Research paper tutorial

Resume of the tutorial with Gareth Polmeer
Date: June 29. 2017
Topics: Abstract and first outcome

It was, in general, a release to talk with Gareth.
My subject for the research paper is still open, but I’m starting to narrow it down to something about the chance operation, control and, lack of control.
In keyword, my draft is about: coincidence, perception, information theory, chance operation, and AI
Gareth mentioned that there is a lot of interesting questions about the relationship between art and science in my first outcome.
He said that I am crossing into a much-debated field when I’m quoting Professor Zimmerman; the idea of speaking about the experience/perception in the kind of the language of information or terms of units of bits and bits this sorts of things are in themselves verily debated by philosophers and scientists. What we can infer from such a connection, and how intelligence works. One can speak about AI as having conciseness; it is related to the thing called the hard problem.
Gareth recomanded me to look at the journal called Leonardo; an American published journal, it’s a journal for the international society for art, science and technology. They publish articles by artist collaborating with scientists. He mentions that because there has been an increasing sense in which the arts and the sciences have come to be conflated in a sense – art and science are come to define itself in a very particular kind of way, it’s having a kind of domain over the art.

The question becomes about how I can make an experiment which connects natural scientist to an artistic question.
In the light of Karl Poppers (philosopher) idea of the function of science, it is hard to speak about that kind of things in relation to art, in the same kind of way.

How can I relate something like a controlled experiment to the contingency nature of artistic experience and something like that? I have to aware about linking the question up to an art question.

According to the information theory, I noticed a work of art made by Louise Nevelson I saw a few days ago. Gareth talked about Sol LeWitt; relating to developing process or questions about chance and contingency in the process and things like that. Artis like that could be interesting.

Gareth asked how far I was into the question about machine learning and creative AI, which I mention in the latest state of my notes.
I had heard two a lectures about AI; one was about AI and ethics; that we have to learn the computer ethic rules because they are on the way to take over the management of our society. The other one I heard had a title “Can AI be creative?” by John R. Smith, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center; it was about how technology can learn creativity. I asked can AI be/learn aesthetic?
Gareth noticed that Google the system that sort of generated images. Exactly what constitutes creativity in that respect. You have to import rules, to make a setup and the outcome will depend on the accuracy. And then there is all the other thing which aren’t things that can be variable input to computers, like emotion and embodied senses.

In the end, Gareth summarised that there is a very big question here but at the same time a couple of people, I mention, provided that I can focus on particular practices and a couple of particular theories. There is a lot of scopes, for it to be both a detail discussion but also still to stay reasonably within the limits of the 4-5 thousands of words, with some selected examples.

 

Copenhagen Contemporary: Sarah Sze

This work expand my understanding of video installation, I was pleased and surprised by the life and presence the installation expressed.

IMG_0370

From the catalog:
Sarah Sze’s installation Timekeeper (2016) explores the origin of the moving image, and mirrors the endless flow of information that overwhelms us every day. Screens flicker and fade, and projected images race cyclically around the room. A whirring, clicking world of objects is arranged in accordance with a specific logic: that of a working desk, a site of the studio. Formed in part from the remnants of the actual editing desk where the work was made, Timekeeper is simultaneously a sculptural installation and a functional tool: a projector itself.

Sze’s sprawling sculptures are not definitively delineated in space, a contrast to the traditional concept of sculpture where the work is distinct and can be isolated from its surroundings. For this reason, many of Sze’s sculptures appear like works in progress: when you encounter the work it feels as if the artist has only just stepped out of the room for a minute, making us wonder whether the work is still under construction or perhaps being dismantled.

One of the recurring traits of Sze’s work is her interest in time. However, Sze does not work with the usual chronological and mechanical concept of time as something that can be measured and recorded; rather, she explores time as something that arises out of the unpredictable ways in which the images and experiences of everyday life affect our sense of time passing.

Science seeks to define time by measuring it down to the smallest nanosecond, and we live our lives in accordance with this approach. Timekeeper challenges such an objective view, creating instead a perception of time in which experiences and frames of reference are brought into play upon encountering the work. Taking the form of a three-dimensional collage, Timekeeper holds and hides moments and memories that can be re-experienced across time and place by each individual who visits.

About Sarah Sze
Sarah Sze (b. 1969) lives and works in New York, USA. She represented the USA at the 2013 Venice Biennial, and was a 2003 MacArthur Fellow. Sze has exhibited her work at museums throughout the world, and her work is held in the collections of prominent institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Guggenheim Museum in New York, Fondation Cartier in Paris, Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and Museum of Modern Art in Los Angeles.

 

Test of drawing style for animation

I made this animation test for to see how the drawing style will go in animation.
I took seven photos of myself, drew after them with a soft pencil on tracing paper, scanned them and imported them into After Effect.
I let each image stand for three frames, and I looped the movement.
The sound is one of my recording of ordinary things, in this case: apples in a wheelbarrow.

Reflection:
The movement of the head and the texture in the background is changing too mush. I could make more “in-betweens” drawings and draw the background more alike, or I could make a more simple background. But in the end, I think the style is too shaky; it could probably work in combination with another animation method.
My idea for the test was weak, and therefore I get a little bored.
Audio wise – I think there is “something” in using sound which comes from another source