Space, Time, Americans, Art, Me

Not, not outer space, just space and the compulsion to own and occupy it.

As an American, I enjoy taking up space. It is also preferable for me to own that space as well as everything in it. When a person buys land, they are really purchasing a volume of space. Legally, the height and depth of development is limited when you purchase an area of land. So what you have is a prism of space that belongs to you as long as you own the property. So not only is it space, but it is space-time. So if we were to think of space-time as an object, we could identify bits of it that belong to certain people. We would be able to see other bits of space-time pass through each other as belongings are transferred and people occupy different spaces. In this way, a person's space-time property is a nodal point, a confluence of things-having-to-do-with-the-owner. Now, this is simply one model of looking at space, time and property, but it is one that I find myself using on a regular basis, and from my admittedly limited life experience, I believe this model ties in, or at least supports, the American approach to property, success and happiness. That is, in America we are able and somewhat encouraged to go out and secure property that we can occupy, control and reproduce in. And the bigger the better, because the larger the volume of space-time that we can occupy and control, the larger our mark will be on space and time. So if we were to look at the great amorphous space-time object, our node would be larger and more substantial than that of the city-dwelling Europeans who were not as concerned with collecting and controlling space, time and objects.

This is what I consider when I look at my apartment and all of my possessions. According to this model, they will be my legacy (the immortal version of myself), and since my mind has for whatever reasons, adopted this model into its daily understanding of reality, my space-time is important to me. However, it is not the most important.

Matter and energy are interchangeable (thank you Einstein). So, we can determine a different kind of personal legacy using a variation on the space-time-property-node model. Instead of focusing on the physical space, we can focus on events, that is, kinetic actions (energy). Then the model changes into a sort of causal network where objects are replaced by events. In this model, a person becomes a collection of causes. The legacy then, are the lineages of effects that he/she releases into the network. I consider this model to be more substantial because it is not as finite. One cause will fan into chaos. Since ownership and objects are more strictly (and arbitrarily) defined, the model of those is less dynamic.

It is difficult to properly explain these ideas with words. I've come to realize that I think in diagrams. This can make it difficult to communicate them verbally which is why I prefer to create visual art and admittedly have little if any capacity to appreciate poetry.



Recently I have been troubled by a distinction in the visual arts. It's a distinction that I have a sense of, but continually fail to explain. I simply haven't found the proper vocabulary for it, and I'm not sure the vocabulary exists. The simplest way to put it is big versus small. Of course, this implies a value judgment, but I don't mean it to, although as I will explain, I do prefer "big" art. It has to do with subject matter and how that subject matter relates the the above models. Let me try to propose some examples. Journalistic documentaries are small. They deal with a very specific, finite instance--a social injustice, a culture, a person... And while a documentary may make an appeal to a larger subject by claiming that the issues presented are more universal and are echoed throughout a larger volume of space and time, this assertion is made from the inside out. It begins with the specific and then expands inductively.

Big art is more difficult for me to explain, even though it is my preference. Big art is most common in novels and films, but can also occupy other media. The one example that immediately comes to mind is Goethe's Faust. In Faust, Dr. Faust is not an individual in the sense that the subject of a documentary is an individual. He is an allegory. He is an idea disguised as a man. Of course Faust is a very complex story and there are many approaches to its interpretation, but the most common in my experience is the interpretation of Faust as an allegory for modernity. Modernity is big. It is the most rapid shift in societal structure ever (and it shows no sign of stopping). It occupies a much larger area of both of my time-space models than any one person, social injustice or individual culture. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another example of a work that has big subject matter--evolution, consciousness, technology... Big art's assertions are deductive. The assertions come from the outside in.

I think my preference for "big" art (both to create and experience) comes from the same mental place as American's desire to take up space. My mind can luxuriate in big art. There is lots of space to stretch my legs and explore. Interpretive variations are almost endless. I can always come back to it and find new things as meaning will gracefully change and adapt over time. Small art will always be doomed to become outdated. Eventually, the subject matter will no longer matter to anyone except highly specialized historians.



I hope some of this makes sense. Otherwise we might just have to wait until I can plug my brain into yours so I can show you the diagrams.

PAID INTERNSHIP

I am a 2008 photocom alumni and I have a photographer client who needs a lot of metadata entered in for his data asset management system. He exclusively shoots marine life. I am looking for an intern to do the data entry for him. I’d show you how we have his images organized, and then you’d go through and enter keywords and other metadata. It is tedious work, but it is low stress, easy and I can pay you $8 an hour.

