Ketchup with my Nugget

lame puns sm
(Get it? Catch-up, because this is over a week… late…)

“Every message is, in one sense or another, a simulation of some idea. It may be representational or abstract. The essence of a medium is very much dependent on the way messages are embedded, changed, and viewed” (Kay and Goldberg).

This quote is one of very few things that stood out to me in this reading; I found that after peers being “amazed” at some of our previous reading’s vision into the future and the fact I’m living in the age where the abilities of the Dynabook are a reality, I wasn’t impressed. The majority of the text I found useless (which I know sounds ignorant to say, but again, this already exists), so I paid more attention to the snippets before the detailed explanation of what the Dynabook would do if they could make that back in the 70’s.

The quote says a lot to me as a budding artist, but they’re things that have already been said to me a few dozen times. I think a lot of us art students are questioned about the feelings our art pieces give viewers, because they want us to be aware that what we produce is a kind of message. More so in our field I believe because people are more visually simulated than anything else. Art is supposed to elicit responses from people, to compose a strong enough feeling for people to see and feel. There are an infinite amount and types of materials with which to express meaningfulness, and like the quote says, some of the meaning is dependent on how we use the materials (i.e. a kinder message would most likely be expressed with brighter/friendlier colors, clean images, and well-made, while a sarcastic or negatie message would be displayed with darker colors, and would have a grungy feel- so unclean lines and unpolished). And over time art has changed to fit these unconstrained messages. Artists try to outdo each other in being more thought-provoking, they get more creative with how to make people see their opinions through their work, and this cycle of changing and improving is never going to end. It will forever be a thing in motion.
Speaking of motion, one of the great things about art is its fluidity in our messages (we can talk about whatever we want), the mediums at our disposal (anything we want) and the subject of art itself (What is art anyway? Please don’t answer that here). Art itself is a moving thing, it always changes to meet and surpass the standards of the present times yet reflects on the past. Introducing digital media and the internet to the subject of art made it widely view-able and more people could participate; it just added to the flexibility of art.

Other Sarah (who is also an art student judging by her post) also focused on the article’s artistic side and the idea of using art as a message medium. She did a better job talking about condensing messages into a piece than I did, and I think explaining the real life scenario of art critiques helps explain how others perceive one’s work is helpful.
This person talks about the Dynabook’s limited storage space, which he/she pointed out that they would quickly overcome as we’ve done so in our present time. They also mentioned Pinterest and it’s endless storage space, which is terrifict aspect of the site and why it goes hand in hand with art and its fluidity (so to make that relevant to my topic of Pinterest; the site would be great at curating art due to it’s endless storage, among other things of course).
Jamie discussed how the open-ended nature of the Dynabook and the article in explaining it frequently overwhelms people. I find this problem all the time as an art student (remember when I asked to not discuss “what is art?” earlier?). I agree with Jamie that there needs to be just enough fluidity in order to not hinder any creativity people wish to explore (both with the Dynabook and the subject of art), but there does need to be point where something is too complicated or just not okay. Duchamp’s infamous Fountain piece comes to mind as it created so much argument of the definition of art. Nowadays we’re a little more open-minded and accepting, but back in 1917 a urinal was not something you’d commonly see in a gallery (unless it was in the bathroom).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *