Dan Norton's work is with sound, object, the internet, and performance. Currently his work involves developing a scaling process of movement and effect. He is working with interfaces that respond to the simplest of movements, to develop possibilities for performance with interactive audiovisual image and to create a series of 'accessibility softwares'. Dan works with physical installations of electronic interfaces, testing the scaling effect of interaction and enabling the viewer control of an extended environment.
Dan has designed, developed and built online tools that can be employed as VJ software for reading archived material and accessing live cinema. He investigates ways that the computer can help us to read and write, using non-linearity, sound intrusion, colour field variation, vibration, instant selection, and learning processes. (http://imaging.dundee.ac.uk/research/profiles/research-profiles/view/dan-norton/)
"Artists explore limits," Dan Norton said in his iChat Lecture, "whether you are a net artist hacking gaming software, or a graffiti artist painting on a wall- you are exploring limits."
What I believe he is saying is that all mediums have their limits and by testing and reaching those limits in your work- you are striving towards understanding to advance that medium.
I found his comment on conventional painting interesting because he was quick to point out the influences it has on motion graphics and the similarities. The concept of time in painting compared to motion graphics is explored in his work- One piece reminded me of a Salvador Dali painting (10:28) As if it were a motion picture. Although it was a little unclear on what was happening because of the poor audio quality, in most parts of the lecture where i could make out the words- he made good points on the similarities of how artists view their work, no matter what they medium.
It brings me to my closing point- it was discussed earlier about creativity and how can one be taught creativity. I don't think being an artist is really a trade- because that doesn't give artists the recognition they deserve. Being a creative mind is a gift- it's something that can't be taught in a classroom. You can teach anyone how to draw and paint, but that doesn't make them an artist, it's the ideas that are implemented in the work and they way it is executed that make someone an artist.
I can change the tires of my car, I can change the oil and I can do simple tune ups- but I am no where near the level of a mechanic, I can't stop and listen to those ticking noises and know what is wrong. Just like not everyone can look at a Basquiat and get it, or read e. e. cummings and get it, or anything on their level- if either have that creative mind and understanding or you don't.
I love the fact that Norton believes in pushing the envelope. Scaleable installations and artwork are the future of it in my eyes. I cannot express simply how important it is for individuals who consider themselves artists to try and do something new.
My one issue currently with these thoughts though, is that we aren't given enough credit as hacktivists. Art has been associated so long with painting, sculpting, and drawing, that we as installation artists sort get looked at cock-eyed.
Steve- I agree with you that just because you can change oil doesn't make you and a mechanic, and that an artist has a gifted-mind for it, and not just the hand. I feel the same way about every job, unless you've got the wiring for it, do not pass it off as your trade.
Stephen said that his interpretation of Dan Norton's statement "Artists explore limits" was that all mediums have their limits and you can only find those by testing and/or reaching them. I believe that art does not have any limits. The examples of a hacker and a graffiti artist sort of illustrate this: certainly if you are hacking something, you see how far you can go before you get caught, and certainly if you're painting illegally on a wall somewhere you are doing the same thing, but if you are talented or creative enough, your possibilities are boundless - it depends only on your creativity.
I know that in response to Katrina's lecture we noted that in modern times our creativity is hampered by our environment (such as school), but I'd still like to believe that people have innate creativity and that if they are imaginative enough, they can break the confines of society and truly make their own limits in art. In this respect, I'd agree with both Stephen and Will, though - that this sort of imagination and creativity is not something that can be taught, it is something that you are born with. It is not something that can be learned, it is something that you must nurture by expanding your horizons and, yes, testing your limits.
