Don Hertzfeldt and Thorne Brandt

Hertzfeldt and brandt from Noel Johnson

Noel Johnson

New Media in Context

Joseph Delappe

13 December 2016

Absurdist Artists

            We will be comparing and contrasting animator Don Hertzfeldt and internet artist Thorne Brandt, choosing to focus on the motifs represented throughout their works. One work from each artist will then be analyzed in greater detail revealing these motifs and how they intermingle the two artists.

            Don Hertzfeldt is an animation artist well known for his cynical surrealism depicted through stick figure characters. His features have won two Academy Awards as well as the Sundance Film Festival’s Grand Jury prize for short films twice. Hertzfeldt’s style and technique, although still incredibly unique, draws from more analogue traditions. All Hertzfeldt’s animations are hand drawn and photographed using antique 35mm cameras. He creates his special affects through things like experimental photography, including things like over-exposures, and warped lighting. However, Hertzfeldt is not opposed to utilizing more digital formats to create his works. For example, his newest science fiction feature “World of Tomorrow” is a digitally rendered animation, while still utilizing his stick figure aesthetic.

            Thorne Brandt is an internet artist that specializes in utilizing web domains, social media, and gifs as a medium. He is, however, best known for his gif artworks, such as “Gif Connoisseur”, a Tumblr blog in which he acquires gifs from around the internet and photoshops his very own connoisseur character in front of them – and elderly man, dressed in fine attire, facing the gif, contemplating the gif as if it were a piece of art hanging within a traditional gallery space.

            Primary differences between these two artists lies within their utilized techniques. Don Hertzfeldt creates his story using more analog aesthetics – a stylistic choice that can still be detected by the audience even within his more digitally oriented works. Thorne Brandt, in contrast, has a very clearly “modern” and more internet- based aesthetic dominating his stylistic choices. These differences in technique and style also greatly effects the differences in how they portray their similar messages. Don Hertzfeldt, being an animator and storyteller, gives a more definite narrative to his pieces, whereas Thorne Brandt’s reliance more -so on the art of the internet, an already difficult to follow platform as is, leads to his artworks have a far less defined narrative that is much more open to audience interpretation.

The commonalities between these two artists, I find, stems much farther beyond their absurdist content and ability to push what is thought as “high” art as opposed to “low” art. Although they do have these things in common, they also possess a similar set of deeper meanings when you scrape away the upper layers of their artworks. Within the two pieces I chose to analyze from these artists there are common underlying motifs of uncertainty, subjective perception of time and realities, and ontological actuality (a philosophical idea focusing on the ideas of existence and humanity). Hertzfeldt shows these ideas through a science fiction situation while Brandt shows the presence of these ideas in our everyday existence.  

The piece I decided to analyze for Thorne Brandt is “A.G.O.D”. The acronym “A.G.O.D” stands for “Animated Gif Of the Day”. It is a short, 5-minute video in which Brandt, every day since its creation, layers a new gif into its composition. These gifs range from self-created to found gifs, some of which include sound that is layered in as well. This piece, on a surface level, captures Brandt’s overwhelming absurdity and maximalist style to represent the entropy of life within our fast moving, instant messaging, like and re-like, constant upload society. However, this piece does touch on the motifs that tie our two artists together as well. The aspect of uncertainty is present because, not only does the piece literally change from day to day, but also will change from viewing to viewing for the audience. This is due to the overwhelming nature of the piece, making it impossible for the audience to take in every detail of it. This represents the uncertainty of life and its everchanging, organic nature. Tied into this uncertainty in the concept of ontological actuality as well. The pieces ever changing, organic nature and aspects of uncertainty attribute to a contemplative mood encircling humanity and human existence – or more so, the lack thereof. The motif of subjective perception of time and reality is also introduced by the overwhelming tone of “A.G.O.D”. This is shown, very similarly to uncertainty, by the changing of experience every time it is viewed, showing that your reality of this piece is subjective to both what day you view it and what information your brain decides to pick out from the clusters of sound and imagery.

