"Artforum and e-flux are pleased to announce the launch of the Art & Education Papers archive, a new global platform for sharing and distributing research and knowledge in the field of contemporary art."The Art & Education Papers archive has published an academic-style essay I wrote on the Affect of Animated GIFs, featuring work by Tom Moody, Petra Cortright and Lorna Mills. Check it out here.
That got me thinking about the similarities of animated GIFs and animated neon- neon in its heyday(from the 20s to the 50s) had a similar combination of low frame rate and popular creation/consumption. Signs were cafte-made, and viewed by average folks. Of course, the high cost of production was the limiting factor- each "frame" cost thousands of dollars, so there was pressure to solve aesthetic problems economically. Look here at about 14:35 and compare with Tom Moody's piece.
I mean craft-made.
Oh, and the first link is this:
Nice links Rob, and I like the connection you are making. I do think (some) people have a taste for animation with gaps in it.
Great article sal.
Please animate the promised Vin diagram.
Thanks Joester. Here's Joe's link: Homage to Otto Fischinger by donjuanauxenfers
I was just showing a student those duchamp animations and I got the horrifying "who is Duchamp" look.
• open source free software built into the aesthetic of the work
Crap, I sent before I wanted to
Tiny Sketch Competition is here
"Deliberate denial of technology" is a bit harsh for me--it was more (i) liking the feel of MSPaintbrush and wanting to make moving versions of stuff I'd been drawing and (ii) limiting myself to what would load super-fast for someone looking at my blog with a dial-up Net connection (the slowest common denominator). Deliberate denial of the Adobe/Apple "smoothed pixel" look wouldn't be too unfair as a background consideration.
I have expressed my appreciation for the essay elsewhere but let me say it again here--good job! Not much theory on this subject and we need it. (Before Adobe/Apple conspire to remove GIF-reading from all browsers including even the popular open source ones.)
nice jaggedy pixels!
Okay, maybe a bit harsh. But your reasons for doing then are not the same as the reasons for still doing it now. Or are they? The install base is moving.
the dial-up bandwidth frame is now only symbolic?
I wouldn't say that's the case just yet, although it's becoming that way in the urban centers.
My reasons haven't changed. I have friends and relatives with dialup who I'd like to have see my page without mysterious gaps, or popups telling them to add more software. My w*rkplace browser is Windows, always several versions behind, and doesn't recognize certain kinds of addons and downloads. It cannot read, say, what's on the current few pages of nasty nets without freezes and gaps. My blog page, by contrast, loads whole and loads fast. There is a difference between denying technology and denying to the urge to add tons of RAM, features, bells, and whistles "because we can." When you add RAM you have corporate teams sitting around thinking of "cool" ways to use the RAM and they're usually anything but cool. The point I've been making, and this has been consistent, is that you can find amusement on the web with just text and some low-res image files--you don't need it to be TV.
And Sally, you should know your article was reblogged in Germany with the caption:
Sorry to paint you (and Lorna and Petra) with a Kunsthistoriker brush! It'll pass.
I probably shouldn't say Ow--the same blog has a post about an "emoticon resurgence" with some allover patterns that are pretty tasty.
I was going to tattoo Kunsthistoriker on my forehead until I checked it on babelfish and discovered that it was a horrible German insult.
I remember having a conversation years ago with Tom (or maybe it was Joester) about the somewhat sickening aesthetic effect of 'tweening' in Flash. I had a phone conversation with someone the other day who said it wasn't til she saw L.M.'s post on Luke Painter that she really understood what I'd meant in the paper about the "jerky" motion of animated gifs. Flash takes that space between frames and smooths it all out. But somehow the sense of it being unspecified motion still comes through and it's perceptually unsettling. The thing I like about Painter's use of Flash is that he makes that gooey feeling into an aesthetic strength.
Yes--I guess because the animations are so clearly fanciful/surreal the weirdness of the motion is accounted for.
Also--I think your tweening discussion was with Joe but I concur, generally.
The extra frames are like "grey goo" in nanotechnology.
One thing I liked about Sal's approach that was missing in other discussions of GIFs is that she didn't labour the retro aspect of them, because it's not an interest of mine. GIF animations are so congenial to me because I find viewing films frame by frame much more formally interesting than looking at the perfect illusion of motion that they result in. The looping gifs also allow for variations in rhythm, in fact rhythm is more apparent with the medium.
Also the joys of early mid-century animations are the the incredible economy of motion and image, Bugs Bunny rocks.
Another precedent that should be mentioned is Extreme LED Sheep Art.
Still pretending he doesn't know about "blogs" and "threads," joester posted this elsewhere:
Tom, I have trouble swallowing the Gif as an ecological stance. I think the environmental issues in computing are up against similar problems as the automotive industry. Newer cars are cleaner, but it means more bloody cars. My latest macBook (thank you SUNY Purchase) is way better than my last machine (LED display primarily).
That's great if hardware is becoming more efficient but my point is software bloats to take advantage of the extra space and speed. There's no revolution in thinking about software efficiency. Windows Vista had something like 50 million lines of code and still cut loose legacy programs. Supposedly the heat signature for the Google server farms (simmering with the cat videos of millions) looks like magma pools to infrared surveillance satellites, in relation to surrounding blackness. I'm comparing a 50KB GIF to the increasingly standard 100 MB movie clip and you're telling me about a few high-end users who know how to use less kilobytes. I'm on the losing side of this argument, though. Content will keep expanding with Moore's Law until the day the power runs out and everyone says "Wha' happened?"
He definitely doesn't know about the "a href" tag because I always go into his comments and add the links.
Dang. I'm happy to give up my car (okay...I don't have a car) but I'm not ready to give up online kitty videos!