Monthly Archives: October 2016

Tutorial with Prof Stephen Farthing 27 Oct 2016 in his studio at Chelsea

We managed to cover all topics on my agenda I had sent him a few days before https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/25/preparation-for-tutorial-with-prof-stephen-farthing-on-27-oct-2016/ .

When I walked in Stephen had the Veronica Scan of himself on his screen, which he had done at The Royal Academy during their exhibition 2-11 Sept 2016. We talked about this for a while. Apparently he helped initiate this exhibition with the Factum Foundation, and the Rothschild Foundation who funded it (apparently to the tune of about £150,000). The Rothschild family also own Waddesdon Manor, part of which is operated by the National Trust, and where my wife Suzy and I went for our scans at their Veronica Scanner exhibition (on this week only). After this, the exhibition, goes back to its base in Milan, for some fine tuning.

img_5511-2

I said that the people there said that they wanted to exhibit in Universities and I suggested UAL, and also the possibility of participating in our sessions during next years’ Tate Exchange. Stephen said that he knows the top man at the Factum Foundation, and who to contact at the Rothschild Foundation if I wanted to follow this up. I said that I would speak to Jonathan Kearney and Chris Follows about this, to see if they wanted to pursue it. Diary note for next week.

We then talked about my MA Display Metamorphosis, which Stephen thought had been my final MA Show exhibit. I explained the artwork, its meaning , how it was made and how it functioned. I also explained the resolution of the issue of ‘touching’ a naked female sculpture, raised by Jonathan, and which Stephen and I had discussed before. I said that I had come up with another solution, by triggering Vanessa’s narratives when a visitor picked up the book also entitled Metamorphosis , which I had found in the bookshop at Tate Britain. This involved proximity sensing with the Bare Conductive Touch Board, an adapted Arduino microprocessor.

Moving on to one of my key issues: how to make a meaningful and distinctive piece of art using Augmented/Mixed Reality. We discussed this for some time. I suggested that what the viewer got from this approach to artistic expression was  an immersive experience, which could trigger emotion much more effectively than most other visual art forms, as you the viewer were actually in the artwork not just viewing it. I said that if you were watching TV, or a film, you were detached from the screen and the screen displayed something that was happening somewhere else, other than where you were. He got this, but said that it depended upon what you immersed the viewer in. Stephen suggested I move away from the life figure or even dance movements as this was insufficiently engaging, if the full potential of the Mixed reality was to be realised. He suggested considering an event in history that had some meaning today. He cited an example of Strange Fruit, fruit hanging from a tree, which represented the lynching of Negroes in America, during the time of the Klu Klux Klan. A poem, immortalised in a song by Billie Holiday. I have ordered the CD and a book entitled  Strange Fruit; Billie Holiday, Cafe Society and an early cry for Civil Rights, by David Margouck. I want to understand more of the message Stephen was giving me, and took this as a good example to follow.

Stephen recommended that I find a theme that resonated with me. We discussed some, which I won’t go into here, but will later when I have given the subject a lot more thought. To see whether Mixed reality was adding to the experience, he also suggested that I write a script, and try to implement it in two or three ways including Mixed Reality. The idea was to see what the new media added to the experience. I said that I had limited time as I need to produce a finished piece for my MA show. He disagreed and said that an experiment, even unfinished, would be very meaningful and offer new insights and knowledge, and that would be quite acceptable as an MA show piece. I will talk to Jonathan about this.

Interrupted by a fire alarm (a real one), we talked about the PhD outside in the street (joined by Donald, who I was due to meet next). He echoed my thoughts that it was difficult to find a University which offered art and science at a high level that could offer someone as a suitable supervisor. We talked about CSM, and CCW, but he thought that they did not have the breadth of knowledge needed to support me in my proposed PhD (digital art conservation). He ended up recommending that I apply to Oxford University Ruskin (where he had been Master of Ruskin College), and when I asked, said that he would act as a reference (Thank you. Thank you). I said that he knew my background (no BA Fine Art), and said that only your MA mattered (you need at least a Merit and preferably a Distinction). He thought I could certainly do a PhD (more certain than I was). A reassuring vote of confidence).

He also thought that as I wanted to do a practice based PhD, that I should offer digital art conservation as a potential side benefit of my PhD, which could be about exploring emerging technologies for Museum Display. I talked about the Sydney Museum and the videos of characters at the time of early settlements and penal colonies. He talked about the Buffalo Bill museum in Colorado, where Bill Cody’s talking image was displayed through a fog-screen, which you walked through to get to the exhibition.

Overall a very interesting meeting (as usual). We agreed to meet again in late November.

 

 

Preparation for Tutorial with Prof. Stephen Farthing on 27 Oct 2016

Topics for discussion

 

I realise that there is more here than can be covered in one meeting, but hopefully we can meet again.

  • MA Show Exhibit 2016
  • Ideas for Meaningful and Distinctive Art deploying Virtual and Augmented Reality
  • PhD or Fellowship/Residency following MA

 

MA Show Exhibit 2016

fullsizerender-41  IMG_3976  

Metamorphosis

 

Ideas for Meaningful and Distinctive Art deploying Virtual and Augmented Reality

 

  • Focus to develop ideas – Tate Exchange, Feb/March 2017 and MA Show, July 2017

 

  • Technologies I want to experiment with:

 

  1. 3D Virtual Reality Painting – ideas we discussed last year have been realised in recent software – Google Tilt Brush using the Vive Virtual Reality Exhibit live painting experience, and displaying an example using a ‘Google Cardboard’ Virtual Reality headset.
  2. Augmented Reality, using Microsoft Hololens – dancing figure recording at Double Me/Ravensbourne. Displaying this on the Hololens and a Holographic Display.
  3. Making another foundry bronze by 3D printing in castable resin of myself from a Veronica Scan (as recently exhibited at the Royal Academy). What type of face should I make?
  4. I want to use some of my current work and these works for my MA show but need to follow a theme. Any suggestions as to a theme?

 

screen-shot-2016-10-13-at-23-15-25

Spiral Paintings – Aurelie Freoua | AR Hololens – Double Me | VR 3D Painting – Tilt Brush

Tilt Brush in action with Vive | Hololens Augmented Reality  | Holographic Display – Holus+

 

  • Practice based PhD

 

A Practice based PhD would allow me to follow my interest and possible solution for: ‘the conservation of digital art installations for our cultural heritage’. See my Research Paper:

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/05/research-paper-digital-to-physical-made-to-last-will-functioning-digital-art-be-part-of-our-future-cultural-heritage/

I have attended recent PhD events at CSM, and had intended to go to one at Chelsea but missed it due to illness. I have enquired at the Royal Academy of Art.

My issue is that I think that this topic is more in need of practice than theory. However, the practice spans art and science. I am not sure where I could find a suitable supervising Professor.

I believe it may be possible to create a system that can record a functioning digital art installation in one technical environment. This would avoid the alternative of preserving each unique digital art installation. Over decades, conserving individual installations would involve the impossible task of preserving multiplicities of hardware and software, as well as needing experts who understand all the current and legacy (unsupported) systems involved, and how they interact.

Only one system would need to be maintained and updated This would involve, artist interviews to record the artist’s intent, and recording the art installation in its functioning environment.

I envisage a modular ‘Digital Art Conservation System’ employing augmented or virtual reality, together with a sub-system that captures a sample of any external or Internet interactions employed in the art installation (this has been done before, except the attempt was to capture the entire content of the Internet). It may help that I was once a professional systems analyst/designer. Perhaps I could get the V&A or the Tate involved?

I recognise that this is not preserving the exact digital art installation in its original form and context for posterity. The alternative is a ‘Digital Gap’ where in the very long term it will not be possible to view the art of this ‘digital age’, alongside a Van Gogh painting or a Rodin sculpture. The digital art of a whole generation will be lost forever.

My proposal could be the next best thing. Or is it ‘Pie in the Sky’ thinking, and not a suitable PhD topic?

 

  • A Foundry Fellowship or Residency

 

The alternative is to make art, and not systems and theory for a PhD. I have a leaning towards this. Chelsea are interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Double Me – Plan to make an Augmented Reality Video

At the follow up event to the Lumen Prize 2016, Lumen Presents #HackersvsMrRobot, Albert Kim, the CEO of Double Me invited me to make a 5-10min Augmented Reality video of Vanessa dancing. This can be viewed on Microsoft Hololens, which I tried, and now have on pre-order for UK release on 30 November 2016. Albert suggested I wait until their upgraded facility was installed in November, so I will follow up then. Will keep you posted.

 

Veronica Scanner – I am the model

The Veronica scanner was recently exhibited at the Royal Academy, and for this week only is being shown again at Waddesdon Manor. I am being scanned on Wednesday. It follows the same process that I have used to make sculptures of Vanessa, but my starting point was the Occipital Structure Sensor attached to my iPad. Some fellow students have asked, “why don’t I scan myself”. Not easy with the equipment I own, but now I can accomplish this. It is interesting to see the part of the video that refers to whether the output should be left as it is, or manipulated in ZBrush, which was the case before I printed my Vanessa sculptures. This time I plan to 3D print the sculpture exactly  as scanned. I want to make it larger scale and cast it in foundry bronze. So I will have to do some work on it, as I will have to carve up the figure into pieces that will fit in the bounding box of the 3D printers that can print in castable PLA.Then I will have to piece them back together somehow. I need to do further research to work out the best way of achieving the result I am looking for.

Update after my visit

Both Mady Dae (MA FAD 1st Year) and I have now been scanned, as well as my wife Suzy. I will help Mady decide what to do with her scan when she receives it. You are sent an email with the website address and your reference number. Samples can be seen on the following link. At some point ,in the next week or two, we will appear on it.

http://wm2016.projectplay.rocks

Here are some photos of the process. Apparently, weird poses give the most interesting results, so this is what we did.

img_5505

The Veronica Scanner team are based in Madrid: Factvm Fovndation, for Digital Technology in Conservation. I asked whether they would be interested in coming to the Tate Exchange or to UAL. Apparently, CSM have already visited their offices in Madrid. I plan to talk to Jonathan Kearney and Chris Follows about this possibility.

Enrique, was the lead person there on the day Suzy and I visited. He is putting me in touch with the head of the Foundation, based in London, and letting him know that I will be contacting him. Enrique has my business card.

Otto Lowe, otto@factumfoundation.org , mob 07908470207, 44 Lexington Street, London W1F 0LP, http://www.factumfoundation.org .

Whilst they had an array of 3D printers at the exhibition, none were able to produce the larger sculptures on display. These were produced using a 5-Axis CNC machine .

img_5528

If you want a large 3D print contact: UCL, The Bartlett School of Architecture, 140 Hampstead Road, Camden Town, London NW1 2PT, Tel: 084515550000. It is possible to take your 3D files there and they will print them for a price. You give them the file and the size you want it printed at and they will quote you a price. For further information, see:

3dp-Bartlett.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.html

https://Vimeo.com/130887030

Other 3D printing services were provided by Hobs Studio, 144 Central Street, London EC1V 8AX, Tel: 0207 0141361, info.london@hobsstudio.com. See:

http://www.hobsstudio.com

I will post the results when I get them. Very exciting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit 1 Assessment

Preface

My first thought when starting this self-assessment was “I wish I had blogged about many more activities and experiences I have engaged in during my MA”. My experience has been so fast and furious that there has literarily not been time to write up everything. As Jonathan once correctly observed to me “You have been studying and making as though this course was full time over two years”. Consequently, many so far un-blogged activities are also referred to here, alongside those I have referenced.

My second realization, was that I have written 50 blogs in a total of over 50,000 words which have had close to 2000 views. This includes recordings of two of my artist interviews. So please bear with me, as it could take some time to understand in depth what I have been up to in Unit 1, but I hope you will think it worth it.

Learning Outcomes:

  • Formulate, describe and implement a challenging and self-directed programme of study, relating to your Project Proposal 

I was interested to compare my proposals at the start of the MA,

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/12/my-work-and-proposals-for-ma-fine-art-digital-tuesday-15-sept-2015/

with those I presented at the mid-point review

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/11/03/mava-fine-art-digital-unit-1-project-proposal/

and the updated version I have now produced at the end of Unit 1.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/19/ma-fine-art-digital-unit-2-updated-project-proposal/ .

The process of research, making, and reflection resulting in my latest plan is documented fully in a recent blog, and explains why it was necessary to update my proposal for Unit 2.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/02/review-of-my-project-proposal/.

In essence, my proposal has developed from extending my former life drawing practice of primarily the female body, to ‘born-digital’ art installations focused around the human form and activity. I am interested in researching and making born-digital artworks of this nature, where their final manifestations are distinctively either in material or immaterial form. I have termed these ‘digital to physical’, and ‘purely digital’. To date, my focus has been on the former, but now I am turning my attention to the latter, exploring leading edge emerging technologies to do so. I am interested in making a mix of both for my final MA Show.

Essentially, I recognise that these are all extremely ambitious programmes of work, and remain so, in the timescale of the MA. My primary motivation for this, is to learn as many ‘tools’ of a digital artist’s ‘trade’ as I can, to enable me to use a wide range of artistic expression in my practice. I am playing catch up as I do not have the art school experience gained during a fine art first degree. To me, this is the most important educational outcome of my MA, and why I have continued to work full time for my MA, including during my ‘vacations’.

Jonathan Kearney’s immediate response to my original proposal was “Terry, you have five MA’s there!”. I think and hope that these concerns are now allayed, as in Unit 1, I have almost finished everything I originally set out to do for my entire MA. I had thought of holding back my MA Display exhibit at the end of my first year, namely Metamorphosis, for my final MA Show. But I am glad I did not, as I have so much more I want to learn. I have therefore had to set some additional or modified objectives for Unit 2.

What has changed is that I now have much more clarity of purpose. I now realise that I have effectively divided my MA into three phases.

The first phase, to date, is a digital to physical practice, where the artwork is ‘born-digital’ and the final manifestation of the work is a physical object. I feel that I have largely achieved this objective. Here are some examples of my work, which culminated in my MA Display:

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/20/getting-started-making-a-life-sculpture/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/22/scanning-and-drawing-a-life-model-in-the-studio/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/11/06/following-in-the-footsteps-of-antony-gormley/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/11/09/getting-physical/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/12/02/show-time-for-vanessa/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/01/28/giving-the-model-a-voice-proof-of-concept/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/02/05/talking-pictures/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/05/30/lumen-prize-entry/

fullsizerender-41

MA Display 2016 – Metamorphosis

The second phase is where the final manifestation of the artwork is entirely digital, and which relies on a digital environment for its display. I am currently working with the UAL Digital Maker Collective on an exhibition for their Tate Exchange Programme in February and March 2017. This includes my own collaborative mixed reality intervention, Alice through the looking glass.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/19/tate-exchange-febmar-2017-proposed-exhibit/

The third phase, from late March to July 2017, will concentrate on my MA Show. This will be a combination of a purely digital work adapted from my Tate Exchange exhibit, and a physical work in the form of another foundry bronze. The latter will enable me to apply for a Foundry Fellowship, which I have already discussed at UAL Chelsea. It will be made from a 3D scan, 3D printed in castable PLA.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/24/veronica-scanner-i-am-the-model/

  • Critically engage with practice-based research and contribute actively to debate and discussion

Here I feel that I have been particularly successful. Jonathan can attest that I have been fully engaged in all that MA Fine Art Digital has to offer, and am now as much a part of the studio based group, as well as my online group. I have used Camberwell facilities and technical staff to the fullest extent I can for my practice. When I have found limitations I have reached out to other UAL colleges, namely Chelsea, Wimbledon and CSM. I use the Camberwell foundry, have special permission to continue to use the digital fabrication workshop at CSM, and am a founding and active member of UAL Digital Maker Collective.

