Marcus Cook is a Melbourne based artist whose work consists predominantly of interactive pieces that are accessible by the public. Usually these works contain visuals and audio such as light, projections and sound. During the interview process we learned allot about the site of Testing Grounds and Marcus` take on it as a ‘non space’. He spoke allot about the transitioning nature of the space and how things can be moved, manipulated and replaced. Things can be torn down and build back up again to work in the best way possible with its associated artwork. Marcus used the space on 2 separate occasions to exhibit his work. The area was particularly conducive to his work because of the different shapes and formations of objects around the space. This gave Marcus different levels and areas to experiment with his interactive sensors, enabling the public to utilize their whole bodies to communicate with the art. Marcus spoke about the importance of having the sensors’ interact with the public on multiple levels enabling them to create their own art that would vary and change with each unique user. Standing in front of a sensor doesn’t simply trigger a light or turn something on and off, the sensors measure the space between the person and the sensor and then emit the appropriate sensual reaction. Marcus spoke about the importance of having humans interacting with machines. Lopes (2010) shared similar views on the human, machine relationship and growing importance of interactivity in order to engage contemporary audiences in a modern society. He connected this relationship to that of the video game, a modern form of entertainment with growing use and support. The video game is the ultimate form of interactive art where the user is physically embodying a character and taking on their life. Grant Tavinor opens his book The Art Of Video Games by admitting he “routinely carries out acts of murder and barbarism for fun”. He argues that since the invention of video games 40 years ago, they have “developed from rudimentary artifacts designed to exploit the entertainment capabilitilites of the newly invented computer, into a sophisticated form of popular art.” Marcus has utilized these modern technologies in his artwork too. Both seem to express the importance in exploring “the artistic potential and … producing results arguably equal to other representational arts”. Interactive art is random and unpredictable, the beauty of it is that it happens spontaneously in the here and now and cannot be recreated as it stems from raw and instinctive reactions. This makes these artworks a “space of living memory”. It is the “thrill of seeing something new” that makes these artworks so engaging to their audiences. This is for 2 reasons, one being appreciation for the technical capabilities of the physical product as well as the artistic originality of its user. To experience this type of art it must be experienced “first hand”. It cannot be communicated effectively through a 3rd party observer, via photo or even through video. Both interactive video games and interactive art such as Marcus` give the user “a great deal of choice over exactly what they do”. They have the freedom to make individual choices and decisions they would in the real world but in this enhanced, super heightened and intensified digital world. Interactive art in any form provides an “engaging, emotional and aesthetically rewarding experience”, that connects with audiences on multilayers. One of the things that draws the connection between the structure modern video games and interactive art is their lack of linear structure. Many traditional video games lead players down one path and provided them only one road from a-b with a set number of challenges in between. These games lacked the ability to provide their users with individual creative expression and responsibility that modern video gamers are now entitled to. Marcus spoke about one of his main joys in producing this art was to watch the different ways in which people consumed it and the patterns that would form based on the different variables in the individual as well as their environmental surroundings. Linear structured work does not allow this type of human documentation. In our interview Marcus spoke about the primary challenge in getting the public to engage with the artwork was their hesitance to enter the unknown. Tavinor too spoke about his first open interactive video game experience as “bewildering”. He found himself intimidated by the questions “what should I do” and “what could I do”. I think audiences at present still find the unknown intimidating as they are responsible for the work they produce by interacting with these technologies. I think with the growing popularity of these art forms people will begin to feel more comfortable to explore the boundless opportunities of these open interactive experiences.

Editing our footage the first thing I noticed was that Jourdan conducted the interview really well in that he didnt speak over Marcus and he gave him time and space to fully express his thoughts without external influences. This also makes the editing process easier because you dont have to cut out a 2nd persons voice. As a group we decided to edit the film as a collection of comments from Marcus and emitting the interviewers questions completely. It was a challenge to try and compile the footage so the comments would hake sense without the audiences knowledge of the prompting question. Another challenge was incorporating elements of Marcus` work within the interview to make it more visually appealing. As much of his work is interactive, live work there were limited sources available to include in the interview. We tried to use footage that was provoking and gets the viewer thinking and contemplating Marcus`views and artwork. Another challenge was getting clips at the right length. You want them to be short and snappy and engaging but not too quickly cit that it doesnt give you time to understand what Marcus is saying or the context of his comments. The major challenge with this process was exporting the final edit and sharing it as a file.

This week our group interviewed Melbourne based artist Marcus Cook. His work is highly sensual based. He does allot of audio based work including manipulating sounds and sound frequencies. He works with music festivals and up and coming artists and assists with technical specificities. The main project that our interview focused on his work located at Testing Grounds. This was an interactive art work that used sensors to monitor human behaviour and create the appropriate sensual reactions relating to their movement. This allows audiences to activate the site and create their own live art work through interacting with these digital machines. During the process of filming the first consideration was the scripted questions. We had to try and cover all aspects of Marcus` work and ask probing questions that prompted an answer that was detailed and allowed Marcus to expand on his thoughts and perspectives. The next consideration was technical ones. We had to use appropriate equipment to capture and document the events from as many angles as possible. We used a base camera from a front angle as ell as trying to capture short snippets from different angles. We also recorded the whole interview on an external microphone incase the camera audio was insufficient. The environment was another consideration, we tried to get somewhere without distracting background noise or echoes. We used a plant as a prop to provide background visual stimulus. Lighting was also important, we had to light Marcus from multiple angles to provide light without being blown out or harsh.

As part of the night as Testing Grounds we broke off in groups to use the projector packs. This was a great artistic experience that allowed us to experiment with an unusual and contemporary art form that we dont usually have access to. We had backpacks with sound capabilities inside, they were connected to hand held projectors, which were attached to an iPhone and projected the images from the iPhone screen. We were able to project images and footage onto different surfaces around the city. We utilised stills, moving images and sound and documented our projections on a 3rd party camera. The night was aimed at activating a “non site” and the process of the projections was also, in a way, activating a blank space. We were transforming what once was a stagnant wall, bush, puddle or stairwell into an interactive art space. Overlaying this footage with different textures gave it new meaning. Rather then being played flat onto a white surface we were able to display the images onto broken and disjointed surfaces. We could reshape the images and warp them to give them a different interpretation. Combining the footage with the surroundings broke the barriers and boarders of a 2D computer or TV screen. Instead of viewing the material as a singular piece of art displayed within the parameters of a rectangular block we were able to merge it with its background and juxtapose the footage with its surrounding including the sky, the cityscape and the river.

se

Last night we undertook our night class as Testing Grounds. The goal was to activate a site in a unique and novel place. To achieve this we organized a dinner party and BBQ at the venue. Testing grounds is an outdoor alternative art space that is malleable and allows artists to adopt the space and transform it in a way that suits them and compliments their work. The site is located on a corner block behind the art center. It contains different height mountains and clusters of wooden crates, umbrellas, planter boxes and a shipping container stage with a piano. We ran the BBQ with sausages and chips and set up a spread of food on one of the mountains of creates. We gathered on seats around the fire pits and enjoyed our share plates. I thought the night was very interesting in that it brought together a group of people who dont know each other that well in an event where we all contributed food and worked as a team to bring our services together and make the night happen. Everyone had their unique roles to play and it all came together like an artistic collaboration between a diverse mix of characters. The night itself was like a multidimensional artistic project. The event and documentation of the event made the night a multi layered night and turned the event into an artistic expression of creativity.

Todays class showed the remainder of the project brief 2 videos. I really liked how people had experimented with the representation of people i a place. My video was about the space itself but others had activated their sites and made them living, moving, breathing places with malleable and transformative elements. Some had shown a physical projection of a person in the place while others used movement of subject matter or the camera to depict a living person behind the camera in an almost documentary style. This had given their pieces another layer and additional level for the audience to relate to it. People start to consider not only the place itself but the ways in which it can be inhabited or utilised. Old discarded objects such as boots, bike wheels, spray cans and couches may seem like junk but also cause us to question where they came from, what their history is, how they came to be there and what stories and memories they contributed to. In my videos I wish I had been more creative with editing. I could have experimented with tempo more as well as altering colours, the speed of clips, rewinding clips, overlaying them and using other methods to make a more visual and artistic piece rather then a basic, straightforward documentation.

