Can Fashion be Art? - Justine's Article

This article, using the Royal Academy's exhibition titled "Aware: Art Fashion Identity", investigates the differences between art and fashion, and whether or not the two could ever be synonymous. A few pieces from the show were named and described like a piece of artwork of any other medium would have been, but it is later revealed that curators found it necessary to explain these pieces as often as possible, as if defending them against the title of 'fashion'. Just like in any exhibitions, some pieces were able to work well on their own while others needed to be defended due to weakness. 

But I saw absolutely nothing off about this show. I think what is bringing up some of the confusion is the idea of clothing as fashion. Not all clothing is fashionable. The clothing we often acquaint ourselves with is practical first and foremost. Second, comes the aspect of fashion and preference. The purpose of fashion and art differ just as easily as art and decor. Whereas fashion is ephemeral, constantly dying and being reborn depending on consumer interest, art has a more immortal quality to it. As said in one of my favorite movies, "You can't kill an idea." Art is all about ideas. It's all about messages and intent and expressing those in one's own unique way. Clothing can be handled with that very purpose, but it would need to lose its commercial ties.

I think I'm already answering the first question. Er...I'll just get to them now before I end up answering them out of turn.

1. Fashion can't become art. Art requires intent. It requires the heart and soul of the artist to take on a life of its own, and it must survive regardless of how many admirers it has or doesn't have. Eh...doesn't sound like me, does it? To be honest, other than intent there's nothing else I can say in defense of that line between them. It's very thin and very blurred. I can't make a jab at mass production, because we all know Andy Warhol covered that with his prints. 

2. I think fashion is being confused with clothing. Fashion is a status--a state. Clothing, in its most basic and practical form, serves to cover up whatever must or ought to be covered. Clothing can be art, but in turn, it must cease to be clothing. It can be worn, if that is part of the piece, but once you stop considering yourself to be a part of the work and you're still wearing it, you've just defeated your own art; you've shot it dead. Fashion...it's like getting the bubblegum pink I-Pod to match your purse and boots. It's an accessory that you might feel best accentuates who you are and what your tastes are. I don't see such examples under the category of art unless you start bringing up the painting you bought to match your couch and the paint job in your guest room.

3. I guess it could be, if you come up with an idea that you successfully translate into clothing and the design becomes very popular. Then it has the potential to change into fashion. But it can't go back to being art once it undergoes that change.

4. Isn't it? Whenever you go to a store and see it propped up on a mannequin, isn't it sculpture? You can't take it down and wear it right then and there--instead it's supposed to give the viewer an idea of what it might look like on their body, combined with that pair of pants or those cardigans. 

5.  I don't see why. What's feminine about tissue paper? If you're just making dresses, I'd simply assume you like making them as opposed to shirts and jeans. They're often chosen by artists when it comes to making art of clothing because they have the more aesthetically pleasing shape. 

6. They wouldn't be fashion, because the standards of fashion require wearability. They could be art, if that is what you intend. 

7. You should display them in whatever way compliments the idea behind them the most. It's the same thing you think about when you consider other kinds of art that are far more acceptable. Say you have a scroll piece. It might not make any sense to frame it, but it may be stronger just letting it unravel on a table so it could be presented like a more traditional scroll. Putting a dress on a mannequin doesn't immediately make it fashion. It could be; it has the potential. But if that's not what you made it for, then it doesn't have to be.

8. I might not see them as suits unless they share a lot of the same patterns. Suits are far more restricted in design than dresses are. I'd see them differently because I'd be looking for the motifs that suggest it is a suit. 

My art doesn't really deal with fashion, so I'm not sure how I can compare my work to this article. I mean, it is an issue I was often curious about, because there are a lot of fine lines that separate art from other means of expression. In my case, it can be animation vs art. Movies vs videos. What I believe has always set them apart before are ideas. 

Sidebar Trevor von Eeden Interview - Arun's Article

The interview was actually a piece of audio on the sidebarnation website. Trevor von Eeden is a comic book artist known best for Black Lightning, the first original black superhero in the DC Universe. He is asked questions about his origins, his recognition, and his influences in his career.