When I find UAL does not have the equipment or facilities I need, rather than let that limit my activities, I have acquired my own and learnt how to use them. These include Wacom Intuos Pro graphics pad, 3D Structure Sensor scanning, Bare Conductive Touch Board Arduino, and Leap Motion, as well as many items of supporting or related software. Soon I will take delivery of a Holus Plus holographic display, and Microsoft Hololens Augmented Reality Development Edition, which will both feature in my MA Show exhibit.

I have also extended my research activities to external organisations, including one-to-one familiarization with 3D drawing, rendering and animation at Xchange Training, London and in Projection Mapping with Alex May. I have visited Fab Lab London and Digits to Widgets, London to understand more about 3D fabrication. By the time I submit this Assessment, I will have participated in the Veronica Scanner event sponsored by the Royal College of Art, and introduced a first and a second year MA Fine Art Digital colleague to join me on the day. I am currently also following up an invitation to participate with Double Me, a research arm of a USA based company, in conjunction with the Virtual Reality research department at Ravensbourne, in a project to make a short true 3D Augmented Reality video of Vanessa dancing.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/24/double-me-plan-to-make-an-augmented-reality-video/

I am anxious to use these facilities and technologies to make meaningful and distinctive art. Whilst I am keen to deploy emerging technologies, they must remain subsidiary to the artwork, as tools to explore new means of artistic expression. I have therefore sought additional tutorials with art professors within UAL to help me accomplish this, including one with Prof Paul Coldwell, and most notably Prof Stephen Farthing who continues to offer me tutorials at his studio in UAL, Chelsea. I have also sought advice from other artists including Alex May, and June Mendoza. I have not written blogs for all of them, but here is a selection from those I have:

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/08/22/digital-to-physical-made-to-last-alex-may-interview-22-august-2016-brighton/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/digital-to-physical-built-to-last-prof-paul-coldwell-interview/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/05/02/you-are-at-an-art-school-not-a-monastery-prof-stephen-farthing/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/04/17/review-with-prof-stephen-farthing/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/11/07/in-conversation-with-june-mendoza/

There are several other exemplars I have spent time with since starting my MA but sadly, to date, most of which I have not had time to include in my blogs. These include meetings with: Richard Colson – author, artist, and MA course leader in Computational Design at Ravensbourne; David Byers-Brown – artist and MA Course Director VFX and Digital Animation, who I visited at Kent University; Patrick Gibbs, MA Ruskin – landscape/figurative painter; Kate MccGwire – MA Royal Academy, specializing in large sculptures made entirely of bird feathers, and a regular exhibitor at international exhibitions including the Venice biennale 2016. My MA colleagues and UAL technical staff have also offered helpful comments and suggested areas for research.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/21/colleague-suggested-research/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/25/my-project-proposal-checking-out-what-is-possible/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/10/my-first-1-2-1-tutorial/

Additionally, and also un-blogged, I have attended several UAL Post Graduate events including meeting Grayson Perry in his studio, and the MA Fine Art graduate show 2016. Prior to meeting Grayson Perry, I independently visited his solo exhibition at Turner Contemporary, Margate to see his digital to physical works including the Walthamstow Tapestry. I have been to lectures given by Prof Steven Farthing including Drawing and writing: the intersection, at the University of London, as well as visiting many other art exhibitions independently, including: V&A Digital Weekend 2015 and 2016; Patrick Gibbs’ solo exhibition of 100 paintings at the Mall Gallery; William Kentridge at the Marion Goodman Gallery with Kate MaccGuire, as well as visiting her sculpture studio on the river Thames in Hampton; Anthony Gormley’s Another Place, on Crosby beach Liverpool, his Angel of the North, and Firmament at Jupiter Artland Sculpture Park, Edinburgh; Digital Weekend at Edinburgh Festival 2016, where I experienced Tilt Brush in action; Ravensbourne final MA Show 2016 Human; Lumen Prize 2016 including the follow up event HackervsMrRobot, where I experienced Hololens Augmented Reality, and was personally invited to correspond with two of the main speakers, Prof. Carla Gannis, who won the Founders Prize, and Douglas Dodds, curator responsible for the V&A’s digital art collection. Most recently, I visited the Institute of Making at UCL with Romain Meunier, and during Jonathan’s annual Liverpool trip, was invited to correspond with the artist Cecile b Evans, who was setting up her solo exhibition at Tate Liverpool, Sprung a Leak, which explores our relationships with humanoid robots. I could go on, but I hope that this sufficiently illustrates and demonstrates the kind of contextual research that I have undertaken to inform my study and practice to date.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/10/a-lecture-workshop-exhibition-and-talk/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/27/awards-and-exhibitions-highlights-serendipity-and-dilemmas/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/02/not-so-fresh-now/

I regularly contribute to the UAL Digital Maker Collective (formerly CCW Digital) at UAL Chelsea, including collaborative education workshops and a week-long Pop-Up show, which Jonathan Kearney visited at Chelsea. This has included demonstrating and teaching 3D scanning, 3D printing, use of conductive materials and proximity sensors with Arduino.  As a result of becoming aware of my work with their products, Bare Conductive have asked me to blog on their website. My acquired expertise and skills in this area have enabled me to provide assistance to other MA students, two of whom were keen to show me the outcome in their recent final MA Fine Art degree show at UAL Chelsea.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/29/giving-the-life-model-a-voice-2/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/15/my-first-project-giving-the-model-a-voice/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/02/08/touch-narrative-sculpture/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/06/01/midnight-inspiration-for-lumen-prize-entry/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/reflections-on-ma-show-2016/

  • Critically reflect upon your practice and articulate a clear understanding of methodology and context of your creative practice 

There were several major reflections affecting my practice: The first was the desire to give the usually silent and objectified life model a voice in the artwork; the second was the conflict between physical touch and nakedness; the third was the realization that I enjoyed making physical artwork, in particular foundry bronze sculptures; the fourth was that I could be seduced by technology, and I needed to ensure that technology remained solely as a tool for artistic expression; the fifth was that I am fascinated by the issue of conservation of purely digital art installations for our cultural heritage, which became the subject of my research paper. The sixth was that I can see where Augmented and Virtual Reality could help resolve this conservation issue, and that this encouraged me to look at the possibility of a research based PhD. There is no clear statement on any of these major realizations, but they run through many of the following blogs:

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/09/17/first-week-experiences/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/03/11/mid-point-review-march-2016/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/01/25/second-1-2-1-tutorial-20-jan-2016/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/01/18/inspiration-antony-gormley/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/01/18/crit-with-jonny-briggs-jan-2016/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/21/first-crit-tutorial/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/14/why-start-your-research-in-the-library/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2015/10/12/la-cuenta-por-favor-the-bill-please/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/06/06/my-research-paper-but-what-is-the-question/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/my-research-paper-digital-to-physical-built-to-last-question-abstract/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/research-paper-proposed-research/

 

These reflections have clearly affected the methodology and context of my practice, as I hope has been demonstrated in the earlier sections in this self-assessment. This resulted in my Research Paper, which explores the potential loss of purely digital art installations for our long term cultural heritage.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/05/research-paper-digital-to-physical-made-to-last-will-functioning-digital-art-be-part-of-our-future-cultural-heritage/

These reflections continue, and I am grateful to able to discuss my thoughts with some eminent people in the art world.

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/25/preparation-for-tutorial-with-prof-stephen-farthing-on-27-oct-2016/

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/28/tutorial-with-prof-stephen-farthing-27-oct-2016-in-his-studio-at-chelsea/

 

Tate Exchange – Feb/Mar 2017 – Proposed Exhibit

This is my proposed exhibit for the Tate Exchange, when the Digital Maker Collective take over the entire 5th Floor of the Switch House extension to Tate Modern on 8/22 February and 8/22 March 2017.

Lead Names: Terry Quinn & Aurelie Freoua

Others: For a full program, we need additional supervisors on the day

Title:    Alice through the looking glass

What:  A visitor intervention: multiple visitors view or interact with a painting in five different ways at the same time. They can:

  • Walk in, around and through a pre-prepared canvas using VR ‘Google Cardboard’ type headsets. A Kinect or Leap Motion will track participant’s movement within the painting.
  • Another can view the pre-prepared painting in Augmented Reality using Microsoft Hololens. The live model for the sculpture dances on top of the floor in the painting, suspended in the real live environment of the Tate Exchange.
  • [Subject to delivery: Holographic display so that passers-by can see what is going on in Hololens.]
  • Another can add to the painting using Vive & Tilt Brush. The painting evolves through the day.
  • The painting as developed by participants is shown on TV (or is projected), so that passers-by can see what is going on.

Key Words: intervention, interaction, virtual reality, augmented reality, artist, painting

Equipment Needed: Vive with Tilt Brush and gaming PC; Kinect; TV or projection surface; Table for equipment. Terry has everything else.

Caveats: This is an ambitious programme, and some elements may need to be dropped if technical issues remain unresolved, or if there are not enough supervisors (need another 3 or 4) to support all the activities.

screen-shot-2016-10-13-at-23-15-25

 

MA Fine Art Digital Unit 2 – Updated Study Proposal

 

Preface

This updated Study Proposal for Unit 2 should be read alongside my original Study Proposal https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/19/ma-fine-art-digital-unit-1-project-proposal-original/  and together with a comprehensive review of progress to date https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/02/review-of-my-project-proposal/. This review also includes reflections on my personal artistic journey since starting my MA, and explains why I have updated my Study Proposal for Unit 2.

Highlighted in bold are achievements and changes from the Original Study Proposal.

Working Title:

How technological innovation can provide new opportunities for the artistic presentation of the human form

Aims and Objectives: 

My aims are to explore how far digital methods can extend the artistic presentation of the human form beyond traditional life drawing and to demonstrate this by producing distinctive and differentiated artworks in both physical and digital form.

My objectives are:

  1. To research how’ artists use technology in their practice, specifically:
    1. The history of how artists have adopted new technology
    2. How contemporary artists have taken advantage of digital today, in particular in the presentation of the human figure
  2. To research recent technology developments and how these might be employed in my own practice, specifically:
    1. The use of digital devices to further express the model’s character in the artwork
    2. 3D scanning and sculpting
    3. 3D drawing and display including holography
    4. 3D animation of the drawn and painted figure
    5. Viewer interaction with the presented image
  3. To use this research to contextualise my own life drawing practice.
  4. To produce distinctive artworks to support my research.

With the exception of the highlighted objectives above, all have been achieved in UNIT 1. Other objectives remain, as I see them as ongoing, but my focus for UNIT 2 will be those highlighted above. If there is time I will also make another foundry bronze.

My success criteria are:

  1. To have understood the attitudes of artists towards the adoption of new technology in their practice and how that enables them to produce new valued works of artistic expression. I have interviewed several well-known artists and these interviews are recorded in my blogs.
  2. To name the contemporary artists I wish to be judged against. To date they include Antony Gormley, William Kentridge, and Lorenzo Quinn, who all make digital to physical artworks. I expect to add others who inspire me from my work in UNIT 2.
  3. To produce distinctive and differentiated works of which I am proud, and that are well received in the fine art community I feel that I have achieved this for my digital to physical artworks, which are described in my blogs. I now aim to produce distinctive works that are immateral in their final form.

 

Context  

This has altered very little from my original Project Proposal for Unit 1. I have highlighted significant changes in bold.

A life drawing, painting, or analogue photograph is a two dimensional image of the model seen from a fixed viewpoint. Due to the limitations of the medium used, this is a necessary abstraction of what the artist actually observes.

In a lecture given by Professor Stephen Farthing, RA (‘Drawing Large Amounts of Information into a Manageable Form’, University of London, 13 October 2015) he describes drawing as “a two dimensional image of a three dimensional event”. In his book ‘Art as Experience‘ John Dewey’ states “the very attempt to present three-dimensional objects on a two dimensional plane demands abstraction from the usual conditions in which they exist” (1934, The Expressive Object, Ch.5, p.98).

Artists, when creating an image from the human figure, can be viewed as falling into two genres: Those who wish to make the work as realistic as possible and those who prefer to create ‘abstract art’. I aim to explore how digital means offer new opportunities for artistic expression for both approaches. However, as my own taste is for a realistic or semi-realistic outcome, my research and works will necessarily lean in this direction.

From cave drawings onward, artists have continuously experimented with new ways to give a sense of visual depth and three dimensionality to something that is naturally flat. A major development in this respect was the use of Perspective. ‘The system of perspective we take for granted today is a relatively recent discovery in art history. Before the 14th Century little to no attempts were made to realistically depict the three dimensional world in art in which we are now accustomed to seeing it’ (Op-art.co.uk, Op Art History Part 1: A History of Perspective in Art – Art Before Perspective). An example of an artwork painted just before the use of perspective is ‘The Calling of the Apostles’, c1308-1311, Duccio di Buoninsegna.

Historically, the desire to achieve realism is evident from the works of many artists, who attempted to overcome the limitations of the available mediums of their time, some using the technology of their day to help them achieve this.

An early example of using perspective in painting can be seen in the work of Jan Van Eyck, a Netherlandish painter. The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on an oak panel dated 1434, painted in Brugge and displayed in the National Gallery, London. It is unusual for its time in its use of orthogonal perspective, that is the use of imaginary lines

disappearing to the vanishing point. This gives a sense of depth to the work even in the faces of the man and woman in the picture as well as in the room they occupy.

In order to gain perspective Van Gogh employed the use of a wooden Perspective Frame which he wrote about in his letters, and justified its use by saying that earlier masters had

employed it (VanGoghReproductions.com, Perspective Frame). J.M.W. Turner used a different device. David Blaney Brown’s book J.M.W. Turner: Sketchbooks, Drawings and Watercolours (2012, Penguin) refers to Turner’s own ‘Diagram and Notes Relating to Perspective’ in which he describes a clapperboard type device which he used for the same purpose.

