Art and authenticity

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses

Thesis/Dissertation Collections

2-22-2005

Art and authenticity

Akihiko Miyoshi

Follow this and additional works at:

http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

ART AND AUTHENTICITY

BY

AKIHIKO MIYOSHI

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Fine Arts in Imaging Arts

Rochester Institute of Technology

J. Weiss

Jeff Weiss, Chair

Jessica Lieberman

Jessica Lieberman, Committee Advisor

Alexander Miokovic

Alexander Miokovic, Committee Advisor

Elliott Rubenstein

Elliott Rubenstein, Committee Advisor

February 22, 2005

Date

Date

Date

~

7

Thesis/Dissertation Author Permission Statement

Title of thesis or dissertation: _---'-A-'-R.=-:,._..LA..:..:N'-'-'t>"'---LA..>.;v~Th.J...I..Lt:~N_~]iL.!.\-=::L.Ln.L'f~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Name of author:

AK, \-\

'Ko

Yl\'(oSH I

nAstER Of E

h.IE M16

Degree: Program: College:

I understand that I must submit a print copy of my thesis or dissertation to the RIT Archives, per current RIT guidelines for the completion of my degree. I hereby grant to the Rochester Institute of Technology and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media in perpetuity. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

Print Reproduction Permission Granted:

I,

d-KI

H

t

1<0

H l'ruSH ,

,

hereby grant permission to the Rochester Institute Technology to reproduce my print thesis or dissertation in whole or in part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

Signature of Author:

Akihiko Miyoshi

Date:

3/1( IDS

Print Reproduction Permission Denied:

I, , hereby deny permission to the RIT Library of the Rochester Institute of Technology to reproduce my print thesis or dissertation in whole or in part.

Signature of Author: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: _ _ _ _ _

Inclusion in the RIT Digital Media Library Electronic Thesis &

Dissertation (ETD) Archive

I, , additionally grant to the Rochester Institute of Technology Digital Media Library (RIT DML) the non-exclusive license to archive and provide electronic access to my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media in perpetuity.

I understand that my work, in addition to its bibliographic record and abstract, will be available to the world-wide community of scholars and researchers through the RIT DML. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis or dissertation. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I am aware that the Rochester Institute of Technology does not require registration of copyright for ETDs.

I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached written permission statements from the owners of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis or dissertation. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my committee.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am _greatly indebted to Jeff_{Weiss, my} thesis chair for _introducing me to the ideas of

contemporaryart. He was always there to challenge _me, confuse _me, push _me, inform me,

guide _me, support _me, and ask the questions that needed tobe asked. Most of_{all, I} would

like to thankhim for his _friendship and for sharing his enthusiasm.

Iwishtoexpress_mygratitude_{to my}committeemembers, JessicaLieberman, Alexander

Miokovic, andElliott Rubenstein fortheirsupport and advice. Their assistance and advice

was invaluable. _Jessica, with her humorand immense knowledge directedme toinvestigate

new ideas. Alex gaveme support throughout the art _makingprocess, andhis experience as

curatorwas_{extremely helpful}when_{putting my MFA}show up. _Elliott,always unpredictable

andwithgreat _intuition, kept me on_{my toes}and allowed meto discoverthings _{in my}work

that I did not see for myself.

I would also like to thank Willie Osterman for his support and _friendship throughout

my studies at RIT. Heartfelt thanks goes toall _my colleagues and friends at RIT.

ART

AND AUTHENTICITY

BY

AKIHIKO MIYOSHI

ABSTRACT

My MFA thesis _show, After the Last Picture _Show, depicted _{my inquiry} into what

pictures and images are today. Inthis _{thesis, starting from} the formalist tradition offine

art _photography, I deconstruct _{photography into} elementsbasedon theclassical_dichotomy

of form and content and discuss how the photographic image has dislodged itself from its

material base. _{Subsequently,} I question the objectiveof art in an age in which images are

information, and in which information is _instantly exchanged. I use _authenticity as the

guiding light in my art and attempt to confront the doubts that linger in our

simulation-based society.

Further, Istartan_inquiryintothe relationshipbetweenthecomputerandart. Iattempt

toprovide an observation ofthecomputer intermsofitselfas opposedto themorefrequent

approach of_{analyzing it} as a medium to simulate _exisitingtools. I argue that the essence

ofthe computer is _abstract, and I describethe conflict betweenthis abstract nature ofthe

computer and the physicality that art demands.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 After _Photography 1

1.1 Auraand Objectness 2

1.2 Objectness ofPhotographs 5

1.3 Photographs asInformation 7

1.4 Doubts within _Photography 8

1.5 From _Photography 11

1.6 _Authenticity 12

1.7 The Banal 15

2 The _Relationship Between Computers and Art 18

2.1 The Dilemmaofthe Computer 20

2.2 TheAbstract and its _Physicality 22

2.3 IntersectionofMedia 25

2.4 ExpansionofInterfaces 27

3 Conclusion: Art and _Authenticity 29

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Ode to the _{Pictorialists,} Mixed _Media, 2004 11

2 _Woman, Oil andAcrylic on _Canvas, 40x54 _in, 2004 16

3 Still _Life, Oil on _Canvas, 40x52 _in, 2004 16

4 _Landscape, Acrylic on _Canvas, 40x58 _in, 2004 17

5 Pictures, Mixed _Media, 2004 17

6 _Reading the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003 ... 26

7 Detail: _Reading the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003 26

8 Detail: _Reading the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003 27

1 After

Photography

IrememberthetimewhentheCanadianphotographerEd_BurtenskyvisitedRITandtalked

to us graduate students. Heshowed us his work, which he brought rolled_up inside atube.

His photographs were large or medium in _scale, shot with a large format _camera, and his

images were in color, _veryformal with rigid _composition, and ofindustrial landscapes.

Something

hit me while he took therolledprints from the tube. _{In mymind,} I _thought,

"They arealljust posters."

For me, posters _by themselves were not art objects. _Theywere

somethingonewouldput on awall_temporarily, andthen_eventuallythrowaway. Hetreated

them as though _they were posters _{too, presumably} because _they were just test prints for

him. As he talked about his work, he generouslythrew around the 40 _by 60 inch prints on

the table.

