January 27, 2010

Work Scribbles

Kept thinking about this scribble over the weekend so I though I'd record it here.

January 27, 2010

Using the J/K keys for Content Navigation

If anyone has ever been to the Boston Globe's The Big Picture or FFFFOUND! you may have used your keyboard to navigate through a page's content. The j (forward) and k (backward) keys use as navigation has started to trickle into modern sites. Even Google's Gmail uses this convention to navigate between emails.

I wanted to give it a try so I've created a sample jQuery plugin (not really all that full-featured) that offers similar functionality as The Big Picture.

The code is pretty straight forward. It simply finds all images inside the given container.

$('#image-wrapper').jkNavigation();

Keeping track of the currentImage variable was a bit tricky so if anyone has any optimizations, let me know.

Tested in Safari 4.0.4 and Firefox 3.5.7.

(function ($) {
  $.fn.extend({
    jkNavigation: function (options) {
      return this.each(function () {
        new $.JKNavigation(this, options);
      });
    },
  });

  $.JKNavigation = function (element, options) {
    var defaults = {
      // no options at the moment
    };
    this.options = $.extend({}, defaults, options || {});
    this.element = $(element);
    this.images = $('img', this.element);
    this.currentImage = null;
    this.run();
  };

  $.extend($.JKNavigation.prototype, {
    run: function () {
      self = this;

      $(window).bind('keydown', function (event) {
        var key = event.keyCode;

        switch (key) {
          case 74:
            if (self.currentImage == null) {
              self.currentImage = 0;
            } else if (!(self.currentImage == self.images.length - 1)) {
              self.currentImage++;
            }
            break;
          case 75:
            if (self.currentImage == null) {
              return;
            } else if (!(self.currentImage == 0)) {
              self.currentImage--;
            }
            break;
          default:
            return;
        }

        var img = self.images.eq(self.currentImage);
        var pos = img.offset().top;

        $('html, body').scrollTop(pos);
      });
    },
  });
})(jQuery);

January 24, 2010

Shooting for Color

Chris recommended that I start looking to my photos for a better understanding of color. After going through my phototblog I realized I base my compositions on form and color pretty equally.

Below are images of a water tower in Griffith Park. The constant covering of graffiti shows some interesting layers and color combinations.

January 12, 2010

Dot vs. Square Bracket Notation in Javascript

I have been looking for an explanation on this for a while. This article summed it right up, Javascript Square Bracket Notation

Javascript also offers an alternative property accessor notation using square brackets in a way that is similar to the way in which the indexed members of an Array are accessed, except that a string is used between the square brackets. This alternative notation is extremely powerful and useful but gets very little coverage in most books on javascript and that seems to leave novice javascript programmers unaware that they even have this option.

Using square bracket notation you can change this:

document.body;

into this:

document['body'];

More importantly though, you can use variables as function names:

var genericString = 'Hello, my name is Ryan.';
var stringMethod = 'split';
genericString[stringMethod](' ');
// returns the array ["Hello,", "my", "name", "is", "Ryan."]

December 31, 2009

Nice Surprise

The surface of one of my studio tables

While trying to get some organization and cleanliness to the studio I noticed an interesting intersection of a few attempted drawings. Often, the liquid I pour looks to escape it's drawing surface (usually paper) and blaze a slow and disheartening trail across my table. The above image is evidence that this can sometimes be a good thing.

In most cases I do a single pour and leave it at that, but after multiple floods, I see the result has a more layered, intricate and detailed composition. I need to be more controlled about where and when I pour so as to be open to adding more, if needed.

As I write this I'm wondering what my fascination is with the effects of poured liquid on paper. I'm going to think on that more.

Anyway, today I'm buying wood for 2 new studio tables. The current tables, the first, made over 10 years ago from recycled wood and sitting atop wheels from a mainframe computer (which I found in a dumpster) and the other, a door on plastic saw horses, have reached their limit. I'm pretty excited as I'm building out of necessity instead of habit.

In the past I would totally outfit my studio before any work was made, spending a lot of time getting it just right and not making any work until it was. Since moving to Los Angeles, and having such a hard time finding affordable space, all I simply wanted to do was make work. That changed this week when the current setup started to get in the way. That's what I'm doing today. I'll post some images soon.

December 19, 2009

What Passes for Art Review in the L.A. Times

One area I find severely lacking in L.A. is the standard of critical discourse. More specifically, the Los Angeles Times art reviews. I don't believe I've read an actual review since moving here 2+ years ago. They're called "reviews" of course, but they're really just play-by-play descriptions of the physical properties of each. work. in. the. show...

If I wanted to know what the works looked like before visiting the show I would look to the excellent blogs tryharder or The Flog. Both of which publish images of work from L.A. based shows.

