== Wed 30th Dec 2015 ==
** Deadline Extension: Sunday 24th January 2016 at Midnight **
Digital Residency: Three-D
“ What if the flat plane of representation acquired an extension and even a body? What if images turned into stone, concrete, plastic, into seemingly dead things?”
The digital residencies provide an online space on our website for artists to develop works, ideas and practices. Two residencies will take place online between February – March 2016, with each selected artist having one month to complete a proposed project along the theme of: Stereoscopy / 3D scanning printing.
DAR is looking for proposals for online projects, research and works which respond to the interaction and understanding of 3D objects and environments. We are interested in projects that deal with research on the failures and successes of these technologies throughout history and any speculative research on 3D’s possible impact on contemporary culture. Artists would need to communicate clearly how these works would be appropriate for DAR’s online context. We are interested in proposals from practitioners who work with 3D scanning / printing, stereoscopic film and video and any cross-over techniques.
The residencies are open to artists working in any discipline and/or medium, and from anywhere in the world. However, we are particularly interested in proposals from artist working with: New media, video, Sonic art, performance, live works and cross-disciplinary practices. Chosen artists must submit at least one post per week.
Residency dates are:
Mon 1st February 2016 – Mon 29th February 2016
Tues 1st March – Wed 30th March 2016
Please list the dates of residencies in order of preference on your proposal.
o A page on our website. This is normally the style of a blog, but artists are encouraged to be ambitious with any specific ideas about how they want their work presented, write it on your project proposal and we can discuss how this can be realized.
o DAR offers technical support in achieving the aims of the online residency.
o DAR will support and promote the artist and their work through its network.
Entry criteria. Please send one pdf containing:
• A short Artist Statement ( 100 words max)
• Proposal of project (max 500 words) relating to 3D video/film/scanning/printing including a timescale explaining what outcomes you aim to achieve during the residency.
• CV including contact details
• 5 images max and/or 2 video links max
Please name the pdf FirstName Lastname DAR ThreeD.pdf and email to email@example.com
with "DAR Residency" in the subject line.
Individuals as well as artist groups can apply.
*** Deadline for applications is Sunday 24th January 2016 at Midnight. ***
== Sat 5th Dec 2015 ==
Jason Brogan Interview
Curator of DAR, Tom Milnes, speaks to Jason Brogan about his work and processes.
TM: What do you look for in a technology to use as a material/starting point?
JB: For the Operas for Zombie Media project
, I’m specifically interested in outdated or obsolete, consumer-oriented, sound technology—for instance, a turntable, portable CD player, or a first-generation iPod Touch. Admittedly, these technologies might not be considered totally outdated, but our contemporary culture has nonetheless moved on from them to more recent versions or entirely new technologies. Each object that becomes the focus of a piece in the series is found and investigated “as-is”; moreover, it’s in an unused or even broken state. Nonetheless, these objects persist physically even if they’re culturally repressed or forgotten. Admittedly, I’ve always maintained an interest in sound equipment. In fact, I suppose my media archaeological tendencies originated in taking apart various pieces of the home stereo throughout my childhood.
TM: With your sound work on DAR, your work strikes me as though it likes to test the limits of certain technologies, can you give details of how it does?
JB: Each technology in the series generates a piece, and in doing so, it presents certain challenges. In this sense, I feel that methodology is guided by concerns similar to those of composer Alvin Lucier, who made pieces, such as Music for Solo Performer, Vespers, or Clocker, which were inspired by specific pieces of equipment. Like him, my primary interest is in creating a situation wherein the sound material generated by each device flows according to its own laws or mechanisms and influences a new experience. Earlier technology like a turntable, literally driven by accessible parts and engineered to be fixable, almost readily invites intervention or tinkering, hacking or repurposing. With a turntable, one simply applies pressure to the platter and it immediately slows down the rotation speed. The platter itself might then be amplified via a microphone. Often, if a device has its own output, I intentionally try to avoid using it. Unlike the turntable, an iPod Touch was designed as a “black box,” which means that its inner workings are generally unknown to its user, and the mechanisms by which it functions are inaccessible. If it breaks, it’s most likely unfixable, and eventually, its software will no longer be supported; this is planned obsolescence. Clearly, this particular technology demands an alternative approach to hacking or repurposing. For instance, one might therefore focus on amplification or sonification techniques, or consider uploading and playing back damaged mp3 files.
TM: Would you say you play with ideas of ‘redundancy' or even ‘failure' in your work?
JB: Definitely. A piece of equipment might be broken or have a failing mechanism, and this will often be exploited sonically by way of amplification, or it might drive the form of a piece. Within the context of the project, each piece constitutes an aria—or a solo of sorts. Some pieces of equipment offer highly contingent sonic material—with no apparent reason at all, and perhaps due to a malfunction or glitch, the sound world of an old portable CD player might change dramatically from one moment to the next; the needle of a turntable might totally fail and give way to a new, unexpected and unintended sound world.
TM: Do you have an opinion on whether a material’s affordability plays a key
role to artist’s aesthetic or conceptual choices?
JB: With the exception of my computer, software, and recording or DSP hardware, I’ll admit that within the context of my project, I avoid paying for the devices used; I’m invested in reuse and recycling. Again, as this might entail the use of broken technology, I accept whatever sonic terrain is generated by the equipment. Thus, each piece more or less constitutes the exploration of this understandably shaky ground. This process results in an electro-acoustic assemblage of equipment, microphones, and cables, and both human and non-human agencies. There is undoubtedly a kind of forensic quality to all of this, as if I were conducting a preemptive autopsy on the respective device.
TM: And do you foresee this trend of hacking/ Zombiefiying media continuing in the future? How will it change?
JB: Given both our current and future ecological and economic conditions, I do foresee it continuing into the future. Undead technology will continue as an unavoidable part of everyday life, and as a reminder of non-human (and non-linear) temporalities. Moreover, creative methodologies that utilize hacking, circuit bending, recycling, repurposing, and remixing are not only of artistic interest; they might easily be applied to the domain of design and technology.