I am interested in tools because they can jolt my mind into finding / expressing / using things it couldn't otherwise envision. The "constraint" of tools is the key to aesthetic transformation, which then helps me see / live better the rest of the time.
I'm not interested in unfiltered manifestation of something direct from my, or anyone's, brain. I already live there. Same even with the "dream" of 3D 360degree cinema - I already live in a 3D immersive world. I need things like cinema to enlighten, inform, enhance being alive, not duplicate it - goes for the life outside as well as inner life. Making art is a way to surpass the limitations of the brain. The constraints of the tools are catalysts in this process. Brook On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Aaron F. Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > This is not unsettling to me, I've been waiting for it to happen > since I first read science fiction stories as a young boy. > > With brain-machine interfaces, the opportunities for self-expression > will be blown wide open. At that point, I'm hoping that the most > imaginative visionaries should be able to rise to the forefront of > public awareness. No longer will we be constrained by tools. > Artisanal craftsmanship will no longer exist, to be replaced by pure > intellect. And that's a good thing. > > I gave a talk this year that touched upon this topic, mainly in the > context of how 3D graphics has widened the scope of possibilities for > art and communication. I know that computer art is very unpopular > among this crowd, I've been attacked again and again for mentioning > it, so let the flames begin. I'm wearing my flame-retardant vest. > > http://www.dr-yo.com/video_dorkbot_2011.html > > Aaron > > > > > > At 10/28/2011, you wrote: >>Interesting article with complex social, biological, as well >>as aesthetic implications into the future. . . . Obviously, >>capturing imagery is a far cry from understanding the complexities >>of 'thought,' and it's still very futuristic, but as we conceivably >>'think' to each other, or project our thought/images, there would >>have to be resultant changes in consciousness, and the role of the >>artist would necessarily be re-defined along with >>everything/everyone else. "Direct" visual art? Ultimate loss of >>the artisanal? And/or a revitalizing of same? I realize this has >>little or no immediate relevance to anyone here (probably), but it >>showed up in my email and I just thought some frameworkers would >>possibly find it interesting as well: >>http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity >>Marilyn Brakhage _______________________________________________ >>FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] >>https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > ------------------------------------------- > > Aaron F. Ross > Digital Arts Guild > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > -- ____________________________ Brook Hinton Moving Image and Sound Maker www.brookhinton.com Associate Professor / Assistant Chair Film Program at CCA California College of the Arts www.cca.edu/film _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