This lessons class we screened everyones project brief 2. After watching my piece I received some feedback. I need to experiment in not working in such a methodical and processed way.The work doesn’t always have to be a journey from a-b, it can be more experimental and creative. I grouped my footage and photography so all the similar subjects matter was placed side by side. Robbie suggested re composing it to juxtapose the images and give them different meaning. It was also suggested that I didn’t include the text. It was a bit “base” and in your face and maybe almost insulting to the audience to tell them what they are seeing. Robbie suggested making a poetic statement about each element such as “the body is a house of many windows” rather then “the windows” or “what we see is only a fraction of what really is” rather then “the view”. When watching my piece I found it very slow and tedious. The sound was on a repetitive loop, I tried to gradually build it up as the film progresses but it takes too long to build up. Robbie also mentioned maybe pairing different sounds with different scenery to create confusion. I was trying to combine stills and sound to create a multidimensional piece where the 2 senses had similarities and parallels without being as closely linked as a video production. For example when I showed the collection of images of stairs I paired it with the sound of myself walking down the stairs but the presence of a human was not there in the images. Also when I showed the final image taken from inside of the carpark of the outside world I paired it with a close up sound of a truck taking off but the truck was not present in the photo. I didn’t like how my sound was so repetitive. There was no rhythm to it, it was just a solid beat and there was one tapping noise in particular which became very irritating and overpowered the piece.

My film “The Car Park Collection” is a combination of video, images and audio that depict the carpark as a “non place”. The footage was all taken in one particular carpark as I wanted to capture the same environment from different angles. Carparks are places of transition, they are not destinations in themselves. They are places of waiting, areas of the in-between where peoples cars sit silent and motionless while their owners are busy. The mood in the carpark is quite eeire and haunting. We are too preoccupied with our final destination that we are often to oblivious to notice this. When we spend a prolonged period of time in these places we are forced to reconsider them as solid locations rather then transient blank spaces. These spaces are given new meaning and purpose within the broader spectrum of our lives. The car park consists of rows and rows and levels, upon levels of cars parked side by side. The structure of the building winds round and round with each level like a mirror image of the one next before it. Its like a maze of concrete and its easy to understand why people get lost and struggle to relocate their vehicles. At times the carpark can be an empty place of stillness where you can hear every creak of the floor, crack in the plaster and drip of the drainpipes as well as the hustle and bustle of the outside world. This particular carpark was located in the centre of the CBD with much action going on around it yet the carpark itself sits there almost invisibly. All the signs in the park also enhance the hostile feeling of the environment. “No Standing” “No Parking” “No Exit” “Reserved”, these all create boundaries and limitations that are exclusive and shut off the outside world. The environment is clinical and hostile but at the same time calming and peaceful. It is a very urban setting with concrete, pavement, bricks, pipes, metal beams, fluorescent lights and monochromatic greys, blacks and whites. In my piece I chose to focus on a few key elements that comprise the carpark, these include ‘the levels, the textures, the corners, the lines, the windows, the view, the stairs and the exit’, all defining and unique elements to a car park. I wanted to keep my piece all with a similar, minimalistic aesthetic to highlight the simplicity and practicality of the carpark. I grouped my images accordingly and broke up each division using footage that captures the movement in the carpark. I like the unique shadows and lines that the cars make as they undertake their patterned and repetitive journey up the ramps. My final shot is taken from inside the carpark looking out. The low key lighting inside the carpark juxtaposes the bright and blown out light beaming in from the streets creating the effect that the carpark is the waiting place but the destination is the bright and busy outside world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJCX3rOSFfs

Working Process:
I have spent this week editing my carpark collection footage for “non site”. Usually when I am creating audio visual pieces I start with the audio and use that as a base. I then edit the footage to the sound cutting on the beats to create a rhythmic flow in the piece and unify the sound and visual as a whole. This time I arranged the footage by subject matter and then overlaid sound gradually building and adding recordings as the video progresses. In conclusion I felt that the piece was less cohesive then my work usually is. I am unsure whether it came together and united as a final piece in the way my work usually does. I would like to experiment with this different working process in future to refine it and see how others respond to it.

In todays class we discussed the breakdown of roles for our media excursion to the testing grounds. We looked at how each person can contribute and what the responsibilities will be of each group to come together constructively. I am excited to be creating this process from beginning to end and working on our individual tasks to create a final product. Robbie also spoke about using your mobile phones whilst on location. He explained that it is unprofessional and can loose you potential jobs or internships. Whether you are taking notes and doing something education wise or not people can automatically assume the worst of you when they see you on your phone not making eye contact or giving them attention. Note to self: be careful of this.