March 25, 2004
Question 1.1
Is Garretís work [as discussed in this chapter] inherently any better than the junk mail I received from my ISP?
. . . and here's the notes you'll need . . .
Download file
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:17 PM | Comments (2)
Question 1.2
Is it important that the original meaning of the 'thing' being appropriated is known by the receiver? [familiarity]
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:16 PM | Comments (5)
Question 1.3
Is familiarity neccessary when dealing with Saville's album covers?
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:13 PM | Comments (1)
Question 1.4
Is familiarity neccessary when dealing with Parody, such as the Twin Peaks guide-book?
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:12 PM | Comments (4)
Question 2.1
Is appropriation more valid when it is used in an attempt to identify or develop new forms or ideas? [as opposed to simple literal pastiche. Eg: Swatch poster]
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:10 PM | Comments (5)
Question 2.2
Does Saville's work rely solely on ambiguity to create the "3rd idea"? Could his work be criticised as being formulaic if this is the case?
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:06 PM
Question 2.3
Of the work illustrated in this chapter, which has the most 'added value', in terms of bringing something new to the appropriation? [or possibly that should be; getting something new out of the appropriation]
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:04 PM | Comments (2)
Question 3.1
Who is more authentic:
Gary Cooper or Clint Eastwood?
Elvis Presley or Carl Perkins?
Art Chantry or Tibor Kalman?
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:59 PM
Question 3.2
Can anyone appropriate anything?
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:57 PM | Comments (3)
Question 3.3
Is Kalman's work with the vernacular "patronizing"?
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:56 PM | Comments (4)
Question 3.4
Is Chantry's really any better? Does he just fake naivety better than Kalman?
[note: might be worthwile looking up some more of Chantry's work]
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:55 PM | Comments (1)
March 24, 2004
Questions on appropriation
Ok here's my initial bunch of questions . . . there's issues I haven't covered here, which did come up in the chapter, but didn't make it through into my final bunch of notes . . .
The transition of forms and ideas between high and low culture, and the implications there could definitely be worth discussing.
Also, Keith, I thought you might be interested in the bit about conservative politics and appropriation?
1.1
Is Garretís work [as discussed in this chapter] inherently any better than the junk mail I received from my ISP?
1.2
Is it important that the original meaning of the 'thing' being appropriated is known by the receiver? [familiarity]
1.3
Is familiarity neccessary when dealing with Saville's album covers?
1.4
Is familiarity neccessary when dealing with Parody, such as the Twin Peaks guide-book?
2.1
Is appropriation more valid when it is used to bring up or develop new forms or ideas? [as opposed to simple literal pastiche. Eg: Swatch poster]
2.2
Does Saville's work rely solely on ambiguity to create the "3rd idea"? Could his work be criticised as being formulaic if this is the case?
2.3
Of the work illustrated in this chapter, which has the most 'added value', in terms of bringing something new to the appropriation? [or possibly that should be; getting something new out of the appropriation]
3.1
Who is more authentic:
Gary Cooper or Clint Eastwood?
Elvis Presley or Carl Perkins?
Art Chantry or Tibor Kalman?
3.2
Can anyone appropriate anything?
3.3
Is Kalman's work with the vernacular "patronizing"?
3.4
Is Chantry's really any better? Does he just fake naivety better than Kalman?
[note: might be worthwile looking up some more of Chantry's work]
Posted by Luke Wood at 04:35 PM
Appropriation
Folks . . .
the link above should get you 3 pages of notes that I've PDF'd for you. You'll need them to reference where my questions are coming from.
Posted by Luke Wood at 03:35 PM
March 22, 2004
Sustaining Practice
Hybridization as a means of sustaining practice.
Under a modernist framework, ideology rained supreme. One developed a WAY of working that was proposed as RIGHT, and adhered to forever . . . people like MUller-Brockman admit to actually being "bored of it all", but still won't conceed to the notion that they might have been able to change . . .
are we any more open to change within our practice today?
The best thing that's happened in my own practice has been the rejection of ideology . . . of any sort. Which is why I think I liked the Feyerabend quote in the Deconstruction chapter - "the only principal that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes".
A creative practice of any sort should be open to constant hybridization and renewal ñ regeneration - regenerative?
Posted by Luke Wood at 05:46 PM | Comments (2)
March 20, 2004
Hybrids in Biology and Physics
"Hybrid Vigour"
. . . 2 species [or more commonly sub-species] combine
- result will be always be "tougher" . . . due to new genetic characteristics.
The Hybrid will still have the same genes, but the genes have been affected by the new 'company' . . . the genes will 'know' new things and therefore behave slightly differently, creating a new, and better, animal/plant etc.
Eg. Mongrel dogs. Purebreed dogs are more susceptable to infection and disease, and are often considerably less intelligent [based on logic] than mongrels [hybrids].
1. Damien Hirst work:
a white sheep in a tank of formaldahyde installed in a gallery by Hirst. Someone comes along [another artist it turns out] and tips black ink into the tank . . . thereby creating a new work [a hybrid] . . . a black sheep.
2. Plants and food: the GE debate.
Apparently wheat has actually been 'modified' for a while now, only it hasn't been by putting in other genes, it's been doubling the chromosomes [not sure if that's GE or not?]. The result of course being bigger, 'better' wheat harvests ñ literally bigger grains of wheat.
