Takeshi Murata, Silver, 2006
Back in February Rhizome’s John Michael Boling noted two early examples of artists manipulating digital compression to produce pixel bleeding for artistic effect. The post meant to dispel the idea that a) either Chairlift or Kanye West pioneered the technique, (each had released a video employing the technique recently and fans were squabbling over who stole who’s idea), and b) who did it first was even relevant.
I tend to agree with Boling, though notably this attitude doesn’t always benefit the artist. For example, Hedy Lamarr — a woman most famous for her controversial role in Ecstasy (1933), one of the first non-pornographic films to capture a sexually explicit scene — rarely receives credit for having invented the technique of 'frequency hopping.' This principle not only enabled the remote control of submarines, but would later encode radio transmissions and now drives the functionality of cell phones. While I doubt the digital manipulation of compressed data represents the same leap in technology development, recognition clearly doesn’t hurt. Lamarr died penniless.
{ 21 comments }
Hedy Lamarr invented frequency hopping???? My world view just went topsy turvy in a good way.
Hedy Lamarr invented frequency hopping???? My world view just went topsy turvy in a good way.
Hedy Lamarr invented frequency hopping???? My world view just went topsy turvy in a good way.
http://vimeo.com/groups/247/videos/3284213
this gives more insight into the “compression race”
http://vimeo.com/groups/247/videos/3284213
this gives more insight into the “compression race”
http://vimeo.com/groups/247/videos/3284213
this gives more insight into the “compression race”
In a world where pixels are so ubiquitous, using a technique that involves aestheticizing their effects seems obvious to the point that one could hardly take “credit” for it. For instance, like any one artist working with a portapak video camera in the late sixties could have dibs for using what came about from a consumer driven market. Sure, they all get props, but just one of them taking credit? It’s what you do with it that counts.
In a world where pixels are so ubiquitous, using a technique that involves aestheticizing their effects seems obvious to the point that one could hardly take “credit” for it. For instance, like any one artist working with a portapak video camera in the late sixties could have dibs for using what came about from a consumer driven market. Sure, they all get props, but just one of them taking credit? It’s what you do with it that counts.
In a world where pixels are so ubiquitous, using a technique that involves aestheticizing their effects seems obvious to the point that one could hardly take “credit” for it. For instance, like any one artist working with a portapak video camera in the late sixties could have dibs for using what came about from a consumer driven market. Sure, they all get props, but just one of them taking credit? It’s what you do with it that counts.
Tim: I agree: There is a difference between conceiving a technology that might not have been invented were it not for that one person, and being the first to do something that obviously would have been done with or with out you. That said, those “doing it first” can shape how others think to use it. I guess that’s the question here: Have these artists influenced those using the technique now? If so, it’s not irrelevant that they did it first.
Tim: I agree: There is a difference between conceiving a technology that might not have been invented were it not for that one person, and being the first to do something that obviously would have been done with or with out you. That said, those “doing it first” can shape how others think to use it. I guess that’s the question here: Have these artists influenced those using the technique now? If so, it’s not irrelevant that they did it first.
Paddy, just want to note for the record that the last comment is spam.
Rhizome is getting hammered with what appear to be live spammers writing little custom-made notes that address the content of the main post, which are vehicles for whatever shit service they are plugging.
When Ed called out one of the spammers she actually answered back defensively, “I’m spam if I leave a link? I just thought the topic was interesting.”
These are either Artificial Intelligences or low paid mechanical turkers (probably what I’ll be doing for my next job but I still hate them.)
Paddy, just want to note for the record that the last comment is spam.
Rhizome is getting hammered with what appear to be live spammers writing little custom-made notes that address the content of the main post, which are vehicles for whatever shit service they are plugging.
When Ed called out one of the spammers she actually answered back defensively, “I’m spam if I leave a link? I just thought the topic was interesting.”
These are either Artificial Intelligences or low paid mechanical turkers (probably what I’ll be doing for my next job but I still hate them.)
comment deleted. I noticed that on the Rhizome thread. I couldn’t believe she responded.
comment deleted. I noticed that on the Rhizome thread. I couldn’t believe she responded.
comment deleted. I noticed that on the Rhizome thread. I couldn’t believe she responded.
I was pretty floored. What a weird trend, spammers ruffled by criticism.
I was pretty floored. What a weird trend, spammers ruffled by criticism.
I was pretty floored. What a weird trend, spammers ruffled by criticism.
It’s an oddly coordinated spam attack… It’s clearly the work of multiple people (you can see them stumbling over how to create links in the forum). I’ve been left wondering if the intention is really spam, or if it’s some group’s idea of an artistic intervention.
It’s an oddly coordinated spam attack… It’s clearly the work of multiple people (you can see them stumbling over how to create links in the forum). I’ve been left wondering if the intention is really spam, or if it’s some group’s idea of an artistic intervention.
Comments on this entry are closed.