I created larger versions of the small pixellated drawings of a few days back; on metre high paper, it allowed me to show the original intention that despite the picture being blurred it is still recognisable as a persons face, due to the brains reaction of seeing a connection to the object: just like the “man in the moon”.
I also then started to experiment in the idea of patterns; the distinct pattern of pixels, which led me to the experimentation in dpi; I then created this larger pattern in mimicry of the pixellated face.
When trying to find any information on pixel art, I found a website article that saved me, as pixel art is not the most common of styles despite the internet and computer technology being the most common topic of todays world. The site Smashing Magazine, left me with many different impressions to the manifestations of ‘pixel’ art; that is the different styles and what the limitations actually are for such a closed creational method.
The article presents several artists and styles of pixel art in a format where it just feeds you information fast and in order by links to their origin site. Some of the information leads to artists, like; Miguel Eudara – “Hero“, who used 3.2 million dots to draw his father, taking 210 hours to draw by hand, and make pixel not war , a collection of several images of inspiring nature like the immediate connection of this piece to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and the Cathedral pixel art window by Ritcher, Game Over project, Guillaume Reymod who used people by pixels as they recreated vintage games, and jason huang, who created a pixel world online.
Other information gives just images from unknown or otherwise foreign source images; Fool – “in middle of nowhere“, “panda and strawberry” sowing, “raining drea“, a material pixel sculpture, in a middle of nowhere.
Whereas there was particular styles; Rubikcubism , where rubik meets pixel art, 8 bit buddy , three-dimensional pixel art, pixel couch, pixellised fabrics, pixel tattoos , vintage pixel art, wall design ,with painted floppy discs as pixels.
There was also the dotmatrix printer article here, with information and instructions on how to both create and work your own dot matrix printer. Whereas this website shows the creation of hand-made dot matrix images using the character mario.
By Ashley Anderson
Whilst experimenting into the production and manipulation of pixels, I trod into dpi, the act of turning the pixels into a reality through printing. The printer works because for each pixel it prints a dot of ink, you can tell how good the printer is by the amount of dots per inch, or dpi.
Here I blew up the pixels in a curve i made on the computer and sketched them out, before experimenting the shapes of the pixels; which was what inadvertedly led me to the dpi depictions.
The dpi started off at the same size as the pixellated drawings from the previous post, namely for convience sake as I simply translated the pixels over into a shaded circle of the same size in the grid. Then I experimented by creating a larger one with circles of around a centimetre wide, however the drawing became to big for my A4 sized sketchbook and I had to cut it off somewhere.
Using a little doodle of a man in a pixellated form I managed to move my project onto how identity can be hacked, which is an act that has only been made easier with the technological leaps of the computers. Hence I moved onto the idea of ‘hacking life’.
In images this is a strange thing to try and conceptualise; so i started simple, hacking into a camera built into a piece of technology is a common occurance, taking a photo through that hack is how ended up with my designs as of yesterday. By building the same images up with pixels (ordinary squares) on paper in graphite for the beginning, although I have begun experimenting in colour. I statrted using the Yellow, Cyan, Magenta, Black order which is used in printing processess; for checking the colour is pure and printing correctly.
In an experimental session, contained within the sports hall on campus, we were instructed to experiment with the lines that surrounded and draw them, or add to them, accent them or otherwise interact with them; with only masking tape. This was the outcome:
We also experimented with the lines as a use of space; in that the areas of the structure used space, and that the space was of more interest than the structure. Thankfully this time we were provided with paper and pencil, which whilst making it more familiar, the idea of drawing the space was foreign enough to cause confusion.
This was the start;
Using a member of the group as part of the piece for comparision of space.
The end product after crushing,
Although after some thought I recalled Alighiero e Boetti and his work “untitled” from 1990, a graphite study of a chair in a ground-plan, which is accompanied by a straight up walking stick. The most interesting thing about this piece is that the paper is folded; in such as way that it appears to have been wrapped around a chair and sat in, Hence I folded the paper in much the same way; in that I pressed and folded the paper around parts of the structure before drawing my impressions of the same source.
There was an exhibition in November of 2011, “the Art of Hacking”, which used works from various artists but particularly Heath Bunting who has created a net.art, Own, be owned, or remain invisible. Which is a plain page with a just visible documentary on himself, although most words are hyperlinked, hence clicking on any particular one will transport you to an area that may or may not exsist or may or may not be owned by someone else. He explores the physical space and the virtual space, which is how he created his “phone-in” at kings cross, connecting people around the world on a phone, strangers were talking to strangers, all because of a set up he created on his website.
His work isnt a physical thing, but its the co-ordination between people, space and technology that is a curiousity to me; how he uses space; virtual or online to watch how people arrive with an expectation and to have that changed before their eyes by his use of technology.
Art hack day;
a few days in April of 2013; where a bunch of people met up and made something, anything. Using the title “larger than life” they collaborated together to create an exhibition that went public and could be seen for a few days after. They documented this on the website linked above; they theorised that as er experience we are all being viewed, through sensors and cameras, we are all projecting an image of ourselves. They question the idea that this technology has made us into artists and archivists, and ask if you would reshape your own and other perception of yourself if given the oppourtunity or indeed the right?
I found an article on how there are six common ways that artists hack into your brain; twisting mirrors, unreal shadows; virtual reality, photorealistic; forcing an emotional impression; illusions making two images in one painting; synesthete; perspective and ‘reverspective’.
The article compares artists and hackers, by using the notion that both artists and hackers are “makers” they appear extraordinarily close in their subject matter. (providing you indicate a hacker as a technological engineer for creating software.)
This article spawned a curiosity into what hackers actually try to do, leading to another website “problems of hackers” , in which there is a comparison to hackers and painters, and why hackers “feel as if they’re doing something completely unrelated”.
A quote from the site; “most makers make things for a human audience. And to engage an audience you have to understand what they need. Nearly all the greatest paintings are paintings of people, for example, because people are what people are interested in.” So how to apply that to hackers? They create things that are for computers, alternate programming and software, admittedly which people will use as they use the computer. However they don’t need to know or understand the programming to use the computer, they don’t need to be interested in it to achieve what they will from it. In art, you can’t create something meant to be stored and not understood, because that is the only purpose of art; to be seen and to be judged.