courtneymoss-blog1

[courtneymoss-blog1]

recordings layered 10am to 3pm

[courtneymoss-blog1]

F I N A L D O C U M E N T

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Bibliography

Adonis, J. ‘We love being dumb and dumber’. The Sydney Morning Herald Online. 8 January 2015. http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/work-in-progress/we-love-being-dumb-and-dumber-20150108-3nraf.html (accessed 14 August 2017).

Ardia, M, ‘NYC-Based Artist Tehching Hsieh: When Life Becomes A Performance.’. Culture Trip. 12 January 2017. https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/new-york/articles/tehching-hsieh-when-life-becomes-a-performance/ (accessed 18 October 2017).

Marks, K, ‘Tehching Hsieh: the man who didn’t go to bed for a year.’. The Guardian, , 30 April 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/australia-culture-blog/2014/apr/30/tehching-hsieh-the-man-who-didnt-go-to-bed-for-a-year   (accessed 18 October 2017).

Poole, S. 'Pretentiousness by Dan Fox review – why anti-intellectualism is the real snobbery’. The Guardian Online. 11 February 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/11/pretentiousness-why-it-matters-dan-fox-review (accessed 14 August 2017).

Tesfaye, S. 'America hits peak anti-intellectualism: Majority of Republicans now think college is bad’. Salon. 11 July 2017. https://www.salon.com/2017/07/11/america-hits-peak-anti-intellectualism-majority-of-republicans-now-think-college-is-bad/ (accessed on 10 August 2017).

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Now is a time not a concept

In thinking about this we’ve also been thinking about ways of measuring/documenting time.

We’ve taken photos and sound recording every hour on the hour, taking inspiration from Tehching Hsieh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvebnkjwTeU

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/australia-culture-blog/2014/apr/30/tehching-hsieh-the-man-who-didnt-go-to-bed-for-a-year

[courtneymoss-blog1]

This is our title page statement. We decided instead of having a boring heading and then a paragraph of text, we should have the title of the document embedded into the paragraph itself.

Therefore our artwork is called “MAKE NOW NOW AGAIN”

Make Now Now Again

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Progress of our ‘nows’

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Progression

for our last lesson with Andrew we discussed the logistics of what we would do for a final body of work. 

Grace and John were assigned to taking 2 voice recordings from each time (10-10) and placing all our recordings on top of each other.

Annie, Faye and I were in charge of the layout our own pictures. we decided the square images were to be 3.71cm x 3.71cm and placed on a pages document.  Annie and I can just formatted JCs and graces days and Faye will drafted the paragraph for us to edit and confirm. 

[courtneymoss-blog1]

This was a post by Faye regarding the anti intellectual concept that will be featured at the start of the document 

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Once we had completed the whole week of 3:33 we talked to andrew in class to get some advice of where to continue from here. 

Faye posted this in our Facebook group which basically described the concept that we want to pursue for our final.

“Sooo.... concept: Now rise of populism, anti-intellectual rhetoric, so we're taking the theme of now as a very literal thing - no room for self reflection, very outward looking, very regimented limits for documentation, no room for fluidity. Blah blah blah.

Every hour on the hour from 10am-10pm, take 1 square photo, outward looking directly in front of you and take a 10 second recording.”

[courtneymoss-blog1]

3:33 experimentation Since the previous 3:33 worked so well we decided to do it for another week. Here are some examples of our Facebook posts

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Assessment 3 Group work For our 12 page document we decided to take a very literal response to ‘NOW’ and capture the small moments at one specific time. We were aiming to show that ‘your now’ is different to ‘my now’ but ‘our now’ as a collective is just a series of mundane activities that we complete on a daily basis. As a final work, we wanted to make a heavily image based document in a grid typed fashion in order to display everyones NOW as a collective. To begin with we chose a specific time in the day where everyone would take a series of pictures and a 1 minute voice recording of what they were doing at that specific time of the day. The time we chose was 3:33, so on October 4th we all completed this action and posted all the photos to our facebook page (as shown below)

[courtneymoss-blog1]

