Technology and Computer Arts: An Annotated Bibliography

Beginning this assignment for my three pages of content, I decided I wanted to take the part of learning about the role of art in CGI graphics, and whether art can live on in the form of digital technology such as those graphics.  So I began with a simple google search, as is my normal study go-to habit.  I received very-little to nothing on CGI and technology when it comes to computer graphics.  Refining my search, I came upon an article by Michael Naimark that shortly discussed the relationship between technology and art in the computer world.  Using his homepage, I was able to find more works of his, and then look at his references for those works.  Naimark was a good source, but I needed more info on this subject.  Thus, I was brought to different scholarly articles by Csuri and Nols, two leading computer artists in this world of diminishing art.  After reading their works, I was able to construct my paragraphs and write three pages of useful content.

But why is computer-generated art and CGI so important in the world of art?  Because it is the new medium of everyday life all over the world.  The world has turned away from the traditional canvas and oil paintings, and look to the world of technology now.  With art left behind, it had to adapt to the computer-driven world, and although not as prominent as artists were in the past, it is growing quickly, and can be a strong medium and backbone to the 21st century of artists.  By having these works available, and artists pioneering the way for current generation artists, art will be able to grow in an increasingly technological world.

Further Reading:

• Csuri, Charles and Raffers, James. (Art, Computers, and Mathematics. Columbus, 1968). This discusses the role of artists when working computers, and how the computers themselves are a special artistic contribution. Also discusses the increasing need for artists to be like scientists to use computer art, and how computers in their intelligence can help artists achieve a new art unlike any other. [I found this work first by researching the history of computer art and CGI graphics. Upon finding a concise and helpful history by Ohio State University, I looked at its references and came upon this article.]

• Naimark, Michael. (Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Money: Technology-Based Art and the Dynamics of Sustainability. Cambridge, 2003). This work discusses the role of art has today in a technology-driven world. It first states that computer art is growing, but the purpose and intent of art is disappearing. Art is being used increasingly for advertisement companies and the government, and less and less for the individual artist. Naimark then sets forth a plan to help art be more successful primarily in the United States. [I found this work after researching Naimark, who is integral in the studies of art and computer animation. After going to his website, I was able to find a link to this article.]

• Noll, A. Michael. (The Digital Computer as the Creative Medium. 1967.). This article discusses how computers have affected artists, and how the computer's advanced technology is evolving the way art is seen and heard across the world. It also discusses how the computer adapts to the person using the computer, so artistic individuality is very possible and very real when using computer art.[I also found this work first by researching the history of computer art and CGI graphics. Upon finding a concise and helpful history by Ohio State University, I looked at its references and came upon this article in PDF form.]

Thought Leaders:

• Michael Naimark (Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Money: Technology-Based Art and the Dynamics of Sustainability. Cambridge, 2003). Michael Naimark helped found a number of prominent research labs including the MIT Media Laboratory (1980), the Atari Research Lab (1982), the Apple Multimedia Lab (1987), Lucasfilm Interactive (1989), and Interval Research Corporation (1992).  At MIT, Naimark helped put together the Aspen Movie Map, a hypermedia project. [I found this work by first googling "Arts and Technology CGI" and came up with this scholarly article. Naimark has written multiple works on how the world of arts is in the 21st century].

• Charles Csuri (Beyond Boundaries. Ohio State University Press. 1963.). Charles Csuri is best known for pioneering the field of computer graphics, computer animation and digital fine art, creating the first computer art in 1964. Csuri has been recognized as the father of digital art and computer animation by Smithsonian, and as a leading pioneer of computer animation by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and The Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group Graphics (ACM SIGGRAPH). [I discovered Csuri through Ohio State University's history on the computer arts reference page.  His works coincide greatly with the topic I have, so I researched him and discovered his contribution to digital art].

• A. Michael Noll (Principles of Modern Communications Technology, Artech House, Inc. Norwood. 2001.). Currently retired, A. Michael Noll has had a varied career in communications as a researcher at Bell Labs, a pioneer in computer art and animation, staff member to the White House Science Advisor, AT&T manager and planner, academic professor and administrator, author, columnist, classical music critic, archivist, and biographer. He continues to write about telecommunication and other issues. Dr. A. Michael Noll is a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. [I discovered Noll the same way I discovered Csuri: through the reference page of a historical view of computer art.  His works on modern technology and the computer's contribution to art are very pertinent to the topic at hand.]

Coming All Together

John Winthrop gave a most famous speech when the Puritans first landed in the strange, new land of America.  He mentioned the importance that his Massachusetts Bay Colony be a perfect community.  This small group of families were to be examples for the whole world to see and emulate.  It was called "City Upon a Hill," which comes from the Book of Matthew in the Bible.  He believed this nation was to be the moral and civil example of a perfect community, and everything he did was to help further this cause.

I look at all my past blogs, and I can definitely see an emphasis on great moments in American History.  Maybe it is because I loved my AP US class in high school, or maybe it is because I love America itself(which I am still not sure about), but despite the reason, there is still the emphasis.

