how much my background affects my perception of this video, but it seems very optimistic in its spirit: the author welcomes Orwell on the first day of the new year with an experimental entertaining show broadcasting in several countries. I do not see here a message to the comprehension of Orwellian warns about system, tracking and control, but rather the pioneer euphoria.

'''Das Zauberglas'''

''In “The Magic Glass” Melhus describes in the form of a Tele-story the mechanism of action between the ego and the medium: A young man is trying in vain to enter into a dialog with a young woman, whom he watches on a television screen. She represents his female alter ego. However, the television screen remains an insurmountable borderline which lets the attempt fail. The man is not able to find to his unconscious female alter ego, remaining caught in his longing.''
(from: Bjørn Melhus, exhibition catalog, Bremen/Munich.)

This work seemed to me the most bewitching of the entire selection. Probably the strongest moment in the video is the breaking of the fourth wall, and the fact that characters themselves pay very little attention to this, remaining inside their complex system of interaction. In general, the works of Melhus are full of doppelgängers, reflections and mutual influence of fiction and reality.

'''Tall Ships'''

Tall Ships consists of 16 video monitors, which are mounted in a line down the center of the ceiling of a completely dark, corridor-like space. There is one projection approximately every five feet alternating from side to side. The projections are of people of varying ethnic origin, age and gender with a halo-like quality. The figures, standing or seated and ranging from one to two feet high, first appear in the distance, at about eye level.
It is very similar in mood to work '''Underscan''' from the last lecture, but now associations with the other world are already much more obvious.

'''Read / Write-Head'''

In connection with an eye / gaze-tracking system, the reading is also writing, for the gaze touches and selects the words. The eye / gaze-tracking system can measure the viewer’s reading gazes and thereby generate new, subjectivized statements. The reader himself creates experimental texts with his eye movements. The exhibit suggests, on the one hand, an imaginary continuity of reading but is, on the other hand, an apparatus for writing. Reading and writing, decoding and coding, can be experienced here as a space in between at the interface to the computer.

I understand that, presumably, this project should have been assigned to the number of projects in which the code plays a more important role, but in my opinion, since the author wanted to demonstrate the ideas of Lacan with the help of some installations, it is more correct to speak about him from the point of view human identity. It is known that Lacan used rather complex models to explain his theories, for example, a model with a concave mirror and a vase. It is curious to what extent such an installation can serve as illustrative material (as far as I understand from the description and video, all projects from the FACES OF SEEING collection transfer Lacan's ideas to the field of computerized media)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How for you personally software influences your self-perception?

What I use directly: constant access to the Internet, the Babylonian library is always at hand. I often first look for whether there were already some analogues of something on the web. Most often, in my reasoning, I can rely not only on some facts, but also view detailed comments on these facts. When I was at university, the expression "an engineer does not have to know everything, but must know where to find everything" was widespread, now it has almost become an absolute. My way of thinking is reformatted to formulate the right questions.
Despite the fact that I had access to the Internet when I was already a teenager, access to this information archive has become an integral part of my life. I think it allowed the leading parts of the personality to develop even more: so, now if I have a choice, ask a person or google the answer, I will choose a conversation only when I really want to talk with this person. It alienates and it fascinates at the same time: access to any knowledge gives the feeling that you really appropriated the knowledge in some completely other, new way - you are now the one who can able to fix the bike, connect the chip to wi-fi, shift the floor in the bedroom or bake a cheesecake, everything that used to be considered the lot of some special actors ("put the screwdriver in place!")

What I use indirectly: the tendency of some networks to keep the user within his circle of comfort, to select posts and ads according to his desires and tastes. It seems that you are "in order", that in a sense, "everyone around lives in the same way as you".This impression is rather frightening and unpleasant.

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-07-20T19:34:35Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-07-20T19:34:25Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 7

2020-07-06T13:25:46Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "I really liked the first question (compare work Connect by Andreas Muxel with the Kinetic Sculpture by Art & Com), I think the answer seems easy but at the same time allows me..."

I really liked the first question (compare work Connect by Andreas Muxel with the Kinetic Sculpture by Art & Com), I think the answer seems easy but at the same time allows me to think about quite deep things.

