RE: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction
- To: soft_skinned_space <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction
- From: Chris Ashley <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=M+GL+hZlikDuPjsUkxQdu8TO+fdgZpmFtDa8kfIr50tRqkpNBgwtAR64RWHpoG6s7Sk7pAZcK8GMX7h05wcKNWLH6TmcOtPl14CbnpZkBYDuqAHNOu04Sym3w2ZR3ptB6Kb3qdEuemUpEVZGNTkLcEv0OjYnYQvkx+6kr9Js3ag= ;
- In-reply-to: <004001c56ad0$6f3010d0$081f2352@counterwork>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
> 'touch' of the
> artist was that, for example, a line 1 pixel thick,
> black (hexadecimal
> 000000) and drawn from x,y coordinates 12,56 to
> 254,163 will look pretty
> much the same on everyone's browser
Yeah, agreed. Maybe touch isn't the right word for
what I meant. Maybe it's something more
compositional, or really at the image level.
One thing I didn't mention in my intro is how hard I
work at trying to bury the grid in the images I make.
There's no way to get rid of the grid-- that
structures all within the images-- but I try to make
images were the first thing the viewer doesn't say is,
"Oh, it's a grid." Shape, color, and discruptive
things like misalignment as a way to create tension
work towards that. Also ovelay, transparency, shadow-
those help. There's touch involved in that, I think,
but not of an immediate kind.
> I like your point about a .gif of your images not
> being the same as the
> ...however, I can also copy that code and paste
> it on my own page.
> the image that this would display would be exactly
> the same as yours. is
> this a copy? or is it your work, but moved? if I
> copied and pasted the
> code into another html file and posted it on my own
> site would that be
> the equivalent of stealing a picture and hanging it
> in my front room?
Yes, I don't know how to answer this, but I think the
first question is, why does it matter? I mean, I
fully know the need to own work, to get credit, to
get notoriety, to get feedback, to get pleasure-- we
all know that-- and there are lots of ways to get
that. But in this case, something made to be
distributed on a network that can't be locked down--
and no matter how hard the RIAA has tried they haven't
been able to lock it down-- there is still this
lingering need to be identified as the author. I know
there are things I want back from the work and my
practice-- all kinds of gratifying things that are
emotional and professional and intellectual-- but I'm
wondering if the need to own stuff on the web is
possible, realistic, and valuable.
I'd like to hear others talk about this- on my weblog
I'm giving a drawing away everyday. Besides the point
of whether or not they're any good or matter, there's
a model there- what is the value of it?
> I'm thinking a lot lately about the perception of
> computer generated
> images as a medium. I've started making a series of
> drawings just using
> programs like photoshop
Will you show me some?
> I'm interested to know what the other guests feel
> about the
> computer-made mark, especially as you have very
> different visual
The computer-made mark- is it ever "real" enough for
> on a more on-track note -
Sorry, but for me the above is completely on-track.
> what do you think about
> the way that you
> present yourselves via your weblog. from what I can
> gather two of you
> use your real names and the other two use
> pseudonyms. is this a
> conscious effort to create an 'artist' persona? the
> weblog has created
> an environment where people can present themselves
> however they wish to,
> and they can be as honest or as dishonest as they
> please. do you feel
> compelled to be honest or lie? to exaggerate or be
Of course I can't speak for the others. I use my real
name, and if you email me I'll answer back as
thoughtfully as you have. I'm honest in that what you
see is a real part of me, but I intentionally do not
put much more about myself than the artist part on my
weblog, at least in this current weblog. An earlier
weblog that had an educational technology aproach,
when I was trying to learn what this tool means, says
far more about me. I'm fine with leaving that there.
But I don't want it mixed in at my current weblog.
The current weblog is for my art, and one of my faces
as an artist to the world. I won't intentionally lie,
but we all have biases about ourselves, and most of us
want to project ourselves at our best. There are
exceptions- look around and I'm sure you'll find
weblogs that about apathy and self-loathing as well.
My weblog is a place and tool for making my way in
the world as an artist.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and