: Welcome to my humble show, !
Do you enjoy being here?
: I'm not here too much. I try to focus on making rather than spending too much time online, but the I do appreciate that there is a public forum which allows me to share art.
: What's the main difference between "making", "taking", and "showing?"
: Making is personal. (It can also be a shared task, but it is only something that should be shared with particular people.)
Taking is a tough one to define. it depends on the context of what is being taken. Maybe a better way to think of taking is sharing. Sharing of ideas, leading to inspiration. I don't believe that taking is really a good word in the realm of creativity. We can get inspiration from others work, but to take ideas or even take other people's work is not an acceptable practice. It's hard, but art is about individual thought, expression and the work that goes into an idea is something of great value. That being said, it is a very difficult thing to navigate or control in an online environment.
Showing, is to teach or to share art or ideas with others. Not everything is for showing or sharing, so when we get to have something shared with us it's something we should be grateful to experience and receive.
: Well I meant "taking" rather as in, for example, "reading feedback..."
So, how much time would you consider "too much", for that one?
: Do you mean how much time I would consider to be too much for reading feedback?
With your first answer still in mind, I wondered at which point you fear this part would rather make yourself something of an "attention whore", instead of an artist?
: I tend to take feedback more in real life situations as opposed to online, but even then, it's what I choose to take away from it, not every last detail of information is applied. Feedback is useful until it compromises the art. I think there was a time when I was concerned with popularity and how many faves etc. I received and would take a lot of the comments on here very seriously, but now I don't take too much of what I read seriously. I do appreciate the positive comments and those who take the time to comment though.
: So, what real life situations do you actually face in which you are confronted with feedback to your art?
Art, like this?
: It depends. The ink ones were not created in a situation where feedback was expected or desired. The other two were projects in school so i expected them to receive feedback, criticism etc. In general, I don't think there are a lot of real life situations where feedback is overly desired at this point in my life.
: So tell us more about your life please, and especially tell us why you do not regard it to be that "interesting" at this point!
: I think there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't say that my life wasn't interesting. I am just not interested in uninvited criticisms of artwork I create.
: What do you dislike most about those?
: I don't like uninvited criticism for what it is; uninvited. I suppose that like many instances in life, if criticism is not approached or delivered in the right environment it is not appropriate. In the case of the internet, criticism is often left at its initial comments, and there is not an opportunity for discussion or questions on the opinion. It becomes a very impersonal experience for something I feel many artists take to be a personal thing. Of course, everyone has their own opinions on many things, however just because I am sharing it does not necessarily mean I am overly interested in hearing everyone's opinion, as I don't know them or have any basis in value of their opinion without some sort of pre-existing relationship.
: Are you the kind of "if you can't say something good, then STFU!" persons?
What is so bad about "unwanted criticism?"
I mean, if it's really pointless, then you can still bash it within seconds.
But if it's not, for some reason, then you might possibly still learn something about whatever, and THEN bash it within seconds.
: Again, it depends on the situation. For example, if I put up an art piece that asks for a critique, then a critique is welcomed, and I can either agree, disagree or whatever. But if it is not, then it is not. I think that perhaps what I am trying to say is that for myself, the internet (I am finding more recently) is not the place I hope to find feedback from because it is inconsistent. There is too much information and opinion being given to find it useful. For me, a more concentrated and consistent form of critique is helpful, where there can be a dialogue or conversation over a shorter period of time. Online, anyone can give a critique, and I think for me it is important to have that face-to-face interaction. I think it is too easy for online interaction to not hold people accountable for what they say, so I am hesitant to listen. I also think that a lot can be lost through text. Much is communicated through means other than our words, and I think that there is too much room for miscommunication (perhaps on my own end - misinterpretation due to a lack of tone of voice, as it is text)
On a side note I think that the idea and evolution of interpretation of text or an understanding of language which transcends/descends out of a human communication (or the evolution of an understanding of communication without the need for a human as a means of deliverance) is really interesting. I find that many people don't notice these differences as, as we continue to move forwards in time, we lose the part of humanity which understands the shifts which we are experiencing in regards to how we communicate via technology. Before your and my lifetime is over, the majority of many societies will consist of people that do not comprehend of an existence without computer technology-based communication systems - ie: texting, email, etc. To me it is very strange that we blindly plunge our existence into one which may remove our humanity and replace it with artificial means.
.. bit of a side note there, but it is relevant to my thoughts to some degree.
: Thank you for this enlightening glimpse in your mind!
So, not only restricted to art this time: What do YOU think this general form of communication leads us to, and at what point do you see a "loss of humanity?"
Also, why is this bad?
: I think that it leads to a detachment and depreciation of one another. I would much rather talk and spend time with someone than to text, or even phone them. I feel as though technology has become a "middle-man" for communication and removes the responsibility or the privilege of communicating with another person. I think that this is a loss of humanity in and of itself. If we do not regard anyone but ourselves and become lost in technology then how are we any different than it?
I don't know that it is a bad thing though. Human beings have only existed a short time on earth and our existence is one of self-importance. We as a species have tried to control the world in which we exist; that is to say, we have been "at war" with nature. What is to say that we will always be the ones making decisions and having control? We continue to push technology further and further so that we have to do less and so that life becomes easier for us. But what we are not looking at is that we are beginning to relinquish the control we have enforced throughout our existence. We become more and more limited as time goes on, because as future generations continue to be born, there will be more and more people who are reliant on the existing technologies of their time. We are giving our "power" to technology. We are pushing towards artificial intelligence, and i believe this may be our undoing. We are trying to return to nature in many ways (in North America
anyways. I am not sure how it is in other parts of the world.) but it seems more and more likely that what we are doing is creating a new stage of evolution. In much the same way we are a product of nature, artificial intelligence and technology are a product of humanity.
I'm not sure where art come into play in this process. Perhaps it is the same as it has always been: to critically engage and present these ideas so that others may consider them.
: Ah, but I think? You really SHOULD know where art comes in, in this process!
Anyway: about "being lost in technology..."
Why is technology something we can lose ourselves in, and just what exactly do we lose, if we do so?
Also, about "artificial intelligence..."
Why is it wrong if people, by means of their own free will that is! do reject non-artificial intelligence, e.g. their own, just as a matter of course?
: Well, I did say where I thought it came into play. Saying that I wasn't sure was more of a rhetorical response; a stream of thought.
I feel as though I've already answered your first question in the last answer, however, this perhaps presents an opportunity to show that this is a good example of what I am talking about. (To be clear, this next part is not accusatory or rude or anything like that) Maybe you skimmed the text? Maybe you missed the answers or it was misunderstood or I'm not writing in a way which is effective in communicating to you, or something, it doesn't really matter. What I am saying is, that if we were to be talking in person I think this interview would be much different, because the means by which we are communicating are transparent. By that I mean that neither one of us has to deal with any repercussion of what we say. I could not respond, or you could not respond, and it wouldn't matter. Most likely we both would think nothing of it and go on with our day unaffected. If it were a face-to-face interaction the reaction may elicit a much different response; an emotional response. There is a greater chance to care because there are consequences for our actions or responses. But, because we are typing back and forth we do not experience that.
So, in short, technology removes (causes us to lose) our responsibility to each other. (We can blame the technolgy - I didn't get the text message, my phone has not battery etc.) In that, we lose actual connection to one another. I have no idea if I am really talking to a real person when I type to you. I assume I am, BUT there is a possibility I am not.
An example of this is when someone calls an Iphone, and you can press a button to send an automated, pre-typed response to let the person know you are unavailable to pick up the phone. But, it is not really you who is responding. You didn't even type the message. You just pressed a button. No effort removes the value of the task. It removes the effort of communication and connection with each other.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with people doing this if it their choosing. I simply stated that this is WHAT we are doing, and that I don't think many people realize or understand that our inherent laziness and need to simplify, is actually complicating and disabling us as a species. (best not to assume this as being a statement which implies anything in terms of existence/non-existence of humanity being positive/negative. It is simply an observation) If anything it seems a natural progression of sorts. It is simply the next step, and we cannot see beyond our own imaginations or ability to understand.
Hopefully this clarifies. I have a tendency to go on quite a bit with this sort of thing.. If you are interested in more of this I would recommend reading the philosopher Meillassoux.. He also has a tendency to go on and on.. and writes much more densely than I do I think..haha, however it is still interesting if you have the time to decipher it.
: Well personally, I like written communication, because then you always keep some "proof" of what has been said...
Anyway, I most definitely do get what you are saying here, and I do perfectly agree!
But, this would also work the other way round, wouldn't it?
Hypothetical situation: We could have this interview face to face, be very polite to each other, maybe even share a beer, and then, the very next day, everything would be forgotten again and in worst case, the interview would never get posted at all.
This would be nothing but the RL pendant to press an automated message button, no?
Or, would you rather that this would be a symptom of electronic communication as well then, ALTHOUGH it would be face to face?
(--> I can assure you that I really am a real person though, and I also got plenty of proofs for that! )
: Haha well I suppose there is no way to say for sure how much of themselves someone is willing to put forwards in a manner which is consistent to all people, but again to argue for the value of face-to-face interaction, I think it is easier to understand that someone is a certain way if there is a real life interaction. I believe that our intuition is less of a factor when communication is only text-based.
I don't think the point of this is proof though. You say that you like text-based communication because it can be a source of proof, and again, your example of the interview being forgotten or not being published indicates an importance of acknowledgement of the event. However, I believe the point is that of an understanding between human beings. If this interview doesn't get published, I don't care. I am not participating for notoriety or for it to be read. I am participating because I enjoy the activity. However, you only are gaining as much understanding as the text I provide allows. I feel that there is a greater understanding of another human being which is gained when you are talking in person. The point in that instant is not anything other than to communicate. You can learn more, faster about someone that way; you can get a sense of them and what they value beyond what they say. The understanding of someone through communication goes beyond what they are verbally communicating with words.
: Bringing us back to art then, I guess!
So, is this desire for communication also the reason, why you are doing so many different art styles?
: Art for me is an expression of how I see the world (at varying capacities, depending on the piece. Not everything has to have a meaning. Sometimes I need to do something for the sake of doing it and seeing if it will yield anything of interest).
A good example of an expression of how I see the world is the first image there:
The main idea behind this photo and the rest of the series was my exploration of spacial qualities of objects or environments which may not be considered as such. I am curious about that sort of thing, and by sharing what I have discovered in a manner which people may understand I hope to present something that may give others ideas or make them look at something differently. (I am also an Intern Architect, so that has played a part in that project as well. I have a page with some of my school projects on here as well: )
My artwork being an expression of whatever my current interests are plays a large part in the variety of styles you see in my gallery, so that is a yes to your question.
: Thank you so much for all your enlightening comments!
Do you have any other last words left, for our noble audience?
: Thanks for reading and taking a look at my art!
And thanks to you as well for the interview.
: Ladies and gentlemen, !
Also featuring: ’s mind!
Last 3 previous episodes: