Internet
Non-Internet
Hi Tom. I was wondering how this approach will be applied to the .gifs created from photocopied/scanned/collage, for instance "Exit Maurice" and "Timelapsemolecule"? How will you exhibit those in a gallery? Also will the URL titles include the .gif tag, in order to clarify to the gallery-goer that this is the type of file they will see when visiting the website?
I think this is the 4th time you have posted the "gallery vs. internet" dichotomy. I really appreciate the conceptual clarity, internal logic, of this approach. Although, I wonder if you would project the animation if the image didn't degrade by generation? As for "dialogue", I am fascinated by the notion that the cells and the animation are the same thing. Sure it is obvious, but easy to overlook. I am reminded of Douglas Gordon's "24 Hour Psycho". This makes me think of the jimpunk piece a few posts back when you stated that that web artwork was as interactive as walking around a painting to see it at a different angle. As someone that does not create digital work, it is easy to forget that these are made of individual static images. I don't want to sully your blog with a bunch of 70's French philosophy, so no attempt at Post-Structural analysis. I'll save that for myself.
I've been wondering about the "DVD messes with images" issue.
At my work, we frequently put together synthetic images and sequences for the purpose of isolating problems in video compression equipment. To avoid the corruption between synthesis and video transmission, the synthesis work is done in the native resolution of the particular video standard. The work flow is Matlab to YUV to video playout card.
Perhaps a similar workflow could work for you. MS Paintbrush replaces matlab, but for work intended for DVD apps, the "canvas" is the native resolution of video. 720 x 480 is a good choice, but leave 10-20 pixels at the edges as the borders around "safe area". Then convert GIF to YUV. I don't have a tool at my fingertips, but there ought to be something. Then compress the YUV sequence to MPEG-2 at a very high bit rate, to minimize compression artifacts. That flow will minimize the "resampling" that blurs out your crisp pixels.
Anyway, it's an idea.
Hi, Robert,
I know you're kidding, but just want to clarify that my "no regurgitated late 70s French philosophy" statement was in a rhetorical question to Zak Smith about the theory of his work. In '80s and '90s NY a question like that was often used to silence and intimidate artists and I wanted it clear that I wasn't demanding a dissertation on post-structuralism. If he wanted to give me one that would be perfectly cool.
The URL would definitely include the .GIF tag.
"I wonder if you would project the animation if the image didn't degrade by generation?"
Yes! If it was projected from a computer running browser software (and the room was dark enough so it didn't bleach). Or it could be on a laptop screen, which is how Cory displayed them in "Infinite Fill." If any curator or artist wants to handle that side of it, I'm down with it. What I don't want is calls in the second week of the show saying "The image is frozen, can you come to the gallery and fix your computer?" Also, I wouldn't want the laptop image right next to the stills. Then the point is mainly the "dialogue" rather than considering them as stand-alone works. They could be in another room maybe. Or another show.
Also, with DVDs the degradation isn't from copying--it's inherent in the compression used by the DVD format. Sharp images look fuzzy because DVDs are all about photography--dreamy smooth moving images of Heath Ledger and Jessica Alba.
"I was wondering how this approach will be applied to the .gifs created from photocopied/scanned/collage, for instance 'Exit Maurice' and 'Timelapsemolecule'? How will you exhibit those in a gallery?"
Those two works were actually videos to begin with. Shot as mpegs and then edited frame by frame (and converted to GIF in the case of Time Lapse Molecule). They could be burned to DVD and shown on TVs, although they'll still look better on a computer. In any case, there would be no "still installations" of those, I'm only doing that for the pieces that originated as frames.
Thanks for your interest in the work.
Mark and I posted at the same time. I'll have to look at Mark's post more carefully, but my off-the-cuff response is "let Paintbrush be Paintbrush" (as in "let Reagan be Reagan," i.e., stupid). I'll come back to this, but right now I have to go to my job.
I said:
"Also, I wouldn't want the laptop image right next to the stills. Then the point is mainly the 'dialogue' rather than considering them as stand-alone works. They could be in another room maybe. Or another show."
I realize that sounds totally inconsistent with these "Internet/Non-Internet" pairs I'm posting.
Here's a stab at some reasoning for why I think these postings work but don't think a side-by-side comparison would work as well in a gallery.
1. The "online pairs" are a hybrid of art and documentation.
2. The stills in a gallery are art.
3. The moving laptop images in a gallery or on the internet are art.
3. Maybe the pairs are more manipulative in a gallery--you *have* to walk around or move your head back and forth between differently scaled works, whereas on a screen your eyes just flick back and forth between the art (moving GIF) and the documentation (photos of stills), knowing that's what you're looking at. I hate art in a gallery that lays out steps I have to follow or moves me to a largely preordained set of conclusions. Ultimately, a forced comparison of art vs art in a gallery (as opposed to art vs documentation of other art online) just seems cheesy to me, no matter how interesting the conclusions might be.
There are multiple potential causes for image softening in a DVD signal path, including the authoring suite wrapped around the compression core, the MPEG-2 compression core itself, and the DVD player. Any resolution change involves spatial softening filters, potentially in both the authoring suite and the DVD player. Low bit rates kill fine details due to the lossy nature of video compression. Working at 720 x 480 at high bit rate should mitigate the effects.
Now that I think about it, the other problem is TV sets. Even HD sets have difficulty working with super-fine detail at SD resolution. A typical SD set will render fine detail soft rather than crisp. I guess I don't have a cheap, easy solution.
Perhaps your only hope is galleries that have an IT department. SF MOMA seems to have the skills, but I guess they're an exception.
that second one, the non-internet one, is definitely "internet" on the computer that i am on. when i scroll it up and down, using the round thing on the middle of my mouse, it is op crazy, like lights going on and off. very cool.
|
Internet
Non-Internet
- tom moody 1-23-2006 6:53 pm
Hi Tom. I was wondering how this approach will be applied to the .gifs created from photocopied/scanned/collage, for instance "Exit Maurice" and "Timelapsemolecule"? How will you exhibit those in a gallery? Also will the URL titles include the .gif tag, in order to clarify to the gallery-goer that this is the type of file they will see when visiting the website?
I think this is the 4th time you have posted the "gallery vs. internet" dichotomy. I really appreciate the conceptual clarity, internal logic, of this approach. Although, I wonder if you would project the animation if the image didn't degrade by generation? As for "dialogue", I am fascinated by the notion that the cells and the animation are the same thing. Sure it is obvious, but easy to overlook. I am reminded of Douglas Gordon's "24 Hour Psycho". This makes me think of the jimpunk piece a few posts back when you stated that that web artwork was as interactive as walking around a painting to see it at a different angle. As someone that does not create digital work, it is easy to forget that these are made of individual static images. I don't want to sully your blog with a bunch of 70's French philosophy, so no attempt at Post-Structural analysis. I'll save that for myself.
- Robert Huffmann (guest) 1-23-2006 10:21 pm
I've been wondering about the "DVD messes with images" issue.
At my work, we frequently put together synthetic images and sequences for the purpose of isolating problems in video compression equipment. To avoid the corruption between synthesis and video transmission, the synthesis work is done in the native resolution of the particular video standard. The work flow is Matlab to YUV to video playout card.
Perhaps a similar workflow could work for you. MS Paintbrush replaces matlab, but for work intended for DVD apps, the "canvas" is the native resolution of video. 720 x 480 is a good choice, but leave 10-20 pixels at the edges as the borders around "safe area". Then convert GIF to YUV. I don't have a tool at my fingertips, but there ought to be something. Then compress the YUV sequence to MPEG-2 at a very high bit rate, to minimize compression artifacts. That flow will minimize the "resampling" that blurs out your crisp pixels.
Anyway, it's an idea.