All in all, he's a cool guy. I listened to the first 45 minutes of it and Eeden seemed like he enjoyed talking about his experiences and his work just as well as he enjoyed working with Neal Adams and talking about some of the artists that influenced him and why. I've always admired comic book artists for various reasons. I've always wanted to be able to do what they could do, but I know I could never have the patience for it. I only understood this when people tell me they don't believe I have the patience to do other things, like print, shoot and edit videos, sculpt, and sew. Artists lean towards their own mediums of expression even if talent-wise they may be capable of far more. So, instead of trying to make comics, I enjoy reading them instead. I wish I could tap into that form of expression for some of the ideas I might have, but I couldn't pull it off with the same way. I don't have the drive a comic book artist needs to possess if he or she wants to be recognized.

It's very hard for comic book artists to be recognized. I've learned this from people who were interested in trying to go that route. If you're not persistent, you won't make it very far. Like any other kind of freelance art, you'll get rejected many times, and it's all a matter of finding the right people at the right time.

Anyways, I'm going to get to answering the questions:

1. I started working in black and white more often when I noticed that I pay far more attention to values and lines in my sketches and concepts than I ever do to color. Color is always a second thought, like the background in a piece where only the subject was taken into consideration. Another thing I notice in my developmental processes is my evolution of style. About ninety percent of the time I'm being influenced by a style of another artist I am recently placing the most interest in. A lot of that influence comes from games or shows; not necessarily other fine artists. I don't try to change that. Sure, I'll look at other artwork from time to time, but fine artwork was not the very basis of my interest in drawing, painting, and sculpting. All it has ever inspired me to do is develop new techniques by examining and dissecting ones used in the works of others. And I'm talking about technical things that manipulate the visual and physical presence of the work. 

2. I'm not sure anymore. If musicians count, I'd say Beck and David Bowie. If producers count, I'd say Fritz Lang and Tim Burton. I consider them artists even if they don't work in the same medium as I do. But stylistically, in their own way, they've been of great influence to me. There's William Kentridge, sure, but he came in pretty late in the game. I've seen his work in person and it was amazing to look upon, but he doesn't have the nostalgic, heroic punch that the former artists I mentioned possess to me. When I was younger, before art school, I was a fan of Salvador Dali, mainly for the detail, symbols, and the play on imagery. I've grown detached over the years however. 

3. Sometimes. I'll have to admit that making stop motion videos is extremely tedious and since my dad's less than positive reaction to the first one I made, I lost a lot of enthusiasm in making them. But the raves I got from everyone else kept me going with it, even though I've been steadily losing interest. For anything else I do, it's very hard for me to tell. I'm a chameleon; my colors change depending on the environment I'm in. The same goes for my art. Depending on the audience, where I am when I make the work, and how I feel, things change. 

4. I'm more fond of the result than the process. I've come to realize that in everything else I do, even though I try to fool myself when it comes to printmaking. No. Even then I care more about the piece than the work it took to make it. My interest in process does exist however, when I'm doing something new. If I'm trying something I haven't tried before, using a method of my own division from the observations I've made of some interesting piece of work, I get very excited about trying it out and seeing if I can make it function properly.

5. Of course. You draw from observation, ergo what you see is what you're experiencing. Sometimes whatever you're drawing may not look exactly like it does in real life, but that just informs the viewer all the more of your own state of mind vs the world around you. I see someone who's trying to sharpen their skills, who enjoys drawing and keeps doing it in hope of improving. To what means, I'm not sure, but you still try. And I know you've done drawings that don't necessarily come from observation, but they still say something about what has influenced you in the past.

6. If you're still doing drawings, making monotypes, and weighing the option of making comic book pages, then sure. A lot of experience is translated into those forms. But I do think that you should arrange experiences in a more narrative fashion. I saw nothing wrong with presenting your work in a sketchbook format. Books are one of the most classical ways of telling a narrative. 

7. Not really. I think we all get that, maybe not all the time, but I know I can't look at something I've done without seeing room for improvement. Why should I base my opinion on that if I often feel the same about my own work?

I wish I could say that I had some gleaming role models and that I came into some luck or that I developed some revolutionary technique, but I'd be lying if I tried. My work is often born from sleepless nights and indecipherable sketches and they find organization soon enough from there on out. But I've always been trying to find my own way and do whatever interests me the most. 

An Artful Environmental Impact Statement - Alex's Article

Alex's article revolves around J. Henry Fair's environmental photography, and how it leads a double life as both photographic evidence of environmental pollution caused by mankind and an homage to abstract painting do to its color and overall appearance. He takes photographs, often in aerial view, of the sort of things we weren't 'supposed to see'. He captures images of unnatural disasters caused by oil spills and industry that gives one a sense of the grand scale and spread of its influence. Yet his work has been picked through and edited for the Gerald Peters Gallery, where they are mainly interested in the abstract quality of his pictures. The issue here is whether the artist must choose at this point what his photographs should become. Are they a statement against the attacking of our own environment, or are they works of art that are to be taken as abstract details rather than depictions of destruction?

I don't think art should have to lead a double life unless the artist doesn't mind the consequences of it. If he's aware that his photographs will not have as much of an impact when it comes to what they convey and the truth behind why they were taken, then by all means, call it abstract art and make some money. But one must be prepared to live by it for a while. Once people know you're the guy who takes lovely abstract photographs, they won't know much else. 

I probably would keep any political work separate from straight-up art. Actually, since there's no danger of me going political, I can rather say that I'd keep my fine art and my illustrative/commissioned works separate from one another. Even if I have to go by a different name, I wouldn't want one to be associated with the other--then people will start looking for things that aren't there. All because I might draw twelve pictures of cats for people so I can make some money on the side and then make a piece about the apocalypse doesn't mean that the later work alludes to be being a crazy cat lady whose house is falling apart. Well...maybeI; that's not the best analogy--I've never been good at those sorts of things--but I guess you might get the point by now. It really depends on the artist's integrity. Henry could have refused to do a show at that gallery if they wouldn't include different photographs or he didn't want to settle for artsy titles that evoke the atmosphere rather than the actual event. 

Now for questions:

1. It's pretty harsh for some, and easy for others. It depends on how much the original work matters to you versus how important it is for you to change it. I couldn't do it and like the result. I would, if I were desperate enough for attention and I could live with myself by selling out my own stuff, but I wouldn't be attached to the transformed piece. It'd become a husk. Something I'd discard without much of a care. Like an old idea, I would no longer be interested in it. I would have had to be disinterested it re-hash it in the first place.

2. I choose stop motion because of the storytelling elements often found in stop motion pieces and cinema itself. I've always enjoyed moving pictures, as well as watching something real and physical move on its own accord though no life runs through it. It is the illusion of life--and something that always fascinated me like some magician's trick. I chose printmaking mainly for the ability to make duplicates and have back-up work, but secondarily because I enjoy doing it and I wanted to incorporate what I enjoyed doing into something else I liked as much. I found that making set materials for these videos would suit it well.

3. I believe it may be for all those reasons. After all, what galleries are most interested in above all is public interest. They can't gain any recognition, display and sell more work, or gain more of a reputation if there aren't enough people interested in the work that they show. They're appealing to the masses, not necessarily to the artist that shows for them. It doesn't make them evil or anything--that's just how GP operates. Artists who show there will still get recognition for themselves, but it will be on the gallery's terms.

4. Art may be considered a documentation of your ideas, feelings, and/or beliefs. It might not be as straight forward as the most serious set of records, but it does share that in common. It retains and even displays information, and like the form of documentation that it is, it often betrays that information as it changes through time. 

5. Yeah, I do, but at the same time I can't be too sure. Your paintings seem environmental to me, in the sense that they convey an atmosphere, but if I hadn't known that you were painting different locations you've visited, I wouldn't have gotten as much of the environment out of it. Only when I knew what I was looking for did I see it. But they are atmospheric. I'm not sure if that's the same animal.

6. I think they work out fine, since paint/pigment has been used to convey this and practically any image under the sun at one time or another. I don't think painting is wrong for it. I don't know what else you ought to use to make the message clearer. 

7. For your work, scale is important. Work that is larger better engulfs the viewer. If your paintings were small, they wouldn't have such an effect. They would be lost to the wall instead of coming off of it. The scale that you use now is great--it's large, but it isn't large enough to be too redundant. 

8. I'm hoping those colors are determined by your emotional response to the environments you've visited, and if that's the case, you should use the colors you feel work the best with the place. But if you're concerned about variety, perhaps you should visit a few more places. Ones you've never been in before. 

I probably would have done what Henry did in the same situation to get the recognition, but only because it's all part of a larger series of work that has to do with his documentation of these unnatural disasters. I wouldn't have done what he did with the names. They would have been named however it was that I intended them to be named. In fact, I thought his images would be more profound if their titles actually described what the image was taken of, even to abstract art enthusiasts. But I wouldn't want to show work I didn't like in a gallery because then I would feel obligated to doing something I'm not passionate about. If that's the case, what makes it any more different from work? I was told to do what I love so I wouldn't have to work a day in my life. 

Left vs Right Brain - Whitley's Article

The video that Whitley provided us with was about the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and how they differ cognitively from one another. A man who once suffered from seizures on a daily basis was subjected to the surgical separation of his hemispheres from communicating with one another. This resulted in leaving the man with 'two brains'. It doesn't seem all that remarkable at first, since we all have right and left brains in our heads, but the series of experiments show that both hemispheres operate very differently, and without the communication, one half of a person's senses is severely impaired.

I love medical sciences. I watched this video, very interested, and I found the results of these experiments to be extremely interesting. I was already aware of the fact that the right brain  is pictorially oriented while the left is detail and logic oriented. However, when both were incapable of communicating with one another, their differences became far clearer. The right brain couldn't see the text--it saw what the text represented. Meanwhile, the left brain could read the text, but if he were asked to draw it without hearing himself say it, would he be able to do so, or would he re-write the word? They didn't have him try that one, but I was curious to find out. 

Question time.~

1. I guess...It would start in my left brain, a concept, then spoken aloud would be imagined by the right brain, then drawn out by my left hand {fortunately I can kind of write with both, but it didn't look like it mattered to the man in the experiment} so that my left half could try to make out what elements would better convey the concept if something doesn't appear to work. I...don't know if that'd really work though. According to the man in the experiment, he doesn't feel different at all. He doesn't feel impaired, but he's just this guy who works at an egg carting factory and he's not an artist. I wonder if there is one with the same condition? Maybe he/she would know. Or maybe the reason why there might not be one would be the impossibility of such a thing--an artist with the communication between brains being severed.

2. Probably. I tried to make sense of what I would do if it were me, but I'm not sure it would work out. I don't know the 'rules'. This doesn't happen to every other person, and I certainly don't know of an artist with this condition. We do rely on both to come up with concepts and execute them. We have both images and messages we intend to send through our work. Even pure eye-candy has its logic. 

3. Images come first, speech second. I imagine that is why it was hard for me to take on Spanish even when I was raised by a hispanic family. I didn't know what they were talking about unless they were pointing at it, calling someone by name, or holding it in their hand. Plus, I like to think of impressive, chaotic, and ironic things, and they always hit me as an image at first.

4. It probably wouldn't have text, or I'd put text in there that wouldn't say anything just for the aesthetic quality o the text. My work would be heavy in images, rich with what I'd like to say but am incapable of saying.

5.  I usually do. I know everyone's different, especially in the way they think. My dad's side of the family has always been highly-rational and left-brain oriented while my mom's side is a little of both leaning to right. I feel like I'm leaning far right, but my left side ain't dead, it's just not easily entertained. I try to respect intellectual work by taking on a different point of view, but it doesn't come as naturally to me as suddenly appreciating something that looks very cool. But I do try. I know I ought to.

I can't imagine making my art in the absence of either one of my brains, but I let my right brain run free where my left brain mostly barges in to keep the piece going in the proper direction. They really balance each other out in the end, as I'm sure they're meant to do, but you can sometimes tell which one is more dominant, and I'm sure that title goes to the right. I prefer what looks better to whatever sounds better. Logic only seems to bring up a basis for argument which I want little to do with. 

Woody on Aesthetic Appreciation - Shellie's Article

This passage, or chapter, was written by Jason Holt in a book called Woody Allen and Philosophy. Holt explains that in order for art to be aesthetically successful, there must be a balance of intellectual and emotional content. If a work is overly intellectual, it is reduced to intellectual jargon and contradictions among different viewers, which confuses and defeats the piece where it stands without allowing it to simply be enjoyed or appreciated. When a work is under-intellectualized, or rather overwrought with emotion, it tends to be lost in its own beauty with little to discriminate it from other works of its kind.

