Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Warren Neidich
Warren Neidich is an American writer and multiple media artist experimenting in music, illustration and photography. Throughout the 1990's his worked focused heavily on neuroaesthetics, the application of neuroscience as a lens in understanding aesthetic experiences. He has since heavily examined the co-evolution of art, the brain and the mind due to the key role they play in understanding the ontology behind neuroaesthetics. Neidich's interest in neuroscience began in the classroom; he studied neurobiology at California Institute of Technology after having graduated from Washington University with degrees in psychology and photography.
Conversation Maps, the first two pieces included in this blog post, were created from simple day-to-day conversations. However, these conversations took place in sign language and the participants had lights attached to their fingers and arms. Their movements were recorded on long exposures and then underwent processes of digital manipulation.
Neidich's Conversation Maps are seemingly colorful, abstract pieces until the viewer become knowledgeable of the context and method of creation. He is successful in manipulating the mind's reaction to an aesthetic experience through the process of informing the viewer what they are, in fact, viewing. Upon finding out that this image traces a conversation as simple as "I worked on my film today. Are you dating someone now?", the viewer likely feels a sense of familiarity and can more greatly identify with the piece.
Neidich stresses the influence of optical phenomena on how artworks are perceived. He attempts to distort reality in order to make it more representative of the subtext of an experience. I feel that these pieces accurately embody the tone of interactions between deaf and hearing individuals as well as the tone of interactions between two deaf individuals. A hearing person with little exposure to sign may look at these pieces and feel confused, uncomfortable, or apathetic due to their inability to relate to the piece. From personal experience, these are the same reactions that a hearing person may have to an individual who is deaf. However, once the process and title are revealed, a hearing individual can then understand and relate to the piece, just as they could understand and relate with a deaf individual through writing. On the other hand (pun intended), a deaf person, or someone familiar with sign language, may be struck with a sense of familiarity as soon as they view the piece. The strokes of color are recognizable as hand motions if the viewer thinks, or occasionally thinks, according to that perspective.
I find Neidich's approach to art intriguing and his goal of revealing the subtext of an experience very meaningful. While these individual pieces sparked my interest, upon viewing other works of his on his website, I was not nearly as enticed. I would say this proves his point of the influence of context upon perception of art, seeing as I have experience with and interest in American Sign Language and not so much in a bookshelf meant to hold "all the books Sarah Palin supposedly wanted censored from her local Library in Wasilla, Alaska."
I find Neidich's approach to art intriguing and his goal of revealing the subtext of an experience very meaningful. While these individual pieces sparked my interest, upon viewing other works of his on his website, I was not nearly as enticed. I would say this proves his point of the influence of context upon perception of art, seeing as I have experience with and interest in American Sign Language and not so much in a bookshelf meant to hold "all the books Sarah Palin supposedly wanted censored from her local Library in Wasilla, Alaska."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)