Sally's+Page


 * Name**: Sally Schmidt
 * Major**: Psychology
 * Experience with computers/software**: I've used Photoshop in a rudimentary sense: editing photos (color, cropping, adding pngs, etc). I've also used PMX, Blender, and Unity to create 3D models (not from scratch but taking pieces to create a finished project).
 * Experience with Art**: Intro to Painting, Various painting/craft classes when younger, and a lot of writing (fiction, short stories, poetry)
 * Fun Fact**: I'm a twin
 * Artistic Interests**: Digital Illustration (not drawing it...I can't draw)

__Homework 1__

The comic was an interesting read since I know very little about public domain, including copyright laws, creative commons, and fair use. The small amount that I do know is because of Youtube and general information I picked up randomly. One aspect of copyright that I learnt through this comic was how it can be very expensive. Even if a video is shown for a couple seconds, such as the Simpsons, the filmmaker might have to pay have that clip in even if it’s accidental. However, fair use allows for some images or videos to be included in other media or creations if it isn’t completely copying the context/material such as parodies, quotations, or criticisms. Nevertheless, I am still a bit confused on what a person is allowed to use without having to pay for it. The Simpsons clip and bits of music, even people just quoting a line, caused filmmakers to pay. On the other hand, clips from Fox news and Barbies were fine to use. It’s possible that those two items were distorted in some way from it’s original image, unlike the Simpsons clip or music. Still, I am a bit confused.

Youtube is a platform that stretches fair use very thinly, so that content creators can do almost anything. Many youtubers also ignore copyright completely and hope they don’t get demonetized. Still, those that do follow fair use might have their videos taken down if the company or person that owns the material the youtuber is using dislikes how it’s being portrayed or wants to earn money from it. Therefore, there is sometimes disagreement on what falls under fair use but youtubers can’t do much about it. Nevertheless, a lot of what content creators do falls under fair use because they are creating new, different content. Examples of this include reaction videos (people reacting to other videos), Let’s Plays (people playing video games with commentary), and so on. Yet many companies will block monetization of any inclusion of videos or content they create, such as Nintendo. Other companies that don’t completely block monetization might have trouble detecting videos that use their content and break fair use, which causes a continued cycle of using content illegally because people aren’t punished. Nonetheless, some companies don’t go after youtubers, especially video game companies, because their product gets free advertisement and bolsters sales.

I have most likely have accidentally used content that are protected by copyright laws and require me to pay a fee. However, I have not created anything for monetization but mainly for class or my own enjoyment, which mostly falls under free use. As a result, I’m probably free from fees. Nevertheless, I still try to credit the creator if I use someone else’s work in a presentation or what not; I don’t steal people’s work and state that it’s mine. In the future, when I have a job, I will most likely have to pay more attention to the material I use because there can be real and expensive repercussions.

__Exercise 1__


 * White Space**


 * Replacing Image**




 * Object Next to Original**




 * Leave Trace**




 * Choice**




 * __Black and White Project__**


 * Original**


 * Colored Version**




 * Original Flowers for Background**


 * Flowers as PNGs**

Misc PNGs

For the effect of making them look like they're in a bush or area with a lot of vegetation, I layered the PNGs of the rose bushes until there was very little background showing. Then I just put another PNG of grass on the bottom slightly underneath the grass of the rose PNGs so they mesh together.
 * Putting Background and Two Characters Together**


 * Originals for Fairy**


 * Fairy PNGs**

To create this fairy, I took the image of a floating girl and then rotated her. I then took a photo of a rose and cropped different petals to create the top and the skirt. I also used a leaf of it to make a sort of belt and the stem to create laces for the shoes. The arms and shoes are made from a petal from an image of a bunch of petals on the ground. I then added an already made PNG of wings and flower crown.
 * Completed Fairy**



Now the piece is beginning to come together. I added the fairy and rose petals to what I had earlier.


 * Extra Originals**


 * Extra PNGs**

(The quality is dramatically decreased on here. This is just a simple screenshot so it should be clear but it isn't. It was clear when I uploaded it but pressing save made the quality decrease. I'm not sure why)
 * Final Project**

For this final image, there is a lot of small details added along with the larger pieces. The butterflies and gold swirl were added around the fairy and a bit near the girl, emphasizes that the woman was a fairy and that they were all quite small. It also helped create a fantastical scene. Also, I duplicated the falling roses, then made it a darker overlay so it looks like a shadow. I also added shadows for the girl and the bunny behind them since the sparkles are most likely a source of light. I also used a charcoal brush and went over some of the petals and the feet of the girl and bunny to make it look as though they were in the grass instead of on top of it.




