Following on from what we did in Screen Culture last session, Digital Theory & Aesthetics takes a more focused look at some of the theory involved with creative practice in the digital arts.
Being one of those ‘course outline walkthrough’ classes, we did little more than that, with the exception of watching a couple of examples of technology-based artworks…
This is the big one. Digital Studio is the first semester lead-up to the final semester subject, Professional Portfolio, which together form our major project, not just for the year – but for the entire course.
Whilst much of the creation of the final work will happen during Professional Portfolio, it’s likely that Digital Studio will prove to be the most important class. It’s where we will develop our ideas, do research and create developmental designs. This was a point driven home in the lecture – the idea should drive the medium, not the other way around.
I think this is only true to a point. Of course, having a great idea, or at least excellent content is more important than using the latest and greatest technology, but as was also impressed upon us during class – this project is going to be a big chunk of our portfolio and how we will sell ourselves to prospective clients or employers. There’s no reason for me to spend 6 months with my head in Maya if I never want to see that program again. I need to present myself via the medium I want to work with in the future.
Whatever the project, we’ll be learning some important ‘real world’ skills during this class, and creating production schedules, mapping production costs and getting an idea of what our time is worth when working on a creative project – a source of confusion and frustration for anyone starting out in the creative industry.
No one seems interested in the fine print. Until it bites them in the arse. Image Gizmodo.
Class
This is a subject I have been looking forward to, and especially useful for our final undergrad year. Professional Practice looks at some of the drier – but nonetheless extremely important – realities when working in creative industries.
Stepping out of the lecture theatre, I overheard the whining toward a theory-based subject that by this stage is getting familiar… and tiresome. I guess it’s my (limited) experience doing freelance design that has made me so keen to learn about contracts, copyright, intellectual property and how to present yourself well. Learning through experience might be important, but at times it’s pretty painful.
It wasn’t just paperwork that held my attention though. Our lecturer made the point that as Australians, we shy away from calling ourselves artists in the creative industry. I can relate to that. This sparked thoughts about what title I should give myself when people ask that dreaded question: “So, what do you do?”.
I certainly haven’t saved the best of 2009 for last. Screen Culture didn’t deliver me marks as high as my other subjects, but I’m not really sure why.
I’m not a fan of complaining about lecturers/tutors through a one-way forum like my blog, but the lack of feedback (even when requested, all semester) from this teacher was pretty diabolical. Therefore, I can’t really tell you where I went wrong – or even right for that matter.
I chose Immersion as my paper topic, for obvious reasons. Using this Media Art Net article, as well as Rokeby’s Very Nervous System and Kreuger’s VideoPlace as kicking-off points, here’s the result. Let’s move right along…
As I’m returning to uni for 2010 tomorrow, I thought it might be best to finish off the last couple of entries from 2009. Wow, this is embarrassingly late.
I’m probably not able to recall an accurate description of my process at this stage, so I should probably let the work tell the story…
There’s still a month or so before I’m back to uni for the final year of my undergrad. But being the last year, I’m pretty determined to put my head down and hit the ground running to make sure I’ve got the option of enrolling in Honours for 2011.
I decided as long as 18 months ago that my final year project would work with projection mapping/augmentation. However, it was at a series of talks a couple of days ago that I saw Tom Ellard bulldoze his way through the ideas of content appropriation and the use of technology in the creation of art (notes and slides online), which made me rethink how I should approach my work this year. Quite possibly quoting my own words (Tom is one of my lecturers), Ellard said he “didn’t want to hear people describe their music as being ‘quadraphonic and controlled by Wii remotes‘”. It unsettled me a bit to hear someone saying it, but in reflection, he was absolutely right: I should be working to realise my own ideas, or art – not just being led by the technologies that interest me.
So there is quite a large gap between this post and the last in terms of work done. Whilst the technology I was developing the project with didn’t change too much, I spent a great deal of my time refining its response to the interaction of the dancers. A decision made in my concept, I didn’t want to inhibit the movement of the performers, but instead the technology should support their actions.
So where possible, I continued to map the movements of the dancers and look for clear data that I could use as a trigger. Watching the incoming values within OSCulator and Processing was helpful, even if a little bit overwhelming – the most difficult part was refining the information to block out unwanted noise.
Here are a few sequences during the mapping process (apologies for the poor quality)…
Moving toward the final sound piece for this project was a case of refining what was already present and intertwining it within the performers’ movements. The bulk of the composition actually changed very little since Week 06, mainly because we needed to continue working with a set structure for the dance.
The resulting interaction was a combination of: performers triggering composed events; performers responding to the composition; and the performers creating the composition themselves.
The areas of performer control within Ableton Live.
What I’m showing in the image above is where and when the dancers could control the sound (this is just a section of the Ableton set, not the entire piece). The Scenes (horizontal rows) marked in yellow would not trigger until a predefined movement by the performers was completed. The Clips (individual cells) marked in red could only be triggered by the performers, and only within a certain period of time – marked by the red arrows. This mixture of effect and response seemed to work quite well. When I set out with this project, I didn’t want the technology to be the focus, but instead a supporting element to the performance itself.
No Comments »
I certainly haven’t saved the best of 2009 for last. 
