notes from the cold far north: January 2007

whetther this is performance or reality it is amazing

the second artist i have chosen is Knut Mork Skagen who is a politcaly conciouse norwegian artist. though quite a bit of this work is technology based it manages to mantain a scence of humanity . in alls well with the norwegians the artist places a huge video screen on a wall oposite the entrance to the gallery as the screen is showing a real time video of the gallerys entrance but un like a mirror this image of the viewer is speraticly manipulated. somtimes you find your face replaced by red white or blue blobs and at times people who are not actualy present, thereby making the viewer both question the safty of thiere surroundings and there perception of it. in another piece by knut the viewer is bombarded by loud and abrasive sound as they enter the galery when they step into the mane viewing area of the gallery they find they have been tracked by cameras while they were entering, on a huge screen in front of them is images footage of themselves with frames missing so that they move in strange an disjointed ways they see the grimaces that they made in reaction to the noise and across thiere face scrolls.

How would you like to be with this person for the rest of your life

WARNING / THIS INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN BLACKLISTED / ASSOCIATION IS DISCOURAGED.

this work is moving and poinient and worth a look.

this is the first artist i chose to review daniel miller who uses robitics to creat art in projects such as pyro circle in wich he mounted a video camera to a rotating arm so as to record the progress of a flame on a wooden table as it followed a spiraling line of fuse powder. though the finished piece is quite beautifull ( a stainless steel arm is mounted n the table with a vidio screen so that you can watch the process that scarred this piece of wood that sits before you)

i begin to wonder reading the artist descriptions on his home page whether it is the action of making the piece that is important or the final piece itself. if in fact it is the act of making the piece that is the art than i find his execution rather lacking if it is the final product that is imortant why describe to me the process? when i go and see paintings i dont expect to read about the size and shape of the brush the artist used. in another piece by daniel miller entitled COLONY he uses robotic dispencing arms to create an enviroment of wax soil and grass. again the use of the robotic arm confuses me what is the point of not doing this by hand. why build a machine to create your work for you? perhaps i am ignorant but i still believe that one of the most important aspects in a piece of art is the artist hand not just concept. this and many of the other pieces on the site that we were told to choose from feel more like experiments than finished pieces.