Conversely, at the beginning of the twentieth century artists such as Henry Matisse chose to move in a different direction, towards ‘abstract art’, placing a greater emphasis on visual sensation than the realistic depiction of objects. This approach was more recently endorsed by Henry Moore who said “Art is the expression of imagination and not the imitation of life” (bbc.co.uk Archive of British Sculptures) and depicted in his semi-abstract monumental bronze sculpture ‘Two Piece Reclining Figure No.5’. John Dewey meanwhile has concluded “The conception that objects have fixed and unalterable values is precisely the prejudice from which art emancipates us” (1934, Art as Experience, The Expressive Object, Ch.5, P.99).

Latter day artists from both abstract and realistic genres also use other approaches to bring life to their work as can be seen in representations of movement. Examples include Marcel Duchcamp’s abstract painting ‘Nude’, 1912 and Gjon Mili’s realistic photographic rework of it in 1950. Both show overlapping images of a nude descending a staircase.

The digital age has exploded the opportunities to make images both more lifelike and dynamic as well as more abstract. Digital photography, video, and photo-realistic digital painting, together with the use of micro-processors or digital devices, can be used to bring our senses into the artwork, enable the viewer to interact with it, or create abstract art from data. Sound and visual special effects, or video projection on a huge scale, plus the transmission of created images and sounds to far away locations, can also be employed to great effect.

An example that combines digital with traditional drawing is an installation I saw recently at the Marian Goodman Gallery in Soho. This was a dedicated exhibition of William Kentridge (24 October 2015 ‘More Sweetly Play the Dance’) and the keynote work is of the same name. An African tribal caravan is presented moving continuously around the walls of a room in a large gallery. Connected multi-display screens are filled with movement, energy, and emotion. For the viewer this is an immersive experience, with individual animated videoed figures against a drawn landscape, each holding, pulling or interacting with a drawn object moving continuously around the walls to the sound of a marching band.

James Alliban’s installation ‘BiPolar’ (1992), uses a Kinect and a microprocessor to detect and manipulate a person’s image in a mirror. A person’s reflection is distorted by the sounds in the room, including a haunting track of his chosen music, and the proximity of the person’s body or body parts. Spikes all over the body project outward towards the person looking into the mirror, at various rates and intensity dependent upon the closeness of the person to the mirror and the beat and rhythm of the music.

I am interested in exploring the niche of artistic representation of the life model because most work of this type remains in the domain of the traditional artist. An artist draws in pastel or charcoal, paints in water colours or oils, or sculpts in clay or stone. The modelsits still and silent in a studio, and the viewer remains a distant observer of the finished piece. Excluding sculpture, the drawing or painting still remains a two dimensional image from a fixed viewpoint. In all cases the model is a still object in the finished piece and not an integral participant in it. Personality can only be suggested, because the model has novoice and no movement. The viewer of a drawing or painting cannot see the three dimensional reality observed by the artist, only the suggestion of it. This also applies to both analogue and digital photography.

Until quite recently, technology was not available, affordable or within the technical reach of artists to draw or paint in a traditional way from life in three dimensions or to animate their work.  Even digital 3D figures are usually painted in a 2D snapshot of the character because of limitations to most available software, which often takes years to master. 3D animation is also employed in the film and computer gaming industries on expensive and technically challenging projects that are either photo-realistic or involve fantasy semi-human characters.

I can see an opportunity to change this by using more established digital techniques not usually employed in the artistic representation of the life model and other figures of the human form, and by deploying recent advances in hardware and software.

My concerns are finding exemplars, mentors, technical support and facilities, as well as the limits of my own financial resource, and the time it takes to become competent in the various digital programs to enable me to achieve my desired outcomes.

Through my research I aim to overcome my concerns and deploy feasible digital advances in my practice. This will enable me to achieve my aim of producing distinctive and differentiated artistic representations of the life model.

 

Methodology

For My Artwork

To achieve my aim of seeing how far digital methods can extend the artistic presentation of the human form beyond what you usually find today, I will start with one of my existing traditional life drawings in charcoal and contrast that with other pieces or installations that progressively extend into the digital arena. I would like to find an approach that nobody has used before and which perhaps may be adopted or adapted by other digitally inquisitive artists.

By using methods already demonstrated by other artists as a starting point, but combining them in a different way, I hope to introduce some innovation from the outset. I will then move into approaches practiced by different areas of the visually creative industry that as far as I can determine have not been applied (or hardly applied) to life drawing before. Finally, I will attempt to use leading edge technology in the presentation of my work.

I know these aims are ambitious, particularly in the time available, so I will travel as far as I can along this path. I may not get to the end, indeed this is quite likely, particularly as I wish to present a continuum of work to demonstrate the progressive use of digital in my practice, rather than just one piece for my final exhibition.

Essential to this objective is my use of whatever technological shortcuts are available. I will only learn and practice elements of new software and techniques that are directly relevant to the pieces of art I aim to produce.

If there are examples I can borrow and change for my purpose I will do so, if to start from scratch is impossible in the two-year timeframe of my MA. This approach is supported by a quotation made by Jonathan Letham ‘’All art exists in a continuum of borrowing’’ from an article he wrote in Harper’s Magazine, February 2007 ‘The Ecstasy of Influence – a Plagiarism’ and presented at a recent lecture I attended at the V&A on the topic ‘Friction and Fiction: IP, Copyright and Digital Futures’ given by a keynote speaker Dr JR Carpenter (Writing on the Cusp of Becoming Something Else, 26 September 2015).

I will make a prototype for each outcome, which will be a fraction of the desired result but sufficient to test whether the outcome is realistic and practical in the time I have allowed. Only if it is will I continue with it. In the prototype, I need to check the quality of each outcome. Only if it is of high quality will I proceed to the finished result.

For me this is a journey of experimentation and discovery extending my life drawing practice into areas employing digital means that I have not undertaken before, and which others may find innovative and full of ‘life’ and ‘truth’ in its artistic expression.

For My Research

There is practically no limit to my research if I start with all forms of visual art directed at life study of the human body. So I must set strict boundaries. I will therefore focus on artists who have directed their work away from that of their contemporaries to take advantage of technology changes, in particular those who have focused on work representing the human form.

I will begin with a study of the different art movements where innovation in materials or approaches pushed the boundaries of common practice of their time.

I will research past and present artists who have used digital methods in their practice to produce different forms of visual art primarily using the life model as the focus of their work.

I will examine how artists are currently deploying the latest technologies in my artistic territory, and examine the possibilities that are opening up today. In particular, I will look at the work of some current day artists who have been immersed in more traditional practice

but are now leading the way in ‘digital art’. I aim to conduct some of this research through interview with the artists concerned.

I will document my research in my WordPress blogs.

 

Outcomes

Jonathan expressed concerns over my Original Project Proposal, commenting “Terry you have 5 MA’s there”. These concerns proved to be unfounded, as even more substantial projects were completed than originally planned. Most were brought forward from Unit 2, and others were added.  

Project 0    Completed    

An existing traditional life drawing of my model, Vanessa in charcoal taken Completed   from my current completed works (Vanessa reclining, charcoal)

 

Project 1     Completed

A life sized painting in a minimalistic style where narratives spoken by the  model are heard when the viewer touches different parts of the body in the artwork (Unrequited Love)  

 

Project 2        Completed

A large sculpture in angled slices of MDF (Vanessa, in 244 pieces of laser cut MDF 1m tall)

Project 3        Completed

My MA Show Display Metamorphosis consisted of a work in three  connected parts representing Vanessa’s metamorphosis from an injured professional contemporary dancer and choreographer to a life model at the Royal Drawing School, Buckingham Palace:

A 3D scanned and 3D printed (laser sintered) plaster sculpture of Vanessa in life pose 75cm tall, to represent ‘perfection’.

A foundry bronze of Vanessa’s head morphed to represent ‘stress’.    

A Book entitled Metamorphosis, which when touched triggered  Vanessa’s story in her own words. This deployed conductive materials, remote sensing, and Arduino.

 

Project 4       Completed

A triptych showing Vanessa in three morphed poses with her face   looking at them. Total artwork size 3m x 75 cm on digitally printed canvas. It will be exhibited at the Fine Art Digital Pop Up Show this November.

Project 5       Completed  

3D Scanning, 3D Printing, and Digital Printing Workshop for CCW  Digital Pop Up Show, Chelsea earlier this year. 

                   

The following are my planned projects for the rest of UNIT 2

Project 6      

Import a rotating or animated 3D file of Vanessa into Google Tilt Brush,  to be displayed holographically on a plinth, supported by a large projected video in the background, of Vanessa in her professional life as a dancer. A 3D Holographic Display is on order for delivery in Q1, as is a Microsoft  Hololens development edition.         

 

Project 7      

For Tate Exchange at the Switch Building, Tate Modern in Feb/Mar 2017:

Alice Through the Looking Glass 

https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/10/19/tate-exchange-febmar-2017-proposed-exhibit/ .

Essentially, a 3D video and interactive painting in VR/AR.

A collaborative project with Aurelie Freoua, Vanessa Abreu, and possibly Double Me, the London based AR research arm of a San Francisco company, undertaking AR Research at Ravensbourne, which has said it will work with me to produce a 3D video in Virtual Reality.

An intervention/interactive series of works using Google Tilt Brush in VR with the VIVE, Microsoft Hololens Augmented Reality, Holus Plus Holographic Display, and Google Cardboard with Kinect tracking.

 

Project 8      

A continuation of work in CSM Digital Fabrication and the Camberwell Foundry. To make a morphed scanned face sculpture in foundry  bronze directly from a 3D Scan and 3D printed in castable PLA. This will be a bust of myself using the Veronica Scanner recently exhibited at the Royal Academy of Art

 

Project 9       MA Show Project

A selection or combination of work done above to represent an artistic idea. I am continuing my tutorials with Prof. Stephen Farthing to ensure that the result is a meaningful piece of art, and not a  demonstration of technology in art.

 

Work Plan

My original work plan for terms 1-4 to date has been completed or substantially exceeded, with projects originally planned for Unit 2 being brought forward. 

To date, I have less blogs than previously planned, but the ones I have are very substantial, and currently total in excess of 50,000 words plus recordings of artist interviews. I have completely revised my work plan for terms 4 to 6 as below.  

Terms 1-3     Please refer to my work plan in my original Project Proposal.

Term 4         

Read one book from Bibliography every few weeks

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every few weeks

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish WordPress Blogs

Weeks 1-2

Research for Research Paper including artist interviews

Weeks 3-4 

Write and submit Research Paper

Weeks 5-6

Complete rest of work for Unit 1 Assessment

Week 7

Complete rest of work for Unit 1 Assessment

————————————————————————–To date

Weeks 8-9 

Project 7- Practice VR using Tilt Brush, Vive and Google Cardboard

Visit Double Me/Ravensborne for AR Hololens

Visit Waddesdon Manor for Veronica Scanning

Week 10

Project 6 – Finish making for Pop-Up show

Weeks 11-13

Project 6 – Pop Up Show

Project 8 – Make morphed castable 3D print of own bust from Veronica                                       scan

Holiday in Koh Samui & Sydney – 4 weeks over Xmas and New Year with my son and his family.

Term 5         

Read one book from Bibliography every few weeks except low residency and Exchange. Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every few weeks

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish WordPress Blogs

Weeks 1-2   

Project 7- If available, test H+ Holographic Projector by displaying the same VR/AR images created for Vive and Hololens

Visit Double Me/Ravensbourne to record 3D AR Video of Vanessa dancing

Weeks 3-4 

Project 7- Preparation for Tate Exchange

Weeks 5-6

Project 7- Final preparation for Tate Exchange

Exhibit at Tate Exchange

Attend low residency

Weeks 7-8    Attend low residency

Project 8 – Prepare castable 3D print to make foundry bronze

Weeks 9-10

Project 7- Exhibit at Tate Exchange

Project 8 – Prepare castable 3D print to make foundry bronze

Easter Break

Project 8 – Make foundry bronze

Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Formulate idea for Final MA Show

Term 6         

Read one book from Bibliography every few weeks except MA Show.

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one external Lecture every few weeks

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish WordPress Blogs

Weeks 1-6 

Project 9 – Make final MA Show exhibit including finishing foundry bronze

Weeks 7-8

Transport projects to Camberwell and test

Week 9

Set up final projects for MA Show

Week 10 

MA Show – Final Exhibition

Tear Down of Final Exhibition Projects

End of MA

 

Bibliography

Below is a list of references used for my early research. Additional references were added for my Research Paper, https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/research-paper-proposed-research/ , and are not included here.

 

Topic 1 – The Life Model

Vanessa: An Interview with a life model – Terence Quinn, Nov 2015

Model and Supermodel: The Artist’s Model in British Art and Culture (Critical Perspectives in Art History), Jane Desmarais, Manchester University Press, Dec 2006

Modeling Life: Art Models Speak about Nudity, Sexuality, and the Creative Process, Sarah R. Phillips, State University of New York Press, Oct 2006

 

Topic 2 – Defining ‘Fine Art Digital’

 

Digital Art, Christiane Paul, Thames and Hudson, June 2015

New Media in the White Cube and Beyond – Curatorial Models for Digital Art, Christiane Paul, University of California Press, Jan 2009

New Media in Art, Michael Rush, Thames and Hudson, June 2005

Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan, Routledge, May 2001

Understanding New Media: Extending Marshall McLuhan, Robert K. Logan, Oct 2010

Art, Time and Technology (Culture Machine), Charlie Gere, Berg Publishers, May 2006

Digital Culture, Charlie Gere, Reaktion Books, June 2011

Art as Experience, John Dewey, Penguin, 1980 and reprinted Aug 2005

 

Topic 3 – Creating the illusion of Reality – including the use of Perspective

 

Historia Timelines: History of Art, HistoriaTimelinesCom, Nov 2015

Vanishing Point: The Perspective Drawings of J.M.W. Turner, Andrea Fredericksen, Tate Publishing, June 2004The Rhetoric of perspective: Realism and Illusion in Seventeenth- Century Dutch Still-life Painting, University of Chicago Press, Oct 2006

 

A History of Perspective in Art, Op-art.co.uk, Nov 2015

Dali’s Optical Illusions, Dawn Ades, Yale University Press, Feb 2000

Masters of Deception: Escher, Dali and the Artists of Optical Illusion, Douglas R.Hofstadter, Sterling, Oct 2007

3DJoeandMax, 3Djoeandmax.com, Pavement artist specialists in 3D representation, Nov 2015

 

Topic 4 – Art Movements – including The Futurists

 

100 artists’ Manifestos: From the Futurists to the Stuckists, Marshall Berman, Penguin Classics Jan 2011

Futurist Art and Theory 1909-15, Marianne W. Martin, Hacker Art Books, Sept 1978

 

Topic 5 – Historical uses of Technology in Art

 

A Brief History of Drawing Machines Since 1425 | MIT Architecture, The Creators Project, The return of Drawing Machines, Lauren Leibowitz, April 2011