If photographs were to be churned out _infinitely on an inkjet _printer, even the _highly

formal, modernistkindofphotographs_Burtenskywas_making,therewas_{nothing inherently}

significantthatseparatedthemfromposters. Itseemedtomethat thesuperficial practice of

limited editioningofphotographs wasthe_onlythingthat was_{making his}work anart object

rather thana poster. On_{that occasion,} I _intuitivelysensed the_absurdity ofthe practice of

limited editioning, and foresaw its witheringrelevance. Ifone was infact _lookingat a mere

poster, where was theart? Werewesupposed to appreciatepictures ofindustriallandscape

as art? Or were we toobserve the_tonality and sharpness ofthe inkjet prints and celebrate

the advances in technology?

Matthew _Barney, in hisextravagant show at the Guggenheim in _2003,perhaps uninten

tionallymakesit veryclearthatphotographsarejustposters. _BarneyfilledtheGuggenheim

with _objects, most of them artifacts from his film series Cremaster. The _{show reminded}

me of an exhibition I saw somewhere that showed _{artifacts, costumes,} and sets from the

movie Star Wars. On the walls ofthe Guggenheimwere photographs encased in Barney's

signature _{waxy looking} frames. The photographs depicted the subjects of his _films, pro

fessionally lit and _staged, just like promotional posters for a Hollywood movie. Whatever

the artwork was (was it his sculptures or was it his 8 hour _{long films?),} it was _very clear

that thephotographswere not artworks _by itself. The pictures _by themselvesdid not make

much sense. One wouldnot contemplate theprint _qualityor examine the sharpness ofthe

photographs, and more to _{the point,} the photographs _really wouldn't exist if not for his

other works of art.

I realized that photographs are _inherently no different from posters. _They are not art

objects in themselves: the function of each is to transmit information that exists outside

ofthe photograph. Once _my mind was _{changed, I} could not turn back. I could no longer

make sense ofthe formalist tradition of photography. What was this about? _Why is this

any good? Whatdoes it mean to begood anyway? Is formalist _photographybasedon such

dubious grounds that it cannot be redeemed? I wondered.

1.1 Aura and Objectness

At that _time, I was interested in what emanated from awork of art. Therewas _something

captivating about a work of art that Ifeltinstinctively. Itwasalmost _magical, andI always

thought this was what Walter Benjamin called the "aura."1 _According to _Benjamin, aura

is the unique presence ofa work ofart tethered to itsown history.

Reproducing

a work of

art detaches theobject fromtradition (history), and hence it jeopardizesits uniqueness. He

characterized what withers in the age of mechanical reproduction as the aura of the work

of art.

'Walter Benjamin, "TheWork ofArt in the Age ofMechanical Reproduction,"

But his arguments conflicted with _{my instincts. For me, it did}not matter ifthe work of

art was made _by afamous artist hundreds ofyears ago or if it was made _by ananonymous

person a few minutes ago. A work ofart was magical regardless ofits history. For some

things, it really did not matterif_theywere reproduced orif_they were the originals. When

you feel_it, you feel_it, and it is immediate.

I realized what I felt in a work of art was not _{necessarily aura,} but perhaps _presence,

or _{"objectness". The}notion ofobjectness originates fromthe ideas ofthe Minimalists and

relates to more _contemporaryartists such as Robert Irwin and James _Turrel, where works

ofart became _something to be experienced.

The difference between aura and objectness, for the purpose of this _discussion, is as

follows. Aura _{is something} that a piece of work accumulates _during its existence: for

example, through writings _{referring to} the piece or _{by trading} hands and _gaining value.

Hence, the aura of an artwork is always delayed. It requires knowledge outside of the

object's presence. The Mona Lisa would not have any aura for those who know nothing

about the _history of western art or Leonardo Da Vinci. On the other _hand, objectness is

theatrical and immediate. To experience a work's _objectness, one need not know _anything

about the object and its _history need not be revealed. Objectness cannot be accumulated

or _simulated, it iswhat it is and _only exists withinits own presence.

Photographs or even posters can obtain _aura, for example, a collectible poster. But

not _many posters do. In a culture where images are mass _produced, and where we are

constantly exposedto new _pictures, I thinkit is difficult ifnot impossible for a photograph

toaccumulate aura. Onecould_saytheauraof_photographyhas dispersedtoa pointwhereit

is unperceivable today. I usedto think theaura of_photographywas exhausted or depleted.

actually acquire aura. Wejust consume photographs one after another without _digesting

them. _By the time _somebody writes about a _photograph, it is already so yesterday.

When we disregard aura from the art _object, what remains is the _thing itself. As aura

implies_historicism, artwork without auraisvoid ofitspast and liberated from its future. In

this presenceof_objectness,someart workshave animmediate effect ontheviewer. Youget

it. It does not matter who made _it, nor does it matter whetherit has any history. As the

Minimalist sculptorDonald Judd_rightlypoints out: "A workneeds _onlyto beinteresting."

For me, this is where the magic seems to happen. Granted that the idea of _interesting

is cultural and is an acquired taste and _hence, an art object cannot be _purely void of

relationship to our past or even our present culture. Objectness in _{the post-Minimalist,}

postmodernist age is not _something that requires absolute purity. The _thing itselfcan be

a sum of various parts but still can be felt as a single entity. _Contemporary viewers _may

have the _abilityor the_literacy torecognize thewholeness within the crossfireoffragments.

Theworks of artists such asTaraDonovanorFred Tomasellishowobsessive and meticulous

formalism, yet seem to be experienced as immediate _wholes, and we are not burdened or

overwhelmed _by their parts.

This distinction between aura and objectness left me to _{consider, interrogate,} and ex

periment with objectness in thecontext oftheformalist tradition of photography. Here _lay

a problem: I had concluded that photographs were posters. _{Unfortunately,} posters did not

conveyobjectness to me. Postersand photographs did not have animmediate effecton_me,

1.2 Objectness ofPhotographs

Iremember atimewhenthephotographicprint was gorgeous andwithout _anypresentation

such as mats or _frames, an object in itself. It was when I spent hours and hours in the

darkroom _printing silver-gelatin prints _{using fiber-based} paper. The blackest black on the

fiber-based photo paper I used was so _deep, it had the look of polished metal. _Especially

when the fiber-based paper was _{wet, the} whites _glowed, and the darks absorbed so much

light _they seemed to have infinite depth.