Personally, I think the balance is ideal, but it isn't the only way a piece can succeed aesthetically. In the world, there are billions of people with infinite discrepancies in taste. Some people only like art if it engages the mind, and they might have little to no interest in what it looks like or how emotionally devoid it happens to be. Others prefer pretty pictures and have little to no interest in the intellectual content. What might be more successful overall would certainly require a blend of both however, to better please both sides. Something smart and pleasing to look at, as well as evocative, is something I'd be interested in seeing. It's something I'm sure a lot of people would be pleased to see. But when it all comes down to it, I believe there are other matters that inform a work's success. Even if something speaks intellectually and evokes emotion, it may not appeal to someone who doesn't see eye to eye with the artist. It won't appeal to someone who has an aversion to a certain material, style, or message. Art is highly subjective, as is aesthetic appreciation. 

I'll just go on to answer the questions now:

1. I've never seen any of his movies or read any of his books to be honest. I know, I'm probably missing out on something big, but Woody Allen was never a part of my life. I mostly watched or maintained interest in whatever my parents would watch when I was a kid. I thought they had good taste so that's where I came in. Then into my teenage years and onward, I only recently started to become interested in older films. But going by the quotations on the chapter, which I'm guessing might even be the best base of reference, it does sound like these quotes are rather mocking of the contemporary art world in general. I'm not sure about us. We know each other and each other's work. We know what we're all doing, so we don't have to just assume we know the message--if we're not sure, we can ask. We don't have to resort to being over-intellectual with one another because it's easy to get the information straight from the horse's mouth. I will admit however, that in Sophomore year, or around that time, it was a lot less like the way it is now. People didn't know, people didn't want to explain, and therefore people had to make assumptions. I imagine Allen does it because it is silly to over-intellectualize something and walk away thinking you know all about it. It defeats the artwork if you get it all wrong and even if you're right you're just evoking debate from those who don't get it. 

2. Sometimes. I have to start by being excited about something, or I'll never do it, so at first I'm not faking it. It's when I've started, or it's been done before, or I've gone weary of working with the same message that I'll start to pretend I'm excited. I'll do it because I don't want my work to be weak all because I don't really care about it. I want it to have value despite how I feel. If it no longer appeals to me, it should be sellable at the very least.

3. I'm not sure. I thought my art wasn't very intellectual, but when I think about it, it has a bit. I always feel as if it needs to be more obvious--without being too obvious. I believe it gains more emotional appreciation at the moment, but I do like to get clever. I guess that's where it kicks in a little. Aesthetically, I'd say my art is decent. Not amazing but it's not shit either. Like the emotion and the intellect behind it, it always seems to me like it's missing something. Like it's a piece of a greater puzzle that I'm still trying to figure out. I wonder if others feel the same.

4. I care. I really, really do. I'm very particular about how it looks. I don't step back anymore, since I've been working smaller and most of the time on plates. I don't think it becomes any less intellectual. In fact, I do it to retain my personal aesthetic without changing the script or the message. In the end that's what really counts, but I believe the delivery should be just as strong.

5. It does when I think about why you make so many pictures of wetlands. I start to think you must love them enough to attempt to preserve them in your images. And then you sell the work and donate some of it towards wetland preservation. 

6. Er...maybe 7-8? And for yours, I'd have to say around 6-7. 

7. If I should guess, I'd have to say that you want to avoid the contradictions and confusion, as well as all the intellectual jargon that might get your true intent all wrong. 

8. I agree. It's soft and it's neutral-toned, as well as detailed and meditative. Those are all traits that promote relaxation.

I might have said enough about my work in relation to this article when answering Shellie's questions. I don't think it's intellectual enough just yet {I don't want it to be too intellectual, but I don't want it to be purely emotional} and I don't believe that the emotion is strong enough just yet either. I'm working on that. My latest piece might be my more successful attempt.

Marshall McLuhan - Jeffrey's 'Article'

This audio really seems to cover a lot of information and ideas, which seem to revolve around the world of today and the world of tomorrow in regards to humans and the modern environment. McLuhan's discussion with these high school students seems heated, as the students often ask of the value of school and his response often leads to the idea that school is more of a waste of time. Structure is explained and questioned throughout.

