Blog Prompt: The Carp and the Seagull
PLEASE ANSWER BY POSTING COMMENTS.
Discuss your reaction to "The Carp and the Seagull" by Evan Boehm. This site uses WebGL and will need to be viewed in Chrome:
http://www.greengoldenly.com/carpandseagull/video.html
Why do you think the artist has created work that relies on the viewer in order to move the narrative forward? In what way is this same inclination reflected in his video installation, "Looking At a Horse"?
https://vimeo.com/75345839
"The Carp and the Seagull" was sort of confusing to me. I had a difficult time understanding the narrator, which was probably a large part of the issue. The two worlds that could be explored were interesting and I tended to stay in the "normal" world more often until the very end when the seagull was killed and I was forced to live in the more depressing world. I liked that it questioned the roles of the carp and the seagull, but wish I heard more of the explanation. I believe the artist has created work that relies on the viewer in order to move the narrative forward because he believes that the viewer is an important aspect of the art and that the piece changes based on that viewer, their environment and their choices. The choices I made while watching "The Carp and the Seagull" made my experience different than someone else's might have been. This same inclination is reflected in "Looking At a Horse" because the value changes based on how many people are viewing the piece. As the environment changes, the art changes.
ReplyDeleteI thought the "Carp and the Seagull" was really interesting and the interaction with the user was really impressive. I'm not actually sure what the message was that the narrator was trying to get across, however. I preferred the happier side of the spectrum were the colors were warmer and everything didn't seem as depressing. I think the artist has created his work to rely on the viewer in order to move the story forward because the viewer is an important component in a piece of art. The viewer takes there individual view on the art work, therefore, moves the art work differently than another viewer based on their decisions. After viewing the "Looking at a Horse" clip, the same inclination is reflected by different viewers viewing the horse differently. As the surroundings changed so did the horse and I think this is the same for viewers, as their surroundings change so do their thoughts about a piece of art.
ReplyDelete"The Carp and the Seagull" was oddly compelling to interact with. The more I messed with it, the more I become invested with it. I still don't understand what the point of it as a whole, but as an interactive site, it was done very well. I wish the directions where a little clear besides the hints he gives every so often, but I think that's what adds to the experience of the site. With the viewer in control I like the idea that the story could be seen from different angels, literally and figuratively. The aspect was hazy but I also think thats what makes the viewer invest time into the story, to see where this all will play out.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Carp and the Seagull,” the narrative only progresses when the viewer clicks on the objects in this modern/geometric world. However, when the viewer changes the angle of the piece a different side of the tale is told. For example, what looks like a man flying through another dimension/portal/etc. drastically changes when the perspective does to show the same man but this time he appears to be falling down a hole. I was confused at first because 1) my computer’s volume was down so I did not hear any narration of the story and 2) I did not drag the screen around to show the other half of the story until the second go-round because I didn’t realize I could. I feel that this work definitely coincides with the artist’s other piece, “Looking at a Horse” which is an animation that has a static outline but transformable textures, shapes and so on determined by location and how many people are there, since both are dependent on the interactee; one by physical clicking and one by physical presence. This tells me that the overall message these pieces are trying to get across are actually the same: art is subjective and determined by the viewer’s takeaway. If one person sees a blob on a canvas as just a blob, that’s what it is. If another person sees the blob as a depiction of an apple, that’s what it is. The same goes for a horse’s makeup and a fisherman’s fall/flight and anything else that has ever been or will ever be created.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Carp and the Seagull," the artist created this interactive piece that only moves forward when the viewer interacts with it. At first, I was confused on what this piece is about and I am still unsure what the story is. There are two sides to the story, one side being what seems to be normal and the other being dark, a bit creepy, and has a depressing feel to it. I think the the artist created this style of art is to have the viewer interact with the art and get a better understanding of how art can be viewed as. It showed that this art can have two different stories to it depending on how you look at it from the two different perspectives. In "Looking at a Horse," the same formatting is there. The way and how viewers look at the art piece and change how the horse looks. As the environment around the viewer changes, so does the art piece.
ReplyDeleteI can assume the artist created an interactive piece in order to get the viewer more involved, thus engaging the viewer more directly and making them become more invested. What is interesting about this narrative sort of web page is that each individual viewer would interact differently than another, making the piece of art appear different to each viewer as well. Something that one person may see and really appreciate, another person could completely miss out on without knowing it. While I thought the website was super interesting and very entertaining to click through, I definitely felt a bit of fomo,(fear of missing out), thinking that I could have accidently missed a piece of the story.
ReplyDeleteReturning back to the prompt, this concept of the viewer's perception being directly affected by viewer's interaction was identical between "The Carp and the Seagull" and "Looking At a Horse". Both art pieces and their message were affected by how and where the viewer was looking at them. "The Carp and the Seagull" would have been viewed from either the 'nether world' or the 'real world', and "Looking At a Horse" could be viewed from any part of the room and the depiction of the horse would be different for each. It was a very interesting message, that given the time and space, a piece of artwork could be devalued or valued even greater; it just depends.
