Is taking a picture of yourself everyday for 8, 10, or 20 years really becoming a discipline or a genre? As we know, the true litmus test for these kinds of things is The Simpsons, our cultural barometer.

Karl Baden teaches photography at Boston College, and has been taking his own photo for 20 years. He says “the idea, basically, is to take all the variables, except one [the passage of time], and turn them into constants…I try not to change physically. I don’t grow a mustache or beard. I pretty much cut my hair the same way.” However, his project is a photo installation, not a video.

Since Ahree Lee posted her video on YouTube, we have seen a growing trend of self-portrait movies, or video portraits. Artists, voyeurs, self-obsessed, or simply curious, people are taking pictures of themselves simply because they can.

While not a self-portrait, Luke Dubois’ awesome video piece, Playboy, depicts change over time in a more dramatic fashion. He shows different playboy models over a span of 50 year. Using max/msp, he manages to place their eyes in the same place, much like Lee does.

Related Links:
A New York Times article on this trend includes links to other artists and shows working with this idea

Noah Kalina‘s blog – the artist The Simpsons parodied.
The music in the piece is by Carly Comando, which Simpsons producers did not compensate. Sounds like a case of copy-WRONG to me.

The original video that was parodied on YouTube.

John Keller, another “video portrait artist” includes a list of similar projects on his site. John has photographed himself for 8 years, 2 more than Noah and 6 more than Lee.

As of this writing, these projects are still works in progress.

I’ll soon be working on a multi-screen project. This is some of my inspiration from Dan Shiffman.

Run Lola Run Lola Run Lola Run Lola Run from shiffman and Vimeo.
(see the homesite: shiffman.net

Beautiful Particles:

Multi-Screen Video Particles from shiffman and Vimeo

or is it the other way around? She made a book, and THIS SITE to promote it. For those that don’t know, Miranda July is an interesting person (most of us are). But the difference is: she has a history of making interesting things (see the site: learning to love you more).

I know Edward Tufte as a map guy. Cartographer. Cartography. I guess he also does data-visualisation and informatics, though, I do not really know what that is…

Either way, this sounds pretty interesting. A 1-day course AND you get 4 books (worth about $200).

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/courses

fundamental strategies of information design
evaluating evidence used in presentations
statistical data: tables, graphics, and semi-graphics
business, scientific, legal, financial presentations
complexity and clarity
effective presentations: on paper and in person
use of video, overheads, computers, and handouts
multi-media, internet, and websites
credibility of presentations
design of information displays in public spaces
animation and scientific visualizations
design of computer interfaces and manuals

Has anyone had personal encounters? Should I read anything before hand?

From the site
A ficlet is a short story that enables you to collaborate with the world.


Once you’ve written and shared your ficlet, any other user can pick up the narrative thread by adding a prequel or sequel. In this manner, you may know where the story begins, but you’ll never guess where (or even if!) it ends.

ficlets are shorter than short stories. Well, no, actually, they are short stories, but they’re really short stories. Really short, as in there’s not a maximum word count … there’s actually a maximum character count (1,024). There is also a minimum character count, and the number of that beast is 64.

From the site: Interactive Architecture.org

Friday 7pm Jan. 26
EyeBeam, 540 W 21st Street, New York.
Organised by Ruairi Glynn of www.interactivearchitecture.org , Eyebeam is pleased to co-host, with the Bartlett School of Architecture, an evening of presentations on Interactive Architecture. Presenters will include Phil Ayres of Sixteen Makers, Eyebeam residents Carmen Trudell and Jennifer Broutin, Marek Walczak of MW2MW and David Benjamin and Soo-in Yang of the NYC architecture firm, The Living. Presenters will discuss their work for 15 minutes followed by a panel discussion moderated by Professor Stephen Gage of the Bartlett with a reception from 9-10pm. This event is open to the public free of charge with a suggested donation. This evening symposium will be the culmination of a two day “work in progress” International Jury held at Eyebeam between final year students of the Bartlett’s Interactive Architecture Workshop, and Parsons The New School of Design. The Interactive Architecture Workshop would like to thank the Stuart Murphy Travel Award Trustees for their generous sponsorship

———-
In the growing field of ubiquitous computing, and interactive screens comes interactive architecture.

A growing field in which architecture, theory, and technology come together to build new buildings. Yet, i am still working in the old paradigm of buildings.

What if buildings were invisible? Ubiquitous, but invisible.
I know I will be there with a great amount of hopefulness that interactive architecture can move Deleuze into the realm of a world-wide real-world practice.