Elana, I understand where you are coming from. And yes it is true that the mind is complex and an artist can come up with endless possibilities- BUT you have to acknowledge that in whatever medium you choose there are limitations. An artists process involves exploring those limits; ideas are limitless- the medium itself is not.
ps: I need to proof read before I post, sorry guys :P
I agree with Dan's opinion of how we are limited by the mediums than we are in and I feel that in the discussion so far about it, that we have helped each other to understand more of an understanding of what he was trying to get at. I too agree with you Steve, the artist is limitless, and full of possibilities, and that is the thing that makes them the artist the artist and what makes them creative is how they deal with the limitations that they are given and how they deal with those limitations. Being bound by some sort of limitation is a good way to push the boundaries. Whether that be a self directed limitation, like I am only going to use my hands to make this painting, or it be by the medium capabilities, or even both, its in this limitation that the limits are infect being pushed.
I don't know if it was the speakers I was using or not, but I could really not understand much at all of what Dan was saying. I know his voice was already bogged down due to coming through the speakers in the video and the video's poor quality itself but I really tried to listen and just did not get much out of it. What I could gather was that Dan is an artist who seems to be pushing the limits of creativity and originality. These are the types of artists that I believe create the most exciting work. For me personally I have a respect for them because even though their "peice" whatever it may be on whatver medium may not be best/shiniest/most beautiful in the gallery, just their originality puts an impression on me. Whenever I leave a gallery I often find myself only remembering the unique, original, and different works over the works of others.
I couldn't agree more with Steve's point about artists and the creative mind. I believe the definition of artist is in dire need of "reconstruction" if you will. People today believe that if you can draw, paint, or sculp well you are automatically an artist and I do not believe that to be the case. Sure if you can do those things well, then those tools will better aid you in becoming an artist but just because you have those tools does not mean you are an artist. I call being able to do those things well "tools" because you can relate them like Steve said to being a mechanic. It doesn't matter if you have access to an entire garage with all the mechanic tools you would ever need...that still doesn't make you a mechanic. It's not until you know how to properly use all those tools together that you are an artist...or should I say mechanic.
Though Dan Nortan is not specifically working with sound AS music, I want to relate the too because for me music is a NEED, so anytime anyone is working with sound it is alluring. My reasoning behind this is because I think about what it would be like to be blind -- everything I do is vision based (chat, work, new media, plus the other daily life things) my passions are built around my eyes -- so i think what life would be like blind, and I think that music is the only thing in this entire world that could keep me going. That was kind of a side, but important because when sound is worked with in a different way than traditionally - such as Dan Norton is doing, it gives new layers to the audio world and gives our ears new meaning.
Though Dan does work with many visual elements, I think sound is elusive because I have read a lot about 3D sound and new types of sound coming out, but when I see people working with sound it is the same ole -- making music (which I do love) , and they usually aren't pushing those limits he talks about. New Media is really about pushing until you cannot push any further, and maybe I just haven't seen many examples, but sound seems to be one of those things that people are still taking in a very traditional way. Film is sort of like that too, but with VJ and other types of experimental filming, there is at least a lot of play in the area. I guess sound is paradoxical because it is harder to manipulate something you cannot see.
RE STEPHEN // it seems you are defining artist as "the ability to conceptualize" (from thought process to product), which I agree with mostly but you can't even teach everyone to draw. I really suck at drawing - plain and simple. The funny thing is though when I doodle, I create the best "drawings" I make (which aren't phenomenal, but I guess they are alright) -- and usually with a blank slate, I just kind of start making something then about 5 minutes in I will start to visualize the rest of the process (sometimes -- sometimes i just draw for an hour and it doesn't really turn out to be a conscious thought), but that is why i think going to school specifically for art draws in a division of people. Those who want schools to make them artists (impossible) and those who come to create a portfolio and learn technique.
RE: ELANA // I agree that art has no limits, but we are living in a state of mind as a society that everything has limits, so we cap art off through tradition -- painting, sculpture, etc. Therefore we aren't pushing these limits. Graffiti is a good example because it took painting off a canvas and said :: ANYWHERE // ANYTIME, which I think is very new media -- location and paradigm shifting is a huge pedagogy of new media. That is one piece of why i love new meida -- it takes tradition (and i am a huge hater of tradition haha) and says "screw you!"
Also, if we cannot find new limits to old mediums, let's make new mediums!