The work Connect by Andreas Muxel represents the random itself in a closed system.
The artist sets only the physical environment of the installation (suspensions, balls, motors, magnets). No one can predict what happens with the installation at a particular moment; it illustrates the uncertainty created by a simple set of rules.
The work of Kinetic Sculpture by Art & Com is, in essence, a traditional sculpture that, ok, simply changes over time. The position of objects at any time is strictly programmed. It intentionally expresses values and things to grasp easily: first, the visitor observes “chaos”, then some “natural” geometric shapes and their movements, and at the end it’s assumed that cars are born from this beautiful geometry, like Venus born of sea foam. Such an applied thing can be successfully sold to any company: Pokémon, bottles of Coca-Cola or the Apple logo can be born from beautiful geometry with the same success.

The work “Connect” can only be claimed as an object of abstract art or, probably, as a popular science installation. For me, this work is more inspiring, as a whole, it seems as if something less perceptible. Like some statement about the randomness of life is embedded in it. In general, it seems to me that (probably) the more layers of associations the work touches, the more it is liked.

About the second question: in my opinion, all the work in this collection is somehow related to self-organization. Generally speaking, this is one of my favorite sets in this course, because almost all of these works has something to do with me. For some reason, the idea of observing an artificially created system with an artistically limited number of input data, or, so to speak, degrees of freedom, really fascinates me. It seems to me that this is a higher and more thoughtful level of work with translating ideas into a visual or symbolic language, because in this collection authors (mostly) work with abstractions. Such type of work is reallz appealing to me.

Separately, I want to add that in general, the work in this collection just expresses what I talked about in the discussion about algorithmic art.

A couple of years ago I was engaged in the project of the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow as an architect, but sometimes we held joint discussions with scientists who worked on the exposition. The idea of the new exposition was to convey technical and scientific ideas in the most understandable language for the audience; when I quit, the office was still discussing installation projects in the spirit of a model of a solar system with the scale of a room and with interactive screens for each object. But in fact, it seems to me that it is this collection that perfectly embodies the ideas that the team of scientists in Moscow thought about.

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-07-06T13:25:25Z

Dariadordina:

File:Eddxample.jpg

2020-07-05T18:46:20Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Examdgple.jpg

2020-07-05T18:46:00Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

File:Examplsddge.jpg

2020-07-05T18:43:30Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 6

2020-07-05T18:43:05Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "It seemed to me that all the work in the Ecological Art set in general could be divided into three broad categories: 1) work directly with living beings/organisms, 2) attempts..."

It seemed to me that all the work in the Ecological Art set in general could be divided into three broad categories: 1) work directly with living beings/organisms, 2) attempts to translate data or energy into some language that is perceivable to a person - visual representation, sound or text, 3) and separately stand the work of Peter Fend, which I would rather call (attempts of) terraforming.

The work of Peter Fend at first confused me, and still seems embarrassing, mainly because Buckminster Fuller’s ambitions which are easy to grasp from his projects, at the same time with the lack of ingenious approach of the great engineer.
It seemed so puzzling so I looked at several sites and articles and found a review of the exhibition, which accurately coincides with my feelings from his work:

''...Cathy Lebowitz wrote: “Whether or not Rapid Response is able to build artist-designed alternative-fuel stations, the exhibition was successful in presenting an imaginative and in-depth look at concerns that affect everyone.” When I met Fend coincidentally at the exhibition, he said that, to him, this is precisely what qualifies his unbuilt projects as failures. RAPID wasn’t just meant to provoke thoughts. It was meant to become a functioning gas station.
...
In this context the art(ifact) itself is left in an odd position: is it illustration? Advertisement? Mere byproduct? And then if the “real” plans are never implemented, doesn’t the artwork revert to being the real work by default?''

https://www.art-agenda.com/features/238098/peter-fend-s-to-be-built

Works from the second category seem to me very common in its approach not only in eco-art, but also in contemporary art in general. They usually do not cause me any interest, probably they are based on logic, which I do not quite understand. For me, in most cases they come down to a quote from Hesse:

''War der Anfänger etwa fähig, durch die Spielzeichen Parallelen zwischen einer klassischen Musik und der Formel eines Naturgesetzes herzustellen, so führte bei Könner und Meister das Spiel vom Anfangsthema frei bis in unbegrenzte Kombinationen.''

