Marie+Fazio+Spring+2013

=**Marie Fazio**=
 * [[image:http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/546762_437245689661332_1520164051_n.jpg width="144" height="191"]] || **Major:** Fine Arts/Art History and Mathematics


 * Computer Experience:** I am design editor of the Cherry Tree Yearbook and was EIC of my high school yearbook, so I have a basic understanding of photoshop and am fairly proficient in inDesign.


 * Art Experience:** I have taken Photography, Ceramics, and Art History __#|courses at__ GW and AP Studio in high school. ||

**Absence Examples**
Mathilde Roussel-Giraudy

Rosslynd Piggott

My Absence Images










My Mask Images










After Effects Response
I was finding the article hard to connect with. It goes on continually about this new form of media. For me though being born in 1993, the start of his proposed “velvet revolution” and having very few memories before 1998, the end of the “velvet revolution” it doesn't seem new, it’s normal. At one point when talking about design becoming computerized he says, “But this is only obvious today, after the Velvet Revolution has taken place” (page 14). This is how I felt when reading the article- it’s obvious. It is interesting how quickly the change happened- only thirty years ago the graphic technology we have today was hardly a thought, and the reverse is true as well. For young people today it is hard to picture the world Lev Manovich describes where an office had only one computer capable of color rendering and anything more advanced had to be sent away for and cost thousands of dollars. However, I live now where, as Manovish himself even said, that change was obvious. Seeing the kind of animations he described may once have caused excitement, people wondering how it was done, seeing it for the first time. But today I think there is very little graphic manipulation that would cause that reaction, when advancement in computers in constant and expected and, and as Manovich says, this kind of manipulation is a “hybrid visual language of moving images that we see everywhere today” (page 15). I think we see ads, movies, music videos, etc. today and don’t really think of the work that went into it. We just expect that computers can do almost anything and we just see the finished product. One thing I did find interesting is when he says that compositing was initially intended to enhance realism, but ultimately began being used to make something deliberately abstract. I think it is interesting that not only was a new use developed, but one that is completely opposite of the original intent. I think it shows an artisticness and a curiosity in people. Not everything is meant to be seamless; sometimes people want to stick out.

** Monuments **
Wallace Monument in Scotland commemorates 13th century Scottish hero Sir William Wallace
 * real **

Sibelius Monument in Finland, to commemorate musician Jean Sibelius

“Dois Candangos” (Two Laborers) in Brazil commemorates the immigrants who built Brasília.

Marc Quinn’s sculpture entitled Planet in England
 * not real **

Free Stamp by Swedish artist Claes Oldenburg

Public sculpture in Changchun China

**Counter Monuments Response**
I think the idea that Gerzs’ monument to anti violence intending “not to console, but to provoke” interesting. The article describes classic monuments as being there to remind us of the past- for example the Vietnam War memorial reminding us of those who died. While that in itself provokes emotion and thought- seeing the countless names, Gerzs’ monument takes this a step forward. I think it is interesting that they did not choose to remind viewers of any specific horrific event to provoke sadness, as the Vietnam War memorial does, but demands something from the viewer. The disappearing quality of the monument is also clever and unique. The static solid nature of say the George Washington monument suggests strength and permanence of idea. The slipping quality of the anti-violence memorial rather suggests an instability which can reflect on the instability the very idea they are trying to memorialize- what is ‘violence’ and how can we actually stop it? However they go on to say that they even further strayed from tradition by the way in which people wrote on it. They claimed to have expected people to write their names in neat rows, again referring back to a more conservative monument- the Vietnam War memorial. They then say that people “Yet people also scrawled banal grafﬁti, added funny faces, Stars of David and swastikas, and tried to scrape away existing markings.” I think this outcome was the expected one and that the opposite outcome would have been more noteworthy. It would have been cool if the monument had so captured people that all felt it deserved a sort of reverence, if not a basic respect.

=Kinetic Typography = media type="youtube" key="EgyWREFUDK8" width="560" height="315"

=Sketch up monument=