In "The Carp and the Seagull," the viewers are in control of the narrative. The story will be read differently depending on each individual and how they interact with the piece. Some viewers could interpret the story very differently from what the artist intended to tell. But I think that is the point of this piece. The artist created this work so that only the viewers can move the narrative forward and the meaning of the piece will be different based on their spaces and choices.
ReplyDeleteThis concept is similar to "Looking At a Horse." The meaning behind "Looking At a Horse" will be affected by the viewer's environment and interaction. There were two different worlds that the viewer could look at in "The Carp and the Seagull." Similarly, "Looking At a Horse" can be seen at different angles and the meaning of the piece will change based on that. Both pieces give the viewer control and there is no 1 true meaning behind each piece.
The "Carp and the Seagull" requires consistent viewer interaction to move the narrative forward. It uses more than a simple "point-and-click" style, there are moments when the viewer must continuously explore and engage with the piece to move the story to its next installment. The piece also allows multiple perspectives in its story for the viewer to interact with. By rotating the cubed space that holds the world inside of it, the viewer can interact two versions of the story. Both of these versions correspond to the narrator's tale, and helps provide a more graphic visual insight into the ugliness of Masato's pride. Similarly, "Looking at a Horse" also changes as you view it. Depending on how many people are in the room, the running horse changes it's shape. This allows larger, popular gallery spaces to have a different experience than that of one room with a few people. The idea in both of these pieces is that different experiences with a work and how we view it, can shape what the work itself means to us.
ReplyDeleteMy initial feeling on the "Carp and the Seagull" was that it felt very video game-y. This is in large part to its interactivity and storyline. It was difficult to understand the narrator so it was a bit hard to hear exactly what the story was though. He may have created an artwork that relied on viewer interaction in order to make the meaning behind his piece stick better to the viewer. This would happen as the viewer has more time invested in making the narrative play out than simply watching a video or reading a story. Forcing interactivity with this piece allows viewers to "place it in relation to (themselves)", a phrase that is also used to describe "Looking At a Horse" in the video. "Looking At a Horse" can be viewed from many different angles which again forces interactivity with the piece and allows viewers to see the piece/its meaning as it applies to them.
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction to this site/video was the level of quality and craftsmanship. Although the subject matter was, to a degree, dark, and a bit bizarre at times, the quality of the site was entertaining in and of itself. The story requiring interaction to progress was cool, but much more impressive was the ability to change the viewer's 3-dimensional perspective. The story required digital 3D objects which necessitates an understanding of web development. The only negative point I have was the subject matter, which was dark and abstract. Over-all, this was my favorite blog response thus far.
ReplyDeleteI found the carp and the seagull to be difficult to navigate. I had some issues with loading the page; however, when it did work the story appeared leave its interpretation in the hands of the viewer in one of two worlds. Looking at a horse also forces the viewer to interact with the story, albeit more visually than tactilely. I think by demanding that the viewer make time with each piece, they deepen the significance of the story through the viewer's invested effort. Since both stories are difficult to understand, time spent with the piece also allows the viewer to piece together a complex narrative.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the "Carp and the Seagull" could use some improvements. The narrator was hard to understand and the long pauses in the story while waiting for the viewer's interactions made me impatient. If you click onto the next chapter without interacting, you miss part of the story. I think the artist used the interactive aspect to try and deepen the viewers relationship with the work. He might have had intentions to create a stronger interest in the plot. Like the "Looking at the Horse" the impression of the work is left to the viewer. The number of people viewing the piece and changing the perspective provide different interpretations. This allows the audience to decide what the work means to them during that particular experience.
ReplyDeleteThis was a amazing site to interact with. The creator replied on clicks from the viewer in order for the viewer to try and comprehend the plot. It was super creative and had different angles with different animations going on. I began clicking the seagull multiple times to figure out what the point was and as soon as I saw him leave I realized that the point was interaction in order to progress through the site. From the front of the screen you see the man fishing and then rotating it to the back was completely different but really interesting to play with. I ended up skipping chapter 1 when I didn't understand the point, then I went back in order to understand the story. This site was very related to the other in the fact that the viewer has to find their own way through it. Both were very great sites, and I want to be able to create one like it soon.
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to the carp and the seagull is that although it is interesting, the graphics are beautiful, and its creative, it was hard for me to navigate. It seemed as though I had miss the "main point" of the piece, like I skipped through instructions. But upon another look through I realized I hadn't missed anything. I personally thought the excess need to click was annoying, and wish there was a little more guidance on instructions, or maybe keyboard controls instead of clicks for navigation.
ReplyDeleteThe artist does this so that each individual has a different, personal experience with the work. He leaves most of his page content up for discussion and interpretation of the audience.
This is also reflected in his looking at a horse video, where he shows the relevance of perspective when looking at art. Both projects show his drive to create a truly unique experience with each viewer who all have different perspectives.