BLOG PROMPT: inbflat and thru-you
PLEASE ANSWER BY POSTING COMMENTS.
Compare and Contrast:
http://www.inbflat.net by artist/composer Darren Solomon
http://thru-you.com by artist/musician Kutiman
Among other possible topics, think about ideas related to collaboration vs. appropriation.
Collaboration is when more than one person intentionally helps to create a work of art.
From A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art, "Appropriation in art is the use of pre-existing objects or images ... In the visual arts, to appropriate means to properly adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects of (of the entire form) of human-made visual culture."
The concept behind each of these sites is very similar. They both spring from the idea of combining unrelated videos uploaded from a variety of musicians using different instruments, sounds, and styles. Solomon's site, inbflat.net, is an appropriated compilation of pre-existing youtube videos. This piece is highly dependent on user involvement. The viewer of the website becomes the composer, with the ability to spend time creating endless different mixes. Kuitman's videos were like more complicated versions of what people were capable of creating on inbflat.net. He manipulated the videos to fit together more successfully by altering speed and repeating clips to make things flow nicely. One of the main differences between Solomon's and Kuitman's pieces is that Kuitman truly made a collaboration. He reached out to people asking them to submit videos that he could use. Solomon simply found the videos and borrowed them for his own purposes. Kuitman's music seemed to me to have an additional motive in connecting people from all over the world, while Solomon's aim was to encourage viewers to explore the art of composing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kathryn that the concept behind both pieces is similar. Solomon's site, In Bflat, is a compilation project. He sent out an Open Call with a list of criteria for those wishing to participate. Kutiman's video is more of an appropriation since he compiles many different videos that already existed on Youtube. Both of these sites had some control over the videos they included. Kutiman physically altered the videos he found while Solomon sent out the Open Call. However, once Solomon chose the pre-made videos he let them play in their original state. Another difference is that Solomon also allows the audience to participate a little more with his site. They can choose which videos to play and when to play them. Kutiman's requires involvement from the audience, too, since in order to play the video you have to physically start it.
ReplyDeleteEven though the two pieces appear to be different, the concept is similar. I agree with both Kathryn and Brianna. Both artists used videos and music to emphasize their meaning behind the works. However, the interpretation of the concept is very different. Kutiman used finished collaborations to show her message. Even though the artist pieced the videos of music together, it still influenced the audience's creativity and it was pleasing to the ear. On the other hand, Solomon's work consisted of a bunch of video clips that were placed on the web page. There was no set order to the piece so it allowed the audience to create their own song. By doing so, the artist did not spell out his concept, but encouraged the audience to think about the videos and the concept.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed both of these websites very much. The first one, i think, is very creative because you can play all of the videos at once and it still sounds decent. I have never come across a website designed like this one which is why it stood out to me. THRU YOU on the other hand is my favorite because although it is a more basic type of website, the links navigate you all over the web to numerous videos that are endless when it comes to new things and videos I have not seen before. I enjoyed both of these websites because i have never seen or heard of either of them, and I enjoyed the content on each page.
ReplyDeleteThe first link: imbflat.net is probably the coolest thing I have seen that is web art in a long time. I really enjoyed it and I this that this artist was awesome to think through this and find videos of completely different people and instruments and beats. The best part is that the way I played it is totally different then what my friend created.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second one, I was less impressed. I didn't like the background, even if that is how the artist intended. I also wasn't a fan of the video its self, even though it the same general idea. I also enjoyed interacting with the first one and making it your own.
Both of these sites were very interesting, I feel that both are similar; blatantly, in the way that their art is made from youtube videos, and compositionally, from the fact that both are art that is made from other art (in this case making music). They differ in the fact that thru-you uses the existing videos to compose a piece of music while inbflat allows for much more interaction by acting as an instrument for the users to play. Inbflat also has a very simple layout while in contrast thru-you takes on the appearance of the site it sources its music from. In this sense inbflat is functional while thru-you is aesthetic. In terms of appropriation or collaboration, I feel that the pieces are a little of both. The videos in both were made from other people making art of their own and have in this way participated. It can be seen as appropriation too in that the creators of both sites used content that was not their own to make something else. While no one in the original videos thought they would be included in these compositions, if they had not uploaded their videos the composites would simply not exist. This artform brings new ideas to the table that would be unheard of without the internet.
ReplyDeleteBoth websites dealt with similar concepts. Collaborating multiple different sources of media from all different places on the internet. The first link was my favorite because all of the videos worked together to create a synergy of sound. They sounded very well together. The second link however wasn't necessarily supposed to be one instrument. It was a variety of different videos that were supposed to work together but I'm not sure how well they actually did. Both are very creative websites that used appropriation because the website creator didn't use any of their own videos. They used videos that had all been made from other people. They used these existing videos to create a new art form and this is why it is seen as appropriation.
ReplyDeleteEach site has a similar idea in combining videos and sound together to create one video or song, which makes them similar in this way. The two sites contrast however, as they both take different approaches to achieve one fluid song or sound, which is very fascinating. The first site by Darren Solomon takes multiple single videos and plays them together to create one fluid sound/song. Where as the other site, by Kutiman, takes a couple videos and edits them to create a fluid song. Both sites are very interesting to watch and very creative and I wonder how they picked what videos and sounds to use.
ReplyDeleteEach site had the same idea: play multiple videos and create an interesting sound, however both sites take a different style in how the final product is done. The first site by Solomon takes multiple individual videos and allows the visitor to click on whatever videos in whatever order and the sound created is interesting and appealing. There are options for different combinations every time the visitor visits the page and interacts with it. The other site takes specific videos into one so that the order of the sounds is the same each time, creating the same unique sound each time. Both sites were very fascinating, I have to say though Solomon's site is my favorite b/c of the interactive nature to it. (i posted this last week, i'm convinced technology hates me I'm sorry...)
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of both the sites are similar; both Kutiman and Darren Solomon are creating sounds originally created by other musicians to unify sounds into one cohesive piece. Solomon's site allows the listener to pick the order of the sounds, or to listen to them one at a time; Kutiman's videos are already laid out in a specific order. I think that Solomon's art falls under the category of collaboration because he hasn't used the videos to create something of his own, rather he has chosen videos that would theoretically sound good when played together, but it is more up to the listener than the composer as to how it sounds. Kutiman's art is more appropriation because he is taking these videos and turning them into his own pieces without explicit permission from the original artists.
ReplyDelete