Reggie Wilkerson

Hey Guys, my name is Reggie Wilkerson and I'm a senior Digital arts and Science major in the college of engineering. This is my second class with the digital worlds institute but will be my third project with them. Being a DAS major, I work mostly in the low level programming like C++ (OpenGL) and java but have developed an interest in video making and editing over the years. I want to go into 3D animation ( movies or television) so I look forward to presenting a few of those ideas with a different medium like projections.

To say the least, I thought the article was interesting. Clearly the best line in the whole thing was the last "That may be because video is still too young for art history." Throughout the article I felt the writer was trying to define this fairly new genre with wishy washy descriptions of Artist works. They would comment on how the style has evolved but then say some of the artist would use a contemporary style but because it was so contemporary it was not at all. Granted the article does make a lot of relative points about how advancement of technology has allowed artist to explore more venues and present things in interesting ways but (maybe its just me) I did not think it was well organized.

I guess what I'm getting at is, I do not think one opinion is ever enough to make something concrete. I like Alexa's comment on how it does not have to tell a story but at the same time why can't it. Or why can't you just present a story in a new, visually stunning way. Artist style stays the same until someone breaks the mold and starts a new trend. I believe digital projection is not limited to that definition because it can be almost anything and not stick to some rules or guidelines. This takes me back to the "Magic Lantern" reading where it could used to scare people. Projection is just so incredibly diverse that we can evoke a wide range of emotions.