Computerized Graphics Just Can't Cut It

While reading Marina Grzinic’s article entitled Exposure Time, the Aura and Telerobotics, I found her characterization of computer generated images to be especially illuminating. In her article the author states that “as more of and more of our images are computer generated, and television and radio are overtaken by the near instantaneous speed of calculation, we are witnessing an ever more exact and complete aesthetic sterilization of the image”.

I could not agree more with this characterization. While reading this passage I immediately began to think the many problems with the modern special effects used in contemporary filmmaking.

In modern films, all special effects and major props are no longer constructed with real materials but instead they are generated for half the cost by computer animation and design programs. While these computer generated accessories cost less and can sometimes achieve the desired effect, they can almost never fully convince the audience of their authenticity. So while the computer can get the job done, it can’t actually convince the audience that what is going on is actually real.

A clear example of this shortcoming can be seen in the two Star Wars Trilogies. In the first trilogy (released in the late 70’s) all special effects and props were 100% analogue, and the audience could feel the reality of it all. When we saw the space ships parked in a hanger we could see that the ships were metal and that they were actually designed and constructed. When we saw the robots and aliens we could see that real actors were wearing real costumes in order to play these parts in the film and this overbearing sense of authenticity and had a powerful effect on the audience.

Now contrast this to the new Star Wars Trilogy, filled with non-existent animated characters and CGI space ships. I think we can all agree that it had quite a different feel to it, in fact, I think we can all agree that it just didn’t feel right. When the computer animated Jar Jar Binks starts talking you just don’t feel the authenticity of the character. Instead, all of a sudden you feel as if you’re in a cartoon. In addition, all the ships and the buildings are perfectly streamlined, and plated with shining metallic silver. What happened to that authentic feel of the first Trilogy? Where are the old fighter ships that look like a space version of an old beat up Chevy or a World War II Spitfire – used, abused, dented and rusted like a real fighting craft. Where are the dirty, ugly aliens? Instead we are barraged with cartoon like aliens and perfectly constructed crafts which seem to bring us to some Saturday morning cartoon version of Star Wars.

In short, as Marina highlights in her article computer graphics just don’t have the “feel” of the real thing, they are too mathematically perfect, too smooth and streamlined to be a part of the real, imperfect, wonderful world. Until we have a computer program that can incorporate rust, tears, dirt and sweat into the programming matrix, computer graphics will always be limited to a sterile world of unauthentic, unconvincing mathematically perfected images.

The Butterfly Effect

When watching the movie Run Lola Run I was especially struck by one original and innovative aspect of the film – the snapshots into the future of the people Lola interacts with. Throughout the film Lola is continually entering people’s lives and subtly but fundamentally altering their future. The director highlights Lola’s “butterfly effect” by showing a set of snapshots illustrating the futures of the people that Lola affects.

A clear example of this can be seen in Lola’s interaction with the woman and baby who Lola bumps into as she runs out of her apartment. In each of the three scenarios in the film, Lola’s differing interaction with the woman creates three possible future outcomes for the woman. In the first scenario Lola lightly bumps the woman and the woman becomes an alcoholic and loses her baby. In the second scenario Lola smashes into the woman and the woman eventually wins the lottery. And in the third scenario Lola avoids the woman altogether and the woman eventually becomes devoutly religious.

This aspect of the movie impressed me so much because it drew a clear parallel between the film and narrative loop as expressed in Lev Manovitch’s article “Database”. The possible outcomes illustrated in the film are very comparable to the algorithms Manovitch describes in the programming of video games. In both cases the seemingly inconsequential choices and actions taken by the independent character have innumerable effects on the overall outcome of the narrative.

Moreover, both the film and the game are simply artificial representations of this “butterfly effect” in real life. Yet, unfortunately in the real world the butterfly effect can only be theorized and hypothesized upon, because there is absolutely no way to truly measuring the butterfly effect. In order to do so we would have to manipulate time backwards and alter events which of course is impossible. But nonetheless we can recreate this effect through art, giving humans the visual and mental satisfaction of this phenomenon.

Overall, this aspect of the film struck me because it has been employed so many times in other films of our generation. Films such as The Butterfly Effect, Sliding Doors, Drift, Clue and Wayne’s World all employ this technique to carry the narrative of the film forward. Yet the film Run Lola Run is unique in the sense that not only the main characters are offered multiple outcomes. In this film even the slightest interaction with strangers is portrayed as having an enormous effect on the strangers’ life, thus extending this concept of the “butterfly effect” one step further throughout the narrative.

