If art makes noise, can we hear it?? Blog 3.

On Tuesday, our guest speaker for the day began the class by "showering us with isochromic beats". Jack Ryan had developed a computer program that played isochromic beats and binary code. The noise sounded unorganized and dysfunctional, it was hard to pick up any consistency from it although I do believe that the main background beat was playing consistently periodically. Was it art? Or was it just noise generated by a computer program? To me it was both. Jack Ryan showed us a picture of a urinal and said, " This urinal is art because I said it is." After the last couple of weeks in class my art awareness level has skyrocketed and I personally now consider anything aesthetically or emotionally appealing to someone as art. Even if that is just random sound generated by a computer, someone doing pushups until they pass out, or a whale being blown up on a beach.
Jack then turned his discussion and showed us this other computer program that he developed that would take live video feed from a webcam and display it with extremely large pixels, distorting what we were seeing and reducing what we perceived as reality. I thought not only the computer program was well done but the thought process behind the whole thing as well. The concept that what we perceive to be reality, and if that is distorted or changed slightly our idea and concept of reality changes. Mr. Ryan's presentation on the whale being blown up on the Oregon beach and his response to it I thought was very intriguing. I believe that it is almost a 180 degree turn then what Hilton Kramers response would have been.
Hilton Kramer believes that anything beyond the scope of traditional art is not considered art. I do not believe that he would think our professor doing pushups until she passes out, or Jack playing binary code to be considered art. Kramer does not have much of a humor for art and would not appreciate to much Jack's video of the naked guy on the floor in the warehouse jumping around making weird noises. He is extremely traditional when it comes to constructing and viewing art and I believe that he has a very boring and small outlook on what is and what is not art.
Satish Kumar has a very different view towards art then Kramer does. I believe that Kumar has a bit more faith for humanity in general. I would consider Kramer a pessimist and would consider Kumar and possibly even Jack Ryan an optimist. Kramer states that the artist is a "bridge for developing a sense of reverence and beauty" (139). I believe this quote to parallel our first readings almost perfectly in the sense that nature is extremely vital and important to us, and if nature disappears, beauty follows because the two correlate and interact so much together. Beauty is all around us, if we're aware of it or not it still exists and we need to take that into consideration and stop destroying nature. Because once we destroy nature, we destroy beauty, and in doing so destroy ourselves.

This picture is a picture of Bob Marley. The picture is composed of hundreds, if not thousands of individual pictures of of Bob, all compiled and rearranged together to make it appear as if its just one picture. I think that this picture and the concept of the image, very closely relates to Jack Ryan's computer program he created to make pixels appear larger and "Reduce Reality".