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.
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.)
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.”