In looking back, I didn't want to be taught how to use applications in university. If you search, you'll find tutorials, and what they teach you in university doesn't go beyond that.
Maybe I should teach Unity or TouchDesigner or something. But I'm not sure my motivation is up to it.
And in this day and age, you can learn how to use those kinds of applications on your own. No matter what the interface is. Those who want to do it will do it on their own.
But... is this idea pretty harsh?
I've been participating in Algorave since I've never written programs (i.e., since I've never operated a computer with English-like languages as its interface), so I've been watching these super high school kids and thinking that the younger generation is more literate than my generation, but I was kind of wrong. Most of the kids can't understand the directory structure or the simple mechanism of what refers to what itself.
In comparison, there are kids who want to know more about the different types of conditional branching. Some of them, like me, feel uncomfortable if they don't know why something is working, and are not good at DAWs.
Of course, this project is hard to execute technically. But they didn't seem to have enough staff on board. When I heard that they had a staff that could do sound stuff, I communicated with him on site, but he didn't even know where to connect the speakers to get sound. In other words, the student who was planning the project said that didn't understand technical things at all like that. Asking me to stream 10 minutes before the schedule that wasn't shared because you don't know what steps to take to be able to stream. So that they can't assign proper staff and number of people.
Why is this happening? - Because there is a system in which students are able to take a degree by their project work in the faculty which have no educational skills for artwork production. The professors just say “it was good” and there’s no other communication at all.
To be able to create a work of art is basically to repeat over and over again how to make it look the way you want it to look by moving your own hands, but without doing that, the process research of this graduate school seems to result in "just ask and it will be done".
Mainly because of the above, when I was feeling that the policies of the Graduate School had completely crossed the unacceptable line for me, I just had an opportunity to do a public performance. There was an artist who had given me full-length feedback on this performance piece when I first presented it, but I hadn't seen him in a while, and even though I hadn't communicated with him in any way, he told me point-blank, "You have better things to do”.
Less than a week later, I visited the professor's house with a friend and told him in the park next to his house that I would quit because the policies of you and your department are unacceptable to me.
The professor who I regarded also invited guests every week in June. Topics are not directly related to each other. There’s no discussion, just Q and A only. Well, this whole lecture seemed to me that the teacher was putting on a show of connections for the students, rather than allowing them to learn systematically.
Learning doesn't always have to be systematic, even more so in graduate school, but even so, there seems to be no intention or system there to develop students' projects. I've been working here for three months now and I don't know anything about each students’ project except for the one I'm talking to directly.
The topics were too risky to touch in a two-hour lecture and Q and A. They were Black Lives Matter and Afro-futurism, gender studies, and so on.
I felt so bad for the mostly Techno Music - Black Lives Matter lecture, but I would like to write about that after a few days. Anyways, I told my doubt to the professor, then he said “Students know incredibly little about anything. All I can do is cover a reasonable number of topics that seem to be relevant, package the students well, and get them jobs.”
Every year, each professor invites a guest to give a lecture. One professor organized an online lecture by Claire Bishop, where there were 50 students and a public audience of 1000. (Note: There was also a lecture for internal students only.) He reasoned that making the lecture public "would be a good promotion of this faculty.) This is not a safe place for students to learn. Is it a place for a promotion? Really?
Of course, the radicalism of Bishop is nothing compared to the 'radicalism' of the professor. (Her criticism of research-based art was very interesting.)
This faculty can accept a short thesis with project work. In June, this style of work was shown. This was a hybrid-styled (online + offline) performance piece and collaboration of the Tokyo side and the Glasgow side.
I did a music performance there with a consensus to do it as an artist with appropriate payment, not as an assistant in this faculty.
The first problem was that when I told the planning students that I was sure they would complain about the volume, instead of giving me some management guidance on how to deal with it, such as posting, etc., the professor just said towards me, ‘What are you talking about? You're not in a student mood.’ He was just angry at my loudness. Well, the loudness is my basic mode in my music. What should be discussed here was not a ban on risk reduction, but rather what can be managed for project execution, and this needs to be carried out in a very administrative manner. As a result, it is unavoidable that an inability to carry out the project will occur. However, in a creation-related manner, he had jumped over that premise and made inappropriate emotional outbursts. This also made me disrespected.
This was made as a public event (with streaming). I credited myself as ‘artist’, but he made me write as ‘a research assistant in the faculty’. There was a sense of disbelief here as well. Here, my job as an assistant, such as setting up, broadcasting, organizing guests, etc., and my work as an artist, such as running the workshop, were mixed up, and I was not paid for the latter. The idea was that the latter was included in the work as an assistant.
All of these made me feel disrespected as a person of creation. I didn't want to play the full thing, so I didn't.
In April, the professor who was my academic advisor asked me to do a workshop in his seminar. I had a basic sense of trust in him as an academician, cultural studies researcher, and liberalist. Now I think that was totally a mistake. As you know, I do the live coding, but the matter is not it, but considering a lot about performance or behavior by interfaces through a brilliant term 'live coding'. What alarmed me was that he did not grasp it, but tried to recover it in a kind of poor expression of political correctness in academia. - Yep… I noticed that he hasn't checked my latest status, works, and writing. Therefore he wrote an introduction for the workshop with the words such as ‘new style of music’, ‘future’ and ‘openness’, also describing things like ‘showing codes is to figure out the system.’ Of course, he can say that with googling once and no coding experience. And he won’t google it after this workshop. That's all well and good, that's none of my business, but the problem is that he's an academician. What is the ‘process’, ‘research’, ‘community’ for him? It's nothing more than something that gives him authority.
I have several jobs now. One of them is an assistant in the University which I studied as a bachelor student from April 2014 to March 2019. Actually, I’m working at the graduate school part, a new place that was created when the part I used to go to was split up. There is the professor who was my academic advisor. I’m not so much an educational research assistant as I am an online support staff due to the COVID situation. So it’s been 3 months now… I’m trying to quit.
@okachiho This article a few days ago presents some pretty good evidence that the mysterious big players in NFTs are running a kind of scam:
@okachiho This article has good critique both of the environmental toll, the 'solutions' to the environmental toll and how it perverts some of the unique qualities of digital art: https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3
Here is a good and critical background on what an NFT is specifically: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/11/nfts-crypto-grifters-try-to-scam-artists-again/
The last author is a long time skeptic on anything crypto but well informed.
He argues one of the reasons there is so much hype on NFT is because those that got in early when it was easy to mine / cheap to buy basically make their money on selling it on to the next person. So that is why everyone who has a stake in it presents it as if it is the next big thing, so they can sell at good mark up. This has been the same with all crypto tokens so far.
I thought it would be nice if artists who create works in the form of video or poetry, not sculpture, could earn for living and productions. There are some video works whose value lies not in the display but in the video itself. However, I don't want the code to lose its open and collaborative nature. I wonder if that's the point. Thinking about kind of Processing, PureData or something like that are the perfect landing pad for a form of media art.
Well... I'm quite scared because I can't find negative opinions about nft art market at all and all of articles or comments are welcoming it.
Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.