A tool that works on a problem that is unknown is a condiment container that can generate whatever condiment you choose on command. Or a butter stick that looks like a glue stick, so you save the use of a utensil.

“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin explores how the emergence of technologies such as film and photography changed art, its production, and its response. A passage from the reading that stood out to me was the concept of aura, which refers to the distinctive atmosphere or presence of a work of art. He describes it as “the technique of reproduction [that] detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence”. (page 221) Back then, traditional art like sculptures and paintings had an aura derived from context and originality. But with newer mechanical reproduction, art can be mass-produced, destroying its uniqueness and aura. I agree with Benjamin’s statement since seeing an exclusive work of art in person can feel greatly different than seeing an image of the art online. Personally, I enjoy visiting museums and viewing the art in person, because of its authenticity and unique presence. As I continued to read Benjamin’s writing, I noticed the democratization of art can be viewed as a double-edged sword. Although reproduced art detaches the art from its original context, it becomes accessible to a broader audience, fostering new ways of perceiving and consuming art.

While reading “The Medium is the Massage” by Marshall McLuhan, I was quite confused. I did not fully understand what he meant by the word massage and had to look it up. It turns out it was a printing error, but McLuhan kept it as it reflects the main point of his writing. His thesis is that the medium that content is delivered through is more influential than the content itself. One passage that stood out to me was titled “you.” It caught my attention because it began with asking many personal questions, such as “have you ever contemplated suicide?” and “how much do you make?” These are things people would keep private, but with the devices of media, sharing information among others is vast. McLuhan mentions a dilemma of the claim to privacy and the community’s need to know, bringing up an important question: “how should the new environment be programmed now that we have become so involved with each other?” I think with the use of social media, we are all connected and involved in each other’s lives in some way. But something that we should all carefully consider is what we put out there or share, since there is no true “erasure” of that information. Another passage that stood out to me was titled “your education.” McLuhan brings up how children that watch television are shown news that is considered “adult,” such as inflation, war, rioting, taxes, crime, and bathing beauties. But in a classroom setting it is entirely different, with structure, pattern, and schedules, much like factories and assembly lines. To me, it seems like he is arguing that the education system does not reflect what goes on in the real world, yet the real world is one that is negative and harsh. These two different environments do not set up a child to truly grow up. Something I did not like about this book was the photos included, as the black and white colors made the pictures scary and harder to understand.

The first animation I chose to watch was the phenakistoscope, which I found fascinating. I liked that you can see the sequence of the images frame by frame from beginning to end and when spun, create a connecting/repeating animation of them moving. The second animation I chose to watch was Fantasmagorie by Émile Cohl. What I found interesting was the artist’s ability to hand draw each frame, which depicted a storyline with a lot of movement and action, and the use of photography to capture each frame. Something I did not like, however, was the varying exposure of each frame, but since it was the early 1900s, I understand that this was harder to control back then. The third animation I watched was the South Park Christmas short. I really like the imperfect look and somewhat choppy movement of construction paper cutouts in animation. Even though these cutouts are two-dimensional, you can still see depth and perspective from the shadows of the cutouts on the very top layer of each frame. The fourth animation I watched was Rejected by Don Hertzfeldt. I liked that there are multiple frames of the same thing drawn, such as words or characters in the same position. Since no two frames are drawn or written exactly the same, there is this slight movement happening, which portrays the passage of time in animation better than just showing one frame for a longer time. One good example is the scene where one of the stickman’s eyes starts gushing out blood. Although it is the same image, the slightly varying pen streaks and position of the drawing with sound create an illusion of movement and time.

• Soft static or faint blowing noise of the running refrigerator
• Inconsistent ringing or ghostly howling of the bathroom’s toilet that goes off every now and then
• Rumbling, small squeaks and creaks, and high-pitched voices from the movement and activity of the neighbor living upstairs 
• The heater has a small popping noise that sometimes turns into a knocking noise. When I was younger, I imagined the sound as that of medieval knights jousting for some reason
• A short yet fast ringing that plays quietly in the background in an empty room, exemplified and turning into loud muffles when I yawn

In “The Art of Noise,” I like Luigi Russolo’s stance on noise being a revolutionary art form. Whereas traditional music is boring, limited within the boundaries of harmony and melody, he encourages artistic expression outside of these norms. He proposed a futurist orchestra that uses various types of noise such as roars, whistles, grunts, buzzing, etc. Through these elements, musicians can explore and experiment with the infinite acoustic possibilities that noise offers, which traditional instruments could not achieve. Something I do not like, however, is figuring out what/which kind of noise is considered artistic. To one person, noise may have the power to evoke a range of sensations and emotions, while to another it may be meaningless and nothing. This ambiguity makes it difficult to implement Russol’s ideas in a way where noise and music is balanced.

Previously, I have not thought of sound as art. However, after reading about noise, I believe art can be whatever or whoever a person chooses, as long as there is an explanation and/or meaning to it. From the Ubu page, I picked George Lewis, who created eight different tracks titled “Voyager Duo,” numbered 1 through 8. Personally, I do not like what I chose. This type of noise does not follow music conventions, with a melody or pattern, but rather various sounds that seem rather random and abrupt. It creates a feeling of uncertainty and fear, which fits the title voyager of stepping into something new and unknown. The quick paced yet long saxophone/trumpet solo adds onto the feeling of a never-ending journey from this experience.

In RiP: A Remix Manifesto, there are four key points presented. One, culture always builds on the past. Two, the past always tries to control the future. Three, our future is becoming less free. And four, to build free societies, you must limit the control of the past. The narrator describes copyrights as defenders of the past, who see remixes as a supermarket where ideas are intellectual property, lawsuits, corporate lobby, and infinite money. On the other hand, the copyleft describes those that share ideas and believe the public domain must be protected for the free exchange of ideas and their future of art and culture. Something that I found interesting about this is that copyrights were initially made to encourage others to create, not limit them. Previously, all ideas were in the public domain. But through copyrights, lawmakers ensure the right of the new technology to innovate while allowing authors to still get paid. Another thing I found fascinating is the process of a remix. In the documentary, there is a man showing how he creates a mashup from scratch, except none of the material is his. Marybeth Peters, registrar of copyrights, explains that he is just rearranging stuff, turning one thing it was into another new thing it previously was not. With copyrights brought up, the answer will always depend on whose original work is used and how upset they are about it. However, Peters also brings up a good point that it cannot be argued that copyrights “limit” creativity if it is based on other people’s work.