Judging Bruce Nauman's Exhibit

Judging Bruce Nauman’s Exhibit

While experiencing Bruce Nauman’s exhibit entitled A Rose has no Thorns, two overwhelming points of realization came to my mind. First, it became clear to me that anything can be qualified as art. And second, it became clear to me that what constitutes “good” or “quality” art is a purely subjective judgment

Now, that being said, I have no problem calling anything and everything art. I am not one of those people who believe that art can be defined and bounded. I believe that everything in the world has some artistic value and so anything can be considered art. But the point that concerned me most when experiencing Bruce Nauman’s work is how can one decide what constitutes “quality” art and is this decision a purely subjective judgment.

As I stated above, it is my opinion that this is a subjective judgment. So the only way to make a judgment of Bruce Nauman's work is to make a subjective claim and support this claim with evidence. I felt that Bruce Nauman’s work was very original and experimental, but overall I felt that his work was of little real quality. Of course this is only my opinion, but since we already heard the guides explanation on why this is “quality” art, let me give you my explanation.

I feel that the “quality” of art can be judged by two measures: 1) the ability of the piece to produce an emotional response in the viewer and 2) the intrinsic value of the piece, more specifically, the ability of the piece to communicate its message universally without an explanation.

Let us now apply these measures to Bruce Nauman’s exhibit, beginning with the first measure. Throughout my entire experience at the exhibit, I felt very little positive or negative emotion. Mostly I felt extremely apathetic and disinterested. At one point in the exhibit our guide pointed to a rag positioned on a stool and then expounded for several minutes on the artistic quality of the piece. Now all said and done this piece was aesthetically unpleasing, its message was extremely diluted and it elicited absolutely no emotional response from me. I was then presented with several film clips including “Manipulating the T-Bar”, “Thighing”, and “Square Dance” all of which did not ignite a single feeling inside of me besides boredom and disinterest. In fact, while experiencing the entire exhibit I felt no emotional response, which leads me to conclude that it does not pass the first measure.

Now lets move on to the second measure: the intrinsic value of the piece, that is to say its ability to communicate its message universally without explanation. Throughout my tour of the exhibit I had not the slightest clue what message the art was attempting to communicate. It was only until the tour guide explained the entire theory behind the work that I came to somewhat understand the point of the art. If the tour guide had not explained to me the history of sculpture and why a rag in the corner is revolutionary then I would have absolutely no clue that I was looking at a piece of art. If he had not told me that the purpose of a piece was to “extends beyond my ability to pay attention to it”, I would have never understood what Bruce Nauman was trying to communicate. Just imagine if we were to drop this exhibit in a non-western country and did not explain anything to the viewers. People would never be able to figure out what the art was trying to communicate. Therefore it is clear that the art does not have an intrinsic universal message. Instead its message must be translated and teased out by people who have studied the artist, his work and his motives. Thus it is clear that the work does not pass the second measure.

In the end it is difficult for me to say that Bruce Nauman’s work is low quality. After all he spent his life producing the work and he clearly put a lot of effort and thought into his art. What I can say is according to the definition set forth in the response; Bruce Nauman’s work does not measure up.

The Future as a Product of the Time in which it is Conceived

The Future as a Product of the Time in which it is Conceived

While reading H.G. Well’s novel The Time Machine, my thoughts continually gravitated towards two overriding themes in Well’s vision of the future – the influence of Marxism and Darwinism.

The evolution of humans based on the Marxist divisions of bourgeoisie and proletariat is the premise of the future for Wells, but it just seemed so outdated and unrealistic to me. Why is Well’s future based on the assumption that Marxism and Darwinism will eventually eclipse all other influences and become the driving force of humankind? What about the human ability to develop supranational governments, achieve social harmony or produce advanced technology

While the author provides a loose account explaining how and why humans have reached this situation – “This has ever been the fate of energy in security; it takes to art and to eroticism, and then come languor and decay” pg. 28 – a much better explanation of Well’s vision of the future can be understood by examining the time and place he wrote the novel.

Herbert George Wells wrote the novella in London at the turn of the century and it seems to be a clear reflection of the time and place it was written in. Upon closer examination it makes logical sense that his vision of the future is overwhelmed by the mixture of evolution, social Darwinian and Marxist themes. Inevitably Well’s novel is a product of London (the center of the world at the time) in the late 1800’s and the many social and scientific theories and ideologies of the time. In fact The Communist Manifesto was first produced in 1848 but by 1895 it had been translated and published in every major language and every major country. As for evolution, Darwin released his first copy of The Origin of Species in 1859, which spread like wildfire throughout Europe.

So it seems clear that The Time Machine is not only a vision of the future, it is also a historical testament of how we once viewed the future of man. Undoubtedly to people at the time, evolution and Marxist social theories were the inevitable forces that would shape mankind in the future. And of course, just as we can look back and see Well’s future as a product of his time, in the future others will look with interest at our visions of the future based on our current ideas on climate change, space exploration and genetic engineering. Thus, it seems that visions of the future are not only predictions of what will come, they are also testaments of the time in which they are conceived.