7 comments:
Dan Norton's work is with sound, object, the internet, and performance. Currently his work involves developing a scaling process of movement and effect. He is working with interfaces that respond to the simplest of movements, to develop possibilities for performance with interactive audiovisual image and to create a series of 'accessibility softwares'. Dan works with physical installations of electronic interfaces, testing the scaling effect of interaction and enabling the viewer control of an extended environment.
Dan has designed, developed and built online tools that can be employed as VJ software for reading archived material and accessing live cinema. He investigates ways that the computer can help us to read and write, using non-linearity, sound intrusion, colour field variation, vibration, instant selection, and learning processes.
(http://imaging.dundee.ac.uk/research/profiles/research-profiles/view/dan-norton/)
"Artists explore limits," Dan Norton said in his iChat Lecture, "whether you are a net artist hacking gaming software, or a graffiti artist painting on a wall- you are exploring limits."
What I believe he is saying is that all mediums have their limits and by testing and reaching those limits in your work- you are striving towards understanding to advance that medium.
I found his comment on conventional painting interesting because he was quick to point out the influences it has on motion graphics and the similarities.
The concept of time in painting compared to motion graphics is explored in his work- One piece reminded me of a Salvador Dali painting (10:28) As if it were a motion picture.
Although it was a little unclear on what was happening because of the poor audio quality, in most parts of the lecture where i could make out the words- he made good points on the similarities of how artists view their work, no matter what they medium.
It brings me to my closing point- it was discussed earlier about creativity and how can one be taught creativity. I don't think being an artist is really a trade- because that doesn't give artists the recognition they deserve. Being a creative mind is a gift- it's something that can't be taught in a classroom. You can teach anyone how to draw and paint, but that doesn't make them an artist, it's the ideas that are implemented in the work and they way it is executed that make someone an artist.
I can change the tires of my car, I can change the oil and I can do simple tune ups- but I am no where near the level of a mechanic, I can't stop and listen to those ticking noises and know what is wrong. Just like not everyone can look at a Basquiat and get it, or read e. e. cummings and get it, or anything on their level- if either have that creative mind and understanding or you don't.
I love the fact that Norton believes in pushing the envelope. Scaleable installations and artwork are the future of it in my eyes. I cannot express simply how important it is for individuals who consider themselves artists to try and do something new.
My one issue currently with these thoughts though, is that we aren't given enough credit as hacktivists. Art has been associated so long with painting, sculpting, and drawing, that we as installation artists sort get looked at cock-eyed.
Steve- I agree with you that just because you can change oil doesn't make you and a mechanic, and that an artist has a gifted-mind for it, and not just the hand. I feel the same way about every job, unless you've got the wiring for it, do not pass it off as your trade.
Stephen said that his interpretation of Dan Norton's statement "Artists explore limits" was that all mediums have their limits and you can only find those by testing and/or reaching them. I believe that art does not have any limits. The examples of a hacker and a graffiti artist sort of illustrate this: certainly if you are hacking something, you see how far you can go before you get caught, and certainly if you're painting illegally on a wall somewhere you are doing the same thing, but if you are talented or creative enough, your possibilities are boundless - it depends only on your creativity.
I know that in response to Katrina's lecture we noted that in modern times our creativity is hampered by our environment (such as school), but I'd still like to believe that people have innate creativity and that if they are imaginative enough, they can break the confines of society and truly make their own limits in art. In this respect, I'd agree with both Stephen and Will, though - that this sort of imagination and creativity is not something that can be taught, it is something that you are born with. It is not something that can be learned, it is something that you must nurture by expanding your horizons and, yes, testing your limits.