The Drawing Machine, National Portrait Gallery, npg.org.uk/learning/digital/portraiture/perspective-seeing-where-you-stand/the-drawing-machine.php , Nov 2015

drawingmachines.org , Nov 2015

The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh, Vincent Van Gogh, Penguin Classics, July 1997

Eadweard Muybridge, the complete Locomotion Photographs, Dr Hans Christian Adams, Taschen, Sept 2009

Murder in Motion: The Strange Life of Photographer (and Murderer) Eadweard Muybridge, Jennifer Warner, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, May 2015

Micromundi: Museum of miniatures and micro-miniatures of Besalu, Spain, museumminiaturesbesalu.com, Visited Oct 2015

Sol LeWitt: The founding artist for conceptual art who later created sculptures using architectural computer software: ‘Sol LeWitt: Structures 1962-1993’, MOMA New York, Jan 1993

 

Topic 6 –  Art Technology in the 21st Century

 

Art by Machine: Taitographs Programmable Analogue Drawing Machines, Jack Tait, Bronydd Press, Oct 2013

Computer Algorithm recreates Van Gogh painting in one hour: thegaurdian.com/technology/2015/sep/02/computer-algorithm-recreates-van-gogh-painting-picasso, Leon Gatys, Sept 2015

Turning Van Gogh’s The Night Cafe into Virtual Reality, Mac Cauley, bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32751392, 27 Sept 2015

Digital Visions for Fashion + Textiles: Made in Code, Sarah E. Braddock Clarke, Thames & Hudson, Sept 2012

Material Alchemy: Redefining Materiality Within The 21st Century, Jenny Lee, Bis Publishing, Feb 2015

Alexander McQueen, Savage Beauty at V&A, Peppers Ghost Holographic Illusion of Kate Moss, m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-38BdFGAho , March-August 2015

Conran Holographic Display:  engageeldn.engageworks.com/work-and-client/conran-partners, Nov 2015

H+ Technologies, Holus: The Future of Interactivity | GetConnected, YouTube, Hplustech.com, July 2015

BareConductive.com: The use of conductive paint and the Arduino microprocessor for education and art, Nov 2015

http://projection-mapping.org/blurred-lines-digital-artists-studio-becomes-art/, Bart Kresa, Projection Mapping Central, Nov 2015

3D Technology in Fine Art and Craft: Exploring 3D Printing, Scanning, Sculpting and Milling, Bridgette Mongeon, Sept 2015

Figures, Characters and Avatars: The Official Guide to Using DAZ Studio to Create Beautiful Art, Les Pardue, Delmar Cengage Learning, May 2012

Digital Women: A Tutorial to Create Amazing Images with DAZ 3D Studio, Richard Luschke, RCMP, May 2015

Digital Women II: A Guide to DAZ Studio 4.8 Iradium, Richard Luschke, Ricardo Portella, RCMP, July 2015

 

Topic 7 – Selected Contemporary Artists using Digital Media in their work

 

William Kentridge – For his installations combining drawing, video, and animation.

William Kentridge ‘More Sweetly Play the Dance’, EYE Film Museum, nai010 publishers, Oct 2015

The Refusal of Time, William Kentridge, Editions Xavier Barral, Feb 2013

Six Drawing Lessons, William Kentridge, Harvard University Press, Sept 2014

The Soho Chronicles: 10 Films by William Kentridge, Matthew Kentridge, Seagull Books, Mar 2015

Cinematic Drawing in a Digital Age, Ed Krcma, Tate Papers no. 14, Autumn 2010

 

Marc Quinn – For his scans of very small objects such as a sea shell transformed them into huge sculptures in various materials and for his life model sculptures

marcquinn.com/read/bio-and-key-works

britishmuseum.org/the_museum/museum_in_london/           london_exhibition_archive/statuephilia/marc_quinn.aspx

The British Museum, Contemporary Sculptors at the British Museum.

Marc Quinn’s Siren (Philia) at the British Museum (Kate Moss)

whitecube.com/artists/marc_quinn/

Marc Quinn review – ‘He sells sea shells’, Jonathan Jones, The Guardian 13 July 2015

 

Bill Viola – For his digital art (said to be the inventor of video art)

Bill Viola, John G.Hanhardt, Thames & Hudson, November 2015

The Art of Bill Viola, Chris Townsend, Thames & Hudson, 2004

The Unspeakable Art of Bill Viola, Ronald R.Bernier, Pickwick Publications, May 2014

Acceptance,2008

Three Women, 2008

Bill Viola: Bodies of Light, James Cohan Gallery, New York, December 2009

Inverted Birth, 2014 Video Projection

The Crossing, 1996 Video sound Installation

 

Iris Van Herpen – For her female fashion installations which blend laser cutting, hand weaving and 3-D printing and visited CERN Large Hadron Collider for inspiration for one of her works

Irisvanherpen.com

A Magazine 13 – Iris Van Herpen, Iris Van Herpen, Flanders Fashion Institute, Mar 2014

 

Alex May – For his formative work in the area Projection Mapping and science based digital installations. Works with code, performance and creative technologies

Aesthetica Magazine, Kinetica Art Fair Artist Interview: Alex May, October 2014

Painting with Light, Alex May, Tate Modern Performance, April 2013

 

Grayson Perry – Now UAL Chancellor, a Potter who used digital means to produce his huge tapestries

Grayson Perry, Jacky Klein, Thompson & Hudson, 2013

Grayson Perry: The Vanity of Small differences, Grayson Perry, Hayward Publishing, June 2013

 

Jordan Wolfson BFA Sculpture – Who now works only with digital technology

Jordan Wolfson – Female Figure – The Artist’s Studio, Los Angeles, June 2014, Animatronic and Video Installation

 

David Hockney – A painter who has produced some of his works digitally for example

using the iPad

David Hockney: A Painter Enjoying New Technologies

David Hockney: A Bigger Picture, Royal Academy of Arts, Telegraph.co.uk/video’, Alastair Sooke and book from the exhibition of the same name

 

William Latham, MA (RCA), BFA (Oxon) – A traditional Painter who now works entirely digitally.

CV doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01whl/cv.htm

Evolutionary Art and Computers, with Stephen Todd, Academic Press. ISBN: 012437185X

New Media in Late 20th-Century Art? Michael Rush, Thames and Hudson

Digital Art, Christiane Paul, Thames and Hudson, 2008

 

Karin Sander – For her work using early versions of 3D printing

Karin Sander: Hybrid Encounters – Sculpture Magazine, Gregory Volk, Dec 1999

 

June Mendoza – A portrait painter in oils of royalty and public figures

 

Marilene Oliver MFA (RCA) – A Brazilian Artist who uses digital imaging/body CT scans in her work

Marilene Oliver.com

Post Digital Artisans: Craftmanship with a new aesthetic in fashion, art, design and architecture’, Jonathan Openshaw, Frame publishers, May 2015

Hanging bodies, Dervishes: an installation at the Bristol Academy of Art by Marilene Oliver, 2007

fondation-carmignac.com/the-collection/works-detail/work-title/i-know-you-inside-out/, 2001

 

Nam June Paik – Who works only with digital technology

TV Bra for Living Sculpture, Nam June Paik /Charlotte Moorman, YouTube, 1969

 

Michel Canetti MA – An Australian Artist for his fashion illustrations and large scale

minimalist paintings employing a digital art projector

Saatchiart.com/canetti

modelsociety.com/Artist/Michel-Canetti/photos

 

Topic 8 – Interviews with Artists on their Attitudes to ‘Digital Art’

 

Artists who have agreed to be interviewed:

 

Prof Stephen Farthing RA, MA (RCA) – Former Professor of Drawing at Oxford University and now of UAL. For his work Drawing and Painting and his discomfort with digital art

‘Plan de Dessin, A Drawing of the Bigger picture of Drawing’, Autumn 2006

‘1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die’, Stephen Farthing, Universe, September 2011

 

Prof Paul Coldwell, Artist and Professor of Fine Art at UAL

 

Kate MccGuire, MA (RCA) – Who creates feather sculptures based around parts of the human body

Saatchigallery.com

Kate MccGuire, Stolen Moments, Spine TV, 2011

Surface Design, Nature Bound , Unexpected Beauty, Spring 2014

Kate MccGuire: Nature Bound, Jessica Hemmings, SDA Journal, Spring 2014

 

Patrick Gibbs, BFA (Oxon) – A painter who uses digital photographs taken during his travels for inspiration

minstergallery.com Everyday lives, exotic lands at Mall Galleries London SW1, 29/4/14-3/5/14

Artist Profile – Patrick Gibbs – Out & About – Hampshire-Life.co.uk, 23/12/13

redraggallery.co.uk/artist-patrick-gibbs.asp

 

Richard Colson BFA , MA – A traditional painter and author of a book on digital art who

also leads the Computational Design MA at Ravensbourne University ‘The Fundamentals of Digital Art’, Richard Colson, Ava Academia Publishing, November 2007

 

Alex May Digital Artist and Resident Artist at the University of Hertfordshire

 

David Byers Brown, MFA (Oxon) – An artist whose forte is Drawing but switched to Painting and now teaches Animation at Kent University

saatchiart.com/dbb2

 

Topic 9 – Key Hardware and Software proposed for my projects

 

Key Hardware

 

MacBook Pro, Retina15-inch with Intel Core i7 Processor & Intel Iris Pro Graphics

iMac late 2009

Apple iPad Mini 2 for Photography and with attached Occipital Structure Sensor Scanner Wacom Intuos Pro Large Graphics Tablet and Pen

Autograph LED1000 Digital Art Projector

Bare Conductive Arduino MicroProcessor with SD Card Reader preprogrammed for MP3

Micca Speck G2 1080p Full-HD Ultra Portable Digital Media Player for SD Cards

Zoom  H1 Handy Recorder and accessories including Lavalier Microphone

LG Hi-Fi Sound Bar

Laser Cutter (UAL Camberwell)

3D Printing – Laser Sintering (UAL CSM Digital Fabrication)

Foundry (UAL Camberwell)

H+ Technology Holus Pro Holographic Display

Leap Motion

Vive Virtual Reality

Google Cardboard Virtual Reality

Hololens Augmented Reality

360-degree VR and AR Video

 

Key Software

 

Itseez3D Scanning Application with processing in the Cloud for creating 3D models of the Human Figure from Life

Cinema4D Release17/Bodypaint3D for painting 3D models of the Human Figure in 3D

AutoDesk 123D MAKE for Laser Cutting Preparation and Input, and 123D CATCH for creating 3D Models of the Human Figure from Photographs

Painting With Light, Projection Mapping software by Alex May

DAZ3D Studio and MarketPlace for posing pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure

Poser Pro 2014 advanced software for posing pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure

Reallusion iClone6 and accessories, with Bootcamp (to run Windows 10 on MacBookPro) for 3D morphing, posing and animation of pre-made 3D models of the Human Figure

Turbosquid for very high quality pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure (if necessary) Processing for programming of Arduino microprocessor (if necessary)

 

_________________________________________________________________

MA Fine Art Digital Unit 1 – Study Proposal (Original)

Apologies for this blog being out of sequence as the original Study Proposal was submitted by email and not published on my blog until today.

Working Title:

How technological innovation can provide new opportunities for the artistic presentation of the life model

Aims and Objectives:

My aims are to explore how far digital methods can extend the artistic presentation of the life model beyond traditional life drawing and to demonstrate this by producing distinctive and differentiated artworks in both physical and digital form.

My objectives are:

  1. To research how artists use technology in their practice, specifically:
    1. The history of how artists have adopted new technology
    2. How contemporary artists have taken advantage of digital today, in particular in the presentation of the human figure
  2. To research recent technology developments and how these might be employed in my own practice, specifically:
    1. The use of digital devices to further express the model’s character in the artwork
    2. 3D scanning and sculpting
    3. 3D drawing and display including holography
    4. 3D animation of the drawn and painted figure
    5. Viewer interaction with the presented image
  3. To use this research to contextualise my own life drawing practice.
  4. To produce distinctive artworks to support my research.

My success criteria are:

  1. To have understood the attitudes of artists towards the adoption of new technology in their practice and how that enables them to produce new valued works of artistic expression.
  2. To name the contemporary artists I wish to be judged against.
  3. To produce distinctive and differentiated works of which I am proud and that are well received in the fine art community.

Context

A life drawing, painting, or analogue photograph is a two dimensional image of the model seen from a fixed viewpoint. Due to the limitations of the medium used, this is a necessary abstraction of what the artist actually observes.

In a lecture given by Professor Stephen Farthing, RA (‘Drawing Large Amounts of Information into a Manageable Form’, University of London, 13 October 2015) he describes drawing as “a two dimensional image of a three dimensional event”. In his book ‘Art as Experience‘ John Dewey’ states “the very attempt to present three-dimensional objects on a two dimensional plane demands abstraction from the usual conditions in which they exist” (1934, The Expressive Object, Ch.5, p.98).

Artists, when creating an image from the human figure, can be viewed as falling into two genres: Those who wish to make the work as realistic as possible and those who prefer to create ‘abstract art’. I aim to explore how digital means offer new opportunities for artistic

expression for both approaches. However, as my own taste is for a realistic or semi-realistic outcome, my research and works will necessarily lean in this direction.

From cave drawings onward, artists have continuously experimented with new ways to give a sense of visual depth and three dimensionality to something that is naturally flat. A major development in this respect was the use of Perspective. ‘The system of perspective we take for granted today is a relatively recent discovery in art history. Before the 14th Century little to no attempts were made to realistically depict the three dimensional world in art in which we are now accustomed to seeing it’ (Op-art.co.uk, Op Art History Part 1: A History of Perspective in Art – Art Before Perspective). An example of an artwork painted just before the use of perspective is ‘The Calling of the Apostles’, c1308-1311, Duccio di Buoninsegna.

Historically, the desire to achieve realism is evident from the works of many artists, who attempted to overcome the limitations of the available mediums of their time, some using the technology of their day to help them achieve this.

An early example of using perspective in painting can be seen in the work of Jan Van Eyck, a Netherlandish painter. The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on an oak panel dated 1434, painted in Brugge and displayed in the National Gallery, London. It is unusual for its time in its use of orthogonal perspective, that is the use of imaginary lines disappearing to the vanishing point. This gives a sense of depth to the work even in the faces of the man and woman in the picture as well as in the room they occupy.

In order to gain perspective Van Gogh employed the use of a wooden Perspective Frame which he wrote about in his letters, and justified its use by saying that earlier masters had employed it (VanGoghReproductions.com, Perspective Frame). J.M.W. Turner used a different device. David Blaney Brown’s book J.M.W. Turner: Sketchbooks, Drawings and Watercolours (2012, Penguin) refers to Turner’s own ‘Diagram and Notes Relating to Perspective’ in which he describes a clapperboard type device which he used for the same purpose.

