I am mostly fascinated by contemporary art and the ways artists use the most different and random skills to create art. Recently, I've been looking at artists who appropriate other pieces of art to create their own. To me, it feels like a never-ending circle of inspiration and mutation, by simply using art to create more art. And there is not a right and conventional way to do it, because I believe anything can be art, as long as you are expressing an idea. I found inspiration in glitch art, which I think it literally translates the visual I wanted to create - mutation and transformation of art. The way I see, it's not about destroying art, it's transmuting it to a point that you can still appreciate it and connect to it. I also am interested in the big discussion about what really is the definition of art and I feel like there needs to be a change in how art is seen and the different target groups art should be aimed at.
The main thing for me about this product is to make art reachable and more appealing to look at. When you're in front of a piece of renaissance art, what you see is what you get. Those artists mainly painted what they saw on a daily basis, with a flawless similarity to the real world. As time passed by, other artists wanted to take it to a new level; they wanted to express what others couldn't see. But at the same time I believe that art involved into something free and ethereal, it was also seen as something that only a certain kind of people could understand. I wanted to deconstruct that concept by showing that you can still make art using technological resources and no matter how much you turn, twist and transform it, it is still art. As long as there is someone to look at it and feel a connection to it and have their own take on it. There was a choice to make in my process. I knew I could manipulate the paintings using either Processing or Adobe Pixel Bender. Though, the latter had some limitations that didn't quite meet the exact visual I had in mind. And Processing could give me the visual I wanted but I don't have complete domination over it. So the more I thought about the final product, the more I wanted it to be a video because I wanted people to see the process of the deconstruction of art, instead of giving them the final transformed image. It's the movement of the pixels and bits of the painting that I wanted to animate. So I turned to Adobe After Effects, which gave me the exact effect/animation that I was thinking about. And later on, I edited the video on Adobe Premiere, in which I could control the speed and transition from the painting to the moving art. Then, it seemed only logical to use face detection, because I wanted people to be in front of the piece and then the magic would immediately appear for them.
Lorrine Sampaio 404012 Art & Technology
The love I have for all visual things leads me to believe I am good at choosing, displaying and organizing art. On a more technical note, I like to work with programs like Photoshop and Illustrator, where you can edit and create mainly 2d pieces. I really tried to go into a motion graphics world, where you can take 2d and static images to a whole new level. I made some experiments with Photoshop, a previously familiar program to me, and by searching some kind of effects and tools I had a vision of what I really wanted for the final product. To reach the goal I wanted, I knew then that I needed to work with programs that you can animate and make 2d images move. I knew I didn't want to make something static, that I really wanted to give life to a painting. I researched a lot about glitch and pixel art and how to apply it through pixel bending/sorting. I went to teachers who have a background on animation and graphic design. Seeing as a very logical and broad area, I'd like to have more time to dive into the world of Processing. Because I can see it now how you can manipulate it in your favor. You can make graphic patterns and shapes more easily than in programs like Illustrator and the result is very appealing visually.