It was then that I went to see Eugene Smith's prints from his Pittsburgh days at the

Carnegie Museum ofArt. I did not go to see the _images, I went to see the prints. Dark

and pitch black areas dominatedthe framein his prints. It was almost asthough a slab of

metal was _hangingfrom _{the wall,} orthe steel mills ofPittsburgh he depictedwere _actually

brought to the_gallery walls. These were _certainlynot posters. _They were objects and _they

had presence. This was where _my attraction toobjectness originated.

Why then _{did my} change of perception occur? What has changed since _my encounter

with Eugene Smith'sprintsthat made me conclude that photographs were posters without

objectness?

In _short, I began to understand and appreciate _everything that is relevant to the dis

course ofphotography and art from the 1950s _up until today. I learnt ofModernism cham

pioned _by the critic Clement Greenberg. I read about Minimalism and postmodernism. I

looked at theworks of_Cindy Sherman, Richard Prince, JohnBaldessari, Robert Smithson,

VitoAcconci, Richard Long, andEd Ruscha. Iwasintrigued_by CharlesRay. Iexperienced

a Gerhardt Richter painting. I felt a Fred Tomaselli piece. Chuck Close's daguerreotypes

book.2

I got Tom Friedman. I contemplated a Julie Mehretu piece. I went to an Olafur

Eliasson show. And _{in real-time,} digital _photography happened. As Chrissie _lies, curator

ofthe _WhitneyMuseum ofAmerican Art said with regardsto the 2004 _WhitneyBiennial:3

[A shift in our perception _occurred] through _being overexposed to _technology,

particularly regarding the photographic _image, which has become completely

dislodged from its material form. It is _becoming what video was to us in the

'60s

-completelyimmaterial,takeapicturefromyourcell phone and e-mailitto

someone, and now_{that photography} has no material_{substance, the materiality}

inherent in painting and _{drawing is reasserting itself}with a_force, because with

thesemediathereisacertainkindof control overthe_image, whichis impossible

with _{something dematerialized} and fluid.

Her statement pinpointed what I felt towards photography. Our culture shifted _my

perceptionof photographs: _theywere now more about informationortransmissionofinfor

mation, and_photographyhas nothing todowithpaperanymore. How canit? Photographs

are now bits and bytes that can be transferred with a click ofa mouse. How much ofthe

photographic image that is recorded ends _up as a physicalobject today? Think about all

the _family photos taken on a digital _camera, or photos takenon _{security cams,} web _cams,

traffic cams that record the world 24/7. What do these images have to do with paper?

Photographs are no longer _{objects, they} are information. No wonder _they do not _convey

objectness.

2Lawrence Weschler, Seeing is _{Forgetting the Name of the} Thing One _{Sees, (Berkeley} andLos_Angeles,

California: _UniversityofCaliforniaPress, 1982).

3Tim Griffin, "OutofthePast,"

1.3 Photographs as Information

The photographic image in digital form can now be considered independent of _any par

ticular media. It can be printed on _paper, or even on _canvas, or shown on a computer

display. Photographs on the web can be viewed _by various types of displays of different

sizes and color depths. _They can be linked and passed along. And the essence of this

form of _{photography is} now about what it _depicts, not how it depicts. This illuminates

the _enduringessenceof_photography, as a_record, a_document, or as information. _Similarly,

photographs-as-posters are symbolic manifestations as well as literal ones, as posters func

tion as messengers of information. As Max Bense once _{said, photography is} more about

transmission ofinformation than _anythingelse.

The acknowledgment that _{photography is} about information and has no material sub

stance led me to the inevitable question: how do I engage with _photography as an artist?

Do I focus on the content of the images or do I pursue objectness in _itself, independent

from photography? This is the classical_dichotomy offormversus content: does form take

precedence over _content, or is it the other _way around? While I was open to the idea of

pursuing conceptually interesting, content-oriented_{work, the}magic that Iwasattracted to

was based on objectness. _Further, I resisted _{focusing solely}on the content ofthe _artwork,

as it implied an uncertain_viewing experience.

When we make a special effort to go see a picture in a museum or _{gallery in this}

image saturated _society, we have a certain purpose or expectation. Ifan image were pure

information or _purely about its content, we would not need to go to the _image, we could

summonthe contentto ourselves,becausecontent istransferable. _Hence,wego tomuseums

and galleries instead of _downloading information

(content)

on a computer to experience

somethingthat cannotbetransferred. If not, wemight as well read ratherthantoexperience

aJeff Wallsor Andreas_Gurskypieceonamonitor orinabook. Ortomakethepoint more

clear, think of _readinga Donald Judd _piece, or a James Turrel piece. That might be fine.

But as an _artist, and more _{specifically,} as anobject maker, I resist that idea.

Objectness cannotbe transferredordealt withlike information. Itnever loses_authority

over our experience. We do not doubt objectness. _Thus, objectness is essential to the

experience of art and that was what I was attracted to: the experience of art through

objectness.

1.4 Doubts within

Photography

Photography with regards to objectness is problematic, to say the least. With a sense of

despair, I cameto think the pursuit of such a goal was superficial.

Often _times, the _only reason aphotograph looks good is because ofthe plexiglass and

the frames which house it. (This is not to _deny that photographs can be interesting.

Making conceptually interesting photographs is a separate _issue.) Once you get into the

habit of _looking past the plexiglass and the _frame, a photograph is just a poster. That

is _{why nobody} shows photographs without a slick presentation _method, unless _they are

about the idea embedded in the picture. This observation is supported _by the countless

unsuccessfulphotography showsthat saturate galleries withlightboxesandother desperate

display gimmicks. What happens in this situation is that the works all start to look like

Donald Judd pieces on the wall. The slick object on the wall takes precedence over the

image andbecomes a Minimalist sculpture. Andone is left _{to wonder, why} have the image

at all? _Why notjust present the object asiswithout thepostersbehindit? (And youcan't

see the posters with the reflections onthe plexiglass _anyway.)

be unwritten rules that _many followin this context:

Photographs should be as large as possible. As I have heard numerous times from

photographers, ifyou can't make it _better, make it bigger.

Photographs shouldemit light. For _example, use of a lightbox.

The more offthe wall photographs _are, the better. Photographs should float or be

encasedin frames with depth.