Bibliography

Berry, Frances, n.d. ‘FRANCES BERRY – PICTURE MAKER’ accessed 9th September <http://www.whereisfrances.com> Giménez, Lluís, 2016, ‘Frances Berry bluring old times with an eye on the present’, Metal, accessed 9th September <http://metalmagazine.eu/en/post/interview/frances-berry-blurring-old-times-with-an-eye-on-the-present> Portraitch, 2016, ‘Sara Cwynar, scanned glitch’, altervista, accessed 10th September, <http://portraitch.altervista.org/sara-cwynar-scanned-glitch/> Ambler, Charlie, 2014, ‘Sara Cwynar’s Analog Glitch Abstractions’, ARTSY, accessed 10th September <https://www.artsy.net/article/charlieambler-sara-cwynars-analog-glitch-abstractions> Bray, Sara, 2014, ‘Sara Cwynar’, People of Print, accessed 9th September <http://www.peopleofprint.com/solo-artist/sara-cwynar/> Cordeschi, Adrianna, 2016, ‘The art of glitches by Sara Cwynar’, Beautifully imperfections a research project, accessed on 10th September <https://beautifullyimperfects.net/2016/06/08/the-art-of-glitches-by-sara-cwynar/> Carruthers, A J, 2012, ‘Xerographesis: On Poetic Art and the Object in Amanda Steward and Anne Tardos’, Cordite poetry review, accessed on 10th September <http://cordite.org.au/essays/xerographesis-on-poetic-art-and-the-object-in-amanda-stewart-and-anne-tardos/> Gragert, Anna, 2016, ‘Photographer Uses Artisanal Weaving to Create Dynamic and Thought-Provoking Portraits’, Layers, accessed on 16th September <https://layersmagazine.com/photographer-uses-artisanal-weaving-to-create-dynamic-and-thought-provoking-portraits.html>

[courtneymoss-blog1]

700-word concept statement

Within this second assignment, the statement regarding glitch allowed me to question and play around with the creative potentials concerning digital and analog glitch. Through a series of experimentation and development I have composed a body of works consisting of 6 A4 woven artworks concerning and representing the process of glitch and its temporary effects.  

I began with inspiration for this assignment and researched a variety of artists whose work revolves around the concept of glitch as the main inspiration or idea of their art. Sara Cwynar and Frances Berry are both female American artists who combine photography and aesthetic glitch methods to develop a body of work. Cwynar directly inspired me as she uses a scanner to create her glitch manipulation artworks through using random images from books, encyclopedias and school textbooks as the subject of her work. Berry is similar in the sense that she uses old photos from her childhood and manipulates/stretches the images to mimic the forgotten memory of the past (Shown in her work ‘Memory Extended’). David Samuel Stern is a photographer who captures two separate moments in time and interlaces the two photos together to cultivate dynamic portraits of people.

Through completing all this research I decided that I wanted to incorporate all these ideas into one body of work, through manual scanning manipulation as well as weaving as a form of distortion. From this point on I struggled with being uniquely creative rather than just plagiarizing other peoples work, which got me thinking about how nothing is really ‘new’ because everything has been done before just justified in different ways. With this lack of creativity I embraced the concept of technological glitch itself and how I could explore its methods and ideologies through a hands on approach.

Following on from my last assignment I wanted to continue with using a scanner in order to create an aesthetic glitch, although as recommended through feedback I needed to push this further by using something other than the word “glitch’ as the subject of my work. I struggled with this decision and questioned whether I should use a physical object or photograph. I decided upon a physical three-dimensional object and conducted a series of experimental scans using Gerbera flowers and leaves. Rather than static images as the subject of these works, I chose dynamic scanning as a form of “photography” as it captures more than just one moment time and highlights movement, by bringing life into the subject through blurring the authenticity of still photography. I wanted this body of work to be vague and for responders to interpret the work how they want although it subjectively shows the progression of glitch and the process of it being “fixed”.