 * Scavenger Hunt Collage**


 * Cinemograph 2**

Version 1

Version 2

Version 3

Conceptual Strategy Video

//Mary Poppins//, 2010 Extension Strategy - amplifying/magnifying; Juxtaposition Strategy - collage
 * Joana Vasconcelos**

//The Obliteration Room//, 2002 Juxtaposition Strategies - possibly layering or collage, or even decontextualization
 * Yayoi Kusama**

//payphone//, 2000 Transformative Strategy
 * Robert Lazzzarini**

__Krauss Response__

Firstly, this article was a bit difficult to understand, partly because I’m not an art major with background in video and because I was just confused by the language. However, I’ll try to explain what Krauss’ thesis is in this article and what it would be if the article was written in 2018.

The basis of the article is that the medium of video is narcissism. In other forms of art, such as painting and sculpture, the focus is on the surface and the object itself, not the artists or the viewer. However, when using video, the focus of the art is the artist or person viewing the art. This is because in the video medium, a person acts as a channel of transmission for the art, also known as a conduit. Krauss states that in video, the human body is the central instrument, or pointing piece. Similarly, video can create a constant present. In //Boomerang//, the individual is cut off from the past of what they said because it is repeated to them. Similarly, in //AirTime//, there is a continually renewed image of the self, which causes a collapsed present since there is seemingly nothing prior to the image. This continuous presence (with no past or future), keeps the attention on the artist/person involved instead of what happened before or what will happen as a result. On a different note, video produces instant feedback which can be narcissistic as it doesn’t make the viewer wait, but gives them what they want immediately.

Furthermore, many pieces of video art use reflection and mirroring. Mirror-reflection gets rid of separateness and moves towards a fusion of the self and the art. In //mem// and //dor//, the individual tries to make their shadow clear, which involves them walking close and closer to the wall where their image is displayed until they’re right up against it, making them and the art intertwined. Nevertheless, the act of wanting your image to be clear and not obscured is narcissistic in it of itself.

Similarly, many pieces of video art focuses not on the video itself or the artist, but the viewer. For example, in //Centers// (1971), the artist points at the center of the camera for 20 minutes, towards the viewer. As a result, the main point of the piece is the person standing in front of the video. It causes the viewer to think about themselves and their interaction with the video instead of the video itself.

Today, Krauss would still have the same idea that video is narcissistic. In 2018, video is super common, even for normal people when it wasn’t maybe 40 or so years ago. Now, everyone can take video on their phone and upload it whenever they want. I believe that Krauss would say that video is even more narcissistic now since everyone has access and does not usually use it to create art but to create memories for themselves or to post online to gain attention. I don’t have much experience with modern video art, but for video that is created by the normal person, the point of it is usually narcissistic and selfish, not for other people. As a result, I believe Krauss would think video is even more narcissistic today.

__Final Video__

media type="vimeo" key="266388034" width="550" height="333"

Out of the three artists I research, I decided to use the same conceptual strategy as Yayoi Kusama and her piece //The Obliteration Room//, 2002. However, to be fair, I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do for this project and even researching these artists and their pieces wasn’t very useful in the content I wanted. Sure, they gave me an idea of what each conceptual strategy involved, but I couldn’t create a video with just knowledge of the strategies, but also content or any idea of what to do. Nevertheless, in a random moment, I decided on a video which melds Trump’s Syria speech, videos from Syria and during the Vietnam war, as well as a poem written in Arabic about peace in Syria.

My project uses the same conceptual strategies as Kusama: juxtaposition through layering and collage. In Kusama’s piece, she took a regular, plain kitchen scene and had visitors put bright stickers of all different colors anywhere they liked. She used a familiar scenario and turned it into something different, something unique. In my project, I took a plain video of Trump speaking and overlaid videos on to to change the meaning of the speech. The Arabic poem was something I spontaneously thought of, but it helped further the meaning of my piece and contrast against what the US has done in other countries (killing civilians, abusing their power, etc). Like Kusama’s piece, you can still see the base video in my project.

The point of the overlays is not to cover the speech or take away something, but to add a new perspective to what is already there. The end of my video is the part that’s most unlike Kusama’s piece since the sound gets louder, the screams of Syrians trying to be heard over Trump’s speech. Then, the screen fades to black and Trump says goodnight and thank you. The project reverts back to the original video, illustrating the power of the voice of Trump and the US vs Syrians any other group or country that has been taken advantage and attacked by the United States. Kusama’s piece is continuously decorated with circles until the installation is over and it’s taken down.