No Classes! No Task!!

Horrible Holidays

At the risk of sounding like a uni loving loser, I am going to admit that I don't like how many holidays we've had lately. I never thought I'd say something so terribly outrageous as that, but I have many reasons for doing so, and they're GOOD reasons at that!

My Top 3 Reasons For Why I Am Being A Party Pooper And Wishing We Had Less Holidays This Semester!

1. MOTIVATION & SELF DISCIPLINE - Having had last year off before I started uni after I finished school, when uni started I was fully motivated and the first couple of weeks I tought myself to be very self disciplined. Then we had a weeks holiday, just as I had gotten myself into a work routine and that all went out the window! And now I don't know where it went... so I can't find it....
2. MONEY - Being a uni student has made me poor. This means I can't afford to go out, and more importantly, I can't buy myself a new outfit to wear out every freaking long weekend! Whats the point in having a holiday if you can't afford to have fun?
3. THE DETERIORATION OF BRAIN CELLS - Long weekends usually mean Mondays off. Which usually means Fishos or some sort of Sunday session. One of these every now and then is ok.. But 2 in a month has done permanent damage! Not only have I lost brain cells as a result of these elaborate long weekends, I've lost sleep, which harms my health, which limits my energy levels, which effects my study (so mum, if you're reading this, I'm sure you'll understand that bad grades are seriously out of my control this semester)

The underlying message here is that holidays can be harmful if not enjoyed in moderation. Who ever is incharge of holidays should think about the long term effects these holidays and long weekends could be having on today's society!

I suppose what I'm really trying to say here, is that I'm pissed off because I missed out on our New Com. Tech. tutorial as it really is the highlight of my week.

Does that earn me a High Distinction?

Tutorial 6 Task

Wikipedia – the free (unreliable) encyclopedia!

When you type something into a search engine like Google, often, the first result is found on Wikipedia (the name being a combination of Wiki meaning “a type of collaborative website” and Encyclopedia). Due to this high position in the ranking of search results, uninformed internet users assume that it is an accurate, reliable and creditable source so they don’t bother to look any further to ensure the information they’re getting is real. People intending to use information they find on Wikipedia in important documents should be aware that Wikipedia is open to a large contributor base and allows anyone to edit what has been written. This means that the articles do not have to be written by an expert on the chosen topic, or even someone with any form of acknowledged study at all! Therefore, information is often unreliable and biased. However, Wikipedia does have certain programs designed to resolve these problems like the “editorial dispute resolution process” which allows people to discuss their knowledge and beliefs to try and determine a neutral agreement.

If you are a frequent Wikipedia user and would like to know more about its problems and faults, some interesting websites to look at are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Strengths.2C_weaknesses.2C_and_article_quality_in_Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great


After reading the above articles, I decided to search a few topics of interest to me to test out these theories and accusations of incorrect or misleading information, unreliability and bias. There I was, happily searching along, until I found Wikipedia’s article on my favourite supermodel of all time:

The first sentence of Wikipedia’s biography on this Australian beauty states, “Miranda May Kerr (born

20 April 1983 or 1985[1]) is an Australian model, best known as one of the Victoria's Secret Angels.” There are two main things wrong with this sentence. Firstly, there are two years given for her date of birth that are two years apart – two years makes a great difference! To set things straight, Miranda Kerr was born in 1983 which makes her 25 years of age this year. Secondly, the sentence continues to say, “Australian model, best known as one of the Victoria’s Secret Angels”, which is clearly a personal opinion. Objective description (where the writer is impersonal and factual) is the kind of description that should be used on Wikipedia. The phrase, “best known as” makes this article a subjective description because it includes the writer’s opinion and can be biased. Kerr is also well known as the face of swimwear label, “Seafolly”, and women’s clothing chain store, “Portmans”. She has also recently been selected as the new face of David Jones, which is a major career highlight that is not mentioned on Wikipedia.

Personally, I also believe that this article is missing a most important part of information that would be necessary for a completely uninformed reader to gain a substantial understanding of Miranda Kerr. The article tells of all of her accomplishments as a model, but it does not give any kind of description of what she looks like. When discussing someone in a modeling profession, I believe it is essential that the general aspects of their appearance (hair colour, eye colour, skin tone, body, height) is explained.

Having said this, I must add that Wikipedia is not always wrong, infact, in most cases it often has correct factual detail, and the best part about it is its quick and easy to use. Any piece of writing is going to be biased in some way, but the good thing about having a large contributor base is that many people get to have their say, and the majority can be heard. Apart from the Miranda Kerr article, when creeping around Wikipedia I found that almost every other topic I searched for had an accurate and useful result.

One article I thought was particularly helpful was on Burleigh Heads, QLD. If you search for our beautiful beach in Wikipedia it will give you a map, a paragraph that states specifically where the beach is situated, history of the area, a description of the scenery and links to articles about its landmarks and tourist information.