Through using the method of scanning, this created an unpredictable environment through leaving the glitch process up to chance therefore achieving a distorted final product that is unique to each scan. The intricate detail of the petals and leaves contrasted the dynamic distorted and blurred sections of the flower to create interest. Pulling knowledge from what I know best, I combined with the scanning process with two methods of weaving. As the scanning process was so unpredictable, much like the irregular nature of glitch, I thought I could contrast this with a uniformed method of plain and twill weaving. The aesthetic aspect of weaving creates a pixelated effect as small sections of the image are replaced with another image.

According to Google, a glitch is defined as ‘a sudden, usually temporary malfunction or fault’. This is explored within my work as the series of manually glitched artworks present the process of technological temporary glitch, how it progressively gets worse and when fixed, it doesn’t always revert back to its original form. The first work presents the untouched scanned distorted images of Gerberas, the second work mimics slightly pixelated versions of the original and then develops into a precise and uniformed glitch in the form of a plain weave for the third. The fourth work forms into a messy and unrecognizable vague image using a combination of plain and twill weave, meanwhile the fifth and sixth images mirror the first two. The fact that I didn’t use any technology or software other than a photocopier highly contradicts the whole idea of my work presenting the process and faults of technological glitch.

[courtneymoss-blog1]

FINAL BODY OF WORK

[courtneymoss-blog1]

LAST EXPERIMENT:

In the final stages of completing my assignment, I did some final scans of flowers to develop the distorted photos that i will use for the subject of my work. The pictures above are the scans I liked the most out of the 30 I experimented with. I also did some scans with smaller berry branches but i didn't like the final product because the colours in the flowers are a lot brighter. I have chosen the last 2 images to use in my final work.

I printed out 5 small versions of each photos and made a mock up of my final project on a smaller scale to make sure it looked okay. (last image above)

METHOD FOR EACH ARTWORK:

I'm going to call 'image a' the scanned photo of the yellow and pink flowers with the leaves. And 'image b' the scanned photo of yellow, orange and pink flowers.

1. Original scanned image a

2. Image a as the base photo, image b cut into weft yarn (horizontal) strips and woven into sections of image a to create small sectional glitches

3. Image a is cut into weft yarns (horizontal) and image b is cut into warp yarns (vertical) and woven together using a plain weave technique

4. using the same method of cutting weft and warp yarns in (3), instead of a plain weave, the yarns are put in a random order using a combination of twill and plain weaves to create a messy and randomised final product.

5. Same method as (2) but image b is the base photo and image a is cut into warp yarns (vertical)

6. Original scanned image b

[courtneymoss-blog1]

ANOTHER WEAVING EXPERIMENT:

I found an artist, David Samuel Stern who combines two images together through weaving to create “dynamic and thought-provoking portraits”. He takes two different images of people and combines them so the audience views two perspectives of the subject. The artist notes that his produces the weaving by hand and the challanges that he has faced through completing it, although the final artworks are very effective.

https://layersmagazine.com/photographer-uses-artisanal-weaving-to-create-dynamic-and-thought-provoking-portraits.html

I used Stern as my literal inspiration for this experiment as i copied his method of using two different images This time i used a static image of a face for the subject of the experiment, one photo of my friend looking up and another photo of him looking down (first and second image). I pursued the same method of cutting strips (warp and weft) and weaved them together (third image). I liked the outcome of this but i feel like im just copying David’s work and not really pushing the boundaries.

This next experiment I did consisted of 2 identical image of my friend (fourth image), i then cut one image into the 1cm strips but with the other image, i cut 1cm lines in one section of the image. In this case i cut into the face and then weaved the weft paper yarns into the image, I then moved each “yarn” to create a distortion in the face (fifth image).

CONTEMPLATION:

- I actually really liked how the second method turned out and could potentially use this method in my final series of works ie use little glitches in section of a photo.

- as much as i liked using a person as my subject, i think i prefer using physical objects as they are more interesting to scan. Im thinking of using the flowers/nature as the colours are so vibrant and have so much detail in the petals.

-Ive decided to go with the idea of the series of works, starting with a scanned photo and showing the process of weaving and glitch (as explained in the last blog post.

- I am now going to do one last experiment in scanning flowers to find an image/images to use for my body of works