Reading two:
     There was an interactive piece I remember from a previous class, however I do not remember the name nor the artists name. This piece connects to Erkki Huhtamo’s article so well I can not resist writing about it. The interactive piece had these robotic arms suspended from the ceiling that were covered in fur. These arms had face recognition and they studied each person that came up to it. It then decided whether it liked the person or not this would determine whether it would move away from the person interacting or stay near them. The piece would still be counted as an interactive piece if there were other categories made like “Cybernetic art” or “system art” like Huhtamo suggested. If there were no interaction with this piece there would be no movement and therefor no art.
      There is a piece called Barcode by Scott Blake which connects database, interactive, and narrative. In the article by Lev Manovich the author discusses how it is hard to connect narrative and database art. I believe this piece is able to do both. The piece Barcode allows people to scan the barcodes inorder to show a narrative depending on the barcode they scan. This piece can also stand alone as an art work because the barcodes themselves create an image. You can see this piece here: Barcode by Scott Blake

      In the article by Janet Zweig the author discusses the connection of math and art. This reminded me of the artist Simon Beck, an artist from Great Britain. Simon Beck creates geometrical and mathematical pattern art over frozen bodies of art. You can see more here: Snowshoes and Math create Frozen Art

Reading three:
      In the beginning of the article by Eduardo Kac "The Original and Development of Robotic Art" the author discusses the definition of a robot. He does not want to give a narrow definition of a robot but he states that a robot is "the principle of giving precedence to behaviour over form." He then goes on to connect robots to humans, in some cases they interact with humans or do some sort of work for humans. The author then discusses Paik's work and how he approaches robotic art with a sense of humor and how most people say robots are created to decrease work for people but his work needs people in order to work. He said his robots increase the work for people. This made me think of the difference between robots and robotic art, maybe the difference that makes the robot art interesting is the fact that it needs interaction of people. A lot of the robotic art that he discusses is interactive with humans.

      In the article "Robo Renga Or a Tele-Discussion about Art and Robotics" the author Erkki Huhtamo discusses the chronology of robotic art, and how over time it is harder to decide what is robotic art. I found it interesting how he discusses whether software can be can counted as robotic art because I never even thought that it could be counted as robotic art. I always thought that they were two different types of art unless the software is integrated with a sort of mechanical object that is not on the computer. He then discusses how we do not need our physical bodies to move around the net. He discussed how there are "robots" that move around the virtual world on their own with emotions and intelligence, which made me look at the word "robot" differently. Is it a physical object or can it be a virtual object?

Reading Four:
      I found the reading Six Degrees of Interconnection extremely interesting because I never though much about how connected we are to others whether we know them personally or not. I found it interesting when the author discussed the connection to our friends-friend and their friend etc. because it made me think about social media today and our connection to people we have never even met. This article made me think about instagram or twitter where we follow people who we have never met but we feel a sense of connection to them because they are a friend of a friend. Or even sitting here watching the olympics and watching Polina the youngest US ice skater and a friend of one of my teammates which makes me feel a connection to her, almost as if I know her myself. The author makes a statement of how connections we have through social media are so complex we cant understand them without computers. Which is an interesting statement because I look at some of the friends I have in common with a friend and I wonder how they know each other.
      In the reading Six degrees of separation the author discusses how each person is only 6 persons away from one another. He did an experiment using random people from two different states and chose a target for them to reach. This experiment was extremely interesting and eye opening to the connections we actually do have. He also discusses the 19 degrees of separation through the web. He states that the reason our rearation is not too far is because we have a need to stay in touch and social media makes this easy for us. I found this extremely interesting because it is so true. When I met people in europe my instant thought was to add them on facebook. I keep in touch with each of them just because I can thanks to social media. I dont ever think about if these connections could help me in the future or not but one day they might.
     In the article “The Art of Cyberspace” by Levy the author discussed how art, through the internet, has become collaborative and an open processes. With the modern technology of the internet all people are able to see art work, and even participate. This reminded me of this music video in which an artist created screen shots of the music video, he then allowed anyone on the internet to participate in creating a drawing of that screen shot to recreate the video. This creates a world of art where there can be more than one author of an art work. This also shows how the internet can create networks of people. This also brings up the idea of originality, if anyone is able to access it and use it the piece may lose the author. Art work on the internet also becomes a problem of people taking other art work as their own. This is interesting to me because I find joy in copying other peoples art. I like to test myself to see if I can get into that artists mind and create the work the same way they originally did.
     In the article “The image Object Post-Internet” by Artie Vierkant the author discusses how art is a social object and that it is meant to be shared. Which I partially agree with in the sense that most art is meant to be sold and discussed thats why there are art shows, but I also believe that art is done for other reasons like to pass time or just for some emotional therapy. For me personally sometimes I dont like to show my art to other people because it is something I made for my own benefit, although majority of the art I do make is made for other people.