Artpulse Magazine article.
Last week Cristina García-Lasuén also known as Aino Baar in Second Life wrote an article for the prestigious American art magazine Artpulse. In it she describes the new forms of video art culminating with machinima. Aino is a Spanish curator who was responsible for having machinima included at the Spain Pavilion at the World Expo. She is a very determined person and once she sets her mind on something its really quite hard to refuse her. I think if she had got her way she would have had the event called the "Machinima pavilion with special guest Spain".
The article is important the same way as the Art21 article written by Nettrice Gaskins was last year. They are both written in an art forum where very few are aware of the art we are creating here in Second Life or rather in virtual worlds. It steps over the "walled garden" we worry about so frequently.
With the Art21 article I had asked if people would mind leaving a comment to show them that there is indeed interest for virtual artists. Nettrice told me that we brought down their website for a day. But again I would ask you to go read the article and leave a comment if you have a moment. Spread it too if you can. Here is the article below.
http://artpulsemagazine.com/video-art-now-real-virtual-and-machinima/
Its interesting though. There is a distinct shift at the moment from traditional news sources to that of the everyday person. I kept track of the "art" articles from one of the newspapers here in Toronto for a few years. What I found was that they didn't write about "normal" art. If an article popped up it was somehow sensational. For example, one article was of an Elephant at our zoo who smeared paint on a canvas and they were selling them. Another was of an artist who chewed up gum and put it on a canvas making celebrity portraits. Another was someone who lost their arms and painted with their feet... and I remember an article about Andy Warhols brother who painted with a chicken foot rather than a paint brush. I am not saying that these don't deserve to be written about (except the elephant) but what it meant to me was that newspaper reporters generally have no idea about art. They can't distinguish good from bad so they write about the process rather than the final quality of the work. People love to talk about Van Gogh cutting off his ear and sending it to I think it was Gauguin, its sensational. But Van Gogh succeeded despite his mental illness not because of it. All the artists I went to art school with who ran around in capes with berets on pretending they were crazy are not artists anymore. They have day jobs. Those who quietly worked hard at understanding their medium are still working as artists today. I think all artists are a bit bent in some way, but then there are those who watch the media and Hollywood figuring they need to be crazy to be noticed.
Up until recently we have been slaves to these traditional media sources and have been forced to place importance on the opinion of a single human being whose writing somehow gets elevated above everything else due to it being published in a newspaper. We also have had to rely on these traditional media sources to validate our own work, yet we have to compete against elephants from the zoo. News media had a monopoly and they squandered it, now the people are the power.
Google have been partly responsible for the slow death of traditional media sources. With Google we can find exactly what we want immediately and can be kept up to date with world events as they happen. A newspaper prints and then has to live with their article until they print the next day. Classified ads were a money maker for newspapers but have pretty much disappeared to the internet. Google have gleefully been enjoying their success yet recently have come to a realization. If media sources do die out then who are they going to link to? The traditional media for all their flaws have one thing going for them... they are generally reliable (minus political slants). The average blog or user created website can't really be said to be reliable. And there lies the difference. User created news to me is more relevant as it's generally created by an "expert" on a subject they are passionate about. A marine biologist might have a website about the effects of pollution on harp seals or the dangerous practice of keeping agressive genetically altered Salmon in holding pens along the ocean where if they escape they will cause incredible damage to their ecosystem. Would you want joe everything reporter to write about that? They know they have to sell papers so they may skew it into some kind of world ending scenario, rather than an important subject to discuss. But then again nobody polices the Marine biologist either.
Anyway, I kind of got off topic. Here is a great video.
The article is important the same way as the Art21 article written by Nettrice Gaskins was last year. They are both written in an art forum where very few are aware of the art we are creating here in Second Life or rather in virtual worlds. It steps over the "walled garden" we worry about so frequently.
With the Art21 article I had asked if people would mind leaving a comment to show them that there is indeed interest for virtual artists. Nettrice told me that we brought down their website for a day. But again I would ask you to go read the article and leave a comment if you have a moment. Spread it too if you can. Here is the article below.
http://artpulsemagazine.com/video-art-now-real-virtual-and-machinima/
Its interesting though. There is a distinct shift at the moment from traditional news sources to that of the everyday person. I kept track of the "art" articles from one of the newspapers here in Toronto for a few years. What I found was that they didn't write about "normal" art. If an article popped up it was somehow sensational. For example, one article was of an Elephant at our zoo who smeared paint on a canvas and they were selling them. Another was of an artist who chewed up gum and put it on a canvas making celebrity portraits. Another was someone who lost their arms and painted with their feet... and I remember an article about Andy Warhols brother who painted with a chicken foot rather than a paint brush. I am not saying that these don't deserve to be written about (except the elephant) but what it meant to me was that newspaper reporters generally have no idea about art. They can't distinguish good from bad so they write about the process rather than the final quality of the work. People love to talk about Van Gogh cutting off his ear and sending it to I think it was Gauguin, its sensational. But Van Gogh succeeded despite his mental illness not because of it. All the artists I went to art school with who ran around in capes with berets on pretending they were crazy are not artists anymore. They have day jobs. Those who quietly worked hard at understanding their medium are still working as artists today. I think all artists are a bit bent in some way, but then there are those who watch the media and Hollywood figuring they need to be crazy to be noticed.
Up until recently we have been slaves to these traditional media sources and have been forced to place importance on the opinion of a single human being whose writing somehow gets elevated above everything else due to it being published in a newspaper. We also have had to rely on these traditional media sources to validate our own work, yet we have to compete against elephants from the zoo. News media had a monopoly and they squandered it, now the people are the power.
Google have been partly responsible for the slow death of traditional media sources. With Google we can find exactly what we want immediately and can be kept up to date with world events as they happen. A newspaper prints and then has to live with their article until they print the next day. Classified ads were a money maker for newspapers but have pretty much disappeared to the internet. Google have gleefully been enjoying their success yet recently have come to a realization. If media sources do die out then who are they going to link to? The traditional media for all their flaws have one thing going for them... they are generally reliable (minus political slants). The average blog or user created website can't really be said to be reliable. And there lies the difference. User created news to me is more relevant as it's generally created by an "expert" on a subject they are passionate about. A marine biologist might have a website about the effects of pollution on harp seals or the dangerous practice of keeping agressive genetically altered Salmon in holding pens along the ocean where if they escape they will cause incredible damage to their ecosystem. Would you want joe everything reporter to write about that? They know they have to sell papers so they may skew it into some kind of world ending scenario, rather than an important subject to discuss. But then again nobody polices the Marine biologist either.
Anyway, I kind of got off topic. Here is a great video.
Comments
Waving across the grid,
Buffy Beale