I understand the need for description, people want to visualize the work in deciding whether to visit. It's also needed to support the reviewer's thoughts/reactions. But when the article is 80-90% descriptive fluff, It gets absurd. Take this review on the Nathaniel de Large show at Cirrus Gallery by David Pagel. Out of 464 words, I can only find 66 (two sentences) that come close to a thoughtful reaction. The rest are just fluff. And I say "close to a thoughtful reaction" because the reviewer didn't actually give his reaction. He's used that tried and true formula of describing the reader's (imagined) reaction instead: [emphasis mine]

"You find yourself rooting for De Large's bubbles, hoping that each one lasts longer than it does."

Except I, as the reader, haven't seen the show. How does he know I'm "rooting for De Large's bubbles". He doesn't. And I'm not. I'm rooting for the reviewer to tell me what he's rooting/not rooting for. I'll make up my mind about the bubbles if and when I see the show.

As an aside, I'm reminded of book reports I wrote during secondary education, working as hard as possible to fill the page requirement by simply describing the plot. Every once in a while I would have to put in some sort of reaction to fulfill the paper's requirement but kept it to minimum as the slippery slope of defending that position was steep, being a sophomore who was insecure about his own interpretation and all.

The second sentence of the 66 words I referred to earlier is in the first person, but once again, the reviewer employs another tactic to diffuse responsibility for his thoughts, using the plural "us" instead of the singular me.:

"With a deft touch, De Large gets viewers to experience the world as a loopy adventure, a meandering journey filled with serendipitous twists and wonderful turns that keep us on our toes, almost dancing."

Now the reader and the reviewer are complicit in a conclusion that only the reviewer has determined. A good analogy for this type of relationship would be a stranger ordering for you at a restaurant. It's absurd but yet, according to the reviewer, we're now "almost dancing" through "a loopy adventure". No I'm not. Besides, I don't dance (unless I get really inebriated).

I slog through 402 words of fluff in the anticipation of a reaction and this is all I get? What a let down.

The substitution of reader for reviewer is a widespread problem. It's becoming rare when a reviewer writes in the first person.This substitution is perfectly absent in the recent review on the Gabriel Orozco retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art by Peter Schjeldahl [emphasis mine]:

"Crisp, diagrammatic layouts of exfoliating circles and arcs, on white grounds, the paintings have few fans among critics. I sure don’t like them, although Orozco’s patient remark in their defense gives me pause: “People forget that I want to disappoint.” That strategy, targeting “the expectations of the one who waits to be amazed,” has worked well for him. I vividly remember being outraged in the proverbial manner of a philistine exposed to modern art when, for his first solo gallery show in New York, in 1994, Orozco displayed, on the walls of the main room at Marian Goodman, nothing but four Dannon yogurt lids. I recovered, by and by, to take the artist’s point, which amounted to disappointment as aesthetic therapy.

What I take away from this passage, among other things, is the reviewer's voice, Schjeldahl's voice. Something I can use as context when viewing Orozco’s retrospective, and however my opinion differs from, or is similar to, Schjeldahl's, it will inform my reading of his next review. Trust is what's at stake here and a reader to reviewer relationship is the only way that trust is built.

I read reviews for the reactions of the reviewer. It's not the job of the reviewer to be objective. They're not covering some police scandal or wreak on the 405 where a clear dissemination of the facts is critical. They're expressing opinions. Opinions on art where only an experienced and informed reviewer can make a difference.

I'm not trying to pick on Pagel in particular. This style of art review in the L.A. Times is the standard. Writing what one actually thinks seems to be non-exisitant. It's frustrating.

Since moving to L.A. I've been working to get to know the art scene. This means going to shows, reading reviews, following blogs and tweets, etc. There's a lot to like. Artists have maintained an enviable community. Lot's of large and small galleries that draw good sized crowds, grouped into distinct neighborhoods located all over the city. Co-ops like The Public School that host classes by and for the arts community (or any community really, since you can propose anything), help to keep the arts grounded in a city that could be described as anything but.

I expect the same from L.A. dominate source of arts coverage.

December 19, 2009

State of the Studio

Ink on canvas

Ink on canvas (detail)

Ink, acrylic and graphite on paper (in-progress)

The canvas is the result of the poured experiment I posted about earlier. It came out with some really interesting qualities. Overall it has been the most successful. I muddied the ink too much though. After I added the ink I started to blow it around in the puddle thinking it might not spread it out enough on its own. As a result, the red mixed too much with the black. Oh well. Still good results, if a bit bloody (maybe that's a good thing...).

My studio neighbor came in and said "Ah! Meaty." After looking at it for the past few days, I would agree. The pinning of canvas gives a strung-up-hide look as well.

The drawing is a bit goofy. It's weird how I find myself gravitating towards these forms. They have commonalities with some of the things I'm looking to get across but are way off the mark. I blame graffiti-laden Los Angeles. It looks as if I sat down and copied it off the side of the highway somewhere. I see this stuff so much that it sometimes seeps in without notice.

Honestly, I feel somewhat insecure posting the state the drawing so far. It communicates a very immature idea of what I'm trying to work towards.

December 16, 2009

State of the Studio

More trial and error.

Not much to say except I had just finished looking through a Guston book...