So most of these things seem to me skillful, but still very straightforward exercises.

And the works from the first category, it seems to me, are desperately trying to overcome the framework of a museum or any institution. For me, as an architect, it was most interesting to think about the artwork Wheatfield. In the act of protest against global warming and economic inequality Agnes Denes, an artist, planted an expansive wheatfield. This work was done in 1982. Highline Park, which one associates nowadays with Manhattan buildings looking out from idyllic vegetation, was opened in 2009. In 2017, Zaryadye Park was solemnly opened. The park, designed by american architects, presented to viewers an amazing sight: a view of the Kremlin through rows of young birches. Isn’t this set of three images ironical?
It seems interesting to me how the opposition that Agnes began as radical gesture degenerated into Zaryadye or High Line projects that mimic to be horizontal and / or democratic, but in fact are state “presents” (and gentrification machines) from Putin / Sobyanin or Bloomberg to residents of Moscow or Manhattan. I feel uneasy when I think about it: will any radical gesture be reassigned by instances of power?

[[File:Examplsddge.jpg]]
[[File:Examdgple.jpg]]
[[File:Eddxample.jpg]]

It seems to me that all the important works (in my opinion) in this collection are very politicized. This is because ecology, and this is, i assume, its most noticeable difference at the moment, seems to allow people to find a positive agenda, and not spend all their energy on the (artistic) expression of critical negative statements. So by positive I mean something not based only on negation. And this is such an agenda that cannot be appropriated simply in the modern world. And it also seems to me that this topic has become so important because it serves as a macro metaphor for describing what is happening with individual parts of the world at different levels: not only with the outside world, but also with the relationships of groups of people or individuals.

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-07-05T18:41:34Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-06-20T17:45:42Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-06-16T16:36:16Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:54:14Z

Dariadordina:

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

[[File:hhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg]]

Photo by David Lynch

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

[[File:nnbjhvExample4.jpg]]

Installation Paxpa by Ernesto Neto

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

[[File:nmnmExample5.jpg]]

Sketch by Robert Venturi

[[File:mmnmnmnExample6.jpg]]
from video HYPER-REALITY by Keiichi Matsuda

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:52:54Z

Dariadordina:

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

[[File:hhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg]]
Photo by David Lynch

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

[[File:nnbjhvExample4.jpg]]

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

[[File:nmnmExample5.jpg]]
Sketch by Robert Venturi

[[File:mmnmnmnExample6.jpg]]
from video HYPER-REALITY by Keiichi Matsuda

File:MmnmnmnExample6.jpg

2020-06-16T10:51:12Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Licensing ==
{{subst:nld}}
== Source: ==

File:NmnmExample5.jpg

2020-06-16T10:50:08Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Licensing ==
{{subst:nld}}
== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:49:05Z

Dariadordina:

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

[[File:hhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg]]
Photo by David Lynch

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

[[File:nnbjhvExample4.jpg]]

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

[[File:nmnmExample5.jpg]]
[[File:mmnmnmnExample6.jpg]]

File:NnbjhvExample4.jpg

2020-06-16T10:47:48Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Licensing ==
{{subst:nld}}
== Source: ==

File:HhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg

2020-06-16T10:45:41Z

Dariadordina:

== Summary ==

== Copyright status: ==

== Licensing ==
{{subst:nld}}
== Source: ==

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:41:20Z

Dariadordina:

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

[[File:hhgkghfgcjgExample.jpg]]

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

[[File:kvvvExample2.jpg]]

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

[[File:nnbjhvExample4.jpg]]

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

[[File:nmnmExample5.jpg]]
[[File:mmnmnmnExample6.jpg]]

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:39:19Z

Dariadordina:

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?

''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.''

''In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 4

2020-06-16T10:38:46Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in..."

In general, I am truly delighted with the works presented in the compilation; most of them are very close to me. At the same time, I'm still not sure how provocation works in so to say pure, utilitarian architecture.

