Why I'm Terrified of "Wall-E"

It seems like in today's world, I would be considered kind of strange. I hate texting. I prefer mixing batter with a spoon or whisk rather than a mixer, and I really like writing by hand. I hand-write almost every paper, story, script or whatever before I even go near a computer. I turn the computer off. I think, first of all, that it keeps me from being distracted. My notebook has no internet, no friends to talk to, no silly cracked.com lists to read. It's just me writing, uninfluenced by spell check or auto-correct.

I think the biggest part of it is that I like seeing my work in my own handwriting before I type it. It feels more personal. The words on that page are entirely mine, written in the way I like to write them and void of any green squiggly lines. I like breaking (some) grammar rules. I like exploring my options and inventing new words without being told by my computer that I'm wrong.

For me, technology cannot make the art. It makes the wrapping paper. It takes what I've made and packages it into a pretty box with a ribbon, but I get to take full credit for the present inside. This is necessary for professional-looking work, which is necessary in the professional world. But technology cannot replace the decisions we make, even the bad ones, that make our art unique and interesting.

I see technology as a double-edged sword. Internet and cell phones allow us to communicate with so many people we probably never would otherwise - we catch up with old friends, keep in contact over large distances, and make new friends without even leaving our houses. However, it becomes a problem when emails, texting and chats replace actually talking to people. I like having conversations. I like physically talking to people and having my sarcasm fully understood and appreciated. I also like drawing with a pencil or painting with an actual paint brush. I like feeding real dogs and real fish, and harvesting real strawberries. I like playing a real guitar (regardless of the fact that I only know one chord).

Here's where my title comes in - I am really incredibly scared of the future. I don't care if the apocalypse comes. I don't care about zombies. I'm scared of spending all of my time zooming around in a little pod because I'm too fat to walk. I'm scared of not speaking to anyone in person. It's great that technology is there, but I don't want to lose the option of ignoring it.

- Lauren Piester

Creative Commons; what are people afraid of?

Photo By Jassy-50 via Flickr

When it comes down to what most people consider art, we think of what we see in museums. And museums, too, consider what they hold in their collection and archives art. There are many stern rules about recording, documenting and viewing art within the death-grip of modern museums. Work in museums is limited to those who can spend the money and time in the space it self. Many people do not fit this category. Opening the museums up on the terms of the individual may be what we need.


After reading the article "Policy of Reality Versus Reality of Policy" by Douglas McLennan the importance of Creative Commons world, where we share imagery and ideas without the fear of losing something by making it public, became even more evident. Douglas writes: 

I believe in net neutrality, in Creative Commons and sharing and transparency and giving away things not because they seem like cool concepts, but because they seem like good common sense business strategy. Good business strategy, by the way, that puts more control in the hands of the individual.

Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that increases sharing and improves collaboration through a new sort of Copyright. By declaring a work under a CC License, you allow other people to sample, use, quote, expand and collaborate on your ideas. This concept  makes art available and accessible. Some groups in the music industry are releasing albums free to the public through their websites and are seeing great increases in merchandise and ticket sales due to increased popularity. I believe people support what they truly like. The best way to get your art out into the world is to set it free.

I'm currently working on a project in efforts to bring archived imagery to the public. This is to share the works and legacy left behind by creators of the past on an Internet archive. The Museum of Modern Art in New York has been hesitant, to say the least, to release their images to the public eye. It would seem as if they would rather keep the images locked in their archives than risk someone having a copy on their hard drive. MoMA seems to think that these are proprietary images meant for their digression but in many ways they are just the ones meant to preserve the work. As the line becomes more and more unclear as what museums are actually used for we get many pieces of art and eventually history closed behind doors. 


Museums and archives around the world seem to believe the public is a scary and not to be trusted. I believe there is a better way. Now I ask you, and the world, what are you afraid of?


- Jeremy Mumenthaler

Except where otherwise noted, content in this post is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

The News:

Ever read the newspaper?  I do at least once a week at work.  I find journalism a type of art, an art form which is tricky because it requires a certain talent for holding one’s audience while giving accurate information in an interesting manor.  As a Columbia Student I have a slight problem with our newspaper, The Chronicle. (I would like to note that I also have some issues with other newspapers but I’m going to stick to the Chronicle for the sake that we are all Columbia students)  When I sit down with it I always give the whole paper a once over, deciding what article to read first and every time I do this, there is always something disappointing or just silly in the paper.  As an example, many Decembers ago, there was an article on how to bake the perfect sugar cookie.  This lack of seriousness or lack of educational importance in that article is not just limited to that one particular paper, it is in every edition of The Chronicle.  

As a Columbia College student, and especially because I’m a writing student, I want the Chronicle to represent our school and me well.  I feel that too often various journalists view their shorter pieces as filler and do not write about pertain topics all while using juvenile language and poorly constructed sentences or structure.  Reading about ways to change up Ramen is an understandable topic to write about it but wouldn’t it be more pressing to speak about what junk food does to one’s body or about the obesity epidemic?   I know, it seems like I’m being a bah-hum-bug, but I’m not Scrooge I promise.  I feel strongly that if the Chronicle pressed for more out of their writers, better edited pieces, or just had a slightly more serious tone, that it would be taken more seriously and considered a better paper.  I’ll still read The Chronicle as long as I’m at Columbia, and I thank and applaud those who write great informative articles, but I hope over time, I see something change before I’m graduated.   

-Kelsey 

Photography: High Dynamic Range

In the fine art world, there has been a new genre of photography emerging called high dynamic range.  It's a digital imaging technique where three images or more are combined to create a higher contrast picture where the highlights and shadows both have detail, giving the image a dramatic feel without any use of studio lighting (can be achieved with one image only if it is extensively dodged and burned).  In short, it can give you a properly exposed image with little to no work at all.

As an avid flickr user, I've notice many photographers are now using this technique.  Although I feel that photography is a technical process just as much as an art form, it takes away a sense of dignity.

I find these images visually compelling, but they seem to be produced for that sole purpose only: how 'cool' can I make my image look.  I love digitally manipulating an image as much as the next guy, but as a photography major I feel it is necessary to learn the basics and foundations of the trait as like any other art form.

In an art school where you have no choice but to dig yourself into an early financial grave, I'd like to think my money and long hours spent in the darkroom aren't going to waste.

-Jonathan

Are videogames art?

Written by Jack

So I'm a huge nerd (as most of us are) and an avid gamer/wannabe game designer and in the circles I frequent there is a rather infuriatingly repeated question: Are videogames art?  Before I give my opinion, I'd just like to say that the purpose of this post is more to satisfy my own curiosity on what everyone outside of my circle thinks rather than to convert anyone.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that they (read: some) absolutely are the very definition of art.  They can be emotionally engaging in both their narrative and their gameplay, the process of making them (and making them good) is a finely tuned creative skill, and, at the most basic level, they be pretty.  Others would not agree, including critic Roger Ebert.

Mr. Ebert set the internets aflame a few months ago when he wrote a post entitled "Videogames Can Never Be Art."  Ebert has long held this position, but never expounded on it.  And even when he did, his argument was reactive and convoluted.  He didn't even give his definition of Art (until he recanted his position) and failed to even grasp what meaning a good game could bestow, let alone play one.

So I ask you, dudes and dudettes,  do you believe that games are art?  And if not, could they be?

Sorry for the late post y'all!