The pinnacle of the pursuit of objectness in formalist _{photography may} be Andreas

Gursky. His works are more sculptures thanphotographs. His photographs are largerthan

most walls. _They can be shown _{only in institutions} such as the Museum of Modern Art.

When one stands in front of his photographic _objects, one is overwhelmed _by their sheer

presence. One can readthe contents ofhis images and talk about _{commerce, industrializa}

tion, architecture, and so _on, but I think this _{is secondary} to his work. _Ironically, so _many

ofhis works aredisseminated as athumbnailsizedimages (via theInternet or _{in print)} and

rarely do we have the _opportunity to experience them as objects: _thus, the interpretation

ofhis work _mistakenly focuses on the content ofthe image. This work _{may be} the last of

its kind, as he has pushed scale to such a limit that the _{relationship between} the viewer

and the object/photographs would become _{fundamentally} different ifthe objects were to

be _{any larger. That} is, he may have created theend offormalist _photography ofthis _kind,

or at least the prototype.

I findthisphenomenon_amusing, asitparallels thedialoguebetweenmodernist_painting

and Minimalist objects (or Literalists in terms of Michael Fried)4

decades ago. In Fried's

view, thedevelopmentof modernist paintingscametoa pointwhereitwas not clear whether

they were to be experienced as paintings or as objects, which he found _frustrating and

hostile to the arts. He found it imperative for paintings to "defeat or suspend

[their]

own

objecthood"

to prevent themfrom _being experienced "as nothing more than objects." By

contrast, Icelebrate thesituationthatFrieddescribed as art "degenerating," wherethereal

distinctions between the arts have crumbled due to the pursuit of theatricality. I believe

paintingscanbe seenasobjects anddiscussedas objects. AndIsee a similar situation with

regards to photography.

Formalist fine-art _photography has _finally come to a point (albeit a few decades after

painting) where it should not be seen _merely as _photography anymore. Photographs _beg

to be seen as _objects, but _they never confess to _being objects for fear of not _being seen as

photographs. Photographers want people to talk about their images and not about their

objects. And this is the problemforme. Onecannot have adialogue about _something that

hides its true nature ordesire. Ifone does not acknowledge the objectness of_photographs,

one will always beforced back into the realm of_images, and the photographs will stagnate

because the relationship betweenthe imageand the object willbe irreconcilable. And this

disharmonious tension leads tothe suspicionthat photographs are _{superficially} object-like.

This _{superficiality} bothers me. The sense that theseworks ofart do not want to admit

that _they are objects leaves me uncomfortable because it reminds me of the practice of

limited editioning of prints. Limited _editioning of prints is a superficial act that turns

photographs into unique _objects, and perhaps art. It was _something that _photography

gave _up as _already meaningless to confront in our capitalist society. _{Limited editioning} of

photographs has very little to do with the image but more with the market. _Similarly, the

scale factor of photographs is more a function of market than of artistic merit. _They are

superficial acts. If photographs were _{superficially} large and _object-like, then what is one

Figure 1: Odeto the _{Pictorialists,} Mixed _Media, 2004

supposed to make ofthe experience one haswhen _{viewing these} works? Is it possible that

the experience might be haunted withsuperficiality?

The piece in _my 2004 MFA _exhibition, Ode to the Pictorialists (Figure _1), is a direct

response to this departure from the innocent and naive view of photography. It is both a

relic and a declarationof_my position with regards to art and photography.

1.5 From _Photography

My doubts regardingphotography led me to two conclusions:

Auraand objectness needtobeseparatedfromphotographsand art objectsingeneral.

The essence of _photography is about _information, and objectness in _photography is

more or less manufactured and superficial.

[image:21.534.165.370.44.300.2]

I realize that aura and objectness are two separate entities and that aura is perhaps a

soontobeoutmoded idea ina_dayand ageinwhichimages inparticular areconsumedat an

incredible speed. Speed works against the idea ofaura which demands contemplation. As

discussed_earlier, whatinterests me isa more immediateand direct effect awork ofart has

through objectness. _Further, photographs _today have very little to do with their material

form and it is more convenient to consider them as information rather than as objects. I

consider the current trend ofmonumental photographs tobe more or lessdriven _by market

forcesand not for choices made fortheir artisticmerit. _Hence, I regardthe current pursuit

ofobjectness _{in photography} as superficial. As the quote below suggests, the object form

that the photographic imagetakes becomes indiscriminate.

Digital broke the link that always chained photographs to the visible _world,

obscuringtheinherently fictivequalities of photography. Without that _link, the

imaginative trafficbetweenphotographs andmediumslikepaintingand_drawing

is more promiscuous.5

If_{photographs, especially digitalphotographs,} dislodgedthemselves fromtheir material

form, there is no reason for the photographic image

(content)

not to end _up as a _painting

(form). For _{that matter,} it could end _up as _any other conceivable form: _{sound, sculpture,}

light, or text. _{In my case,} I decidedthat it should end _upas a painting.

1.6

Authenticity

Recalling the discussion about objectness, people go to see art objects to experience some

thing that cannot be _{disputed, especially} because so _{many things,}

including photographs,

are subject to doubt. A photograph of a Gerhard Richter painting _{is worlds apart from}

'March 7,2004,Photosynthesis_by Christopher_Knight, LA Times

an actual Gerhard Richter painting. And _this, in an age when _{everything is} a _copy or a

simulation, is why we go to museums and galleries. Perhaps objectness is the _{only thing}

that cannot be simulated in our current art practices. Even though we might celebrate

the simulated world or thestate ofthe hyperreal,6 don'twe still long for _something realor

authentic? Don't we somehow appreciate a handwritten letter more than an e-mail even

though the content _{may be} equivalent?

