merging the real and virtual

thoughts on:
new conventions of display that alter the conditions for viewing art

“applications such as Instagram and Vine are also enabling new phenomenologies around the way art is encountered, experienced and considered.”

“what does it mean for us to encounter an artist’s work for the first time via Facebook or Instagram or Vine?”

maybe it has something to do with how we learn about art, through representations of art. we subconsciously assume that our works will be remembered by their documentation, rarely the actual work itself.
the museum also opens itself to new forms of public interpretation. This is a true form of institutional vulnerability.

“The museum building, you might say, is a certain platform for social interaction organized around viewing art. Transferring this concept to the Web is more complex: what if certain artworks from a museum are stolen, damaged, sold or repossessed? If these works disappear from the museum’s walls, what are the implications for that museum’s digital audiences? These works could still be displayed on its website. But something would be different.”

web design = museum curation

there is a thrill in the fact that what you see online exists in real life. the web as an alternative *option* is what makes it so exciting and widely accepted.
this can also be seen as a transition phase we are moving out of, as it is hard to maintain both ‘platforms’, probably for many reasons.

As designers, where do we truly find happiness?

This article features a bunch of recent works by designers that are said to be “pleasing”, or make us happy. It seems like just as futile of an attempt at exploring happiness as any other one. This has been such a trend in design themes, but not so much in art. Stefan Sagmeister focuses on exploring happiness in The Happy Show, which is an exhibition dedicated to the understanding of what makes us enjoy certain things. It features bright yellow walls smothered with infographics based off of recent studies, and endless interactivity.
There is a new concept that Art and Design have evolved into the same. However this interest in exploring happiness distinguishes the two in a big way. When have we not seen this topic explored in science or even technology? Even better, when have we ever seen this in fine art?
The understanding that happiness means the same thing to all of us, whether we are designers, artists or scientists, is false. Trying to develop universal truths about happiness will most likely not be successful.
In this article, there are no designed objects that are out of the ordinary. A book, a chair, a vase, etc. They are all purposeful and functional in their designs, but the writer finds aesthetic pleasure in each of them. Maybe you will too! It’s a pretty well-written article after all. Why is it then, that after reading I am still left wondering more about what happiness is supposed to even be?
As designers, how can we design for happiness? Is it a matter of being happy while designing? Where and when does this magic happen? The designed objects that this writer has chosen do not necessarily please me. The bias in this article is frustrating and barely legitimate rather than inspiring, because happiness is a topic that is not based off of anything close to objectivity. You could argue that science offers some studies that contribute to the greater investigation of happiness, but as a whole it is simply too subjective to form any real truths from this type of data.
This article may be fun for someone that is not aggressively pursuing design, but for a designer, these articles – regarding aesthetic pleasure and happiness – are simply not helpful. Designers may want to subvert the concept of happiness, rather than focusing on it head-on. At least in my experiences, happiness is a thing that happens exclusively while other things are happening. In the meantime, diving into deeper more substantial areas of interest may be a quicker and less maddening path to gaining true pleasure from design.

Topics like objective beauty and the importance of taste make up a good portion of the worry in my head as an artist/designer. These might all be symptoms of trying to predict the future. And of course, this thought pattern is fueled heavily (if not exclusively) by ego.

I was notorious among my peers for discussing art, music, pop culture, whatever to a nauseating degree. I would voice my opinion on everything and would not sugarcoat it. Actually, the more harsh, offensive, attention-grabbing, the better. It was annoying and everyone was sick of it, but it got me plenty of attention. (See: my high school senior superlative)

the other person who was deemed my counterpart for this title was the only dude that could tolerate/enjoy my bravely voiced opinions. I’ll give it to him, because he was equally if not more annoying.

Often upheld in history are the opinions of the academic, the intellectual, the professional, the connoisseur. Opinions that have been justified to be exceptionally significant.

Recently since our reading and writing skills have become widespread, it seems that those two things are all you need to get your opinion exposed to a community of millions. The next step: make a blog. Even better, maintain this blog for a long enough time —> ??? —> ????? —> become a fleeting ‘contributor’ to websites that publish glorified blog posts as bonafide ~*~articles~*~! Hundreds of people are now entertaining your thoughts. Your master-think-pieces.

It really is a beautifully powerful thing. This newfound accessibility and variety of opinions that have gained traction in the last decade is exciting. Rants, mock-arguments and criticisms are able to reach new depths of digesting entertainment.

However, before it’s all fun and games, there are usually some burns to tend to; stuff that cuts and jabs. Some arguments go to excruciatingly personal lengths to target those who might disagree. (See: Defending Kanye on the Internet)

zoom

It was a cool move of the author Nishant Kothary to make contrasting references – quoting both significant , published critics with those whose opinions are far less significant to the academic community, but are equally published nonetheless.