To be honest, McLuhan's ideas and predictions are pretty valid. His ideas are intriguing. However, I'd like to hear what he has to say without the interruption of the students' questioning. He's constantly defending his ideas, well I might add, but the questions the students ask may not evoke all the information he has to divulge. I feel like he needs to talk first and then be questioned. Or that maybe we should read about his ideas and then listen to this discussion in case the students ask anything that we've been wondering about. It was just really hard for me to focus on the ideas this man had when there's a couple dozen students arguing in the background. I mean...the arguing does reveal that the students find his ideas controversial and questionable, but now I know this processing took place several decades ago and that makes plenty of sense. 

So I googled him up and decided to read about some of his philosophies without the distraction and interruption. He had quite a few remarkable ideas for his time. 

I'm just going to go ahead and answer the questions because I think I'll have more to say with something to answer. Which is kind of ironic when I consider the students in the audio distracting me from McLuhan's information. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to give it so freely without the provocation? Maybe not. Anyways, here we go:

1. The students are having trouble breaking away from the social tapestry to understand some of McLuhan's ideas. They don't want to think they've been wasting their time. They believe they need to go to school and keep busy in order to survive in today's society. They think they can get away from media when they've been processed from childhood and so forth. 

2. McLuhan finds the institution of education to be a place and time of leisure. There one is processed to become a part of society. Apparently, it's not hard {though I tend to disagree because there are people who do have trouble learning}, but when you consider that anyone can pass it with time and patience, you start to see why. School is an institution designed to shape someone into a member of the society. Learning is something you can do anywhere, but school teaches specific subjects in order to cut in anything that will benefit the society as a whole.

3. I think. Sometimes I get a little lost and I can't quite focus. I'm a better reader than a listener because when reading I have my own pace of translating text into information. If I'm right, he's revealing that humankind is being drawn together and slowly changing into a global society. Technology, media, and education are pulling everyone together. There's no way to escape it, and nature itself is no longer free from the reach of our technological prowess. I'm probably missing a ton of other ideas too, but like I said, I really had trouble being attentive.

4. Yeah, definitely. I read that he even predicted the existence of the World Wide Web several years before it existed. He noticed how media and technology started bringing everyone together. The world has become more industrialized and people are attending schools in greater numbers, seeking work in communications and being taught while they're there other languages as well as being prepared for a world of computers. In fact, I remember when my elementary school started having mandatory computer classes. They were setting us up to be compatible to a digital society. 

5. Could be either/could be both. The medium is often designed to send a specific message, but it does so through massage. A medium can be created specifically to entice the senses and nothing more, but I doubt that a medium can convey a message without the massage. Now when it comes to your work, I believe it very well could be both. It depends on the message and if you have one. The massage probably comes into play by default.

6. Hi-def can capture far more attention and become far more addicting than low-def. People seem to be more attracted to pretty, entertaining, and flashy things.

7. Yep. But it depends on where the meme is circulated and the audience that it gains. For instance, and I can only use internet memes as an example because I'm far more acquainted with them than any other kind, the internet meme starts out as an idea that comes from some sort of image or phrase. This idea blooms depending on how amusing it is and it is sent along and shared with others that might find it just as amusing. The meme itself has to be amusing however, or it won't take off. It's all a matter of interest. This pretty much goes for any kind of meme really. 

8. When looking at a drawing on a screen, there's the lack of legitimacy and the lack of authenticity to put up with. You can still admire the technical skill, but it is restricted by the size of your monitor or the colors your monitor supports. It's well lit all over, and reduced to a very flattened state. Meanwhile, the drawing is touchable. It's there and you know it exists. It was drawn and it is hanging before you and it exists in your realm. It can be lit different ways, seen for what it is, and it isn't restricted to anything other than nature itself. You feel more attachment to something of this quality.

Hm...as for how this relates to my work...I have no idea. I guess media has an influence on my subject, especially since media has strongly influenced the themes of the apocalypse I am most interested in. But as for how I think it plays into society/technology/and the lot...I just don't know. It's a lot easier to share; I can say that much. I can post pictures of my work on the internet and get it far more views there than it might get in it's corporeal form. 

In Defense of the Poor Image - Kris's Article

Hito Steyerl writes about the poor image; this is described as an image of low quality, low resolution, with great speed at the cost of deterioration. The poor 'image' in this case includes both still and moving. Steyerl tells us where they come from, where they go, how they get there, and what we might make of them. It all starts with an original. It's an event, the first image taken of an event, a fresh painting, or the first shooting of film or video. Then it's taken and multiplied through digital media, compressed, ripped, reedited, and reformatted. Quality is lost, whether it's the importance of an original or the lack of visual information which was lost along the way. Though it's deterioration at work, it's a resurrection. Old, forgotten images get dusted off and shared. The quality either becomes looked over, or the charm we settle for as we enjoy these reanimated pieces. The circulation continues and the imperfect cinema is born in an unlikely place. 

