To open the fifth and final exhibit, let us revisit Google (for just a moment!):
Map
Aram Bartholl
2006
(image via Aram Bartholl’s site)
Excuse the copy and paste job, but the artist statement is just so informative:
The project “Map” is a public space installation questioning the red map markers of the location based search engine Google Maps.
“Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.” The web interface of Google Maps makes use of small graphical icons to illustrate location related search results. The service displays the first page of 10 search results on the specific map section localized by red map markers in alphabetical order (A- J). The virtual map pins in their specific shape seam to be derived from physical, needle like map markers. But the way they are used in the digital map these markers do underlie additional rules. On one hand the marker and information speech bubble next to it do cast shadows onto the map as if they were physical objects. When the map is switched to satellite mode it seams that they become part of the city. On the other hand these graphical icons of 20 pixel size stay always at the same size on the computer screen. It looks like they sit on a separate layer while ignoring the changing scale factor of the map. In relation to the displayed city map they shrink or grow while the user zooms in or out of the map. The size of the ‘life size’ rebuilt red marker in physical reality corresponds to the size of a marker in the web interface in maximal zoom factor of the map.
Transferred to physical space the map marker questions the relation of the digital information space to every day life public city space. In which way will location related data from the net become ‘visible’ in physical space? How is reality and truth balanced between the physical world and the net data space?
Political HTML street art:
(image via Kontraband)
Some people aren’t responding very positively to such digital-themed work:
(image via Kontraband)
There’s something ironic about this. The “NO TECH SHIT” response to the added “.com” tag is a perfect example of how the Web works. Street art is transient; it gets taken down, it gets embellished by other artists, it gets vandalized, it gets erased by natural forces… The streets are one collective canvas for all to embellish. It’s democratic and interactive. Often times, you’ll see artists responding to each other, commenting on each other’s contributions, as seen here. Sound familiar?
Upcoming post: Closing statement
Past exhibits:
Exhibit #4: Computer hardware
Exhibit #3: Computer software
Exhibit #2: ASCII & Typeface
Exhibit #1: Pixels and video games
Possibly Relevant Posts:
- Exhibit closing statement (4) | nayoung
- Exhibit #4: Computer hardware in art (1) | nayoung
- Exhibit #3: Computer software in art (1) | nayoung
3 Comments
You came across really interesting stuff… I think you should now start working on your conclusion, you can refer to the different exhibits you collected and maybe see how can they contribute to a larger statement you can make about your researched environment.
Also I am rather curious on peoples reaction to this art. Does everyone really understand it? Or it is just targeted to a younger crowd? Like with the video with the Google map A- I was surprised that no one stopped to look at it, they just kept walking like it was perfectly normal.
That’s exactly what i’m having trouble finding; people’s reaction to this kind of art. I’m looking at art sites and flickr and blogs, so the comments i’m finding are obviously written by people who at least know how to use the internet. But i know my dad wouldn’t recognize that Google map marker, so i’m guessing it is targeted to a younger and tech-savvy crowd.