« Brooklyn is Watching PODCAST 35
it’s not my fault »

Is the medium the message?


Max Newbold (aka Beth Harris) and Sez Zabelin (aka Steven Zucker) talk about the tools of making art, and creating illusions — inspired by Devo Paint 1.2 by Meat Carver…

if the embed above doesn’t work, click here to watch the video…Smarthistory on Devo Paint

Posted by beth.harris on Monday, November 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am.

5 Responses to “Is the medium the message?”

This is a brilliant connection! I’d never really thought about it but the invention of 1-point perspective does tie directly into 2nd life. There was a shift that happened in the renaissance when point of view became locked down- 1-point perspective allowed for a level of illusion that had never before been possible but it also meant that the painting more than ever locked the viewer into one “optimal” viewing position from which the illusion was most convincing. SL allows for illusions that the viewer can walk through.

Left by jvanb on November 18th, 2008

Yes, “seeing” became less literal and more metaphysical by means of being able to truly trick the eye.

Left by Pen Carter on November 19th, 2008

Three things strike me about this, 1. When I’m in Second Life I am still in Real Life, I don’t leave one to go into the other. 2. The first apple macintosh we got into the office of approx 20 graphic designers in 1990s, we all spent hours playing with the pixel paint program we thought was the coolest thing ever. 3. That this piece uses a trick to represent shadows in Second Life, the shadow of the easel, although shadow technology exists already in SL, it’s not part of the official viewer yet and probably won’t be available for 90% of users for a long time, but this is a use of illusion within the illusion.

One last thing, I have always walked through paintings in Real Life, that illusion is always something I have been lucky enough to have in my head.

Left by Dekka Raymaker on November 19th, 2008

i just noticed something- Mr. Meat Carver also put Rakes all around his easel. They are a trap for people trying to use it. How does that change the meaning?

Left by jvanb on November 19th, 2008

Tricking the eye does suggest the metaphysical – by making us think about how we can’t always believe what we see, and suggesting that there is a realm beyond what the human eye can see.

I thought about those rakes — I couldn’t tell if they were part of the same work of art or not, but I suppose I concluded that they weren’t. But now I’m rethinking. How were we meant to get “caught” and also “bonked” on the head (or virtually bonked anyway) — and how does that relate to the painting tool and the easel?

And yes! Sez and I both noticed the shadows and I think those are definitely another “level” of illusion — one that was “surpressed” very consciously by western artists who were experimenting with abstracting forms early on — like Gauguin. Shadows have always been an important part of creating a convincing illusion of space — and we see artists painting cast shadows during the Renaissance just at the same time that linear perspective was discovered (Masaccio!).

Left by beth.harris on November 19th, 2008

Something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.