1. Kirsten Van Cleef works for SMOCA and City Staff which creates public art for roadways, libraries, performances, and more. She also creates prototypes to international keystone artworks. Festivals she’s worked for include Santa Monica’s light based digital work show Glow. She also mentioned the Sydney Festival where you can enter your name online and see it in lights. Public art can also include recycled art and pictures of trash like Phoenix North Transfer Station. Influx is a public art project Kirsten works on that feature storefront art in empty stores representing the bad economy. Public artists work off of commissions and have to meet certain qualifications, which include an initial proposal with a theme. This helps emerging artists. Socially interactive work can also be considered public art as well. It is important that public art represents an aesthetically pleasing experience and fulfills a well connected community. People who don’t have money still deserve to experience beautifully aesthetic public monuments-this can show the livelihood of a place. This definitely helped our group work out our public art assignment and also provided some insight to me as well as far as what public art actually entails. (Example: I didn’t actually know the geckos on the freeway were considered “public art.”)
2. As Kirsten said, public art is meant to be aesthetically pleasing and inviting to people visiting a community or place-even if they aren’t paying to see it. The geckos painted on the side of the freeway kind of show what Arizona is all about and is aesthetically pleasing to drive by. Art doesn’t have to be confined to museums or books-it can be shown in everyday life. For example, memorials that remind us of past events.
Vietnam War Memorial
Phoenix Public Art
3D Street Art
3. “The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man…In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.” I love this quote from the “Is Google Making Us Stupid” article by Nicholas Carr, because I am obsessed with time. I am constantly looking at the clock and predicting my future just as the quotes says-deciding when I need to wake up down to the minuscule things like how long my car ride will take so I’m not late for work (depending on the time of day I may have to leave 28 minutes early somedays and 20 minutes early other days). My connection with time to this article is that I do agree with the author on his point that people adapt to certain technologies as if they were apart of their mental way of thinking (like clockwork and the brain). As with clockwork, this is true with computers and access to information as well. In my opinion, I believe information is too accessible and easy to attain. Is this a positive or negative? It is definitely a positive when you need quick go-to information as far as where the closest mall is or easy to reach information for a research paper. But is it too easy? We are being coddled by the Internet and things are too easy to reach. This benefits us in many ways making it quicker to spread ideas and research, but it also hurts us in that we don’t have to put effort into anything. In a sense, I believe this might ultimately make us “lazy” and we need to keep that motivation within us to spread more ideas. Maybe the idea of clockwork and computers can be combined. As we are constantly busy with thoughts of future plans, work, and school-we tend to overlook the present and try to find the quickest route possible. The Internet is a great source of quick information. As we are a tech-savvy up and coming generation, we are constantly searching for the quickest information via computer (this includes our “tiny” hand held devices that make it so easy to access the Internet everywhere we go.) I love technology, but I also love to read print books. I wouldn’t trade print books for reading on the Internet, because a handheld book makes reading more personal. I love stories and the ability to read, but as I pass by so many unread books at the library I notice how far away books have become now that the Internet has made reading so much more accessible. The problem is our society isn’t paying attention and “skimming” over every little detail just to identify the whole picture. I even found myself skimming over the long article just to get to the end, but I went back and had to re-read because I wasn’t getting all the information. It would be interesting to find out more about the psychology behind this phenomenon of “skimming.” Why are people always so eager to get the information over and done with? I’ll never understand myself.
4. What is compositing and which of these following photographers worked with it?
A. Ansel Adams
B. George Eastman
C. Louis DaGuerre
E. Joseph Niepce
Answer: Compositing is the combining of visual elements from separate sources into single images, often to create the illusion that all of those elements are part of the same scene. Most compositing done today is achieved through digital manipulation, although pre-digital compositing techniques go back to the late 19th century.