My questions:

1. The selection clearly shows that the main tool for “analytical” work with architecture is deconstruction (destruction/demolition or disassembly into its constituent parts and reassembly in some new order). Are there other effective methods also?
''Personally, it seems to me now that a temporary architecture should work just as well. Maybe it should be rethought as to how it is perceived now. Another important tool is light. If you look at how movies and video games are made, it is obvious that the role of light is almost the most important. But at the same time, lighting schemes are often performed very uniformly: on contrasts of warm and cold shades that the viewer uncosciously perceives as signs of certain moods.

In addition to the written above: often the place of the experiment or provocation is based on inhabited house. In the collection most of the work either deconstruct “the home”, or reassemble it in new experimental forms. But isn’t it more fruitful to work with the types of spaces that appeared at the end of the 20th century - all these non-places, transport hubs, enormous public parks, faceless architecture that “should not be noticeable”?''

2. Why is the sight of destruction so exciting?

''Perhaps because the architectural structures themselves serve as a political expression, an expression of power and (immense) system, and the destruction of the system excites the imagination?''

3. To the previous question: where does the universal love of ruins (Ruinenlust, ruine porn) come from, is it just a relic of romanticism or something else?

4. In one popular children's book from the late USSR, the construction of the future was described, where houses are grown like mushrooms and look like something in between stalactites and oyster mushroom colonies. Something similar to the houses of Hundertwasser or Arakawa in an effort to cross the border of the usual vision of “home”. Does a person really hate straight lines, planes, angles so much? Is it really so important how the place where the person applies the label “my house” will look like?

5. How will it affect AR architecture as a tool? Will everything turn into “decorated (in AR) sheds”? So “ducks” will happily move into virtual reality, as it could serve as much more powerful tool for ducks’ design?

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-06-15T20:58:51Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 5

2020-06-13T13:12:09Z

Dariadordina:

After the compilation review, I felt rather bewildered and puzzled. Most of the conceptual work presented seem rather meaningless personally to me. I cannot understand why all these obsessional practices were used in their pure form. They seem to hint at a high level of abstract meaning embedded in them, but I cannot read it. Unless they were the embodiment of what was happening in the artistic environment that times, seemingly the filling of museums for the sake of filling museums. Sol LeWitt wrote that art is not utilitarian - it’s written in the first manifesto in the compilation; and at the same the compilation mostly depicts production of the things done with purpose make people in the gallery look at them. All this variety of “abstractions” - does it not pretend to be non-functional just to stake out a certain niche and a certain function? In order to maintain a certain narrative? I am not sure.

I mean that personally I can not perceive these works in any other sense, except as a plenty of exercises on the topic of performing algorithms. I don’t understand, for example, why again take ideas from the avant-garde of the 30s, deconstruct them to formal exercises and attach such things to narrative about cybernetics or computers. The difference between these cases and, for example, Malevich’s suprematism seems obvious to me - suprematism worked with cosmology, it did not investigate, but proclaimed. The Black Square was a project to replace the icon in every home, and not an art for placement in a museum context.

In addition, the explanations of logical systems by artists who speak of cybernetics but do not include anything other than plain enumeration in their work seem very strange to me. Not a single algorithm touches on the idea of logical chains, branching conditions, they all look like host commands to a dumb servant: “repeat this (one action or a linear sequence of actions) for some amount of time”.

I can’t call these works too simple, but I don’t understand why they were done, if we assume that they were done sincerely. I do not perceive them as intellectual exercises, perhaps rather as tasks in a math textbook to repeat a certain chapter or something like this.
From the entire selection, I liked the work “Zen for TV”, works of Yanick Fournier, Samuel Beckett’s Quadrat and the video in which John Baldessari sings Sol LeWitt. I think I like them because they don’t engage in plainly flirting with “intellectual abstractions”, but include more layers in their work.

I also do not really understand the question about a simple algorithm from my daily life. Obviously, my daily life consists of many algorithms, both linear (a recipe for oat porridge in the morning) and individual instructions (if ... then ...). My favorite of these algorithms is probably an attempt to distance myself from my own experiences and look at the situation from the outside (while-loop: alienate from oneself until it helps).