However, when using Wikipedia for research, although not every article has an obvious fault, there is always a possibility that the person who wrote it has got it wrong or written what they believe or want to beleive is true. Wikipedia is ok to read when informing yourself of a topic and attempting to broaden your understanding of it, but it is not recommended for using in academic writing. These days, there are endless sources we can gain information from, so why take a chance on Wikipedia?

Tutorial 5 Task

Introducing the New and Improved Artist... Technology!
(with reference to Walter Benjamin's article, The Age of Mechanical Reproduction)




In the picture above, lots of people (who I'm assuming are tourists) are taking photos of The Mona Lisa. My first thought on this image, was that if I were to print a picture of The Mona Lisa off the internet and put it on the wall in a frame, I can garuantee that hardly any (if any) people would stop by to take a photo of it. So what is so special about the original? As Walter Benjamin explains in his article, "The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced" which he referes to in one word. Aura. Due to my studies as a visual art student, I appreciate Benjamin's ideas and conclusions on The Age of Mechanical Reproduction, and can easily apply them to contemporary digital media.

My second thought on the image above was that if all of the tourists taking the photographs now have a copy of The Mona Lisa, that allows them to take it away and edit it (no matter how little knowledge they have about the image, its concepts, media or the artist who created it), make as many copies as they like and place it somewhere where its ties with tradition and ritual are not understood, forgotten and nonexistent! The result of this, in Benjamin's words is, "the quality of its presence is always depreciated". The Mona Lisa loses its aura in these copies so they cannot be considered as 'Art'.

Now before I go any further, I think I should discuss what I personally consider is 'a work of art'. If you've ever stood infront of an original painting and felt it spark something inside you, or change how you're feeling somehow, however small your reaction may be, the artist has done their job effectively. Artists are able to target your 'mirror neurons' through their choice of subject and use of media, colours etc. Your mirror neurons are evoked by your 5 senses, they are what trigger this feeling or reaction that you have to a piece of art. A real artist is someone who can create an image that shows the viewer something new or makes them see the image in a new way, which triggers something inside the viewer. It is an image that reflects some aspect of the artist, their background, feelings, beliefs etc. An authentic work of art will portray all of this with the most accuracy and, therefore, it has an aura. This aura cannot be photocopied.

Having said this, I do beleive that mechanical reproduction is useful and definitly has an important place in our world today. Technology is advancing so rapidly, that society has become impatient as they are getting used to everything being so accessible and fast with the internet (and the list goes on) and "the desire of contemporary masses to bring things "closer" spatially and humanly" (Benjamin, 1936, III) has grown in proportion. Obviously, not everyone can get to Paris to see the original, so if for some reason they need to see what it looks like (maybe to write something about Leonardo Da Vinci or the painting itself) then a printed copy off the net would be sufficient. The advantage of mechanical reproduction is that it makes things accessible for more people, but it is not art and it does not have an aura.

Photoshop - When technology really turns arty farty!

These days, anyone with a decent computer can create pictures, music and movies, but are they creating art? The simple answer is, no. It is hard to explain why in a few sentences, but I'll do my best. The easiest way is to compare the works of a man like Gotye, who made made every song on his award winning album by himself in his bedroom (singing and playing numerous instruments at once), with the work of someone recording themselves singing a cover of Mariah Carey's, "Hero" on their computer at home. If you have heard Gotye's album, it is easy to understand why it is a work of art. As I mentioned before, a true artist will use their chosen media to its full potential in order to connect with the audience somehow.

But there was one question on this weeks task that I really had to think about. Although my views on art created by digital media have been pretty negative so far, there is one exception that I must mention. The question asked, "Is a photoshopped image authentic?" Obviously, in most cases, I would have to say no. To me, photoshop is like a program that lets you plagiarise other people's images, EXCEPT if it is done effectively. When I was studying art in my senior year, our teacher showed us the work of an A grade student from the year before ours which she had done in Photoshop. It was amazing. It's many layers and the precision of images was something that couldn't be achieved by hand. What I liked so much about it, was that it really told a story. Even though this girl had used alot of images that weren't her own, she had altered them and used them in such a way that it completely reflected her own ideas and concepts. This is what made her photoshopped image authentic. An example of this can be seen below.



This is an image someone has created. Although they've added something to it, I don't beleive that makes it authentic. It still holds the same concept and ideas of that behind the original.



I do, however, consider this to be an authentic piece of art. Although it is still clear that it's using the same concept of the Mona Lisa, the artist has taken the image and used it to portray his own ideas and to make a statement through the image.

So What Does This Mean For Art?

With artistic computer programs like photoshop being able to replica almost every artistic technique (spray paint, mosaic etc), what will become of real art in the near future? Sculptures that were once carved by hand using tools can now be done much quicker and neater by machinery so will art slowly be taken over by technology like many other things these days? Sadly, I beleive it will. As Benjamin said, today's culture are willing to accept these reproductions so there's nothing to stop technology taking over art aswell because it can do things faster, neater and in much higher quantities!

So are we going to be using the Paint program on computers to teach our kindergarden students how to colour inside the lines soon? For real art's sake, let's hope not!