Ah- one can dream.

when things begin to interact, we begin to see more people. i think they call it animism – when things take on spiritual qualities. a traffic light feels sorry for holding everyone up. personally, i think NYC is already too crowded. do we need more things that are people? if those people are nice, then why not?

For more info, see ::
Lev Manovich’s Augmented Spaces
Tom Igoe’s Networked Objects
Julian Bleecker’s Internet of Things

“Reading time is free”
-Roland Barthes

The medium of film is a medium of time. Scenes made of stills move in frames per second. In order to extract meaning from a film, we must watch it sequentially – from scene 1 to scene end. What if we could approach film and cinema spatially? Aside from comic strips, the church’s stained glass windows, and the photo-novel, what other forms can this take? What does this mean now?

It didn’t occur to me to ask these questions until reading Roland Barthes’ The Third Meaning. How can a still image take on a cinematic property? How can sculpture be cinematic? What if a map, which is traditionally used to convey information, could be used as a cinematic element?

I imagine a gallery filled with stills from a film, strung about. The film, displayed , but not projected, visible, but not readable, hangs through the gallery. The soundtrack plays, but we see no animation. In an extreme example, the object is literally a cinematic object.
Playful, absurd, pastiche.

While the comic strip is narrative, I have to wonder whether it is cinematic. I now ask – what is the difference between narrative and cinematic?

The properties of cinema:
1. larger than life
2. more real than real
3. durational

It is not only the moving image that separates film and cinema from other narrative forms – it is its presentation and production. It is the largess. The projection. The quality that forces you to watch for more than just 5 minutes. If are to gleam anything from the cinema, you must endure the entire piece. You cannot simply glance at a film like a painting because it is durational.
However, this does not mean it is cinematic. A cinematic form will inherently contain narrative elements – plot, character, spectacle, musicality, and tempo. There are also cinematic techniques – pan, zoom, fade, transition. In defining cinematic, I am looking for the least common denominator. What would it take for something to NOT be cinematic? What would exclude an item from being cinematic? Can anything be cinematic?

An animation is more real than real

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/magazine/12hodgman.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=8859dc4eb289d59d&ex=1163566800&pagewanted=all

“Bugs Bunny, imitating the conductor Leopold Stokowski in concert, will violently raise his arms in onetwelfth of a second (two frames of film). Every part of his body will be rock-still — save for Bugs’s quivering hand.

It is impossible for a living being to do this, but not for Bugs. He is truly Stokowski, more Stokowski than Stokowski was himself, because Bugs is the impression of Stokowski: his power, his arrogance, his supreme control over his musicians, perfectly boiled down to its essence. We laugh because it is completely unreal and utterly truthful in the same moment.”

I found this particularly interesting because it creates a parallel truth. Right next to our sensory truth, there is another layer of truth – perceived truth. An impressionistic truth.
Non-linear cinema will begin to have an effect of reality-tv.
That’s all I’ve got on that…

“A wave of anger washed over me, anger against myself, at my age at the time, that stupid lyrically age, when a man is too great a riddle to himself to be interested in the riddles outside himself and when other people are mere walking mirrors in which he is amazed to find his own emotions, his own worth.”

There was a scene in Steve Carell’s movie, 40 year old virgin, raises an interesting point. In his scene with Beth, Andy (the main character) asks only questions. Beth becomes very intrigued because she gets to talk about herself. Andy’s tactic works perfectly and he gets what he wants – Beth’s attention.

People enjoy talking about themselves, sometimes to their own detriment. Consider the moral of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection.

I hope my work allows people to begin from what they know, but encourages to extend beyond what they know/see/feel and have new experiences.

In a museum, we are encouraged to look and understand. Though at the Met it is often tempting to rush from gallery to gallery in an effort to see everything. However, in this mad dash we may see much but remember little.

What would it take to highlight this possible trap and offer an alternative?

In Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman spends many pages considering mortality + immortality. In one particular passage, he considers death while walking:
Do you think I could walk pleasantly and well-suited toward annihilation?
Pleasantly and well-suited I walk,
Whither I walk I cannot define, but I know it is good,
The whole universe indicates that it is good,
The past and the present indicate that it is good.

In this small passage, we see the resulting pleasure that comes with walking and reflecting. Is this possible in the museum?

We believe the answer is a resounding yes!

http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2000/10/25/27622.html

http://www.allofus.org/