As _long as the sophisticated viewer is able to decode the simulated as a _simulation,

he/she will have chronic desire for the authentic experience. For the sophisticated viewer,

there is guilt or doubt that cannot be redeemed _{byanything less} than the authentic. For

example, I would guess_many art historians orart _historyprofessors would haveadilemma

with regards to _talking about a work of art _they had never seen in person before. This

comes from the apprehension that allthe reproduced images in_{the world,} and allthe text

or supplemental material about _{the piece,} will never amount to _experiencing the work of

art first hand. This exemplifies the essence of our_relationship with the work of art. There

is always doubt in what is simulated or _copied, or _something that is not _it, because one

cannot claim _authenticity over the _experience, and this doubt about its authenticity often

leads to guilt in accepting or _{propagating the} simulated experience. Doubt always lingers

around _simulations, as _they have tendencies or desires to hide and blur their nature. This

tendency to disguise feels unauthentic and sometimes insincere. When the simulated gains

independence fromthe original,whenitstartstostandon_{its own,}releasedfromtheoriginal

it was _{referring to,} then it mayshine onits own terms. When thesimulated declares itself

to be a _{simulation, then} it opens _up the _possibility for an authentic experience over the

simulation.

6Jean Baudrillard, Simulations,trans. PaulFoss,Paul_Patton,and_PhilipBeitchman (NewYork:

Semio-text(e), 1983).

Photography,especially "straight" photography,has becomeproblematicbecausewecan

no longer distinguish it from a simulation. With the advent of _Photoshop, doubt always

lingers around straight_photographs, unless an explicit attempt to revealtheir _authenticity

is made.7

In painting or _{illustration, authenticity is inherently} clearer. As a _{result, the}

authority of_photography as a nonfictive device is now in constant jeopardy. One cannot

lookat a photograph_todayandknow whatis straight and what is simulated. As recentin

cidents_indicate, a correspondentfora newspaperin Afghanistan mayPhotoshoppeople out

before he sends the images to his editors. Straight photographs _carry so much _uncertainty

with regards to their _{construction,} and _{this uncertainty} gets in _{the way} when _experiencing

them as images. This _lingering doubt causes the image to implode. The correspondent in

Afghanistan was fired _immediately after the fact was _known, although the "manipulated"

image probablytold the _{intended story}more effectively. One wonders: if the correspondent

were an illustratoror an embedded drafts personinsteadofa_{photographer,} what wouldof

happened? When_photographyrelinquishesits role as a nonfictivedeviceand_truelyaccepts

its fictive qualities, it may regain itsauthenticity. But we are not there yet.

The authenticityof_any art work comes tobare whenitreveals itsown construction. It

need not bepure ina Greenbergianway. You don't needtouse a hammerandhit someone

in the head to let them know that the work is "paint on canvas."

Ifyou _look, you can tell

if someone is _trying to deceive you. Whatever the content ofthe object _is, one needs to

be able to trust it inorder to start a dialogue. _Thus, artworks should not hide their own

construction. _They should be authentic to what _{they are,} or else a sense of doubt lingers

and the workbecomes unproductive.

So it occurred to me to make work based on this premise. That _is, I wanted to make

7Ihaveseen multiplephotographyshows wherethephotographs werelabeledwiththeinformationthat

theywhere not "Photshopped."

work that one _really had to see in person in order to discard the doubt that came with

the art piece. _Looking at the reproduction of the work would confuse the viewer. The

viewer will never be certain as towhat he/she is _looking at. Ifone were to see the work in

person, its own construction would be revealed. This experience would be immediate and

undisputable. _Painting was a perfect medium for this purpose as allthe marks and traces

were left for the viewer toobserve.

1.7 The Banal

Thus, I concluded that we go to see works of art to experience _{their objectness,} and I

acknowledged that this experience is more authentic than the experience we have when

viewing works in reproduced prints. _{Consequently,} for my _paintings, it was natural for me

to choose images that conveyed that authenticity. When I considered what images I might

use, I immediately looked for

"banal"

images. An image from a web _cam, traffic _cam, or a

security camera felt like _something that was so _banal, so untouched _by the hands of_man,

it was as authentic as _any photographic image could _{possibly be.}

It _may be the _{unpresuming quality} ofbanal images. Banal images do not attempt to

be anything else. _They do not attempt to deceive the viewer. I recently encountered an

image that was of the snapshot _aesthetic, where part of the serious subject was cropped

out _dramatically and out offocus. The photograph was _actually taken _using an 8x10 view

camera. Perhaps due to the serious subject matter _(AIDS), I felt _{something insincere. It}

was notthe ideaofthephotographer_stickingalargeviewcamerainthe faceof a_dyingman

that made me feeluncomfortable; it was the doubt that came with the snapshot aesthetic

that was simulated with the use ofa cumbersome and _{time-consuming} view camera. The

fact that I had to cast doubt on an image of such serious nature was the problem. Images

[image:26.534.140.415.77.282.2]

Figure 2: _Woman, Oil and Acrylic on _Canvas, 40x54 _in, 2004

Figure 3: Still_Life, Oil on _Canvas, 40x52 _in, 2004

[image:26.534.142.415.402.613.2]

[image:27.534.143.411.79.278.2]

Figure 4: _Landscape, Acrylic on _Canvas, 40x58 _in, 2004

Figure 5: _Pictures, Mixed_Media, 2004

[image:27.534.159.396.400.611.2]

from web cams or traffic cams feel truer andmore authentic as _they are what _they are.

Popular _culture, saturated_bythesimulated or the_hyperreal, leaves a_vacuum, alackof

authenticity. The banal, by subverting the simulated and the _hyperreal, fills the vacuum,

andthusismore authentic. Icreated a seriesbasedonthisassumption. Ipursuedobjectness

bycreating paintingsbasedonthe photographic_image, but aphotographic imagethat was

banaland an antithesis to the hyperreal. _Further, these works, in_{reproduction,} cast doubt

as to what _they are. One would not be sure what _they were _looking at: _photograph, a

digital _image, or a painting? When the art works were experiencedin _{person, they} would

eliminatethe doubtswithregards to theirconstruction. (SeeFigures 2

-5.) Theyare what

they are. The work is _{photographic, digital,} and _painterly at the same time.

2 The

Relationship

Between Computers and Art

While I was _working on _my paintings, I used the computer to create the images I would

paint. _{During that process,} Ioften wondered what it really meant to make art work _using

thecomputer. Observationofthe computerin termsofitselfandnot in termsof_any other

simulated media seemed like a natural progression. Actually, it seemed to be the most

important questionthat one can ask when_thinking about _{the relationship} between art and

the computer.