I spoke about President Lincoln, and his somewhat controversial control of the government.  I also spoke about the Constitutional Convention, and the hard decisions they made in creating the government we have today.  I mention American daily life in the 20th Century, and I also mention democratic beauty that disallows authoritarian leaders to take control of our nation.  And my favorite mention of American history is Horatio Alger Jr.'s novels that were sold in the late 19th and early 20th century, which gave a large degree of false hope to many poor young boys who shelled out their life savings for one of the books.

I think I enjoy writing about huge moments in American History because these huge events were caused by decisions made by government leaders and president.  They had to choose this course of history on their own.  They were able to lead our nation, at least to some degree, successfully.  And I am living in that nation now, and a part of the results of their choices.  And I am confident that most of our leaders today, when making these difficult decisions, wondered whether their decision would reflect a "city upon a hill" or a "city lying on a ditch."

Compromise Rambling

In American Heritage, I had to study up on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and understand all of the points of view, the issues, and the hardships that go into making a government.  Points such as "who has the power, and how much should they have?" were asked time and time again.  How was the legislature to be elected?  Representational votes?  Popular vote?

Well, in the end, we all ended up with a government based on a compromise.  And this led me to think: a lot of things are formed based on compromises- nearly every law in the United States has compromise, everyday business deals made are compromises, legal issues, and even talking to your teacher about your not so good grade can end up in a compromise.

Most nations have a history of compromises, especially the United States.  When the constitution was first being formed, no one knew how to deal with slavery, and whether slaves get to represent the state they live in, and so the Three Fifths Compromise was formed. Again, on the issue of slavery, there was the Missouri Compromise in 1820, in which states below the 36 30 boundary were to be slave states, and future states formed above this line were to be free states.  These two compromises on slavery were made to appease both sides of the argument on slavery, yet the South still became angry with the North about their lack of support for slave states, and proceeded to secede when Lincoln became president.

So, not all compromises can end with a peaceful resolution, like the Great Compromise which formed our government as it is today.

But why do compromises happen?  Is there not a straightforward right and wrong path in every decision we make, business or ethic?

Let's take this example:
A guy lets his friend borrow a car to her hometown(let's say...6-7 hours away) for the weekend because the car owner was not going to use it.
So the friend drives the car down to the hometown, spends the weekend with her family, and then begins driving back.  However, the car begins to break down, and the friend of the guy freaks out.
The engine is fried, meaning there will be a large cost for repairs.
So who pays for the car's repairs?
On one side, the person who lent the car is the owner of the car, yes, but the friend of the owner was driving it, and had already driven about 7 hours down to her hometown.
Perhaps the stress of the car for driving too much had ruined it, or perhaps the car was not in good condition in the first place.
The worst part of a situation like this is that there is no definite wrong or right answer to this kind of question.  Or is there?

Trolling is Funny

I like watching trolls on the internet.  For example, David Thorne is my absolute favorite troller in the planet.  I read his blog whenever I am down, and laugh for hours at his funny posts.  The first one I read was this: Missing Missy, a story about a distressed lady who cannot get a proper poster for her missing cat.

In this particular trolling, however, when I am particularly somber, I will think of poor Shannon who is so stressed about her cat, and David who does little to make it better.  In fact, he tells her vivid situations in which the cat could be in terrible danger or pain.

So yeah, we laugh at Shannon's expense.  But is it really much of an expense?  To David, he just wanted to get some laughs out of a favor he was doing for his workmate.  I mean, he was making the posters.

 Judith Donath, who researched the identities and purposes of trolls in a psychological manner, states in her book Identity and Deception in a Virtual Community that:

The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.

This section here makes trolls seem like sadistic people, though.  Their enjoyment is derived by the pain of others.  But, in reality, that really is what trolls come down to be.  They mess with people to get a certain reaction from them.  For their enjoyment.

So is David Thorne really just someone who wants to cause pain for his own delight?  Well it could be seen that way, but no one can truly delve into the mind of a troller and know what he is thinking.

Control and Participation: Inverses

Control is not a confusing topic for me.  In the non digital world, I see it is inversely correlated with participation(at least in the way I see it)

When more people participate in their nation, their workplace, or wherever else they may be, then that means they put in their opinion out there, and allow their voice to be heard.  With more and more participation, it is hard for one person to completely control a situation.

For example, if a dictator came waltzing into the United States or another democratic nation, then people would most likely revolt and kick the dictator out, replacing him with someone who will take less control of them.

In a totalitarian nation, there is very little participation of the people in politics; they simply live their lives, feeling they cannot change who controls the nation even if they participate.

In the digital world, things aren't like this at all to me.

Every website we frequent is controlled by one person, or by a small group of people who control what is put on there, what kind of content is put up, whether they want it to be kid friendly, the layout of the website, and all other kinds of stuff.  We are just people who are happy to see the content online.

However, it looks like Facebook is selling some stock to the public to make some money.  This means that Facebook, the social networking site, will belong to the people who log in to that site and post their content.

On Facebook, and other websites like Tumblr, Reddit and Twitter, it feels like we have a lot of control, when in reality we only have the illusion of control while the people who have control have the ability to delete any content at any time.  We only go on these websites anyways because we feel we have privacy on them, and also because they allow us to express ourselves in a grand online community.  But it looks like our Facebook privacy could be at jeopardy when selling its stocks...