- mark 1-23-2006 11:26 pm
Hi, Robert,
I know you're kidding, but just want to clarify that my "no regurgitated late 70s French philosophy" statement was in a rhetorical question to Zak Smith about the theory of his work. In '80s and '90s NY a question like that was often used to silence and intimidate artists and I wanted it clear that I wasn't demanding a dissertation on post-structuralism. If he wanted to give me one that would be perfectly cool.
The URL would definitely include the .GIF tag.
"I wonder if you would project the animation if the image didn't degrade by generation?"
Yes! If it was projected from a computer running browser software (and the room was dark enough so it didn't bleach). Or it could be on a laptop screen, which is how Cory displayed them in "Infinite Fill." If any curator or artist wants to handle that side of it, I'm down with it. What I don't want is calls in the second week of the show saying "The image is frozen, can you come to the gallery and fix your computer?" Also, I wouldn't want the laptop image right next to the stills. Then the point is mainly the "dialogue" rather than considering them as stand-alone works. They could be in another room maybe. Or another show.
Also, with DVDs the degradation isn't from copying--it's inherent in the compression used by the DVD format. Sharp images look fuzzy because DVDs are all about photography--dreamy smooth moving images of Heath Ledger and Jessica Alba.
"I was wondering how this approach will be applied to the .gifs created from photocopied/scanned/collage, for instance 'Exit Maurice' and 'Timelapsemolecule'? How will you exhibit those in a gallery?"
Those two works were actually videos to begin with. Shot as mpegs and then edited frame by frame (and converted to GIF in the case of Time Lapse Molecule). They could be burned to DVD and shown on TVs, although they'll still look better on a computer. In any case, there would be no "still installations" of those, I'm only doing that for the pieces that originated as frames.
Thanks for your interest in the work.
- tom moody 1-23-2006 11:41 pm
Mark and I posted at the same time. I'll have to look at Mark's post more carefully, but my off-the-cuff response is "let Paintbrush be Paintbrush" (as in "let Reagan be Reagan," i.e., stupid). I'll come back to this, but right now I have to go to my job.
- tom moody 1-23-2006 11:47 pm
I said:
"Also, I wouldn't want the laptop image right next to the stills. Then the point is mainly the 'dialogue' rather than considering them as stand-alone works. They could be in another room maybe. Or another show."
I realize that sounds totally inconsistent with these "Internet/Non-Internet" pairs I'm posting.
Here's a stab at some reasoning for why I think these postings work but don't think a side-by-side comparison would work as well in a gallery.
1. The "online pairs" are a hybrid of art and documentation.
2. The stills in a gallery are art.
3. The moving laptop images in a gallery or on the internet are art.
3. Maybe the pairs are more manipulative in a gallery--you *have* to walk around or move your head back and forth between differently scaled works, whereas on a screen your eyes just flick back and forth between the art (moving GIF) and the documentation (photos of stills), knowing that's what you're looking at. I hate art in a gallery that lays out steps I have to follow or moves me to a largely preordained set of conclusions. Ultimately, a forced comparison of art vs art in a gallery (as opposed to art vs documentation of other art online) just seems cheesy to me, no matter how interesting the conclusions might be.
- tom moody 1-24-2006 2:37 am
There are multiple potential causes for image softening in a DVD signal path, including the authoring suite wrapped around the compression core, the MPEG-2 compression core itself, and the DVD player. Any resolution change involves spatial softening filters, potentially in both the authoring suite and the DVD player. Low bit rates kill fine details due to the lossy nature of video compression. Working at 720 x 480 at high bit rate should mitigate the effects.
Now that I think about it, the other problem is TV sets. Even HD sets have difficulty working with super-fine detail at SD resolution. A typical SD set will render fine detail soft rather than crisp. I guess I don't have a cheap, easy solution.
Perhaps your only hope is galleries that have an IT department. SF MOMA seems to have the skills, but I guess they're an exception.
- mark 1-24-2006 4:04 am
that second one, the non-internet one, is definitely "internet" on the computer that i am on. when i scroll it up and down, using the round thing on the middle of my mouse, it is op crazy, like lights going on and off. very cool.
- martin (guest) 1-24-2006 5:19 am