Conversely, at the beginning of the twentieth century artists such as Henry Matisse chose to move in a different direction, towards ‘abstract art’, placing a greater emphasis on visual sensation than the realistic depiction of objects. This approach was more recently endorsed by Henry Moore who said “Art is the expression of imagination and not the imitation of life” (bbc.co.uk Archive of British Sculptures) and depicted in his semi-abstract monumental bronze sculpture ‘Two Piece Reclining Figure No.5’. John Dewey meanwhile has concluded “The conception that objects have fixed and unalterable values is precisely the prejudice from which art emancipates us” (1934, Art as Experience, The Expressive Object, Ch.5, P.99).

Latter day artists from both abstract and realistic genres also use other approaches to bring life to their work as can be seen in representations of movement. Examples include Marcel Duchcamp’s abstract painting ‘Nude’, 1912 and Gjon Mili’s realistic photographic rework of it in 1950. Both show overlapping images of a nude descending a staircase.

The digital age has exploded the opportunities to make images both more lifelike and dynamic as well as more abstract. Digital photography, video, and photo-realistic digital painting, together with the use of micro-processors or digital devices, can be used to bring our senses into the artwork, enable the viewer to interact with it, or create abstract art from data. Sound and visual special effects, or video projection on a huge scale, plus the transmission of created images and sounds to far away locations, can also be employed to great effect.

An example that combines digital with traditional drawing is an installation I saw recently at the Marian Goodman Gallery in Soho. This was a dedicated exhibition of William Kentridge (24 October 2015 ‘More Sweetly Play the Dance’) and the keynote work is of the same name. An African tribal caravan is presented moving continuously around the walls of a room in a large gallery. Connected multi-display screens are filled with movement, energy, and emotion. For the viewer this is an immersive experience, with individual animated videoed figures against a drawn landscape, each holding, pulling or interacting with a drawn object moving continuously around the walls to the sound of a marching band.

James Alliban’s installation ‘BiPolar’ (1992), uses a Kinect and a microprocessor to detect and manipulate a persons image in a mirror. A person’s reflection is distorted by the sounds in the room, including a haunting track of his chosen music, and the proximity of the person’s body or body parts. Spikes all over the body project outward towards the person looking into the mirror, at various rates and intensity dependent upon the closeness of the person to the mirror and the beat and rhythm of the music.

I am interested in exploring the niche of artistic representation of the life model because most work of this type remains in the domain of the traditional artist. An artist draws in pastel or charcoal, paints in water colours or oils, or sculpts in clay or stone. The model sits still and silent in a studio, and the viewer remains a distant observer of the finished piece. Excluding sculpture, the drawing or painting still remains a two dimensional image from a fixed viewpoint. In all cases the model is a still object in the finished piece and not an integral participant in it. Personality can only be suggested, because the model has no

voice and no movement. The viewer of a drawing or painting cannot see the three dimensional reality observed by the artist, only the suggestion of it. This also applies to both analogue and digital photography.

Until quite recently, technology was not available, affordable or within the technical reach of artists to draw or paint in a traditional way from life in three dimensions or to animate their work.  Even digital 3D figures are usually painted in a 2D snapshot of the character because of limitations to most available software, which often takes years to master. 3D animation is also employed in the film and computer gaming industries on expensive and technically challenging projects that are either photo-realistic or involve fantasy semi-human characters.

I can see an opportunity to change this by using more established digital techniques not usually employed in the artistic representation of the life model, and by deploying recent advances in hardware and software.

My concerns are finding exemplars, mentors, technical support and facilities, as well as the limits of my own financial resource, and the time it takes to become competent in the various digital programs to enable me to achieve my desired outcomes.

Through my research I aim to overcome my concerns and deploy feasible digital advances in my practice. This will enable me to achieve my aim of producing distinctive and differentiated artistic representations of the life model.

Methodology

For My Artwork

To achieve my aim of seeing how far digital methods can extend the artistic presentation of the life model beyond what you usually find today, I will start with one of my existing traditional life drawings in charcoal and contrast that with other pieces or installations that progressively extend into the digital arena. I would like to find an approach that nobody has used before and which perhaps may be adopted or adapted by other digitally inquisitive artists.

By using methods already demonstrated by other artists as a starting point, but combining them in a different way, I hope to introduce some innovation from the outset. I will then move into approaches practiced by different areas of the visually creative industry that as far as I can determine have not been applied (or hardly applied) to life drawing before. Finally, I will attempt to use leading edge technology in the presentation of my work.

I know these aims are ambitious, particularly in the time available, so I will travel as far as I can along this path. I may not get to the end, indeed this is quite likely, particularly as I wish to present a continuum of work to demonstrate the progressive use of digital in my practice, rather than just one piece for my final exhibition.

Essential to this objective is my use of whatever technological shortcuts are available. I will only learn and practice elements of new software and techniques that are directly relevant to the pieces of art I aim to produce.

If there are examples I can borrow and change for my purpose I will do so, if to start from scratch is impossible in the two year timeframe of my MA. This approach is supported by a quotation made by Jonathan Letham ‘’All art exists in a continuum of borrowing’’ from an article he wrote in Harpers Magazine, February 2007 ‘The Ecstasy of Influence – a Plagiarism’ and presented at a recent lecture I attended at the V&A on the topic ‘Friction and Fiction: IP, Copyright and Digital Futures’ given by a keynote speaker Dr JR Carpenter (Writing on the Cusp of Becoming Something Else, 26 September 2015).

I will make a prototype for each outcome, which will be a fraction of the desired result but sufficient to test whether the outcome is realistic and practical in the time I have allowed. Only if it is will I continue with it. In the prototype, I need to check the quality of each outcome. Only if it is of high quality will I proceed to the finished result.

For me this is a journey of experimentation and discovery extending my life drawing practice into areas employing digital means that I have not undertaken before, and which others may find innovative and full of ‘life’ and ‘truth’ in its artistic expression.

For My Research

There is practically no limit to my research if I start with all forms of visual art directed at life study of the human body. So I must set strict boundaries. I will therefore focus on artists who have directed their work away from that of their contemporaries to take advantage of technology changes, in particular those who have focused on work representing the human form.

I will begin with a study of the different art movements where innovation in materials or approaches pushed the boundaries of common practice of their time.

I will research past and present artists who have used digital methods in their practice to produce different forms of visual art primarily using the life model as the focus of their work.

I will examine how artists are currently deploying the latest technologies in my artistic territory, and examine the possibilities that are opening up today. In particular I will look at the work of some current day artists who have been immersed in more traditional practice but are now leading the way in ‘digital art’. I aim to conduct some of this research through interview with the artists concerned (but I understand the opportunity to do so may be limited).

I will document my research through the use of the computer application ‘Zotero’ and through my WordPress blogs.

Outcomes

My first year exhibition will consist of the following based on the same life model:

Project 0       An existing traditional life drawing of my model, Vanessa in charcoal taken                      from my current completed works

Project 1       A life sized painting in a minimalistic style where narratives spoken by the                        model are heard when the viewer touches different parts of the body in the                       artwork

Plus if possible

Project 2       A large sculpture in angled slices of MDF

My final exhibition will consist of the above plus:

Project 3       Painting the sculpture with light and music using projection mapping.

With as much of the following as time permits:

Project 4      A 3D drawing of the same life model displayed by projector and rotated by                       the viewer using hand gestures

Project 5      The same 3D drawing (or 3D animation of the same model) displayed                  holographically on a plinth, supported by a large projected video in the                   background, of Vanessa in her professional life as a dancer

Work Plan

Unit 1

Weeks 9-10 Submit Study Plan

Complete Studio Life Drawing Sessions with Vanessa

Project 1 – Giving the Model a Voice

Technical Test – 3D Scanning, Voice Recording and Test Editing                            with Digital Media Dept.

Project 2 – Life Sculpture with Projection Mapping

Technical Test – Laser Cutting from 3D Scan

Xmas Break  Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Unit 1 Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Read 4 Books from Bibliography

Visit BareConductive for Advice

Carry out first artist interview

Publish WordPress Blogs for this work

Unit 2             Read one book from Bibliography every two weeks except low residency

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every two weeks

Carry out three artist interviews (the remainder of those already agreed)

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish one WordPress Blog per week

Prioritise Project 1 over Project 2

Weeks 1-2     Technical Test

Project 1 – Practice Painting in Minimalist Style and with Conductive  Paint

Weeks 3-4     Technical Test

Project 1 – Sound Edit of Vanessa’s recordings to several SD Cards

Project 2 – Test Laser Cutting and Assembly of Partial Sculpture of                         Vanessa’s Head

Weeks 5-6     Technical Test

Project 1 – Project Photo of Vanessa on to small scale Canvas, Mark out                           areas to Paint, Small Scale Painting in Minimalist Style without                                 conductive paint

Weeks 7-8     Low residency – attend those sessions supporting Projects plus as many as                     possible of the other sessions

Technical Test

Project 1 – Processing if necessary on BareConductive Arduino

Project 2 – Test Projection Mapping on Random Object

Weeks 9-10  Technical Test

Project 1 – Apply and Test conductive paint on Arduino with MP3 for two of                                   Vanessa’s edited voice clips

Easter Break Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Unit 2 Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Read 4 Books from Bibliography

Paint practice life-size canvas of Vanessa in Minimalist Style without                     conductive paint

Publish WordPress Blogs for this work

Unit 3             Decide which Project (or both) I am going to prepare for the end of year                exhibition. If two, prioritise one over the other.

Except last 4 weeks when preparing for the Exhibition

Read one book from Bibliography every two weeks

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every two weeks

Carry out set assignments including 3000 word essay

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish one WordPress Blog per week

Weeks 1-2     Project 1 – Final Project Making – Paint life size canvas using conductive                           paint

Weeks 3-4     Project 2 – Final Project Making – Complete Input for outsourced laser cutting

Weeks 5-6     Project 1 – Connect BareConductive Arduino and MicroCard readers to back                               of Painting and test it all works

Weeks 7-8     Project 2 – If time assemble the outsourced sculpture – and leave the                                  projection painting for now

Week 9          Exhibition set up

Transport Projects to Camberwell, set up and re-test

Week 10        Show Time

Summer Break

Exhibition tear down and transport home

Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Unit 3 Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Read 4 Books from Bibliography

Project 2 – Make Projection Mapping Video on the Life Sculpture

Publish WordPress Blogs for this work

Summer holiday touring Scotland

Unit 4             Read one book from Bibliography every two weeks

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every two weeks

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish one WordPress Blog per week

Weeks 1-2     Project 2 – Make backing Video from Vanessa’s showreel

Weeks 3-4     Project 3 – Practice drawing on a 2D snapshot of the 3D Life Model

Weeks 5-6     Project 3 – Practice drawing on a 2D snapshot of the 3D Life Model

Weeks 7-8     Project 3 – Practice drawing in 3D on the 3D Life Model

Weeks 9-10  Project 3 – Final drawing in 3D on the 3D Life Model

Winter Break Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Unit 4 Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Read 4 Books from Bibliography

Project 3 – Final touches to drawing in 3D on the 3D Life Model

Publish WordPress Blogs for this work

Holiday in Australia – 3 weeks over Xmas and New Year

Unit 5             Read one book from Bibliography every two weeks except low residency

Visit one relevant Exhibition or attend one External Lecture every two weeks

Carry out an interview of a very well known artist if possible

Carry out set assignments

Attend Tutorials and Lectures

Publish one WordPress Blog per week

Weeks 1-2     Project 4 – Test H+ Holographic Projector by displaying the same drawn 3D                                 Life Model produced in Project 3

Weeks 3-4     Project 4 – If feasible, Use and Morph pre-made animated skin toned 3D               Model using iClone6 or other software to resemble Vanessa dancing

Weeks 5-6     Project 4 – Finalise Vanessa animation

Weeks 7-8     Project 4 – To include a projection of the Video of Vanessa dancing made                        in Unit 4

Weeks 9-10  Low residency

Easter Break Finish & Publish WordPress Blogs for Unit 5 Completed Work

Reflection and catch up on uncompleted tasks

Read 4 Books from Bibliography

Publish WordPress Blogs for this work

Unit 6

Weeks 1-6    Projects 1-4 – Catch up on uncompleted tasks on whichever projects are to                      be included in the Final Exhibition

Weeks 7-8    Transport  Projects to Camberwell and test each individually

Week 9          Set Up Final Projects for Final exhibition

Week 10        Show Time – Final Exhibition

Summer Break

Tear Down of Final Exhibition Projects and re-site

Possibly do what Celine has done with her BA Group in terms of a          collaboration with some of new MAVA graduates with a permanently   rented exhibition space for our work

Bibliography

The references for this paper are included in the text.

Below is a list of references (that I expect to add to) which I would like to draw upon in my research.