The piece I decided to analyze from Don Hertzfeldt was his most recent feature short film, “World of Tomorrow”. Within this narrative, a third-generation adult clone of the main character, Emily, communicates with a four-year-old “Emily Prime” (the original, non-clone version of Emily). Clone Emily then takes Emily Prime on a journey through time to show Emily Prime her (Clone Emily’s) memories. Throughout this journey, Emily Clone introduces a few things I would like to focus on. This includes the consciousness cubes and the clone David as an art installation. These two scenes in particular, best highlight the aforementioned motifs. The consciousness cubes, as described in the film, is a technology in the future that allows those who cannot be cloned to have their consciousness uploaded into a cube in which allows them to continue to “exist”. This idea ties heavily into subjective perception as well as ontological actuality. This idea that is questioning the importance of the body versus the importance of the consciousness ties into how we perceive and, on a deeper level, how we perceive our existence. It brings into question how we perceive the world, gather information, and learn without a body, and whether both body and mind are truly necessary to be considered existing. This same idea is heavily present within the art museum scene. Within this scene, it is described that a clone boy named David exists solely within a test tube in an art museum. He is alive biologically and grows, but without a brain. This makes him nothing but a body. This brings into question the same concepts of existence and perception. On the opposite end of the spectrum to the consciousness cubes, David “exists” only as a body without consciousness. Is one more validated than the other in terms of existence or are they both lacking true, total existence without their balancing counterparts? In terms of uncertainty, the entirety of the narrative plays with this idea. One of the things we consider most uncertain is the future. However, this rule is broken when Clone Emily travels through time to show Emily Prime moments from the future. However, this action itself is possibly discredited and poked fun at, as Emily Prime is at such a young age that she does not have the ability to be certain about any of the moments that she will likely forget. This then reintroduces the idea of uncertainty that was previously lost to us.

Bibliography

Brandt, Thorne. "The Gif Connoisseur." Blog post. The Gif Connoisseur. N.p., n.d. Web. 12

            Dec. 2016. <http://thegifconnoisseur.tumblr.com/>. 

Brandt, Thorne. "Pizza Dog." Pizza Dog. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. <http://pizzadog.org/>. 

Brandt, Thorne. "Thorne Brandt." The Fountainhead. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.

            <http://www.fountainheadresidency.com/thorne-brandt/>. 

"Don Hertzfeldt." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.

            <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Hertzfeldt>. 

Sims, David. "World of Tomorrow and the Copy-Pasted Brain." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media

            Company, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.

            <http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/world-of-tomorrow-and-the-

            copy-pasted-brain/425016/>. 

Bramesco, Charles. "Animator Don Hertzfeldt on Not Trusting Happy People." The Dissolve.

            Pitchfork Media Inc., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.

            <https://thedissolve.com/features/interview/980-animator-don-hertzfeldt-on-not-trusting-

            happy-peop/>. 

Allan Kaprow

Allan Kaprow

Allan Kaprow was one of the most influential artists of the 1960's. His performance pieces that he coined as "Happenings" became an integral part of the Fluxus movement that influenced other important artists like Nam June Paik. This term "happening" is in reference to the nature of his performance art. A "Happening" occurs when specific parts are planned, such as lighting and subject matter, and others parts are largely affected by outside influences, such as audience interaction. The Happening that I particularly focus on in the following presentation is "Fluids". "Fluids" was performed in California in 1967. Kaprow, with the help of volunteers, built several walls composed of ice blocks within public space then left them to their own facilities. The walls consequently melted overtime. This piece is a metaphor for our human need to bond together as a society in order withstand circumstances out of reach of our control. The fact that the blocks are composed of water, the most common element within our bodies, shows their metaphorical representation of individual human beings. Once these individual blocks are joined together they make up a much greater, stronger, and more beautiful whole. However, there is a melancholy tinge to this meaning as well. The walls will inevitably melt, despite their conjoined strength. This action is a metaphor for how, no matter how hard humanit tries, nature will always come out triumphant with time.

Allan kaprow from Noel Johnson

Teddy Lo

Teddy Lo

A presentation by Noel Johnson

"Gon Kirin" by Teddy Lo

Teddy Lo was an artist originally born and raised in Hong Kong and is now based out of the United States. He specializes in sculptures utilizing neon as well as focuses the main body of his works on light. The photograph above is of his sculpture "Gon Kirin". It is a large monster truck transformed into a dragon that utilizes neon lighting fixtures and pyrotechnics created for the Burning Man event that takes place every year in Nevada. In the presentation below you will also find examples of his light photography as well as other sculptures. Much of his work depicts the struggle for power between man and nature, or more so, the struggle of nature to combat the power of man. Not only does his use of motions and colors that depict fear as man approaches in his particular piece "Basilisk" show this, but his use of light as a medium shows it as well. Light, for centuries, has been studies because of its mysteries. Light can be seen as a wild, uncontrollable part of nature. However, even though he cant control it in its totality, Lo does have the power to create specific shapes and force the light to follow that shape. Through this, in increases the commentary on this struggle for nature to maintain its power in the face of man.

