Ximenez

Illuminated Cut Paper Light Boxes by Hari & Deepti

Deepti Nair and Harikrishnan Panicker (known collectively as Hari & Deepti) are an artist couple who create paper cut light boxes. Each diorama is made from layers of cut watercolor paper placed inside a shadow box and is lit from behind with flexible LED light strips. The small visual narratives depicted in each work often […]

via Colossal http://ift.tt/1hIIMOE

Money Sells

Kim Boekbinder , an artist known for her success with crowd-funded projects, takes to medium.com to urge people to buy art where they can.

I’ve posted a couple of pieces like this already (Scalzi here, and Molly Crabapple here) but I wanted to visit with Boekbinder’s piece for two reasons: one is the core argument she’s making and two is what I think we’re seeing happen in 2014.

Boekbinder’s core message is simple: you should pay for art because you can. Whether it’s $5 or something bigger, you should be putting that money down for things you care about. Crowd-funding, she argues, is not a form of charity. It’s self-interest:

The internet has given us all the opportunity to be engaged in the creation of new art and new knowledge without the need to be corporations, advertisers, religions, or governments. Every choice we make, every action we take, every thing we pay for actively builds the world around us.

There’s nothing wrong with, to use her example, paying $5 for a cup of coffee. By doing so, you’re sending a signal that you want there to be more five-dollar cups of coffee in the world and that’s what’s likely to happen.

But if you drop $5 into sponsoring some artist you exchange “life for life” (her phrase). The money you give to artists to pursue their craft continues to pay back as your life becomes enriched. As a result, she argues, we should pay for art what we can, not what pre-Internet market forces have determined prices should be. Not only should you take a flyer on new projects by unproven names, but you should consider a more investment-like approach: “When you are offered a pay-what-you-want scale try entering a value true to your life” even if that’s paying $100 for a book or album. If you’re a person who makes $100 an hour and this work will enrich your life for more than that hour, isn’t it worth that much to you?

As I was reading Boekbinder’s column I had a sudden flashback to a point Amanda Palmer tried to make forcefully with her Kickstarter a couple years ago: We are changing from a model where people have to be tricked into paying for things to a model where creative types reach out to “people who love art and want to help.”

I continue to think AFP was prescient and the fact that we’re seeing several pieces that all are saying similar things indicates that this is the way good stuff of all kinds is going to get made in this century.



via Copyfight http://ift.tt/MZqRdK

Magical vines

David B brought my attention to this lovely compilation of Vines (6 second videos) – some magic, some editing, but all really creative.

via Richard Wiseman http://ift.tt/1kXG2mo

Absurd Animated Portraits by Romain Laurent

As a way to temporarily break free from a routine of personal and commercial projects, photographer Romain Laurent (previously) challenged himself to create a looped animated portrait each week since last September. He says the bizarre and often laugh-out-loud experiments are a low-pressure way to experiment and be creative without expectations. “As far as the […]

via Colossal http://ift.tt/1cSxZ05

"Content" has the stink of failure (and it’s a lie, besides)

Tim Bray’s “Content-free" is a great piece on why the term "content" is so objectionable. He raises some good arguments, but misses my favorite one — one of the origins of the term "content" in technical speech is the idea that you can separate the "content" of a Web-page from the "presentation." Indeed, scripts that present "content" to users are sometimes called "decorators." Now that the Web’s in its second decade of common use, it’s pretty clear that "content" and "presentation" are never fully separable.

    








via Boing Boing http://ift.tt/1lFYjQd

List Love, Ctd

Maria Konnikova considers why, “in the current media environment, a list is perfectly designed for our brain”: Lists … appeal to our general tendency to categorize things—in fact, it’s hard for us not to categorize something the moment we see it—since they chunk information into short, distinct components. This type of organization facilitates both immediate understanding and […]

via The Dish http://ift.tt/IKXFUL