I never had much of a fondness for images of poor quality, but I have dealt with them, and on occasion have learned to love them. For instance, I used to watch pirated movies online {that I own now so please don't come after me you have no proof that I might have broken the law because I didn't say which movies and I do in fact own movies. =P} and I actually fell in love with a few even if the quality of the image wasn't cinema pristine. It was instant gratification; I wanted to see So and Such and I got to see it by poking around the internet. But when it comes to references, or when I want to see something as I might be able to see it in person, poor images tend to get on my nerves. I understand what they can be good, or even great for. I won't switch to the higher-priced HD television just so I could see the freckles on the news anchor's face. I don't mind losing a little information. That doesn't always make an image poor anyways. I think 'poor' is pretty subjective. If you're talking about the picture of missiles in the article that looks like a jpeg saved ten times over, then yeah, maybe it is poor quality. But what about to someone who simply wants to know what a missile from that angle looks like? They'll deal. They'll trace around it and look for a better pictures to get the details from.

But does that make their image poor quality? Once again, it's subjective. It could still look realistic to one person or another.

On to the answers:

1. I believe the author meant to pick at images that have been uploaded, ripped, saved in other formats, or generally deteriorated from the original source. It doesn't even have to be something that has been circulating for a while. A picture of a bird perched on a tree taken by your Nextel camera phone can be just as poor a quality. 

2. The contemporary heirarchy of images is in reference to quality over content. In this case, something with far more detail and clarity would be a higher-class image while something that exhibits signs of interference and lack of definition would be of a lower class. 

3. I guess work is experimental if it's approached with an idea that is yet to be tested. I liken it to a science project after you've got a hypothesis to work with. You get whatever materials you think are going to be necessary and you try out an approach you've never taken before.

4. I don't think so. I only think of an image as poor when it's failing to meet the right expectations. If I want something with detail, then anything with a lack of clarity will seem poor to me. If I just want to watch an edited video of He-Man singing 'What's Going On' in a flamboyantly camp design in his mid-80's television series for the amusement, the re-hashed edit of a complete show with a lack of detail doesn't butt into it. I'm still laughing, everyone's synced to the music, and I could care less what quality the article's author might assign to it. It's great shit.

5. The quality of a painting is traditionally judged on different terms, however, with the introduction of projectors, slides, then computers and file-sharing {etc}, something changed. Looking at a painting without seeing the physical painting is a drastically different experience. It's like how you've seen the Mona Lisa pictured in textbooks or projected against a wall about 6"x3" or something and then you go and see it at the museum and realize...it's a lot smaller. It's a lot darker/lighter. It's a lot more weathered/manicured in appearance. Seeing the image of a painting VS being in the presence of the real deal are two different experiences. 

6. Like I said before, I believe the quality of the image is ultimately determined by the individual. A 'poor' quality image to one might be just what another is looking for. In general, or in terms of digital media, it's only absolute in definition. A highly compressed jpeg that looks like a manic oil painting with random pixels breaking it up will be considered poor simply because of the file-type. But I simply measure the quality based on its use to me.

7. I like to look at reference material for a lot of my work, but the quality is only an issue if I want details that most lower quality images can't provide. And with the stop motions I've been making lately, I try to make the motions seem more professional with every trial. But I've come to love my choppier style. 

8. The human condition cuts into it a lot. Since my work is heavy on the insight, if I'm feeling any which way, my work often follows. I don't have a lot of personal qualms except for a fear of the future, and that's pretty much what my apocalyptic subject was born from. My desire to have the present cease so the future might never come to exist.

My stop-motion, when I think about all the ones I've seen, might seem low in quality by more traditional terms. It isn't fluid, the movements are awkward, and the effects are easier to decipher. When I compress the video files, I obviously don't click on the most definite save. I have a preference, and so far the digital quality of it hasn't let me down in the past. It may not be HD, but I don't need the details to be /that/ apparent. I like to leave a lot to the imagination, and I'm sure that's another charm poor quality images might have to offer.