Teddy lo from Noel Johnson

Rafael Rozendaal

Rafael Rozendaal

A presentation by Noel Johnson

Rafael Rozendaal is a modern, contemporary artists that utilizes websites as a form of canvas. He uses web domains to create an often interactive experience for his expansive internet audience. His art is often colorful and geometric in nature, as well as utilizing sound and heavily depending on audience interaction in order for the piece to reach its full potential. Much of his content can be seen as silly, possibly a critic of the silly nature of the internet platform he's utilizing. His art can also be seen as trying to depict the hidden beauty within web domains. For example, the piece above as well as several others of his motionless pieces are modeled after the blocky, geometric nature of social media sites. By emulating these shapes with brilliant colors he highlights the jovial nature of these platforms. Rozendaal has also been documented stating that he desires to show that these "screens" we experience every day can be much more immersive than the 2-D surface that we originally perceive them as. This idea of interaction and immersion is a relatively new idea in art and Rozendaal is one of the pioneers pushing this new form of art by allowing the audience to be an integral part in the outcome of an art piece. The following presentation gives more examples of Rozendaal's artwork:

Rafael rozendaal presentation from Noel Johnson

Linked examples from presentation in order of appearance:
http://www.oozemove.com/
http://www.goodbyefarewell.com/
http://dismagazine.com/discussion/73124/rafael-rozendaal-abstract-browsing/
http://www.fillthisup.com/
http://www.lookingatsomething.com/
http://www.nosquito.biz/

A review and reflection of "Hypernormalisation" by Adam Curtis

A review and reflection of "Hypernormalisation" by Adam Curtis

While watching “Hypernormalization”, a documentary by Adam Curtis, I will admit to at first paying little attention and experiencing moments of boredom and distraction. In that moment within the first half hour of this film I was the quintessential child of technology he later describes. I, out of ignorance, have not been involved in the world of politics and activism in world issues until these recent past two years. Up until the age of eighteen I had this perspective that since the world did not care about my voice why should I care about it? Recently, and especially after watching this piece, I realize that I was wrong. I was a victim of this “fake world” that Curtis describes. I may not have had a political voice yet, but much of my time could have been spent widening my world view and opening my mind beyond what social media sites allowed me to see (as Curtis describes, we are isolated within a bubble of a static, pre-existing world view due to the filters utilized within these sites). Curtis describes this condition I was in within his film. He describes members of a fake world utilizing cyberspace to distract from the real world issues; individuals that are victims of the constant flux of politics that is now run more by corporations than people. He shows several examples that embody this new form of politics ranging from Trump’s flip flopping rhetoric, to the Western depiction of the leader of Lybia, to the Russian funding – while under the control of Putin-  of nearly every political group. This constant confusion and constant fear create a society that is too distracted to revolt or make a real change in were the world is going. Curtis even addresses the point that, even though this cyberspace environment has had the opportunity to bring people together to try and begin a change, the unchanging world we’ve been so long a part of seeps its way in by means of no ideas of a new society after the revolt.

This film, after much thought, has lead me to question much of the way our world is set up as well as how I feel I should, as opposed to actually do, view this world I live in. I want to make a difference, I do, but it also brings into question how much of my own happiness I am willing to sacrifice to make this difference. Do I sacrifice my only dream of being happy within my own life to create a difference in the world, or do I continue to live in blissful ignorance, concerned only with my values and needs and well-being, allowing this system to continue? Would making a difference even really mean sacrificing happiness, or is my idea of that merely a manifestation of this world I have been raised in? And if I were to decide to “make a difference” how much of a difference would that difference even be? Can my sole voice even mean anything or effect anything if one of the main ways of spreading that is through a system that only allows other who agree with my view to be reached by it? Is it a bad thing to participate in a social construct that you oppose? Does that make your voice invalid? For example, I have always been relatively opposed to the way University learning is run today. From the inequality of funding to certain programmes, despite everyone paying the same ludicrous amounts of money in order to even participate, to the fact that the University system is run solely out of an idea of profit rather than the enrichment of the human mind of every student. The University does not care if I actually learn to go on to actually apply that learning in a career that applies to subjects that I had learned. In short, after graduation, after they have acquired their money from me, I no longer matter to the university. Despite this view of mine, however, I still plan to participate, even up to the level of graduate school because I am equally aware that in our culture, a college degree gives you worth, despite it being only a piece of paper saying I learned something in a classroom as opposed to somewhere else. Does this personal fact of a “if you can’t beat them, join them” mentality make me another product of this world that Curtis describes, or is a simple awareness of it make and individual different enough?

However, I will say there is one particular flaw in Curtis’ film that I noticed. He uses diction that points out that he may disfavor rhetoric that hides truth. He shows the negativity that comes from lying while in power for benefit that suits it at the time. With this in mind you would think that he would want to expose all truth in relation to his topic of living in a fake world. In contrast, he shows a bias towards liberal views and I believe this results in his lack of addressing the corruption within the Clinton administration. I am myself a liberal as well and did support Hillary Clinton within the previous elections. I am still, regardless, going to play devil’s advocate. In a film toting about how certain things are hidden from us and we are stuck within isolated bubbles allowing us to only see what we want to, I do believe he should touch on the corruption that does arise within liberal parties from time to time. Even if it is just for a moment, bringing up possible counter arguments to his points and attempting to refute them would possibly make his arguments about politics even more powerful than they already are.