Monica's+Page

Hi, my name is Monica Rigucci. You can call me Monica or Momo, either is fine!

My major is Japanese Language & Literature (the picture above is me attempting to snowboard in Japan). I have some basic knowledge of Mac and Windows operating systems, and have been working at the SEAS Computing Facility since my freshman year (still lots to learn, however). Art is a love of mine, however I don't know much about professional art or art critique. I like to draw in my spare time and am a huge fan of Pascal Campion's digital art (that's what I believe it's called - I may be wrong). Something others find interesting about me... I am a quarter Eritrean and (entirely unrelated) I hate mayonnaise. I find joy in many expressions of art, but I've been affected most memorably by the artwork created by Pascal Campion. I feel that each drawing emits a certain sense of nostalgia; each piece is filled with emotion. Below is just a taste of his work, titled "Street Crossing":
 * A few things about me...**



I’ve never given much thought to the obstacles filmmakers, artists or writers need to go through in order to simply publish and distribute a piece of original work. The comic was enlightening but confusing for someone like me who is new to the world of copyright infringement and grounds for fair use, but I felt like it provided a proper introduction. I’ve gained a whole new appreciation for artists, writers and filmmakers who must jump through countless hoops just to get something published in this era. On the other hand, I feel somewhat discouraged by the comic because it makes me feel less like going through those same hoops; perhaps I just need a little more time to understand… My impression after reading the comic is that creative expression in the 21st century is a circus littered with copyright tight ropes. One may fall onto a net of appropriate/fair use rights or into a tank of money-hungry sharks demanding payment for copyrighted materials. I can understand the desire to protect one’s unique works from being used and promoted as another’s, but it seems like there are still many loopholes for companies looking to completely bankrupt or sour the process of expression for artists looking to make public statements (such as the Simpson’s example where Fox demands $10,000 dollars from Jon Else). I did not realize that recording in public spaces where logos and people are incidentally caught on film could easily result in trademark and privacy infringement. I am still a bit confused as to how filmmakers work around these obstacles without asking for permission from anybody and everybody. I am also unclear as to what rights companies/people have to remove themselves from a publicly distributed video. The most immediate example of copyright infringement at work that I can think of is YouTube, where millions of videos are uploaded every day around the world and must be policed by the public as well as YouTube itself. On a public site for video sharing, are YouTubers required to simply say “I do not own any of the material used in this video” or are there more complicated restrictions in place? There are many “professional YouTubers” who actually receive money from sponsors who gain from the publicity they receive within each video created and uploaded. What makes YouTube filmmakers different from professional filmmakers in terms of copyright/trademark infringement? One of the clever ways I see filmmakers/animators get away with using popular brand logos in their work is by simply changing the name and logo in slight ways which are still reminiscent of the original but cannot be claimed as a stolen product. I can attest that this is done quite frequently and cleverly in Japanese animation in order to simply make use of everyday objects or places (such as soda/restaurants) without distracting the audience with obviously fake labels (like labeling a soda can “soda”) or using famous brand names without permission. I am interested in understanding more about non-copyrightable facts and ideas and where the line blurs; though the comic gives several examples (parodies, news reports, criticism, scholarly use, etc.), I wonder how this ties into the creation of art itself, which is constantly mimicking or borrowing ideas from all over.
 * Week 1 Homework:**


 * Exercise 1:**


 * Museum Visit:**



To me, the //Watch This!// exhibition was primarily about perspective and how to gain more perspective in the video format rather than in still images. With video, the artists can capture a range of emotion based on facial expression changes or voice-pitch alone. Adding the body language and the stories of the individuals within the show, there is a deeper layer exposed than any normal photograph, and the overall effect is much more lasting on the audience/viewer. I had some trouble actually hearing what some of the people within the video were saying, and occasionally I could guess whether they were saying something stressful or exciting based on their body movement or facial expression. Surrounded by three walls of constantly running video, you feel like you're almost standing with the person on the screen (in the same room), even for the few seconds they are speaking. The layout of the screens draws your attention to each image as they flash past you, which is a bit overwhelming, but in that way almost increases the viewer's excitement for the exhibit, prompting one to 'keep up' with the display. At one point when the blonde woman is standing in a crowd, looking around her, you get a sense of wonderment as she seems to realize all that is going on around her; the noise level is kept at a minimum in this section and that allows you to focus on the visuals for a few moments. As soon as the sound picks up, the woman seems to look more and more distressed, almost as if she too is feeling overwhelmed by the sudden realization that she is surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of bodies in the crowd, each person moving differently and expressing different emotions. It becomes almost a sensory overload at that point as she struggles to move through the crowd. I thought to myself "this is the beauty and horror of a crowd". The video participants seemed to pretty much be focused on answering a question about lasting memories of love in their life, and each person has a very different response to the question, emphasizing the perspective of the individual. By hearing their stories (if you could hear them), you have a chance to feel more connected to the speaker, you fall into their story and imagine how the scenes they describe played out in real time. Listening to a variety of different people from around the world speak about the same topic also has a somewhat of a unifying effect, as much as it does an individualizing one. I believe the artists were primarily attempting to convey the power of moving images and how those images leave a more prominent and lasting impression simply through video's ability to combine hundreds of still frames to create a story.


