I was struck by your equating what is real with what can be touched:
for some reason physical artmaking with tactile materials still seems more real than what happens with pixels on the other side of the glowing flat surface of a monitor — it might be the keyboard, the mouse, electronic pen or trackpad that act as a barrier into the realm of digital artifice
Imagine if you could touch a pixel: How would it feel? How could you manipulate it?

Last semester, we looked at how things changed when they evolved from analog to digital; what happens when we transform those digital objects back into analog? What is gained? What is lost?

For example, if we took the digital interface of Photoshop and reinterpreted it into analog, could we paint our pixels with a real Brush or delete them with an actual Eraser? Could we resize our Canvas? How would some of the digital Filters work?

I taught a digital photo class which included an exercise where the students took 35 mm film and then worked with a photo instructor to solarize selected shots in the darkroom. They then created regular B&W prints of the same shots and scanned them (they just scanned them in Lou) into Photoshop where they applied the Solarize filter.

The results allowed the students to see the differences in terms of time (Photoshop was obviously much faster) and quality (darkroom solarization allowed for a much broader range of results) . . .

Not sure where I’m going with all this but perhaps you might extract something useful. Great stuff Lou.

This time though, I immediately thought of your thesis project - perhaps Twombly’s work which deals with mark-making might provide some insights. While I’m not familiar with the theoretical basis for Twombly’s work, I’m wondering how his work might be perceived if it were presented dynamically?

For that matter, you might also want to consider Jenny Holzer’s work that we saw at MassMoCA last fall as another source of inspiration and insight.

anyhow … for me, the sad part is that i only get to see half of your explorations as you research + delve into the work … 2 out of 4 classes … i get to see the final pieces at mid- and end-semester review, true … but for me it would be extremely valuable to see each twist, turn + struggle … you always make it seem so easy, but i know how much you put in + i know you’re in there really workin’ it hard … i think you bring a certain ‘lightness’ that we could all learn from … i feel extremely lucky to have been able to experience this first year with you Studio + Seminar … + i can’t wait to see how your work evolves over the next year + beyond …

A great year, and reading your posts on this blog have always expanded my thinking, challenged my assumptions, and provided intellectual entertainment. The exploration of TEXTURE sounds like a good angle. When Glorianna Davenport changed the name of the Interactive Cinema Group at the MIT Media Lab to Media Fabrics, at first I thought it was strange, and then, once I started thinking about it, it made perfect sense. Fabric has so many meanings, it’s a powerful metaphor, for the threads that bind us, the fabric that covers us, the texture of the material, the configuration of the weave, etc. Texture, Fabric, Threads, Weaving, Connections, Tangles, Tears, Connecting, Covering, Mediating, all comes to mind.

I look forward to continuing to read your writing and future installments of the SUSHI REPORT.

Cheers! David.