Topic 1 – The Life Model

Vanessa: An Interview with a life model – Terence Quinn, Nov 2015

Model and Supermodel: The Artist’s Model in British Art and Culture (Critical Perspectives in Art History), Jane Desmarais, Manchester University Press, Dec 2006

Modeling Life: Art Models Speak about Nudity, Sexuality, and the Creative Process, Sarah R. Phillips, State University of New York Press, Oct 2006

Topic 2 – Defining ‘Fine Art Digital’

Digital Art, Christiane Paul, Thames and Hudson, June 2015

New Media in the White Cube and Beyond – Curatorial Models for Digital Art, Christiane Paul, University of California Press, Jan 2009

New Media in Art, Michael Rush, Thames and Hudson, June 2005

Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan, Routledge, May 2001

Understanding New Media: Extending Marshall McLuhan, Robert K. Logan, Oct 2010

Art, Time and Technology (Culture Machine), Charlie Gere, Berg Publishers, May 2006

Digital Culture, Charlie Gere, Reaktion Books, June 2011

Art as Experience, John Dewey, Penguin, 1980 and reprinted Aug 2005

Topic 3 – Creating the illusion of Reality – including the use of Perspective

Historia Timelines: History of Art, HistoriaTimelinesCom, Nov 2015

Vanishing Point: The Perspective Drawings of J.M.W. Turner, Andrea Fredericksen, Tate Publishing, June 2004

The Rhetoric of perspective: Realism and Illusion in Seventeenth- Century Dutch Still-life Painting, University of Chicago Press, Oct 2006

A History of Perspective in Art, Op-art.co.uk, Nov 2015

Dali’s Optical Illusions, Dawn Ades, Yale University Press, Feb 2000

Masters of Deception: Escher, Dali and the Artists of Optical Illusion, Douglas R.Hofstadter, Sterling, Oct 2007

3DJoeandMax, 3Djoeandmax.com ,Pavement artist specialists in 3D representation, Nov 2015

Topic 4 – Art Movements – including The Futurists

100 artists’ Manifestos: From the Futurists to the Stuckists, Marshall Berman, Penguin Classics Jan 2011

Futurist Art and Theory 1909-15, Marianne W. Martin, Hacker Art Books, Sept 1978

Topic 5 – Historical uses of Technology in Art

A Brief History of Drawing Machines Since 1425 | MIT Architecture, The Creators Project, The return of Drawing Machines, Lauren Leibowitz, April 2011

The Drawing Machine, National Portrait Gallery, npg.org.uk/learning/digital/portraiture/perspective-seeing-where-you-stand/the-drawing-machine.php , Nov 2015

drawingmachines.org , Nov 2015

The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh, Vincent Van Gogh, Penguin Classics, July 1997

Eadweard Muybridge, the complete Locomotion Photographs, Dr Hans Christian Adams, Taschen, Sept 2009

Murder in Motion: The Strange Life of Photographer (and Murderer) Eadweard Muybridge, Jennifer Warner, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, May 2015

Micromundi: Museum of miniatures and micro-miniatures of Besalu, Spain, museumminiaturesbesalu.com, Visited Oct 2015

Sol LeWitt: The founding artist for conceptual art who later created sculptures using architectural computer software: ‘Sol LeWitt: Structures 1962-1993’, MOMA New York, Jan 1993

Topic 6 –  Art Technology in the 21st Century

Art by Machine: Taitographs Programmable Analogue Drawing Machines, Jack Tait,  Bronydd Press, Oct 2013

Computer Algorithm recreates Van Gogh painting in one hour: thegaurdian.com/technology/2015/sep/02/computer-algorithm-recreates-van-gogh-painting-picasso, Leon Gatys, Sept 2015

Turning Van Gogh’s The Night Cafe into Virtual Reality, Mac Cauley, bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32751392, 27 Sept 2015

Digital Visions for Fashion + Textiles: Made in Code, Sarah E.Braddock Clarke, Thames & Hudson, Sept 2012

Material Alchemy: Redefining Materiality Within The 21st Century, Jenny Lee, Bis Publishing, Feb 2015

Alexander McQueen, Savage Beauty at V&A, Peppers Ghost Holographic Illusion of Kate Moss, m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-38BdFGAho , March-August 2015

Conran Holographic Display:  engageeldn.engageworks.com/work-and-client/conran-partners, Nov 2015

H+ Technologies, Holus: The Future of Interactivity | GetConnected, YouTube, Hplustech.com, July 2015

BareConductive.com: The use of conductive paint and the Arduino microprocessor for education and art, Nov 2015

http://projection-mapping.org/blurred-lines-digital-artists-studio-becomes-art/, Bart Kresa, Projection Mapping Central, Nov 2015

3D Technology in Fine Art and Craft: Exploring 3D Printing, Scanning, Sculpting and Milling, Bridgette Mongeon, Sept 2015

Figures, Characters and Avatars: The Official Guide to Using DAZ Studio to Create Beautiful Art, Les Pardue, Delmar Cengage Learning, May 2012

Digital Women: A Tutorial to Create Amazing Images with DAZ 3D Studio, Richard Luschke, RCMP, May 2015

Digital Women II: A Guide to DAZ Studio 4.8 Iradium, Richard Luschke, Ricardo Portella, RCMP, July 2015

Topic 7 – Selected Contemporary Artists using Digital Media in their work

William Kentridge – For his installations combining drawing, video, and animation

William Kentridge ‘More Sweetly Play the Dance’, EYE Film Museum, nai010 publishers, Oct 2015

The Refusal of Time, William Kentridge, Editions Xavier Barral, Feb 2013

Six Drawing Lessons, William Kentridge, Harvard University Press, Sept 2014

The Soho Chronicles: 10 Films by William Kentridge, Matthew Kentridge, Seagull Books, Mar 2015

Cinematic Drawing in a Digital Age, Ed Krcma, Tate Papers no. 14, Autumn 2010

Marc Quinn – For his scans of very small objects such as a sea shell transformed them into huge sculptures in various materials and for his life model sculptures

marcquinn.com/read/bio-and-key-works

britishmuseum.org/the_museum/museum_in_london/           london_exhibition_archive/statuephilia/marc_quinn.aspx

The British Museum, Contemporary Sculptors at the British Museum.

Marc Quinn’s Siren (Philia) at the British Museum (Kate Moss)

whitecube.com/artists/marc_quinn/

Marc Quinn review – ‘He sells sea shells’, Jonathan Jones, The Guardian 13 July 2015

Bill Viola – For his digital art (said to be the inventor of video art)

Bill Viola, John G.Hanhardt, Thames & Hudson, November 2015

The Art of Bill Viola, Chris Townsend, Thames & Hudson, 2004

The Unspeakable Art of Bill Viola, Ronald R.Bernier, Pickwick Publications, May 2014

Acceptance,2008

Three Women, 2008

Bill Viola: Bodies of Light, James Cohan Gallery, New York, December 2009

Inverted Birth, 2014 Video Projection

The Crossing, 1996 Video sound Installation

Iris Van Herpen – For her female fashion installations which blend laser cutting, hand weaving and 3-D printing and visited CERN Large Hadron Collider for inspiration for one of her works

Irisvanherpen.com

A Magazine 13 – Iris Van Herpen, Iris Van Herpen, Flanders Fashion Institute, Mar 2014

Alex May – For his formative work in the area Projection Mapping and science based digital installations. Works with code, performance and creative technologies

Aesthetica Magazine, Kinetica Art Fair Artist Interview: Alex May, October 2014

Painting With Light, Alex May, Tate Modern Performance, April 2013

Grayson Perry – Now UAL Chancellor, a Potter who used digital means to produce his huge tapestries

Grayson Perry, Jacky Klein, Thompson & Hudson, 2013

Grayson Perry: The Vanity of Small differences, Grayson Perry, Hayward Publishing, June 2013

Jordan Wolfson BFA Sculpture – Who now works only with digital technology

Jordan Wolfson – Female Figure – The Artist’s Studio, Los Angeles, June 2014, Animatronic and Video Installation

David Hockney – A painter who has produced some of his works digitally for example using the iPad

David Hockney: A Painter Enjoying New Technologies

David Hockney: A Bigger Picture, Royal Academy of Arts, Telegraph.co.uk/video’, Alastair Sooke and book from the exhibition of the same name

William Latham, MA (RCA), BFA (Oxon) – A traditional Painter who now works entirely digitally.

CV doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas01whl/cv.htm

Evolutionary Art and Computers, with Stephen Todd, Academic Press. ISBN: 012437185X

New Media in Late 20th-Century Art? Michael Rush, Thames and Hudson

Digital Art, Christiane Paul, Thames and Hudson, 2008

Karin Sander– For her work using early versions of 3D printing

Karin Sander: Hybrid Encounters – Sculpture Magazine, Gregory Volk, Dec 1999

Marilene Oliver MFA (RCA) – A Brazilian Artist who uses digital imaging/body CT scans in her work

Marilene Oliver.com

Post Digital Artisans: Craftmanship with a new aesthetic in fashion, art, design and architecture’, Jonathan Openshaw, Frame publishers, May 2015

Hanging bodies, Dervishes: an installation at the Bristol Academy of Art by Marilene Oliver, 2007

fondation-carmignac.com/the-collection/works-detail/work-title/i-know-you-inside-out/, 2001

Nam June Paik – Who works only with digital technology

TV Bra for Living Sculpture, Nam June Paik /Charlotte Moorman, YouTube, 1969

Michel Canetti MA – An Australian Artist for his fashion illustrations and large scale minimalist paintings employing a digital art projector

Saatchiart.com/canetti

modelsociety.com/Artist/Michel-Canetti/photos

Topic 8 – Interviews with Artists on their Attitudes to ‘Digital Art’

Artists who have agreed to be interviewed:

Stephen Farthing RA, MA (RCA) – Former Professor of Drawing at Oxford University and now of UAL. For his work Drawing and Painting and his discomfort with digital art

‘Plan de Dessin, A Drawing of the Bigger picture of Drawing’, Autumn 2006

‘1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die’, Stephen Farthing, Universe, September 2011

Kate MccGuire, MA (RCA) – Who creates feather sculptures based around parts of the human body

Saatchigallery.com

Kate MccGuire, Stolen Moments, Spine TV, 2011

Surface Design, Nature Bound , Unexpected Beauty, Spring 2014

Kate MccGuire: Nature Bound, Jessica Hemmings, SDA Journal, Spring 2014

Patrick Gibbs, BFA (Oxon) – A painter who uses digital photographs taken during his travels for inspiration

minstergallery.com Everyday lives, exotic lands at Mall Galleries London SW1, 29/4/14-3/5/14

Artist Profile – Patrick Gibbs – Out & About – Hampshire-Life.co.uk, 23/12/13

redraggallery.co.uk/artist-patrick-gibbs.asp

Richard Colson BFA , MA – A traditional painter and author of a book on digital art who

also leads the Computational Design MA at Ravensbourne University

‘The Fundamentals of Digital Art’, Richard Colson, Ava Academia Publishing, November 2007

This list will be added to over time as opportunities present themselves. Potentially:

David Byers Brown, MFA (Oxon) – An artist whose forte is Drawing but switched to Painting and now teaches Animation at Kent University

saatchiart.com/dbb2

Topic 9 – Key Hardware and Software proposed for my projects

Key Hardware

MacBook Pro, Retina15-inch with Intel Core i7 Processor & Intel Iris Pro Graphics

iMac late 2009

Apple iPad Mini 2 for Photography and with attached Occipital Structure Sensor Scanner Wacom Intuos Pro Large Graphics Tablet and Pen

Autograph LED1000 Digital Art Projector

Bare Conductive Arduino MicroProcessor with SD Card Reader preprogrammed for MP3

Micca Speck G2 1080p Full-HD Ultra Portable Digital Media Player for SD Cards

Zoom  H1 Handy Recorder and accessories including Lavalier Microphone

LG Hi-Fi Sound Bar

Laser Cutter (from CCA)

H+ Technology Holus Pro Holographic Display

Leap Motion

Key Software 

Itseez3D Scanning Application with processing in the Cloud for creating 3D models of the Human Figure from Life

Cinema4D Release17/Bodypaint3D for painting 3D models of the Human Figure in 3D

AutoDesk 123D MAKE for Laser Cutting Preparation and Input, and 123D CATCH for creating 3D Models of the Human Figure from Photographs

Painting With Light, Projection Mapping software by Alex May

DAZ3D Studio and MarketPlace for posing pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure

Poser Pro 2014 advanced software for posing pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure

Reallusion iClone6 and accessories, with Bootcamp (to run Windows 10 on MacBookPro) for 3D morphing, posing and animation of pre-made 3D models of the Human Figure

Turbosquid for very high quality pre-made 3D Models of the Human Figure (if necessary) Processing for programming of Arduino microprocessor (if necessary)

 

________________________________________________________________________

Version 1.0: 3rd November 2015

 

My Research Paper – Refining the Question

I forgot to post this, so apologies for this blog being out of sequence.

In my last blog I shortlisted three possible topics for my research paper and described the context for them. What I have to do next is decide on one and phrase it appropriately. Easier said than done. But I have made progress.

A WhatsApp discussion with Sharon whittled my shortlist down to two. Researching the artistic contribution of the  life model risked straying into talking about my practice or appearing to do so. Consequently, during the group on-line tutorial with Gareth Polmeer later that afternoon (June 7th) I pitched in with a choice between my last two:

Digital to physical – made to last: An examination of the unintended consequence of built in obsolescence in purely digital art. Will only physical artworks survive intact over the passage of time?

Breaking the mold: Research into new digital approaches for casting bronze and aluminium sculptures of the life model.

My topics triggered a lot of positive discussion, which encouraged me to continue with them. A particularly helpful comment came from Gareth which may well help me cover both in the same research paper: “Maybe a way to combine questions is to incorporate case studies of practices from 1 into the problems raised by 2. The material legacy of digital media is, of course, highly unknown, whereas the longevity of bronzes, marble and even paper (and film) are historically proven to last.”

Coincidentally, a blog discussion the following day between three of my MA second year student colleagues was very apposite. Jack posted an article in our FineArtDigital blog “Best Practices for the Conservation of Media Art”, which seemed very heavy duty in post production effort, and prompted a comment by Trystan “Just use stones mate. Foolproof.” Jack’s riposte was that “Erosion will get you in the end mate”. Brit chipped in “Erosion gets us all in the end my friend”. Perhaps a good opening for my Research Paper?!

The tutorial also provided several ideas to possibly cover:

David commented, quoting from my research area description, “to operate in the distant future” and “digitally functioning legacy’ are interesting… obsolescence renders technology dead far too quickly … how to preserve for future generations? Digital curation?

Gareth thought there was a link between my research question and Patrick’s “The 3D object and the shadow aspect” referring to a book by Baxandall “as he looks at the question of shadows through the lens of contemporary understandings of vision science, i.e. the question of reviewing art history through the present, as such”. This idea prompted considerable discussion.

Gareth continued “The shadow, and the idea of the body scan interrelate through the question of presence and absence. What’s interesting about the relation of 3D scanning to sculpture is that the ‘index’ or ‘cast’ used to make the object is abstracted into virtual space https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/practice-light” and later “Perceiving a shadow is ‘seeing’ absence”and “The Cubitt book deals with light and shadow in interesting ways’.

Katerina thought that my two options were interesting but “I think that maybe its better not to focus on the material (bronze and aluminium), it seems more like something you discover through your practice.” This seemed to contradict Gareth’s viewpoint. I replied “That’s what Jonathan thought but I won’t discover it in practice if I don’t discover what is possible first”.

Katerina liked the idea of “inverting” the look into the shadow which “made her think of dualism and the mental/physical opposition” while David said “sometimes negative space is more important than the figure … the presence/absence … one can’t exist without the other”. Continuing later “I’ve read an article concerning the absence of the body in contemporary artistic creation, maybe there are some parallels there too (body/flesh as a means of perception towards the ‘electronic/contemporary art that moves away from that ..or does it?”

Sharon ‘ I thought about cloning”.

Gareth referred to “Baudriallard’s simulacrum – the presence’ is the absence of any kind of original thing, or is only a copy of sorts’ and to “the German philosophical interest around this relates to being (Sein) and Nothing (Nichts). “Crowther is a good example of a writer who renders complex ideas into accessible prose”

Gareth commented to Patrick “some cross pollination with Heidegger,re hyperskins …insights of Edmund Husserl, real objects and sensual objects. Real objects are objects objects that withdraw from all experience, whereas sensual objects are those that exist only in experience.”

This discussion prompted Gareth to ask me “do you think that idea of presence/absence has any relevance to the casting process and questions involved in the digital body scan?”. I agreed “the original object goes through several processes of inversion, conversion, re-emergence etc on the way to the finished article.”

Summarising, Gareth thought that it provided a good angle for me to focus my paper “as it gives some good ways to compare historical and contemporary methods”. I will investigate  further but as yet I remain to be convinced that it is a main focus, but it is an interesting topic that deserves inclusion.