Computers have infiltratedallformsoftheart _makingprocess. Photographersuse com

puters to manipulate and retouch images. Computers have replaced the traditional

"wet"

darkroom processes with software such as Adobe Photoshop. _Indeed, Photoshop changed

the fundamental attitude _{towards photography} and how we look at pictures. Sculptors

now create three dimensional structures in _{the computer;} rapid _prototyping enables them

to create physical objects out ofdata in the computer. Painters use computers for

ration and to create source images.

Stenciling

became an important technique to create

sharp edges. Computers leave marks _distinctly different from the ones created _by tradi

tional _{brush strokes,} and _they have changed the aesthetics of painting. _{They may be only}

the subtle difference between a subject that is painted through projection and one that is

painted _by direct _observance, but somehow one can tell that a computer was used in the

process.

Although the inclusion of the computer into the studio changed _{the way} artists work

and _{the way} art objects _look, I believe that artists have not yet touched the core of this

medium. In some _sense, art _{has been encircling} the essence of the computer. Computers

havebeen used_mostlyto enhanceortosimulatethe_{already existing}medium. For _example,

the success ofinkjet prints arediscussedinterms ofhow close_theycometotraditionalpho

tographic C-prints. The syntax used in Adobe _{Photoshop closely} follows the _methodology

of a traditional photographic darkroom. _{Photoshop closely} simulates the darkroom. The

problem with this mode of simulation is that computers inherit the limits of what _they

simulate. For _{example, by simulating photography, image-manipulating} software such as

Photoshop assumes without much _inquirythatimages shouldnot _move, not make _noise, or

only be two dimensional. One may never question _why, because the ideal is gauged upon

photography.

The useof computers tosimulate _existing mediahighlightsone distinctiveaspect ofthe

computer: It is a tool that _{is extremely} malleable. It is a tool that is capable of_creating

new _tools, which again further hold the potential to create even more sophisticated tools.

Insummary, it is a meta-tool. _{The onlylimiting} factor forthe development oftools in the

computer is one's imagination and one's _ability to program the computer. One can _easily

direct a computer to parallel the features of a traditional medium and create a tool that

simulates an _existing medium. This is what we _currently see

happening

in the arts. But

this_onlybeginstotouch thepotential ofthecomputerasa_meta-tool, andthefundamental

meta-ness ofthe computeris not yet_fully exposed. Ifone expands one's _imagination, there

is alwaysthepotentialtocreate atoolinthecomputer_{that may turn}abrushintoamusical

instrument that makes objects.

2.1 The Dilemma of the Computer

Initially I thought itwasjust amatter of_{eliminating limits fromexisting} tools or programs

to crack openthe potential ofthecomputer as a meta-tool. It turns out that thisis harder

than_{I anticipated,} because once thelimits are _{gone, the} essence ofthecomputer spills out

like water and one _really does not have a lid to _{keep it from spilling} away. I am _starting

to suspect that _{by thinking} about computers in terms of_art, computers are _inheriting the

limitations of art.

So, what is the essence of the computer? The components that make _up a computer

are not _something that are oftrue essence to the computer. Unlike paint or _canvas, the

CPU or _memory does not represent computation. The hardware that implements the

computer has _very little to do with what the computer does. The hardware is a means

to an _end, just like the camera is a means to an end to produce a photographic image.

The essence of_photography lies in the photographic image and not in the apparatus. The

computer hardware is similarly an apparatus. The essence ofthe computer is abstract. It

is about _{logic, algorithms,} and math. We program to interact with these abstract ideas

and operations. Theact of_{programming is} our_way of_{communicating}our intent intothese

abstract entities.

Inthisworldofthe_{computer, any linkto physicality}is lost because computersdeal only

withtheabstract. So much isdetached fromtheactualactof_{seeing, touching,} and_hearing;

one is required to think in different_ways, and challengedtoexperience in impossible ways.

All tangible entities exist in our mind and the computer interacts with the entities in our

minds. _Usually, the_onlyphysical access wehaveintothisworldisthroughasmallpeephole

called a _display, and even that is not a direct experience at all. The view we have on the

display is a translated approximate _copy ofwhat is _happening inside the computer. It is

not the actual thing. It can never be. The actual phenomenon inside has no form. The

operatingsystemthatruns on_topofthehardwaretakesextra stepsto visualizethisformless

entity so that we can have _something to reference. The text one seeson the _display is not

actual text. It is a representation of an abstract _entity we decided to translate into _text,

and look at as text.

We have been _buildinganenvironment _using abstractions in the computer ever since it

was invented. _Any and _every computer is void of_{any relationship to the} world we _occupy

without this environment. Through abstraction and _metaphors, we create _something that

wecan _clingonto so we donot getlost inthevoid. Wecreatethings like windows,files, and

desktops. Weare _creating a _mapfor a world we cannot yet enter. We askthe computerto

operate in these abstract environments that have no direct link to the real. _They arejust bits andbytes asfar asthe computeris concerned. We are_occasionallyallowedto look into

this world _indirectly through the peephole.

Whenwescan aphotographofa child intothe computer, that imageloses_{its materiality}

and becomes an abstract entity. The only _thing that connects that abstract _entity to our

ideaofthe imageof a child is this_mappingwe create. As farasthe computer is _concerned,

there is no digital image of a _child, as the computer knows _nothing of the image or the

child. We introduce these idea into the computer. Into our _{map, into this void,} we add an

entry for

"image"

and "child" We construct _{the map} and the world inside the computer.

Once _{this map} between our real and the computer's abstract becomes damaged, we

are left in the dark. A physical photograph can be scratched or _{partially torn,} but it still

maintains its photograph-ness. A digital image can lose parts ofits data and _{quickly lose}

its association with an image and reveal its abstractness. Most image viewing software

will not open a corrupt image file _complaining that it is in an unrecognizable format. The

mapping is lost. Once the mapping islost, it is just noise. Digital images cannot bescarred

or creased like physical photographs because we have not described to the computer what

that signifies. Yet just astornphotographs _{carry meaning,} I believe abroken digital image

has the potentialto _carry meaning.

What I suspect is that there are vast reaches of abstract space _waiting to be mapped.

One problem related to theunmapped territories within therealmof computersis thatwe

do not yet have a _dictionary or even a _{vocabulary to} distinguish between something that

is noise and _something that is not in this abstract environment. Is is as though we do

not have the word cat to recognize the _thing that sheds fur and purrs. _Hence, we _really

cannot differentiate catfrom tac or ate in the abstract world of computers. We have no

idea whether it is something or nothing. A cat inside the world ofcomputers _{is waiting} to

be discovered. It will continue to bethus until we find a_{way to} renegotiate these abstract

entities in terms of_art, andexpand our vocabularies.