Click Here for More Information

20th Century and Information: A Mystery

Information in the 20th Century is an interesting topic.  And I will tell you why.

With the invention of the telephone in the late 19th century, with the transcontinental railroad already established, and with Henry Ford's innovative mass-production of automobiles which began in the early 20th century, information could spread at a once unimaginable pace.  People no longer had to ride horses to send letters to each other.  Information spread at an alarmingly fast pace, allowing citizens to be informed and aware of political, social and economic events.  Information was becoming cheaper and more accessible; people received substantial information everyday with all of these innovations.  I'm sure people were ecstatic that they could talk to their friends across the country(or world) by simply picking up some strange device with numbers on it.  Or that they could drive to town with ease and speed.

But, WHY, in a century where so many people have access to information, and could actively participate in current events, did characters like Stalin, Zedong, Hitler, and Mussolini rise up and take totalitarian control of their respective nations?  Were people just deciding not to respond to these people?

Well, Germany's situation can be partly explained.
After World War I, Germany was forced to take all the blame for the battles and losses that occurred, so the rest of the world incurred a multi million dollar debt on it.  Germany was forced to live in desperate poverty for the next few decades, trying to work off an enormous debt.  This debt probably made the citizens of Germany feel hopeless, and when a strong leader like Hitler rose, they looked up to his strength.

But in other places like Italy and China, it's hard for me to grasp the idea that people actually supported the totalitarian leaders.

Even when people have access to information, it seems to me they don't fully utilize it as they should.

This reminds me of this era, where many young adults don't take an active role in their government, or in current  events.

For example, a couple weeks ago, I asked my friend what she thought of SOPA.  She had no idea what I was talking about.  Now I'm not saying this person is uneducated(I think quite the contrary), but I simply believe people nowadays don't take advantage of the internet, news, and other technological advances to help them understand current events and the world around them.  I believe that is one of the most vital things us citizens of the earth can do to prevent more chaotic rulers like Stalin and Hitler.

Take A Stance!

The 19th Century(long overdue)
It's the time when Darwin formulated his theory on evolution, when the west coast of America was a new frontier to explore, and when Romanticism dominated the minds of men.

But one of the most important event in this century is America's abolition of slavery under the presidency of Lincoln.  It is an event well-known by most of America and the rest of the world: there was slavery, Lincoln came to be president, Lincoln ends slavery, South rebels, and Lincoln defeats the Confederate South.  There. Done.

Not really.

What about social thought in this time period?  And was it really so black and white to Lincoln, the North and the South?

When Lincoln ascended to presidency, the entire nation was in turmoil.  He was considered a moderate Republican, and had criticism from both ideological ends of political parties.  And although Lincoln is considered one of the greatest heroes of abolitionism, he did not ascend to presidency to end slavery.  He ascended to end the split in America between the North and the South.

Lincoln decided he had to either choose between ending slavery or supporting it.  He could not follow the example of past presidents and take no stance when it comes to slavery.  Avoiding the problem had caused even more chaos, like with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  This act, enacted in 1854, held the provisions that the new states, Kansas and Nebraska, were to become either "slave states" or "free states" by popular sovereignty.  This means that when the state was populated enough, there would be a vote, and whatever was more popular would become the law for that state.

This led to zealous political party members of both sides rushing to Kansas and Nebraska to be able to get the state to be on their side.  Abolitionists and slavery enthusiasts of all kinds rushed to these states, and immediately the tension in these states rose.  With such strong opposition all in one state, these political zealots resorted to physical harm.  Civil battles broke out in Nebraska, and much more strongly in Kansas.  These battles and the resulting chaos became known as "Bleeding Kansas."

All of this bloodshed resulted from presidents who were afraid to take a stance in fear of losing political support.  Lincoln was sure to not make that same mistake.

He had to take a stance.  And it is lucky for us that he chose to take the morally correct standpoint of anti-slavery.

Lincoln took direct control of the government when the South seceded and became the Confederacy.  He used his executive position to imprison anyone who opposed his war on anti-slavery, and used all of his power to fight the South and end their rebellion.

With this full-scale war, many people died on both sides, especially at the Battle of Gettysburg.

With the end of the Battle at Gettysburg, Lincoln made his famous Gettysburg address, reminding everyone to be thankful for what they have.  It's interesting to see Lincoln tell people to be thankful at the site where thousands of men died.  Did he make those remarks with a bitter and ironic undertone to the battles that happened, or did he really want Americans to find things to be thankful for in this time of war and loss? (I'm going to believe it's the second option)

Either way, Lincoln is one of the most interesting presidents to date, despite his extreme use of executive power to take control.  His control and power helped unify America once more.

So it makes me wonder if complete control is a bad thing?  Like with SOPA or PIPA.  I mean, it is trying to serve in the best interests of the people.  It blocks bad things like illegal downloads and torrents so that the people will be paid for their work.  However, controlling the internet is not a nation-threatening situation, like the Civil War was.