Sharon’s (I am interested in stories and codes which are historical and contextual}.

The context for my Research Question

MA Project Proposal – How technological innovation can provide new opportunities for the artistic presentation of the life model

Making to date – Digital to Physical: Primarily of a female life model – experimentation with full body 3D scanning, laser cutting, 3D digital sculpting, high quality digital printing on canvas, 3D laser sintering (3D printing), video & voice recording/editing, Arduino with sensors and conductive materials, bronze casting, and combining the previous elements (for finished artworks see Addendum)

Future making – Entirely Digital: For the human form – projection mapping, 3D digital sculpting/painting, and 3D holographic (Peppers Ghost) display/projection

Research Question – Short list of three

What I am writing about, what I don’t know about it, and why I want to know about it (rationale) – Subject, enquiry, and rationale for discovery

Is the life model as much an artistic contributor to the artwork as the artist?

I am researching the views of artists, the artists’ muse and informed observers because of my interest in giving the model a voice and to understand the artistic contribution of the life model in figurative art

Digital to physical – made to last: An examination of the unintended consequence of built in obsolescence in purely digital art. Will only physical artworks survive intact over the passage of time?

I am researching the practice of Alex May and Antony Gormley to compare artists whose work relies on today’s digital processes, and to use them as examples to understand whether purely digital artworks can continue to operate in the distant future and thus provide a digitally functioning legacy for generations to come

Breaking the mold: Research into new digital approaches for casting bronze and aluminium sculptures of the life model.

I am researching innovative digital technologies for making bronze and aluminium sculptures due to the current lengthy and inaccurate procedures involved in the 5000 year-old lost wax casting process. I hope to discover whether casting techniques can be substantially speeded up and improved on so that metal sculptures of the human form can be more easily made by the 3D ‘digital’ artist.

 Addendum (finished artworks)

  1. Contoured one metre full body sculpture of a nude woman in 244 pieces of MDF
  2. ‘Unrequited Love’ – A large touch narrative head and shoulders painting of a woman
  3. ‘Giving the Model a Voice’ – A touch narrative 2.25 x 1.0 metre triptych digitally printed on canvas of a morphed nude woman from an enhanced 3D scan
  4. 3D printed hollow bust of a nude woman (25 cm tall) with touch narratives
  5. 3D printed hollow full body sculpture of a nude woman (70 cm tall) in ‘Rodin style’ with touch narratives
  6. Bronze hollow bust of a nude woman as an ‘industrial style’ artefact recovered from the sea
  7. ‘Metamorphosis’ – submission to Lumen Prize 2016 of the above full body sculpture and bronze (submerged in salt water) mounted on transparent acrylic plinths with touch narratives made by the model

 

 

 

 

Research Paper: Digital to Physical – Made to Last? Will functioning digital art be part of our future cultural heritage?

RESEARCH PAPER – MA Visual Arts – Fine Art Digital

Terence Quinn – Student ID:   QUI15472637 – t.quinn1@arts.ac.uk    5 October 2016

 Abstract – 184 words   Research Paper – 4362- words

 

Research Question:

 

Digital to Physical – Made to Last? Will functioning digital art be part of our future cultural heritage?

 

Keywords: digital, art, longevity, cultural, legacy

 

Abstract

Artists embarking on a digital art practice must make several decisions relating to the work they wish to produce. Is the finished artwork to be a physical object, a digital presentation, or a combination of both? Is it to include a performance, existing only for the time that it is exhibited, or is it intended to last in the same way as traditional art, such as a painting? Is the work intended for sale, to function as part of a permanent collection, or for display only in temporary art exhibitions?

A wider consideration and concern is the question ‘will functioning digital fine art be part of our future cultural heritage?’ Some established artists think not. This paper examines the underlying reason for this belief, namely the impact that accelerating changes in technology have on the conservation of digital art. It examines how these issues are being addressed by the various stakeholders involved, including artists, educators, researchers and art institutions.

Finally, observations and proposals are made, in particular recommendations that practicing digital artists can employ to help their own artwork survive into the distant future.

 

Introduction

 

The proliferation of new digital technologies employed by artists raises increasingly pressing questions related to preserving their work as part of our cultural heritage. Is it possible to conserve digital artworks for the long term? Will only digitally created artwork whose final manifestation is physical survive over time? Can purely digital artworks continue to operate in the distant future and thus provide a digitally functioning legacy for generations to come? Is this matter being adequately addressed by artists themselves, by those who collect their work, or by art and memory institutions?

It is argued that there is a need to provide future generations with influential examples of contemporary digital art that use functioning technologies as close as possible to that which the artist intended. Even if artists care about the longevity of their digital work, they are nevertheless failing to conserve it, possibly because they have not learned the skills to do so. Curators, government art bodies, museums and the institutions involved are aware of the urgent need for this important issue to be addressed. Yet despite significant efforts by leaders in the field of digital art preservation, for current artists and most existing digital artwork it is a matter of too little, too late.

Maybe the solution lies in part with the training of artists to recognize the need to facilitate conservation of their own individual digital artworks, as far as is reasonably possible.

This analysis of built-in obsolescence within digital art references two born-digital art installations, one purely digital – Sequence by Alex May and Anna Dumitriu, and the other a physical object, made digitally – Exposure by Antony Gormley. The conclusions reached are unsettling for those concerned about the legacy of digital art practice.

 

Digital art conservation today

If art reflects the culture of our time, it follows that artworks representative of our age, namely our ‘digital age’, must be collected and conserved as a cultural legacy for future generations. Memory institutions such as museums and national art galleries carry this responsibility. These institutions together with universities strive to develop effective practices for digital art conservation, and pass on this knowledge by offering education programmes, including university degrees.

When considering the founding principles of restoration, developed by Cesare Brandi in the 1940’s and 1950’s, they were not published until 1963 and then only in English during 1977. Brandi’s theory addressed the fine art of his time, from paintings to archeological artifacts using traditional media such as paper, canvas, and stone. His theories are still highly relevant to the preservation and conservation of traditional art today and he defined restoration as follows:

‘Restoration is the methodological moment in which the work of art is appreciated in its material form and in its historical and aesthetic duality, with a view to transmitting it to the future’ (Brandi, 2010).

His ideas were developed before digital technology was used by artists, and therefore his focus was entirely on material works. According to Laura Barreca in Conservation and documentation of new media art:

‘In terms of conservation, the strategies applied for painting, sculpture and drawing seem inappropriate for unstable or variable media, due to factors such as hardware and software decay and the obsolescence of technological devices that make it difficult to provide strategies of conservation for New Media artworks’ (Barreca, 2009).

The underlying tenets of art preservation according to Michele Cloonan are ‘longevity, authenticity, reversibility and enduring value’ (Cloonan, 2015, p. xv).

However, these tenets tend to break down when considering digital art, as Professor Hans Dieter Huber notes in his paper, From new media to old media: Ambiguous concepts, complex problems, and open questions:

‘Paradoxically, new media age faster than “old” media and this fact necessitates a fundamental revaluation of all long-established conservation strategies. Whereas society’s cultural memory is oriented towards longevity and reliability, the operability of digital objects depends on upgrades at ever shorter intervals. The interests of the software industry run counter to the conservation and sustainability of cultural heritage. Therefore, the dependency of technological systems on corporate strategies and market interests is an acute threat to cultural memory’ (Huber in Serexhe, 2013, p. 137).

Meanwhile Bernhard Serexhe observes: ‘The resulting functional obsolescence or failure of digital works of art reduces the hitherto valid collecting criteria of longevity, authenticity, and intrinsic value to absurdity’ (2013, p. 24).

In recent years, art and memory institutions have made great strides in the digitization of part of their physical collections such as books and paintings. According to Adam Farquhar, Head of Digital Scholarship at The British Library:

‘Over the past decade, a community of researchers, technologists and memory institutions [……] have made substantial progress towards the long term viability of digital content. Individuals routinely hold terabytes of material; organisations hold hundreds of terabytes. The ones that plan for the future have a reasonable level of confidence that they can, [……] keep these collections safe and usable for the next generation. But these collections are fairly simple in form – images, photographs, office documents’ (Farquhar in Delve & Anderson, 2014, p. ix).

Through discussion with Jocelyn Cumin, MA Conservation course leader at Camberwell, a list of international memory institutions considered advanced in digital preservation were drawn up. Research into these memory institutions demonstrated that Farquhar’s observation is still true today (Quinn (1), 2016). The websites of the British Library, the National Library of Australia, the National Archives of Australia, America and Canada, and the American Smithsonian Institution show that they are advanced in the fields of creating, maintaining, and conserving ‘simple’ digital records. Born-digital art, when its final manifestation is a ‘simple’ digital object such as a photograph or video, can thus survive to be part of our cultural heritage, as its conservation is well understood and practiced. However, these institutions have yet to adequately address conserving functioning contemporary digital art.

 

Problems associated with the conservation of digital art

One aspect of the effort required to conserve digital art is illustrated by the current work of the ZKM in Karlsruhe, Germany as described by Peter Weibel in his paper The Digital Oblivion: Towards a Material History of the Media:

‘A classic example is the artistic work of Nam June Paik. In most cases his works use old television sets as basic components. At the ZKM | Karlsruhe we have huge warehouses, as big as multiplex cinemas, in which we can collect old television sets for such purposes – as well as old light bulbs, and so on. However, the supply will not last for the next hundred years; with any luck, perhaps for the next fifty years. However, this is only staving off ‘digital oblivion’’ (Weibal in Serexhe, 2013, p. 192).

The difficulty in preserving some complex digital installations, such as those involving interaction, is examined by Daisy Abbott, of Glasgow School of Art, in her case study Preserving interaction. Delve and Anderson in Preserving Complex Digital Objects summarize her conclusion:

‘Interaction amplifies the preservation challenge, especially when it comes to setting the extents of any preservation plan. [……] interaction is at the core of much software art, and therefore there is no canonical form to be preserved as there might be with a dataset or a document. The extents of preservation actions necessary to protect such art works are thus unclear’ (Delve & Anderson, 2014, p. xLv).

Despite the advances that art and memory institutions have made using digital technology to conserve their records, they have been slow to realise the fragility of digital art, and in particular works that are born-digital. Bernard Serexhe, a consultant on media policy to the Council of Europe, chief curator of the ZKM | Media Museum in Germany, and initiator and leader of the recent European collaborative research project digital art conservation, defines born-digital art as follows:

‘The designation born-digital art is used to describe works of media art produced in a digital format from the outset. As distinguished from the generic term media art, born-digital art (genuinely digital art) describes art created exclusively by means of digital media, and which is dependent on this technology for its implementation’ (Serexhe, 2013, p. 599).

Serexhe concludes:

‘Only very recently have we come to understand what this system change of cultural memory signifies for media art realized in digital code: the more rapid the technological development, the shorter the “half-life” of works of art. Going by our experience of the past twenty years, we must assume that in view of their rapid cycles of innovation, digital hardware and software have a maximum usability period of less than ten years’ (Serexhe, 2013, p.24).

This issue of fragility is compounded by the experimental nature of digital art. The layers of complexity and interdependency of the various technologies involved in many of today’s digital art installations, add considerably to the problems of conservation of such artworks. Farquhar states:

‘Digital art provides additional challenges. In part this is due to the creative experimental nature of digital art. Artists often collaborate with data analysts, scientists and engineers. They push the boundaries of what can be done. For the current volume, this means that they challenge what can be replicated at all – much less preserved(Farquhar in Delve & Anderson, 2014, p. ix).

These ‘additional challenges’ mean that ‘longevity’ is only achieved when a digital artwork is meticulously maintained by a group of technical experts knowledgeable in all of the current and legacy technologies involved, as well as whether the hardware and software on which that artwork depends still functions. In addition, the integrity of the artwork and the experience of the viewer needs to be understood and preserved throughout all of the technical challenges raised in the artwork’s lifetime. Brandi writing in 1963 observed:

 ‘[…..] the re-establishment of the functional properties will ultimately represent only a secondary or accompanying aspect of the restoration, never the primary or fundamental aspect that respects a work of art as a work of art’ (Brandi, 2010, p. 230).

This is particularly difficult to achieve with respect to more complex ‘born-digital’ installations, such as interactive art. Alain Depocas explained in his paper Documenting and conserving technological art: The evolution of approaches and methods:

‘In addition to the “reality” of the work contained in its tangible, physical, or digital constituents, there are the effects it produces on viewers and the artists’ intention. These two aspects are often overlooked, even though they must be addressed, especially in the case of interactive works where they are more complex’ (Depocas in Serexhe, 2013, p. 146).

Serexhe, in his paper On system change in cultural memory and the conservation of digital art, concluded that:

‘It must be admitted that institutions like the Tate Modern in London, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Nam June Paik Art Centre in South Korea, Le Centre Pompidou in Paris, as well as the ZKM | Karlsruhe are not miracle-workers and, in spite of best efforts, have not succeeded in applying the ambitious aims of traditional conservation practices to digital art’ (Serexhe, 2013, p. 82).

This situation occurring in the most well-funded institutions has major implications for the conservation of digital artworks, not only for those produced since the early 1960’s, but also for those made today and in the foreseeable future. Consequently, many of these artworks will simply not function, or will not survive. This ‘Digital Gap’ was described by Danny Hillis, Vice President of Research and Development at Walt Disney Imagineering, as early as 1998:

The historians of the future will look back and there will actually be a little period of history around now where they really won’t have the information, they don’t have the correspondence between world leaders and great scientists. They don’t have the actual raw data of the great scientific experiments that are done. They don’t have the music that was written during that period. The art that was created during that period. Because we’re in a period now where we are storing things that will not last even our own lifetimes’ (MacLean and Davis, 2000, p. 42).

Even today, such are the difficulties of ‘born-digital’ art conservation that despite the research efforts that have taken place in recent years, Janet Delve of the Future Proof Computing Group, and David Anderson, CITECH Research Centre Director, in Preserving Complex Digital Objects, state that: ‘The preservation of software art is both a research field in its infancy and an emerging field of practice’ (Delve and Anderson, 2014, p. 341).

According to Pip Laurenson (2007), Head of Collection Care Research at Tate Modern, when museums and art institutions consider new acquisitions, conservation is a major part of their risk management criteria (Laurenson in Cloonan, 2013, pp. 309-311). During a conversation (Quinn (2), 2016) following Douglas Dodds’ talk V&A – Pioneers of Digital Art, he agreed that the ability of the V&A to conserve a digital artwork was a deciding factor when considering whether to acquire it for their permanent collection. As the senior curator responsible for the V&A digital art collection when considering these perspectives, issues concerning the conservation of digital art could thus exclude experimental, technically advanced and complex artworks from permanent collections. If so, it follows that there will be a significant gap in our cultural memory in the very institutions that are entrusted with this responsibility.

