Gregory Little
Since 2004
Works in Oberlin, Ohio United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (11) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA


>If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script
>is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film
>production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents
>very successfully as a finished work.

Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating.
PLichty discovered the other day during a class where I had tron playing
as background ambience, that polygonal modeling was first developed
during the making of tron.

However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development
of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality.

So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic, it is
as if cubism, futurism, duchamp, etc etc etc never happened--for obvious
reasons.

>
>> Honestly, Tron was better, and still is.
>
>This is a very interesting argument and one that I do agree with.
>It's not just nostalgia. I have just bought the deluxe Tron DVD and
>the thing that strikes me about it is the technical incompetences and
>intellectual failures of the project *that make it an aesthetic and
>critical (discursive) success*.
>
>If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script
>is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film
>production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents
>very successfully as a finished work.
>
>Tron is problematic and carries a high risk of failure yet is an
>aesthetic and contentual (to make up a word) success. Is this
>Bourriaud's realisation of new technical content in an old medium?
>Well, no. Both backlit animation and computer graphics were rocket
>science at the time.
>
>And Tron was also much harder work than a Pixar movie. The backlit
>animation was hand-painted and hand-composited onto film stock
>specially manufactured by Kodak just for that film. The computer
>animation was rendered a frame at a time by animators keying hundreds
>of numbers into a teletype connected to a server over a phone line.
>By four different companies with incompatible software (some were CSG
>based, some mesh-based, and so on).
>
>I like "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc", and I think it is wrong to
>discount the creativity of the individuals that worked on those
>projects in favor of grant-funded discourse illustrators.
>
>My pitch to students seduced by the surfaces of what Pixar does would
>be this:
>
>Yeah it looks good. Now imagine making *art* with those tools.
>
>http://www.renderman.org/
>
>- Rob.
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------

Gregory Little
Assistant Professor
Digital Art
School of Art
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu

DISCUSSION

RE: [thingist] RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA


seduce audiences into
>reinforcing
>what they already believe"

Regardless of whether you are Agnostic, aetheist, baptist or buddhist,
Mich's painting does deal with some fairly massive, inter-religious
questions, without answering them in a simplistic way, ie
goodguysbadguys....

And, on an aesthetic level Pixar owes a massive debt to Mikie (using
Mikie as a representative)...there is certainly nothing "aesthetically"
groundbreaking about the incredibles.

---------Included Message----------
>Date: 17-Dec-2005 10:22:08 -0500
>From: "patrick lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
>To: <thingist@bbs.thing.net>, <list@rhizome.org>
>Subject: RE: [thingist] RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
>
>Napier Wrote:
>
>I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He
>paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of
>an
>all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into
>reinforcing
>what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful
>institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical
>mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same
>
>story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.
>
>...
>
>Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work
>and
>art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was
>considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art
>because it has endured beyond it's original context.
>
>Mark,
>Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time
>had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are
>a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. Both
>were commercial. However, the nature of the culture of the time and the
>contextual functions of the given art in the given institution is quite
>different (or so I think; I'm always open to discussion).
>
>Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If
>that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------

Gregory Little
Assistant Professor
Digital Art
School of Art
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu

DISCUSSION

Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA


can't resist jumping in here, as this "master" has also been
"unshackled", but not so much from the "polishing" process of his MFA
candidates ;).....(FYI it is interesting to have at least one who
perceives himself as a "gem", another word that comes to my mind is
"pill", LOL).....I feel happily more unshacked from administrivia and
amateur psychology...

However, what patrick sez is IMO correct, we in digital arts at Bowling
Green State University have built what was at one point a year or two
ago a BFA program with over 270 majors in digital art...built entirely
on the desire of a generation of kids to do the Pixar thing...with 60%
of the faculty in digital and 100% in the school of art finding the
pixar industry thing to be NOTART, actually dangerous and corrosive of
(A)rt. A very conflicted situation, as I benefited from a zeitgeist
that I found somewhat evil...so the strategy became to subvert..we will
get them into the program and reprogram them, expose them to "real" art,
as most of them have not really seen "realart", as it is not on
television often, and turn around their motivations; or at least put
thinking critical, even tactical minds into industry to potentially
change it...... I have since found the strategy to be largely
ineffective. I have concluded that most of the students have no desire
to make discursive work, they have nothing really to contextualize or
express, they just like the work and want to see their names on the big
screen, and simply what to be a part of something powerful with a large
audience...I am seeing the work, 3d animation that is, in the context of
other functional or decorative arts like jewelry, pottery, etc. Now the
same thing is happening with the gaming meme, which will likely be the
next MOMA-like exhibition.

However, the question that comes to mind for me is this--as some have ob
served the effect of a museum show on a genre, for example netart in the
Whitney being the "death" of netart, what is the effect of Pixar at the
moma?

Greg

my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
>which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
>reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o

>
>Here's the problem with this show-
>BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
>which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
>reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o
>
>(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
>art!)
>
>Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
>home for that time.
>
>When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
>PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
>shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
>to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
>through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
>as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
>creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
>sale management...
>
>Two points here.
>One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
>the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
>problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
>the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".
>
>Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
>close, though.
>
>Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
>Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
>Falcon, out the door...
>
>I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
>that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
>that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
>another small notch down, IMO.
>
>I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
>the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
>see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)
>
>I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
>sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
>that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
>
>But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
>challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
>for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
>
>
>
>Patrick Lichty
>Editor-In-Chief
>Intelligent Agent Magazine
>http://www.intelligentagent.com
>1556 Clough Street, #28
>Bowling Green, OH 43402
>225 288 5813
>voyd@voyd.com
>
>"It is better to die on your feet
>than to live on your knees."
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
>Of T.Whid
>Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
>To: list@rhizome.org
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
>MoMA
>
>On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What would Jackson do?
>>
>> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
>> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
>>
>> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
>> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
>> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
>> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
>> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
>> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
>> Culture instead of Visual Art.
>
>I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
>it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
>Pixar as opposed to PS1.
>
>I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
>the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
>content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
>Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
>form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
>representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
>beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
>content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
>critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.
>
>Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
>the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
>doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
>just damn good entertainers.
>
>>
>> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
>> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
>> making expressive paintings?
>>
>> Jason Van Anden
>> www.smileproject.com
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
>consider...
>> >
>> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
>> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
>> > >
>> > > who? example?
>> > >
>> > > jason
>> > >
>> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
>> > > >
>> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
>more
>> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
>accord
>> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
>visual
>> > > > disciplines, especially design."
>> > > >
>> > > > To which he added this commentary:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
>> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
>What
>> > > > the two share is Design."
>> > > >
>> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> > > >
>> > > > +
>> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> > > > +
>> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Jason Van Anden
>> > > http://www.smileproject.com
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> >
>> > +
>> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> > +
>> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> > Membership Agreement available online at
>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jason Van Anden
>> http://www.smileproject.com
>>
>
>
>--
><twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------

Gregory Little
Assistant Professor
Digital Art
School of Art
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu

DISCUSSION

PLEASE DO NOT STOP FUCK BUSH


--
Gregory Little
Artist and Assistant Professor
Digital Arts
School of Art
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403
USA
419-372-2293

DISCUSSION

RHIZOME_RAW: PLEASE DO NOT


>

--
Gregory Little
Artist and Assistant Professor
Digital Arts
School of Art
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green OH 43403
USA
419-372-2293