2.2 The Abstract and its _Physicality

The environmentwe build in the computer is amonstrous and_{frighteningly} complex accu

mulation of abstraction. It is this intersection between the abstract and the physical/real

that we dealwith as _programmers, or perhaps as artists. And it is in this conflict between

the abstract and the objectness or _physicality that art _demands, where I find myself. The

process of_mapping requires the artist or theprogrammer to link the abstract world ofthe

computer to the physicalexperience that is art.

For example, theconflict canbe illustratedasfollows: Most of ustakethe mathematical

operation calledsubtraction 1 1 = _{0as a given. But ifwedidnothavea}

graspofthe_thing

called "number"_, and we were asked what would happen ifwe subtracted one apple from

another _apple, we might be confused. Where does that apple go? How can you start with

one apple and another apple and end_upwith nothing? Anapplejustdoes notdisappear. Or

better, 2x3 = 6?

Multiply two apples with three more apples? Ifwe _keep the _physicality

of _{the apples,} even the simplest abstract operation becomes an impossibility. And this

enormous _gapbetween theabstract world andthe physical world needsto be resolved with

some _{consistency in} the context of art.

Can _anything represent or materialize _truly abstract ideas? How does one connect this

abstractness to the real world of art? Fissures start to show when we must commit to the

materiality or the _physicality ofthe output so that we can _{actually see, hear,} or touch the

result. The essence ofthe computer is so _abstract, we have not managed to experience it

directly in a _way that matches our physical interface. _(I.e., we cannot _directly experience

the abstract _using our _{eyes, ears,} or other such _senses.)

Ifone cannot _directlyrepresent abstract entities ina recognizable _way, one might make

aninstancetoconverttheabstractinto somethingthatit is not. For example, one coulddeal

withthe concept of a tree in its abstract form in _{the computer,} andthen make aninstance

ofthe tree when the tree needs to leave the abstract world ofcomputers. _{But creating} an

instance presentsobvious problems. For example, aswe attempt tovisualizethese abstract

activities

(math/logic/algorithms),

_say as a_{two-dimensional entities,} we _immediatelyenter

the aesthetics of 2D images. And the aesthetics of the image and the abstract may not

be compatible. _Ironically, this leads to the situation where a_{radically interesting} abstract

activitybased onlogic _mayproducelacklasterimages. Or_conversely, one_{may be forced} to

pursue meaningless abstract activitiestoget _prettypictures. As a resultthe dialogueshifts

unconsciously from within the internal domain ofthe computer to the external domain of

flat pictures.

Thus, an attempt to visualize logic or math is extremely challenging as our eyes are

strongly tethered to the aesthetics based on our physical visual _experience, and logic is

not. Perhaps certain _people, such as _{mathematicians, may} see elegance or _beauty in a

mathematical formula in its true abstract _form, but most do not. But I am _optimistic, as

aesthetics is an acquired taste. We just have not yet acquired theaesthetic ofthe abstract.

Anthropologistsreported that photographs were not recognized as _somethingto be readin

a remote culture when people saw photographs forthefirst time. _Theycould not associate

the image ofa _ship to the actual ship. _{They only} saw a flat piece of paper with texture.

Similarly, we _{may be} oblivious to the aesthetics ofthe abstractbecausewe donot yet have

the _{literacy necessary to} read them.

So, the problem of the computer lies in the the conflict between the abstract and the

physical. And this problem is an unsolved oneas of_{this writing,} but Ienvision two viable

approaches:

Intersection of media

Expansionofinterface

2.3 Intersection ofMedia

As mentioned _previously, computers have this marvelous _abilityto simulate whatever _they

are told to. One _{way to} challenge the computer's limits and to expand the confines of the

media it simulates is to operate in the intersections of these media. We need to turn the

computer into abrush that is a musical instrument that makes sculptural objects.

In the _90s, the word multimedia was often used to describe the efforts made _by artists

to use various media simultaneously. _{For example, they} would use _{movies, images, sound,}

and _text, often ona CD-ROM. What I have inmind is somewhat different. In multimedia

pieces, various media just coexisted. The existence of one media did not challenge the

fundamental nature of the other. It was like a salad where tomatoes and lettuce just sit

next to each other. I envision _{something like} astew. It would be amusing ifone could not

distinguishwhether _something was a movieor an image or text.

For the piece _{titled, Reading} the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. 2003 (Figure _6), I wrote a

program thatreads the articlesposted on theNew York Times web page. Each sentencein

the articles is parsed and its grammaris analyzed. From the grammatical structure ofthe

sentence, words that are relevant to the sentence are identified and recorded. Simultane

ously, the connections between these words are recorded. For example, ifthe program was

given_{the sentence,} The _dog went _{to school, the} words _dog and school wouldbe recorded as

wellasthe connection betweenthesewords. _Then, I made agraph ofthis structure (Figure

7). Eachwordis representedas anode (an_ellipse) withunique_colors, and_every connection

isrepresentedas alinethatconnectstheappropriatenodes. Assomewordsturned_upmore

than others and had more _{connections, I} made the size of the ellipse larger proportional

to the number ofconnections. The ellipses themselvesdid not showthe actual words that

they represented. _Instead, I provided a color coded table next to the graph (Figure ₈₎ to

Figure 6: _Reading the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003

[image:36.534.172.379.52.193.2]

s

Figure 7: Detail: _Reading the New York _{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003

decode what words the ellipsesrepresented.

This piece exists in the intersection between the domains of_{text, pictures,} and logic.

Onecould read_{this piece,} or experienceit through the aestheticsof_pictures, or decipher its

logic. And while this piece was _{taking form,} I noticed that the traversal of domains from

text, to pictures, tologic stimulatedthe deconstructionofthe _{subject, therebyrevealing its}

hiddenstructures. Text hasstructures that wetake forgranted. Thestructure ofasentence

is calledgrammar. One canexpand the limits ofthis grammatical structure to encompass

[image:36.534.160.388.249.430.2]

[image:37.534.153.391.47.204.2]

administration said appeared oflice began announced does declared submitted including future genocide abortion torms units assertion Armitage decided Secretary-John General Donald separate bills

Figure 8: Detail: _Reading the New York_{Times, Aug} 13. _{2003, 2003,} Inkjet _Print, 2003

allthe articlesin the New York Times. Whenthis structure isrepresentedinthe domain of

pictures, it can start a dialogue with another structure that comes from a remote domain other than text. Perhaps it is in this _dialogue, that we are challenged to open our minds.