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 5

2020-06-13T13:11:27Z

Dariadordina: Created page with " After the compilation review, I felt rather bewildered and puzzled. Most of the conceptual work presented seem rather meaningless personally to me. I cannot understand why..."

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-06-13T13:10:45Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-05-29T12:35:59Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-05-29T12:35:22Z

Dariadordina:

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina

2020-05-29T12:32:01Z

Dariadordina:

* [[/Assignment 1/]]
19.05.20 presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-FOuUnxWfhhOrlfEaAL4z9tB5y432h88SBL6TmE0aQk/edit#slide=id.g7849836078_0_9
* [[/Task 2/]]
* [[/Task 3/]]
[https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wKTvxItxfPtDtwbiormmLgJmUMemZ9bz3bQ30VrHKAc/edit#slide=id.g87be1f4779_1_1 02.06.20 presentation]

GMU:Artists Lab IV/Daria Dordina/Task 3

2020-05-28T11:44:52Z

Dariadordina: Created page with "In my opinion, it is important first of all to determine what a "media project in the city" is and what it is aimed at. On the one hand, we can talk about objects of art as so..."

In my opinion, it is important first of all to determine what a "media project in the city" is and what it is aimed at. On the one hand, we can talk about objects of art as something that implies the active participation of city residents in the functioning of the installation. On the other hand, a "media project in the city" can be a personal exploration of urban space. It seems to me that these are two completely different approaches. We either offer the visitors to become a part of the game themselves, or we demonstrate to them a rather complicated and documented process done by the artist.

The first approach assumes that the object should be understandable at any level of involvement in the project topic. The visitor should not spend time comprehending the concept in order to take part in the action. At the same time, such installations also provide food for thought during just simple observation. It is important that visitors can show their individuality when they play or somehow interact with the object.
It seems to me that in this case technological effectiveness is not necessary and even unwanted. The object should be simple, egalitarian and talk about understandable topics: examples show that the common basis for such topics is human life. Presentation examples: '''Sand Box''', '''Before I die''', '''Career Path''', '''Two Too Large Tables''', '''Moment - performatives Spazieren''', '''Conversation Bubble'''. Projects are initializing communication during participation.
Sufficiently sophisticated technologies may appear in this type of facility only if the facility is not placed in an urban environment. In any case, people are allowed to simply watch what is happening, as in the '''Zoom Pavilion''' example. Technology needs a guard and a control center.

The second approach can allow the use of rather complex concepts that are completely divorced from the everyday life of people. The presentation includes such examples: visualization of a WiFi signal using a long exposure photo, '''Coffee Seeks its Own Level''', all the experiments with wearable devices. All these examples are a kind of art laboratory experiments with interesting results that are exhibited in museums (on the Internet?). The complexity of such systems must be reasonable. If we conduct our personal research, what is it dedicated to? Why is it carried out in this way? From the viewer's point of view: if art wants to be isolated, how does it justify it? In what ways can this experiment be recorded?
In any case, I think that such a separation into poles is more likely to work not as a division of works into 2 groups, but as a distribution of them in a coordinate system, where one axis is the involvement of the viewer, the second is an individual experiment.

For me personally, the question of which strategy to prefer depends on what I want to say with this or that job. Accordingly, the choice of criteria varies from case to case. But, probably, in any case, the most important thing for me is to somehow reflect my associations, feelings and thoughts regarding the object that I am engaged in.

---------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the problem with the Software exhibition was partially that in fact, it takes quite a lot of time to comprehend the new. At the moment reinforced concrete was invented, it was still not understood as a tool to create a completely different type of architecture. Another type of architecture was followed by a different typology of the city, and after it - a different structure of society. And on the contrary: when in the USSR architects realized what volumetric expressive means are fraught with reinforced concrete and began to design and build houses with a flat roof and wide windows - construction technology and economics still did not allow achieving the simple requirements of flat roofs not leaking, and wide windows not freezing rooms. Everything happens, in fact, quite slowly. Therefore, it’s rather strange to read about “The computer has only been used to copy aesthetic effects easily obtained with the use of conventional media, although the computer does its work with phenomenal speed and eliminated considerable drudgery. The use of computers in the arts has yet to produce anything approaching entirely new aesthetic experience ".