Over the past 4 weeks we have learned that there are difficulties and considerations when it comes to communication – changing the language that we speak into a transferable item in which can be coded, sent, decoded and understood by people all over the world breakdowns into a simple process that is used by technology. Looking back at the past 4 weeks:
Week 1 dealt with the coding of a visual communication, where we were given a sentence and were required to translate the message into a code using visual gestures and movements, from about 3 stories high and 50 metres away from the receiver of the message, we came up with a process I simply called “Clockwise Clapping” which you can find here.
Week 2 provided us with the challenge of using sound as a form of communication – using a series of different noises to send a picture from one group to another (only using sounds). This task was to represent what it would be like to be a “human fax” where the image being sent did not leave the person sending it, the receiver of the message would interpret what was being sent to create a copy. We were given Andy Warhol’s Banana and Stiletto to “human fax” from one group to another – follow this link to see the process of what we came up with.
Week 3 questioned the principles and what aspect of human interactive art is “art” – brought to our attention by Sol Lewitt’s artistic style – conceptual/minimalist approach, his creations of “Paragraphs” are meant to be explored, interpreted and executed. These works bring into question that it isn’t the physical creation from Sol Lewitt or the people that have a finished product of his work is the art, but the emotional, psychological challenge in deciphering what Sol Lewitt is trying to come across and the different possible outcomes, it is this entire process that is “Art”. We were given the opportunity to try a couple of Sol Lewitt’s artworks for ourselves – here is how we ended up.
Week 4 compared the procedures undertook by the process of knitting, to the process of how a computer is programed to work. This idea that the basic understanding behind any “domestic”/simple procedure such as knitting, following a recipe or playing a board-game are all forms of the same program to achieve or accomplish something. Given the understanding of the process, we were asked to knit, which I have talked about here in a bit more detail – to utilize the process involved and execute an outcome.
Going back to Week 3, the constant changing of technology has allowed for a change in what is called “Art” and what is needed to be represented when a piece is created. Nam June Paik focused on the aesthetic when it came to challenging the approach of technology and the way people communicate/interact with technology.
The artistic vision of Nam June Paik challenged the idea of what technology is and what it can be used for, using television, radio and lasers he represented to people the changing aspect that technology can be in a form that resembles the aspect of “how to humanize technology and the electronic medium”, “instead of creating another scientific toy“, said by Nam June Paik.
The creations of Nam June Paik have impacted the forms of communication through video art and to a certain degree the influence on commercial production – by being able to utilize technology with the idea of humanizing the creations he has lead the way for artists and people to develop a different understanding of technology and its uses.
Relating to the conceptual approach of Sol Lewitt there is a constant change for artists and communication through human interaction and development – by challenging the simple art approach it has allowed for a new understanding in communication art. Utilizing the audience as a participant in creating a piece and constructing a conceptual idea to what is art – Sol Lewitt and Nam June Paik have captured different aspects of time and relevance with-in the art community and created a path for others to follow and an art method for translating different understandings of art – from making art more human-like or audience interactive that questions the process of how art is made and who is the artist involved.
The processes that were involved in the different weekly activities offer different perspectives of how communication is created, refined and executed – by limiting the style of communication, such as visual or sound based, there is a bigger challenge in finding what works and what does not. Creating a different form of communication such as the visual communication from week 1 it was easier to distinguish between different actions/gestures used – this method was highly successful. Compared to week 2 the sound communication there was a greater challenge in using only sound to dictate what was needed to be translated. The limitations of the processes created are strictly to their form of communication that was intended but also that they were not always as refined as necessary when it came to certain aspects of trying to communicate. The translation dealing with coding, sending and decoding all depend on the understanding of the codes used and were understandable when dealing with the basics, however when it came time to situations where we did not have a code then our translation of the message was obscure – particularly when it came to sending pictures.