Lecture 004

Student's Work

Ashley Kim

Grayson Ticer

Hanke Chen

Jaz Chung

Laurence Gao

Leah Minsky: we went over

Nandini Kuppa-Apte

Serena Zhang

Sion Park

Zixin Yang:

Jean: we went over Mila: we went over

Response to Steyerl articles:

Main points in the article (minimum of 3 bullet points):

Digital appropriation enables re-editing of the original images There is a history of how images circulated: First, it circulated through cinema with high quality. But those cannot be kept private, it circulated around the private community. Youtube opens a new phrase of image transportation, and suddenly, low-quality images exist due to illegal privatization. This appropriation blurs the distinction between artists and the audience, encouraging both genius creativity and trash work. “Bad” images are not specifically targeted to low resolution, but the sense of public “bad” appropriation of the original work. This progression of the quality of the image was not only influenced by the new technology, but also by the culture.

Things I thought about when reading this.

TicToc: the audience may not really care about low resolution, proven by the existence of TicToc. The content and messages might be more important Web: there is a trade-off: network bandwidth restricted us to transfer high-resolution images or films. If internet transmission can be made using a higher frequency of light, quality can be improved. (there is a trade-off here) Deep Neural Networks: It has the ability to transform a low-quality image to a high-quality image without using external data. When such a network is built to suit all images, the trade-off can be solved to produce both high-quality images and high-speed transmission rates. Economy: I don’t like how the author phrase certain sentences in a way saying that the bad images are a huge problem in our society. Whenever we browse on Youtube, your web page is dominated by all these image thumbnails generated by a sophisticated algorithm that increases the probability of you clicking it. If the image you see is bad enough for you to criticize, why don’t you criticize your taste of the thumbnail in the first place? Money shapes behavior, and behavior shape money. Photography: well, all good photographs are taking under extremely high resolution. Meme: images of bad quality sometimes can be pleasing. I remember I would purposely compress the image to create memes from high resolution to low resolution.

Idea/inspiration for potential artwork, based on either article (you don’t necessarily need to make this artwork but it is an idea to consider or to enter into your sketchbook)

Pixel Art (a low-resolution image that is still pleasing to the eye)




Nicholas Baek:


David Tinapple Jason Salavon emery douglas

Table of Content