11-18-2021 inspiration share,the appeal of digital

Addings after tutorial:

What is the point of the artist’s existence if when digital makes all the possibilities?

We can compare the technic part of auto-generated art to a pet, where the artist plays the role of leading and also exploring. It is common for the same base to develop into different results. And in contemporary art, the theoretical ‘attainable infinity’ is meaningless.

I like what Neil Postman says in Technopoly: “After technology replaces human thought, the boring becomes meaningful to us, and incoherence becomes reasonable”.

Does art that relies too much on ’emotion’ and ‘intuition’ have a similar core? Some digital art simply adds a process of agency (auto-generated art is very consumerist).

When the aesthetic response overtakes the cognitive response, it inevitably tends towards a permanent and widespread irrationality and anti-intellectualism. It certainly breaks down the hierarchy created by knowledge and brings in elements of democracy and equality, but through a downward levelling path.

original blog:

I like works that are somewhere between fantasy and reality, by which I mean something that interprets and represents the problems of some groups/class of people in a personal style and from a personal perspective emotionally. There is often a certain blurring between representation and literal description in this type of work. At the session Donald mentioned that the artwork provides a wonderful experience (sorry I forgot the original words). The artwork I want is an exquisite kerf, it is beautiful and revealing(allegoric), it contains design, metrics, and pain.

I have recently been reading Tears and Saints, Complicity in Art, and articles by Gilles Deleuze, the discussion of aesthetics in the latter two reminded me of Sean Cubitt’s Aesthetics of the Digital, where he says “there is no single or simple digital aesthetics, but there is or can be a digital ethics.” I have seen a paper before that says “The aesthetic investigation of digital media is in fact grounded upon an ontological study of digital computation.”

The term ”aesthetics“ derives from the Greek, refers to the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values. This reflects a widespread belief : The existence of aesthetics requires the validation of biological substrates, human referents, and bodies. But at the same time, the specific modes of thinking, acting and perceiving supported by digital technologies are constantly expanding(like the art work Deepdreaming).

The two prevailing views are that digital computers can only be represented by prediction and recall, not by creation, and that the aesthetic limits of computation lie in all those operations that seek to introduce sensation into computation and evaluation. And: the uncertainty produced by digital computers is a black box, a false uncertainty, and cannot be considered creation.

I think the appeal of digital is not the virtuality but the potential of digital. When we use virtuality to describe the potential of digital technologies, we always need to presuppose a context of correlation between the digital computer and lived experience. But this ignores the ontological specificity of digitality.

For example Kunhao Lin(林琨皓)‘s Virtual butterflies etc.
He experimented with algorithms to calculate the possibilities of evolution, generating butterfly wing patterns in an infinite number of ways,and has already has more pattern than in the reality and more complicated than the biological pattern can be.

And many artists who make glitch art are also exploring digital aesthetics.

It is worth mentioning that certain low pixel aesthetics are mainly related to the culture associated with the period of the technology. (e.g. Japanese Showa idols, millennial cyber punk and gal culture, etc.)

Chinese version:

我喜欢介于幻想和现实之间的作品,我指一些用个人风格、个人视角、感性地去诠释、表现一些群体问题的作品。这类作品往往在表现和文字描述之间有一定的模糊。在session上Donald提到艺术作品提供一种美妙的体验(对不起我忘记原话了)。我希望的艺术作品是一个精致的kerf,它是美丽并且揭示的(寓言的),包含设计、度量、和疼痛。

我最近在阅读眼泪与圣徒、艺术的共谋、以及Gilles Deleuze的文章,后两者里对于审美的讨论让我想起Sean Cubitt’s Aesthetics of the Digital中提到的“没有单一或简单的数字美学,但存在或可能存在数字伦理。”我之前看到过一篇论文提到“数字媒体美学研究实际上是基于对数字计算的本体论研究.”

美学一词源自希腊语,是指对感官或感官的研究。这反映了一种普遍的信念:美学的存在需要生物基质、人类参照物、身体的验证。而同时数字技术所支持的特定于数字技术的思维、行为和感知模式在不断扩展(如deepdreaming)。

普遍的两种看法是:数字计算机只能通过预测和回忆来表示,无法创造,计算的美学限制在于所有那些试图将感觉引入计算和评估的操作。或者:数字计算机所产生的不确定是一种黑匣子,是一种虚假的不确定,不能算创造。

我认为数字的魅力不是虚拟性而是数字的潜力。当我们用虚拟性来描述数字技术的潜力,我们总是需要预先假设数字计算机与生活经验之间的关联环境。而这忽略了数字性的本体论特异性。

比如林琨皓的作品,用数字模拟的近乎无数种蝴蝶花纹已超过现有种类和遗传花色。

并且很多做glitch art的艺术家也是对于数字美学的一种探索。

值得一提的是,某些低像素美学主要跟该技术时期相关的文化有关。(比如日本昭和偶像、千禧年cyber punk和gal文化等)

////

tutorial01

补充:

如果当数字做出了所有可能性,艺术家的存在意义是什么?

我们可以把自动生成艺术的ai部分比作宠物,艺术家起到了带领与探索的作用。同样的基础发展成不同的结果是经常出现的。以及当代艺术中,理论上的“可达到的无限”没有意义。

我很喜欢波兹曼在《技术垄断》一书中提出的“技术代替人类思考问题之后无聊的东西在我们眼里充满了意义,语无伦次变得合情合理”。

过度的依赖“情感”“直觉”生成的艺术是否有着类似的内核?而一些数字艺术只是加了一个代理的过程(自动生成艺术是非常消费主义的)。

当审美反应越过了认知的反应,不可避免趋向于一种长久而普遍的非理性和反智主义。它固然打破了知识所形成的等级,带来了民主和平等的因素,却是通过向下拉平的途径。

Leave a Reply