3. NZ ducks:
are predominantly hybrids of the native Grey Duck and the introduced Mallard [UK]. The driving factor behind this is interesting in relation to design in that it is essentially one of form. The Mallard drake is irresistable to both breeds ñ by design. The male Mallard has brilliant colouring on it's head, whereas the Grey duck is, well, grey! This colouring has a downside too however, as it makes the male Malard more vulnerable to predators [this is common of males in many species especially birds].
4. Deer in NZ.
We have 2 kinds of introduced Deer, one from Europe and one from Canada. They look very different as they have evolved seperately [diff continents] over thousands of years, and people never expected them to cross-breed. Of course they have, and for a similar reason to the ducks ñ the male of one species [Red Deer] is more 'attractive'. Although this time because of it's 'call'. Again I think youu could say, by design. As a result almost all deer in NZ are now Red Deer . . . it is the most successful species.
5. Purity is a myth.
Even though we have what we call purebreeds, they have been hybrids of something at various point along their evolution.
6. Evolution.
Evolution is 'divergent' first and then 'convergent' later. Theory is that there are a number of niches to be filled in the broader system [ecosystem], and things will be devolped until the niches are filled. Once filled, those forms filling them will then become convergent . . . [an assumption here ñ to the point that only one form will fill each niche?] . . . [but I guess the lesson here is that those niches [the system] keep changing so this won't ever happen?].
7. Definitions:
It is therefore difficult within Biology to actually define species. The definitions must remain in flux . . . hmmm very post-modern idea.
8. Mules.
A mule is a hybrid of a horse and a donkey, but it cannot produce offspring. A mule is always infertile [not sure why at this stage?]. The mule came up because it can't be defined as a species, as within the biology this relies on the ability to breed, and create more [mules or whatever] . . . So the mule is a very interesting hybrid in that it's not self perpetuating like most others.
9. Physics.
The 3rd law of classical thermodynamics is: all systems tend toward a state of entropy [chaos, randomness, dis-order].
. . . in the absence of a controlling source a system will always break down. Eg. If roads weren't maintained regularly they'd become unusable to most cars.
10. Energy:
Biology disagrees with Physics. Actually evolution [an idea fundamental to current biology] refutes/negates the Physical law stated above ñ as evolution implies a system that gets continually better. Biologists consider that there is a controlling source [of life?] and that this is Energy.
11. Sharks:
Any life-form that resists change will face extinction. Sharks have been around for 250 million years, and are considered by biologists to be the most successful life-form on earth. [Dad suggests this is perhaps why we are really so frightened of them . . . but then he's a biologist!].
Posted by Luke Wood at 10:49 AM | Comments (2)
March 19, 2004
HYBRIDS
HYBRID idea can encompass appropriation, nostalgia,
. . . into systems . . .
hybrids are important in relation to systems . . .
. . . mongrels, biology, systems, subcultures, . . .
Can link through to my idea about the extending process.
Having thought about yesteday's entry I realised that 'appropriation' was far too broad, and that a lot of what fits that umbrella term isn't what interests me anyway. I enjoyed Saville's work [again!?], and the Twin Peaks piece, but didn't find I got much out of Scher's or Kalman's for example.
I'm especially interested in what Poyner calls the "third idea" created by Saville's examples. I thought about this more and realised it related pretty much directly to something that had come up in my notes a couple of weeks back, Hybrids.
I think I see a way of tying the methodology to the core topic [the idea about extending process] in a more coherent way through the idea of hybrids, and the the relation to systems . . .
. . . mongrels, biology, systems, subcultures, . . .
Posted by Luke Wood at 06:41 PM
March 18, 2004
THE TOPIC?
I had a talk to someone today who asked what my topic was . . . I mumbled about a bit and came out with something like this . . .
It's about the idea of extending the design process - beyond the artefact, perhaps? The idea that a designer can/might consider the work as 'ongoing', as it enters into different environments and audiences . . . so different copies of the same artefact might become quite different 'pieces' via this extension of process.
My methodology might involve various forms of appropriation ñ parody, pastiche, plagarism, and quotation . . . to develop artefacts that can test the central idea about process.
Actually this sounds divergent again! I thought when discussing this I'd connected it somehow, but I'm not convinced anymore . . .
still might log this anyhow.
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:56 PM
March 17, 2004
The Dice Man + Systems + energy
Living via the Dice was about trying to realise that we're always saying to ourselves "oh I couldn't do that, I'm not that kind of person", when of course we could do anything, it's just that it might not fit with the ego/self that we have constructed - usually for ourselves. The Dice were a way to systematically break down the ego/self . . .
Systems always break down. The only system that survives is one that is happy to be in flux . . . which is essentially not a 'system' anymore? Look for systems that accomodate hybrids, change, and chance . . . they've probably been around a long time . . . forever?
Energy. You can't actually get rid of energy. It can only ever be converted into another form of energy . . . When we die, energy leaves our bodies, generally in the form of heat.
Posted by Luke Wood at 01:28 PM | Comments (2)
Conceptual Design?
Most 20th century movements in art have some kind of correlative in graphic design. But not the Mutha' of them - Conceptual Art [not that I know of anyway]? This must be because the basic premise of Conceptual Art was to deny the artefact [the longstanding importance of the 'art' object] . . . the ideal conceptual work being [a] able to be described and experienced by it's description, and [b] infinitely repeatable - have no uniqueness to it.
Is there such a thing as conceptual design? Could there be such a thing?
How the hell does this relate to my topic?
What the hell is my topic?
Posted by Luke Wood at 01:12 PM | Comments (2)