 * Krauss Article Response:**

Krauss’ thesis for her article “Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism”, would most likely be that the medium of video art is narcissism. She points out several examples in works such as //Centers// and //Air Time// by Vito Acconci, //Boomerang// by Richard Serra (subject: Nancy Holt), and //Now// by Lynda Benglis. Each of these works share the component that the subject of the work is effectively put into a psychological condition in which they are reflected upon themselves constantly until the tape ends. In other words, they are being affected by a condition that Krauss argues to be narcissism. With her examples of the afore-mentioned videos, Krauss argues that video which reflects and frustrates, is inherently narcissistic. If Krauss were writing this article in 2017, she would have a lot more material to choose from if she wanted to pinpoint examples of narcissism throughout the media and in society itself. For one, she would be able to look at the movie industry (let’s say Hollywood), which is famous for its emphasis on creating movies which appeal to whatever desires its viewership has at the moment, perpetuating a constant satiation of narcissism for the movie-maker as well as audiences around the world. Another major difference Krauss would notice is the use of smartphones by every consumer who owns one. With smartphones, any average person can film themselves, take pictures of themselves, and broadcast those images for other to see and comment upon, to like on a variety of social media websites. I believe that Krauss would need to reevaluate her perception of narcissism itself because what counted as narcissism before might actually pale in comparison to the evidence she would be able to find of narcissism in society in 2017. YouTube video makers would be a whole other genre of narcissism, because they mainly consist of people who film themselves doing a variety of different activities: how-to videos, reaction videos, talent videos, as well as innumerable other topics. With such quick and easy access to cameras used for video or photography, the average consumption of such footage has increased to heights never seen before. I think that the main takeaway would be very different if she were to discuss film as it is used in this era, and the subject of narcissism would be defined differently and approached with a different mindset simply due to how prevalent it is in modern society. I don’t know what her new thesis would be, but it would probably involve reevaluating what video art looks like.


 * Old, New, Borrowed, Blue:**

Cinemagraph Mini-Project:


 * The poetics of augmented space reflection:**

I think that the most natural step forward from augmented reality and virtual reality is the combination wherein you achieve augmented space. The only instance of augmented reality that readily comes to mind is SnapChat’s use of Bitmoji characters and animations or Pokémon Go, which just add a little bit of fun to their respective applications. I don’t see any particular harm in this because it’s been implemented as a way to incorporate a bit of the virtual world into the real one without leaving the screen of your cellphone. It is not nearly as dynamic as the incorporation of augmented reality through external devices, i.e. not smart-phones, because those devices are harder to escape and close out of, simply appearing around you as you go about your day. With more and more traces of augmented spaces in technology-heavy arenas, it’s a wonder that smartphones did not have these features sooner. While SnapChat’s use of augmented reality is mostly harmless, I do believe that Pokémon Go’s AR features have caused a variety of issues, mainly due to user-error or misuse. In this case I am referring to the problem of Pokémon Go users who forget that the animations appearing on their screen are not actually in front of them, and it is beyond harmful to allow yourself to walk through the world through the lens of your smartphone. On the other hand, I would expect that virtual reality is the more harmful of the two because VR messes with your interpretation of your surroundings; for the most part, the point is to forget that you are in one space and allow your mind to travel to another space entirely, interacting with objects that have no connection to your physical self. The appeal of these games being an instant transferal out of normally boring, somewhat less interactive spaces into these new, dynamic spaces is what makes them so dangerous to the absentminded user. That being said, the point is to perform VR tasks in a fairly safe, close-spaced area because the risk of physical harm can occur. Those who use VR with headsets out in open spaces are not being responsible or using the equipment as intended, in my opinion. Ultimately, my belief is that the device through which one encounters or interacts with an augmented reality is the important piece; smartphones have limitations, the key one being physical screen and device size, allowing the user to remember their own physical location, surroundings and understanding of off/on screen interaction. Once again, I would say that non-smartphone AR is much more dangerous because there is more room for misunderstanding what actually exists in real, physical space, and what is simply virtually transmitted.