Elana, I understand where you are coming from. And yes it is true that the mind is complex and an artist can come up with endless possibilities- BUT you have to acknowledge that in whatever medium you choose there are limitations. An artists process involves exploring those limits; ideas are limitless- the medium itself is not.
ps: I need to proof read before I post, sorry guys :P
I agree with Dan's opinion of how we are limited by the mediums than we are in and I feel that in the discussion so far about it, that we have helped each other to understand more of an understanding of what he was trying to get at. I too agree with you Steve, the artist is limitless, and full of possibilities, and that is the thing that makes them the artist the artist and what makes them creative is how they deal with the limitations that they are given and how they deal with those limitations. Being bound by some sort of limitation is a good way to push the boundaries. Whether that be a self directed limitation, like I am only going to use my hands to make this painting, or it be by the medium capabilities, or even both, its in this limitation that the limits are infect being pushed.
I don't know if it was the speakers I was using or not, but I could really not understand much at all of what Dan was saying. I know his voice was already bogged down due to coming through the speakers in the video and the video's poor quality itself but I really tried to listen and just did not get much out of it. What I could gather was that Dan is an artist who seems to be pushing the limits of creativity and originality. These are the types of artists that I believe create the most exciting work. For me personally I have a respect for them because even though their "peice" whatever it may be on whatver medium may not be best/shiniest/most beautiful in the gallery, just their originality puts an impression on me. Whenever I leave a gallery I often find myself only remembering the unique, original, and different works over the works of others.
I couldn't agree more with Steve's point about artists and the creative mind. I believe the definition of artist is in dire need of "reconstruction" if you will. People today believe that if you can draw, paint, or sculp well you are automatically an artist and I do not believe that to be the case. Sure if you can do those things well, then those tools will better aid you in becoming an artist but just because you have those tools does not mean you are an artist. I call being able to do those things well "tools" because you can relate them like Steve said to being a mechanic. It doesn't matter if you have access to an entire garage with all the mechanic tools you would ever need...that still doesn't make you a mechanic. It's not until you know how to properly use all those tools together that you are an artist...or should I say mechanic.
Though Dan Nortan is not specifically working with sound AS music, I want to relate the too because for me music is a NEED, so anytime anyone is working with sound it is alluring. My reasoning behind this is because I think about what it would be like to be blind -- everything I do is vision based (chat, work, new media, plus the other daily life things) my passions are built around my eyes -- so i think what life would be like blind, and I think that music is the only thing in this entire world that could keep me going. That was kind of a side, but important because when sound is worked with in a different way than traditionally - such as Dan Norton is doing, it gives new layers to the audio world and gives our ears new meaning.
Though Dan does work with many visual elements, I think sound is elusive because I have read a lot about 3D sound and new types of sound coming out, but when I see people working with sound it is the same ole -- making music (which I do love) , and they usually aren't pushing those limits he talks about. New Media is really about pushing until you cannot push any further, and maybe I just haven't seen many examples, but sound seems to be one of those things that people are still taking in a very traditional way. Film is sort of like that too, but with VJ and other types of experimental filming, there is at least a lot of play in the area. I guess sound is paradoxical because it is harder to manipulate something you cannot see.
RE STEPHEN // it seems you are defining artist as "the ability to conceptualize" (from thought process to product), which I agree with mostly but you can't even teach everyone to draw. I really suck at drawing - plain and simple. The funny thing is though when I doodle, I create the best "drawings" I make (which aren't phenomenal, but I guess they are alright) -- and usually with a blank slate, I just kind of start making something then about 5 minutes in I will start to visualize the rest of the process (sometimes -- sometimes i just draw for an hour and it doesn't really turn out to be a conscious thought), but that is why i think going to school specifically for art draws in a division of people. Those who want schools to make them artists (impossible) and those who come to create a portfolio and learn technique.
RE: ELANA // I agree that art has no limits, but we are living in a state of mind as a society that everything has limits, so we cap art off through tradition -- painting, sculpture, etc. Therefore we aren't pushing these limits. Graffiti is a good example because it took painting off a canvas and said :: ANYWHERE // ANYTIME, which I think is very new media -- location and paradigm shifting is a huge pedagogy of new media. That is one piece of why i love new meida -- it takes tradition (and i am a huge hater of tradition haha) and says "screw you!"
Also, if we cannot find new limits to old mediums, let's make new mediums!
Post a Comment