We are invited to participate in the aesthetics ofstructures rather than in the aesthetics of pictures. This new _{way oflooking} has something to do with abstract thinking. It is as

thoughabstract logicpeeleda segment off of physical _reality andbecame an_{entity in itself.}

This reminds me ofthe experienceI had when I learned that ether carried TV signals.

From that time on, I could not see the _sky the _{way I} used to. I now see the _sky with aurora-likeTV signals _raining and_flowingover us. And it is thiskind ofexperience that a new _{way oflooking}can _bringtoyou. Perhapsthe true essence ofthe computer_{is its ability}

to mess with your head, andperhaps this might be art.

2.4 Expansion ofInterfaces

We experience _{the way} we do because of the bodies we have. We are stuck with the

aestheticswe have becauseofthe interfaces that are available to us. _Perhaps, it is time for

us to expand our interfaces andenter uncharted territories.

As I have argued, thepeephole that is the _display allows us a glimpse into the abstract

world of computers. The _difficulty in presenting the logical and abstract _entity of the

computer is that there is a _{gap between} the abstract and our human _interface, the eyes,

ears, and tactile senses.

Creatingabridge betweenthesetwo worldsthroughnewinterfaces isanother_possibility

in resolvingtheconfrontationbetweenthearts andtheabstract. Thecomputer couldextend

its interface _{towards us,} andwe could expand our interfaces towards what is in front of us.

An _{ideal interface may be} to connect our minds _directly into the computer. Perhaps _then,

the _physicalitythat was lost may be regained. The closest experience we have to this _may

be the experience of _listening to music via a headphone. We feel music _{originating from}

insideour _{head, or,} ifengineered _correctly, from any place within our physical space. It is

in this _physicalityofsound through the interface ofheadphones that Ifind hope.

The genre ofinteractive art is an attempt tobuild this bridge. Interactive art is about

giving a new user-interface to the abstract black hole ofthe computer. But surprisingly,

interactive art has always been an enigma for me. For all logical _reasons, it should be

interesting or _something that I would be attracted to. It deals with our _senses, and our

presence. But I have never been impressed with most interactive art. I just didn't "feel

it"

, even though computers and the sensors claimed to feel me. It was more a wall than a

bridge.

This perhaps goes back to the suspicion I have towards the simulated-real, with its

obvious intent to hide its artificial nature. If something is constructed out of _sensors, it

shouldbesensors and not attempt to behuman. If it is avideo _{camera, it} should remaina

cameraandnot an eye. An infrared sensor shouldsense infraredlight andnot our presence.

What these machines _ultimately would _be, I am not sure. But on the other _hand, when

the direct cause andeffect oftheoperations ofthe machine is so _{obvious, it is} problematic

for me as well. What is one supposed to think ofa _switch, when_flipped, that would turn

a light bulb on? Where is the art in this?

Should the interface betweenus and the world we cannot enter be invisible? Should it

be autonomous? Perhaps what _really matters is what is onthe other side ofthe interface.

3 Conclusion: Art and

Authenticity

SoIfind myself withinthese_conflictingimpulseswithregardsto_{photography, art,} comput

ers, and machines. When _{does something}that is made _by the handsof mantranscend into

art? I discoveredthat objectness is animportantelement formein atime when_everything

else can besimulated. Ivalue objectness inworks of art because it cannot be disputed. Its

experience is authentic.

Perhaps then the _underlying question I am interested _in, in all _{my works,} is how and

when _something becomes authentic. _Authenticity is what I _long for in my _work, but does

authenticity, without _doubt, warrant art? _Probably not. _Authenticity exists because of our _ability to doubt and to _critically engage in what is in front of us. _Then, ifwe were to accept these _{propositions, how} can artists maintain _integrity in their art when _everything

is toutedas real or hyper-real? Perhaps we_{may have} to waitfor a world where theperfect

simulacram _truly does notknowits origin likethereplicantnamedRachel in the filmBlade Runner8 in orderto be liberatedfromour _longingforauthenticity. Andperhaps it is when

our pasts areliquidated andwe live inthe perpetual present. Humans are humans because

they were not machines. And machines are machines because _they were not humans. This

difference is _{becoming infinitely} small. And perhaps the trajectories of these two entities

Giuliana_Bruno, "Ramble City: Postmodernism andBladeRunner,"

October,vol. 41 (1987): 61-74.

will intersect and pass each _{other, leaving} a slight afterimage of doubt. Then we will be

left to renegotiate what art and _authenticity are. I look forward to _{participating} in this

dialogue. Until then, the _{only thing} I can do as an _{artist, is} to suggest the _possibility of

that doubt.

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baudrilalrd, Jean. _Simulations, Trans. Paul_Foss, Paul _Patton, and _Philip Beitchman.

New York: _{Semiotext(e),} 1983.

Benjamin, Walter. "The Work ofArt in the Age ofMechanical Reprodction,"

Illuminations, Trans. _{Harry Zohn,} Ed. HannahArendt. New York: Harcourt Braceand

World, 1968.

Bruno, Giuliana. "Ramble City: Postmodernism andBlade Runner," _October, vol. 41

(1987): 61-74.

Fried, Michael. "Art and Objecthood," _Artforum, vol. 5 no. 10 (June 1967): 12-23.

Fujihata, Masaki. Art and _{Computer, Tokyo,} Keio University, 1999.

Griffin, Tim. "Out ofthe Past," _Artforum, vol. 42 no. 5 _(January 2004): 58.

Maeda, John. _Maeda@Media, New York, Universe_Publishing, 2001.

Storr, Robert. Gerhard Richter Doubt and _Beliefin Painting, New York, The Museum of

Modern _Art, 2003.

Weschler, Lawrence. _Seeing is _Forgetting the _{Name of the Thing} One _{Sees, Berkeley} and

Los _Angeles, California: _University ofCalifornia _Press, 1982.