Research and education is key to resolving the problems raised. Yet despite UK government and art education institutions being aware of the issues, not enough is being done to support either, and the situation is set to worsen. Cost pressures are reducing the ability of art organisations and universities to carry out research programmes. Rohn, Curry and Steele (2015) wrote an article in The Guardian last year titled: UK Investment in public-funded research dropped to less than 0.5% of GDP in 2013 – its lowest point in over two decades. UK research funding is also not being directed towards the conservation of digital art itself. Instead, Nesta, the Digital R&D Fund for the Arts in the UK, ‘[…..] supports ideas that use digital technology to build new business models and enhance audience reach for organisations with arts projects’ (Nesta, 2016).

The Royal Society (2016) also acknowledges the UK as ‘one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU, income that is now in jeopardy following the UK Brexit vote. It was reported in the Guardian newspaper recently that Martin Roth, Director of the V&A, said after the ‘Brexit’ vote, that ‘British arts institutions would have to get used to living without European funds’ (Brooks, 2016). The importance of EU funding is underlined by the most recent comprehensive three-year project ‘digital art conservation’ being co-funded by Germany and the EU (Serexhe, 2013, p. 16).

Research for this dissertation into UK Universities offering graduate or post graduate degrees in the subject proved that few courses exist. On sourcing websites of all UK University first and post graduate specialist degrees in conservation, only Wikipedia was able to provide a summarized list (Wikipedia, 2016). Of these, only two universities, the University of Glasgow and Kings College London offered digital conservation as degrees, and only the former specifically addressed conservation of digital art. In a random sample of UK general BA and MA courses in Fine Art, none included digital art conservation in their curriculum. This fact results in a lack of awareness of the issues raised in this paper, and a restricted supply of suitably qualified people to address them.

 

The role of the artist in conserving their own digital artworks

Serexhe suggests the following with regard to born-digital art, particularly in relation to complex digital installations, which depends upon technology for its continued existence,

‘this interaction of components leads me to think that all digital art is a performance, and more than a performance between the viewer and the object’ (Serexhe, 2013, p. 224).

Consider the born-digital art installation Sequence by Alex May and Anna Dumitriu, shown at the V&A Digital Design Weekend 2015, and described in Crafting our Digital Futures catalogue as:                                                                

‘a bio-digital installation created by artist Anna Dumitriu, the emerging technology of whole genome sequencing of bacteria. Dumitriu’s artistic research has led to her learning how to sequence an entire bacterial genome of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria that lives on her own body’ (Papadimitriou, Prescott, & Rogers, p. 95).

 

IMG_9301

Quinn, T. (3) (2015) Sequence Exhibited at the V&A Digital Design Weekend [Photograph].       

In August 2016, Alex May discussed Sequence in an interview near his studio in Brighton (Quinn (4), 2016). May’s contribution to this work was to visualize the DNA spiral sequence in 3-D and Virtual Reality. May used his own proprietary Open Source software Fugio (Bigfug Creative Software, 2016) to display a digital file of the DNA spiral in 3-D. Fugio enabled this display, using an Oculus Rift Virtual Reality headset, physically tethered to a Raspberry Pi microprocessor running the Windows 10 IOT Operating System.

This list of digital hardware and software gives a detailed, but far from complete, view of the many dependencies and interdependencies of the technology used. All these elements will change in the future.  Software providers will release new versions of software and drop support for older versions.  When the virtual reality headset devices are upgraded, they will demand ever faster processors and graphics cards in the supporting computer hardware. These changes will force the technical environment supporting Sequence to be upgraded, most probably altering the viewers experience of the artwork.

Whilst the Oculus Rift was generally released in March 2016, there are a host of competitors such as VIVE, developed by HTC and Valve Corporation, operating different software environments to achieve similar ends. Consequently, output for the Oculus Rift will not run on the VIVE and vice versa. Microsoft recently released Hololens Augmented Reality headsets, that are not physically tethered to a computer, and which allow virtual objects displayed in 3-D to be seen in the viewers own physical environment (Microsoft, 2016). So the race for commercial dominance in this sector is far from over. Not all formats will survive.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-05-at-15-17-46

Windows Central (2016) Microsoft Hololens app team reaches halfway point in making galaxy explorer [Photograph].

An example of commercial competition resulting in the demise of a superior format technically, is between Betamax and VHS for video player devices. This was reported on by Jack Schofield, Computer Editor, of the Guardian (2003). Betamax was eventually discontinued in 2003 because it lagged well behind VHS in gaining the support of the major film and television production studios to produce content in their format. Without this support, Betamax had little content for their video players compared to VHS, which significantly influenced the consumer decision making process concerning which player to buy, resulting in the demise of the product. This could be the fate of the Oculus Rift upon which Sequence relies. If so this would also eventually force a change in the hardware and technical environment that supports Sequence.

Alex May recently said that his modular Open Source Fugio software will allow him to maintain Sequence through technological change by personally writing different plugins to accommodate new hardware and software. His hope is that many users of Fugio will write their own plugins, which will also be available as Open Source for other users to deploy, in the same way that Arduino and Raspberry Pi code can be downloaded from the Internet for free today (Quinn (4), 2016). If so the technical challenge may be reduced, but it will not go away.

Moreover, the free Fugio Open Source software is in direct competition with the well-established, but very expensive, Max MSP (Cycling72, 2016). Both are high level, modular, visual programming languages with graphical user interfaces, which create the specific code needed to build a complex digital multi-media art installation. Fugio is new and Max MSP has a long history of use by composers, performers, software designers, researchers, and artists to create recordings and performances. Fugio is currently supported, developed and maintained by one very dedicated, technically skilled, practicing artist, and a large well established company Cycling72, in San Francisco does the same for Max MSP. Fugio may possibly be better, and could get fast acceptance by other artists because it is free, but it still has a lot to achieve in order to catch up with its competition. The question remains whether Fugio will survive.

When May was asked whether born-digital installations will in general survive as working examples of our cultural heritage he replied “probably not” (Quinn (4), 2016). Interestingly, this was a similar response to the one the author received in an interview with Paul Coldwell, Professor of Fine Art, Researcher and Artist at UAL Chelsea (Quinn (5), 2016).

Such digital artworks will only last until their hardware or software is no longer available, or when the first component fails that cannot be fixed or replaced. They will also not last if the updated work no longer significantly resembles the original, or the collector or institution can no longer afford the price for its upkeep. Thus it is concluded that purely digital art installations are not made to last. However, artists themselves can contribute substantially to the task of ensuring that their complex born-digital art installations survive.

Janet Delve, when considering practical issues in preserving software art, argues that artists themselves must take on the responsibility to conserve their own born-digital artwork:

‘At present, the onus remains with the artist to help preserve the art work. This is partly because the technological complexity of software art works can only be fully comprehended by the creator’ (Delve & Anderson, 2014, p. 341)

With this in mind Laura Barreca notes:

‘[……] the documentation of the artist’s intent should be considered as guiding principles for conservation. Museums interview artists, recording as much of the data as possible about the artwork. Today the artist is much more involved in the process of conservation, because without good documentation of the artwork it’s difficult to present the work again in the future’ (Barreca, 2009).

Barreca’s views are supported by a very detailed and informative article written last year by digital artist Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, in which he suggests a comprehensive list of steps ‘before’, ‘while’ and ‘after making’ that an artist can take to conserve their own born-digital artwork (2015).

An example of another born-digital artwork is Exposure by Antony Gormley, where the final manifestation of the work is a physical sculpture. Exposure is a nearly 85-foot high, 60 ton crouching male figure made out of steel girders and sited on a sea dike in Holland. The artwork is concerned with the issues of global warming. If sea levels rise, the sculpture will be gradually submerged, and if the dike is raised in response, the figure will be progressively covered by the land. It acts as a permanent reminder of the effects of global warming and is in effect a physical barometer of any change in climate conditions that may occur. In keeping with the principle of environmental conservation, Gormley intended to make the sculpture to be seen from far away, and with the least amount of material, through which the ground and sea were clearly visible. As a result, he decided to construct a huge figure in the smallest number of metal struts that would describe the body (Gayford, 2012).

screen-shot-2016-10-05-at-15-13-07   

Harrison, M. (2) (2010) Exposure Steel girders [Photograph].

 

 screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-11-02-59
 Harrison, M. (1) (2010) Exposure by Antony Gormley in Lelystad, north Holland [Photograph].

This is a major feat of engineering requiring the use of digital processes throughout the construction of the work, that are based on those used for building bridges. Additionally, unlike a bridge, these processes had to overcome the further challenge of the human body being anything but uniform. Martin Gayford, chief art critic for the Bloomberg News, describes how Exposure was made:

‘First, software developed by Roberto Cipolla and his team at the University of Cambridge transformed photographs of the cast into a fully rotational 3-D computer model. This was then translated into an open steel lattice with help from an algorithm devised by Sean Hanna of University College London. Next, engineers at Royal Haskoning drew up a detailed design. Using a webcam, the engineers then monitored the construction process – carried out by the Scottish steel fabrication firm Had-Fab – to ensure that the sculpture was developing as it should’ (Gayford, 2012).

 

screen-shot-2016-10-05-at-15-14-23

Tekla. (n.d.) Exposure sculpture: Turning vision into reality [Photograph].

 

Despite the fact that this sculpture was born-digital through multiple and complex digital processes, the final manifestation of the work as a physical object, does not depend on these processes for its longevity or conservation. The conservation challenges are well understood and are the same as for traditional sculpture: it is made conventionally using the same physical material, and exposed to similar external conditions. It can thus be concluded that Digital to Physical art is made to last, and can be part of our future cultural heritage.

 

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that current and future research may lead to more functioning purely digital artwork surviving, but the journey has only just begun. Currently, research funding available for the arts in the UK is declining, as is the proportion of this funding that is directed towards the conservation of digital art.

Only one UK University offers degrees in digital art conservation. Much needs to be done to include an awareness of digital art conservation in Fine Art BA degree courses in the UK, and for more universities to offer this specialisation in post graduate degrees.

Most born-digital art installations will not be part of our future cultural heritage as they currently cannot be conserved for the long term. In the meantime, artists themselves must conserve their own work until the research and practice of digital art conservation is considerably more developed than it is today.

The key recommendation of this paper is that if artists engaged in a digital fine art practice wish their work to have any sustainable future, they should follow the example of Rafael Lozano-Hemmer. He suggests a comprehensive list of steps ‘before’, ‘while’ and ‘after making’ that an artist can take to conserve their own born-digital artwork. As a result of following these steps in the past, Lorenzo-Hemmer’s own work Subtitled Public was acquired by the Tate (2015).

 

 

Bibliography

Barreca, L. (2009) Conservation and documentation of new media art. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:10039 [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Bigfug Creative Software (2016) Fugio. Available at: http://www.bigfug.com/software/fugio/ [Accessed: 28 September 2016].

Brandi, C. (2010) Theory of Restoration. Available at: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic822683.files/Brandi_Theory%20of%20Restoration%20I_sm.pdf [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Brooks, R. (2016) ‘German V&A chief quits in sorrow at Brexit defeat’, The Sunday Times, 4 September, p.3.

Cloonan, M. V. (ed.) (2013) Preserving our heritage. Perspectives from antiquity to the digital age. Chicago: American Library Association.

‘Conservation and restoration training’ (2016) Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_and_restoration_training#United_Kingdom [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Cycling74. (2016) Max connects objects with virtual patch cords to create interactive sounds, graphics, and custom effects. Available at: https://cycling74.com/products/max/ [Accessed: 22 August 2016].

Delve, J. and Anderson, D. (2014) Preserving complex digital objects. London, United Kingdom: Facet Publishing.

Gayford, M. (2012) Old media, digitized, make new forms. Computers are changing art in unexpected ways. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429643/old-media-digitized-make-new-forms/ [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Lozano-Hemmer, R. (2015) Best practices for conservation of media art. Available at: https://github.com/antimodular/best-practices-for-conservation-of-media-art [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

MacLean, M. and Davis, B. (eds.) (2000) Time and bits: Managing digital continuity. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, U.S.

Microsoft (2016) Hololens: Pushing the limits of storytelling. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Nesta (2016) Digital R&D fund for the arts. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/project/digital-rd-fund-arts [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Papadimitriou, I., Prescott, A. & Rogers, J. eds. (2015) Crafting our digital futures: As part of V&A digital design weekend 2015. London: Uniform Communications Ltd.

Quinn, T. (1) (2016) Digital to physical – made to last? Email Correspondence with Jocelyn Cumin, MA Conservation, UAL Camberwell. Available at: https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/09/26/digital-to-physical-made-to-last-research-paper-additional-references/ [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Quinn, T. (4) (2016) Digital to physical – made to last? Alex May Interview 22 August 2016, Brighton. Available at: https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/08/22/digital-to-physical-made-to-last-alex-may-interview-22-august-2016-brighton/ [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Quinn, T. (5) (2016) Digital to physical – made to last? Prof. Paul Coldwell interview 27 July 2016, UAL Chelsea. Available at: https://terencemquinn91.org/2016/07/27/digital-to-physical-built-to-last-prof-paul-coldwell-interview/ [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Rohn, J., Curry, S. and Steele, A. (2015) ‘UK research funding slumps below 0.5% GDP – putting us last in the G8’. The Guardian, 13 March. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/mar/13/science-vital-uk-spending-research-gdp [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

Schofield, J. (2003) Re: Why VHS was better than Betamax. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2003/jan/25/comment.comment [Accessed: 15 August 2016].

Serexhe, B. (ed.) (2013) Digital art conservation. Preservation of digital art: Theory and practice. Germany: Ambra V and ZKM Centre for Art and Media.

The Royal Society (2016) The UK and EU research funding. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/uk-research-and-european-union/role-of-EU-in-funding-UK-research/uk-and-eu-research-funding/ [Accessed: 26 September 2016].

 

Talks and Exhibitions

Quinn, T. (2) (2016) Conversation with Douglas Dodds, Lumen Prize, 28 September.

 

Images

Harrison, M. (1) (2010) Exposure Antony Gormley, Steel girders [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429643/old-media-digitized-make-new-forms/ [Accessed: 3 October 2016].

Harrison, M. (2) (2010) Exposure by Antony Gormley in Lelystad, north Holland [Photograph]. Available at: http://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/gallery/exposure-antony-gormley/lelystad-exposure-06-28-11-10.jpg [Accessed 3 October 2016].

Quinn, T. (3) (2015) Sequence Exhibited at the V&A Digital Design Weekend [Photograph].

Tekla. (n.d.) Exposure sculpture: Turning vision into reality [Photograph]. Available at: https://www.tekla.com/uk/references/exposure-sculpture-turning-vision-reality [Accessed: 3 October 2016].

Windows Central. (2016) Microsoft Hololens app team reaches halfway point in making galaxy explorer [Photograph]. Available at: http://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-hololens-app-team-reaches-halfway-point-making-galaxy-explorer [Accessed: 3 October 2016].