For the data entry, you would work in Lightroom 2 from a Macbook Pro. Experience with Lightroom 2 is a plus, but not necessary (Lightroom is extremely intuitive). You would also have access to a Macpro that you can use for your own work when I’m not using it for mine. It is a 2.8ghz 8-core system with 10 gigabytes of ram and two 20’ cinema screens. It has CS4 Ultimate as well as Final Cut Studio 2 installed on it.

I primarily do retouching, IT for creative professionals and web design. I also shoot quite often, but rarely as a professional (building a grad school portfolio). I would be happy to give you instruction in any of my areas of expertise, and as with any internship, you will see the day-to-day operation of the business.

I do work out of a home office, so you would be coming over to an apartment (located 2 minutes from St. Eds). That might be appealing to some and less so to others. The environment will be laid back. It is similar to working in the digital lab. You have to be productive, but you can put on a movie and wear whatever you like. Also, there is a cat.

So, if you are technically minded, learn quickly, don’t have a cat allergy and are interested in what I’ve outlined here, please let me know. E-mail is preferable.

BLOGBEGIN

Hello, my name is John Clendenen and this is my blog. I am a photographer among other things, and I use this outlet to express various thoughts I have on art, the world and everything. I will begin by re-posting some things that were originally posted on my personal facebook profile as notes. I will backdate them, but for the sake of full disclosure, this post marks the creation of my blogspot identity.

For all other things I do and create, visit johnclendenen.com.

ideas

Some ideas I'd like to record here. May or may not materialize. Who knows.

Video of a man pleasuring a touchpad. Begins with him gently caressing the periphery and ends with him pushing the button rapidly with his tongue. The monitor will have a photograph of a woman. The photograph will appear to react by taking on increasing amounts of jpeg artifacting and pixelation. The climax will be an indecipherably compressed image. Music will be digitally created noise.

This has probably been done, but I'd still like to do it, just to have in my apartment: a painting of the "image not found" graphic. Couch sized in the most ornate frame I can find.

I ragazzi giu nel campo

I don't generally post lyrics or poetry, and I certainly don't write any, but I heard this today and thought it was very good.


The boys down in the field
Pay no attention to time
But throw themselves in rivers
To catch the prize cross

The boys down in the field
Chase after a crazy man
They throttle him with their hands
And burn his body on the seashore

Come away from the moon and the morning star
That shower these boys with the vast sky's caresses

The boys down in the field
Chase after the bourgeois people
They cut to pieces
The heads of their enemies
And of the faithful

The boys down in the field
Gather branches and rosemary
And camouflage pits and potholes
To catch the girls

The boys down in the field
Chase after a rich man
And make him pull out his gold teeth
Which they take to the market

Come away from the moon and the morning star
That shower these boys with the vast sky's caresses

The boys down in the field
Have no memory
Thats why they sell their ancestors
Because they're gripped by sadness

-Pier Paolo Pasolini


Hear it sung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dct_vQWOp0g

Virtuosity

I've been thinking about the way virtuosity manifests in some of the arts but not in others. At the risk of sounding like I'm arguing with myself over semantics, I will record my thought process here.

The first thing that comes to mind is a musician. There have been many virtuosic singers and players of instruments, and it seems as though virtuosity is the primary aim of most musicians. A composer can be considered virtuosic. Mozart is the first the comes to mind, but certainly not all great composers are considered virtuosi. Mozart was virtuosic because he was able to construct whole compositions in his head before writing them down, but there have been plenty of composers who have written down equally important, complex, moving and beautiful music without being able to do so without any drafts. I think this is because virtuosity has everything to do with execution and has less to do with the product.

What about the visual arts? There certainly have been painters that one could describe as virtuosic as well as print makers and sculptors, and again, virtuosity in these areas seems to be very important. These media are very dependent on skillful execution. In fact, I'd say that virtuosity was the primary concern up until the 20th century when the underlying concept became more dominant. Photography and film are very different though, and I will address it last.

Writing has an odd relationship with virtuosity. In prose, the only writer that comes to mind is Joyce, specifically in Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. I'll never let anyone without at least a masters try to tell me what those books are about, and I certainly would never presume to tell anyone myself. The way he uses structure and language is virtuosic. There have certainly been virtuosi of poetry, and I would consider all of Shakespeare's work to be poetry in this sense since all of his work is written within a poetic framework. So as far as writing goes, virtuosity is possible, but not nearly as requisite as with the musician or painter. Many of the best writers of all time wouldn't be described as virtuosic, though virtuosity does seem more requisite in poetry than in prose.

Virtuosic filmmakers? I don't think I could describe a director as virtuosic. Maybe an actor, but not the director. It doesn't seem to make sense in that field. Virtuosity implies a skill that is immediately applied and applied without the aid of many auxiliary people or devices. Where the painter merely has a brush, the writer a pen, the sculptor a chisel, the director has a whole host of people and devices that are necessary for him or her to complete the product. This relates back to virtuosity having to do with execution. The director oversees the others' execution, so he or she is never virtuosic.

