After being outside for a while, Toby barks because he has wrapped his run cord around the legs of the porch again. I follow the path of the cord to find him...hole dug in dirt here, wet puddle there, another hole there, and finally a #2 carefully balanced about a foot off the ground on a giant weed that has yet to be pulled from the patch of yard that really needs it. How does he even do that? Then I hear the happy growl and find him kicking his hind legs in a victory maneuver, a sign of my dog’s pride in his accomplishment. I unhook him from his lead, and unthread the run from the weedy yard. He comes in, I wash my hands, and he immediately engages in a search for something else bad to do. And takes a nice long drink of ammo. Oh, Toby. It’s gonna be a long day! Mind you, the whole time, Hapi is saying “Oh, Toby, Nooo!!!” and the like. What a way to start the day!
As part of the class I am taking we talked about the issue of computer generated imagery as “art.” Is it art if a person hasn’t made choices about the image? There are so many apps that have quick, one step “arty” image manipulation results that produce things that look like art. Is the person telling the computer what to do actually an artist? Or, is it just a mechanical function of a machine? I think we are too close to the emergence of this technology to really tell yet. In the meantime, I vote “no” on simple filters being called artistic images. Maybe call them an enhanced photo, and cite the filter and app? New rules for the classroom.
What prompts me to write about this is that today Google greeted me with a notification about “stylized” photos that it created from recent images in my Google Photos gallery. I felt a bit creeped out! Here is an example of a nice photo I took yesterday morning of a gorgeous hibiscus in my neighbor’s garden, as enhanced by Google. It looks like art to me, but a human mind or hand never made any decisions about it, beyond the software developer writing the code and my finger that clicked the button. Some would argue that it is art as long as the artist intends it to be so (I mean, Duchamp called a urinal art in the 20’s and changed the world forever, right?) I took the photo, so am I the “artist” here? Google selected it and altered it -- is Google the artist? Can it be? If I take this image and stitch and bead it, am I now the artist? Or is it always going to be null and void in the originality department because of its automated origin? I have to use this example with my students in the fall. So many ways to move on this concept.
A fun little page came my way on Facebook showing how an artist Shamekh Bluwi,created a drawing with a negative space in it, and used a camera to record a variety of ways the image could be completed when it was held up against different backgrounds. Really fun, and another way kids could be using technology in the art room. So many threads to weave into our next school year. I heard that the classroom is almost back together from being cleaned up, so I will be starting earlier than normal to ensure a well organized year. Glad the teacher brain is starting to bubble. Cheers.