Of course I've saved photography for last. I don't believe in a virtuosic photographer. This seems strange because photography is so reliant on execution. The closest a photographer ever got to virtuosity was Cartier-Bresson, but as talented and as execution-centric as he was, I still don't feel like virtuoso is the right term for him. Allow me to attempt an explanation as to why this is. The camera is a layman's instrument. A painter generally doesn't develop exceptional ability until after a master's degree is obtained. The learning curve in photography is much less time consuming. As far as physically using a camera and executing shots, I doubt I will improve all that much from this point. I've gotten to the point where I don't have to think about using the camera to take photographs, and I've been at that point for quite some time. What I can improve is my ability to choose what photographs to take, but that isn't a virtuosic process.

But what kind of a process is that? If writers, composers, directors and photographers don't have to be virtuosic, then what do they have to be? I feel like I'm looking for another term, a counterpart to virtuosity that will complete this image I am forming of art and artists. The term I will use isn't at all unfamiliar, quite the opposite. The counterpart to virtuosity is creativity. To complete my thoughts on photography, the photographers choice of moments is a creative one. The choice of depth of field, over or under exposure and angle are all creative choices. The ability to change the settings on your camera fast enough to take the photograph before the moment passes is the execution and these things can come to most people with relatively little practice (I expect a couple years at most).

Contrast this to a musician who is already presented with virtually all of the choices between notes, tempos and dynamics. The musicians job is almost entirely execution with some room for creative choices in nuance. The director's job is entirely based on creative decision making, and at this point I suppose we should equate decision making with creativity. Direction requires virtually no time-sensitive execution. Whether a director's actions take more or less time (within reason) the end result is unaffected. This also applies to the composer who can be virtuosic if he or she exhibits the ability of Mozart to simply write out a completed composition, but again, since time is not an important factor in composition, the result is largely unaffected.

Writing is an odd exception to this time based distinction. Decision making and execution seem to be inseparable in the case of writing. I have trouble deconstructing my compulsion to name Joyce the only virtuosic prose writer. It has something to do with the complete emphasis on language manipulation over subject or plot. This is what is has in common with poetry which has a history full of virtuosi. I don't know. I have come up with what I consider a fairly valuable distinction between virtuosity (execution) and creativity (decision making) and how the balance between the two changes according to the medium in question. I think that's plenty to expect from a facebook note. I have grown weary of writing this. Clendenen out.

an alternative approach to dimensionality

I feel like I may have written about this before, but regardless, I am going to write about it here and now.

The 3 (or 4 including 0) physical dimensions that we are all familiar with have always bothered me. The distinctions between them seem inconsistent, like there is something missing. The numbers don't seem to correspond to what they describe. I would like address this by proposing my own dimensional distinctions. Instead of asserting 4 dimensional distinctions, I will propose 5.

--Note: none of this has anything to do with time being a dimension or with string theory, I am only concerned with the physical dimensions that we generally consider when we talk about dimensions--

So, the first distinction is 0. In the current model, a zero dimensional object is a point. But why would we begin with anything at all? Since zero is the numerical description of nothingness, then why doesn't the zero dimension describe the environment of nothingness? Although it wouldn't come in handy too often, it's certainly an important distinction to make. Zero dimensions denoting the possible existence of anything, even just a point, seems counterintuitive. So in my model, zero dimensions is nothingness--a complete lack of anything and the lack of any possibility.

Now my zero dimension is really the only addition to the current system. Everything else shifts upwards. The zero dimensional point becomes the one dimensional, which makes sense since a point is always singular and is the only thing that can exist in that dimension. The first dimension becomes the second dimension which is a line or line segment. This makes sense because a line is the connection between two points, so two points exist in two dimensions. Then the second dimension becomes the third where the triangle is the simplest form (three connected points). And of course, the third dimension becomes the fourth where the tetrahedron is the simplest shape (yes, 4 connected points).

I do understand that the original dimensionality distinctions were based on axes (as in the plural of axis), but why? An axis is a device for understanding forms. In the end dimensionality is also a device for understanding forms, so why not let the distinctions be based on the forms themselves instead of letting one device determine the nature of another? Under the current system, there is an implicit assertion that axes somehow exist before dimensionality ('a priori' for you latin readers). In fact, they are coincidental because they are both human contrivances used to place forms into a useful schematic. I believe that whenever possible, the schematic tools we use to deconstruct forms should be derived from the forms themselves. This will prevent our approach to understanding forms from becoming unintuitive and convoluted.