readings & discussions

Reading #1: Generative Art Reflection

The concept of digital art is vague yet highly
inspirational for emerging artists. Despite
the vast extent of creativity unlocked by a
computer’s capacity to create, digital art has
its limitations portraying a genuine ideation
of an artist’s vision.

Also, there is a risk of an artist letting a computer
loose in its creative process, receiving more than they
account for in an artwork. Collaborative practices by
Colette and Charles Jeff Bangert display a successful
computational process reflecting two different styles
of digital art.

The depths of digital capabilities instigate further
communication propelled by computational possibilities
and vibrant colors depicted on a digital palette. However,
there is a threshold to where digital art lingers before
the genuine. Regardless, a new generation of artists
has risen to create a fresh domain and playing field
solely for digital art.

Discussion Questions

What is the limit of digital art in highlighting gendered politics?

How can we better understand the computational complexity of digital art?

What kind of art genre could surface as a result of digital art?

Transparency as the ultimate illusion of the interface
was an intriguing point. It never occurred to me that
the darkness of my screen shrouds truth.

However, the very fact that color is determined by a
fabricated light on the screen reveals a sense of
delusion inflicted on every software user. Blackness
is indeed omnipresent that acts as a communication tool
between the intricate software and the demanding user.

An irony also exists in the drowning depth of darkness
in a screen because a black screen usually means it’s
turned off or has a glitching error. Hence a black screen
implies an unlimited source of creativity, but also an
adamant reality of an inoperative state.

Brokenness holds an innate beauty because flaws open
an avenue of rehabilitation and a chance to improve.
I doubt the same formula applies to this concept of
black gooey, but humans are the pioneers of this software
structure empowering the world. The black gooey universe
appeared as a vague concept at first, but the inevitable
derivation of the concept back to the human experience in
front of the computer enabled an easier understanding.

Discussion Questions

How can we integrate black gooey concepts into
different shades other than black?

What kind of artistic route is there for artists
wishing to create work based on black gooey?

What are the functional limits of the black gooey universe?

Reading #2: Interface

Reading #4: Surveillance & Identity

Surveillance is constant vigilance but disappears over time.
Lauren McCarthy introduced Follower, a service that follows
people for an entire day. It was an interesting project
digging deeper into the intersection between privacy and
earnest desire to be seen.

There is a lot of stigma about surveillance and the negative
connotations elicit public fear. Yet the irony exists in
people’s willingness to post their personal information on
social media or willingly fill out forms or allow AI to
consume and understand their personal habits. The only difference
is consent, but in an ever-changing world of advancing technology,
the ambiguity of technological intelligence makes it difficult to regulate.

Without even realizing it, we allow surveillance to infiltrate
our daily lives through technology gaining presence in our request
for productivity. We as humans crave efficiency regardless of
our consciousness and eventually resort to lying in the midst
of a technology wave. The justification of AI in various
dimensions including education, health, and communication is an
overwhelming defence against the critical acts of crime enabled
by its development.

Lauren McCarthy touched upon the impending advances of surveillance
and the detrimental effects on identity or even acknowledging
ourselves in our own space. I fear the future of AI and technology
because humans are not keeping up fast enough ethically to address
the necessary precautions.

Discussion Questions:

Why does dystopian fiction tend to connotate surveillance?
Given our growing reliance on technology, at what point do we
allow technology to overtake our responsibilities and consume
our identity?
What is the future of human lifestyle under the influence of AI?
Would the roles be reversed and we live dominant under
technological rule? How will the dynamics pan out?

The part about people deserting art installation works in
museums after growing fed up with the time-based modes of
artwork resonated with my experience at most art museums.
The concept of exhibiting a consistent lack on display,
forcing audiences into a constant absence of something
and entrapping them in a void.

It renders the question why we perceive museums as places
of spacious emptiness with tiny exhibits here and there.
Articulation dictates the way we voice our thoughts and
emotions to others, and implementing protest adds a
political attribute to the charade of expression.

Hito Steyerl touches on the mechanical structure of a museum
and the consequential interpretation of artwork by audiences.
He discusses the political implications generated by film
montage of protests, which spark a reproduction of real events,
distorting the truth as counter-information. It is important to
distinguish these problematic articulations and regard the
perception of artwork in museums as a reference to reconsider
film portrayal.

Discussion Questions:

How should anyone define the moral line of political montage?
What are the specific implications and consequences deriving
from experimental concatenation?
How strongly do audience voices influence the creation of
political genres within film?

Reading #5: Meme & Poor Image

Reading #6: Machine Oppression

Joy Buolamwini’s TED talk about algorithmic bias was
enlightening because it was interesting to learn machines
also develop a type of bias. I assumed bias is only
possible through emotional input, but the irony of
machines gradually transitioning to develop thoughts
without logical reasoning was strange.

Computer vision uses machine learning to identify and
learn faces. Still, when it simply does not cover the
full spectrum of possible faces, it fails to identify
some individuals, which was the case for Joy.

Her argument working on the coded gaze was insightful
because it’s our responsibility as users and creators
of technological advances to consistently learn alongside
the developments and strongly control the impact. Security
concerns regarding facial recognition technology are an
inevitable reflection of AI advancing beyond human control.

However, it also sparks the inquiry of technological advances
protecting humans from AI by building security measures into
the system so that facial recognition is not a default for
every purchase or clearance purpose. I appreciated Joy’s
efforts to make sure every user is recognized and seen by
technology before algorithmic bias advances into a larger
discrimination involving facial features and a wider category
of race.

Discussion Questions:

To what extent should we trust government databases that
already keep a copy of our face on file? How should we retaliate?
Who determines the ethical line for machine intervention
in human life?
Could feeding more data into machines for better facial
recognition have a detrimental impact? (As it also implies
selling more personal information)

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie talks about the danger of a
single story in her TED talk and her insights shed
light on the often disregarded aspects of communication.
We often hold an implicit bias when we meet new people
and only take in their physical appearance or
racial background.

It’s a detrimental consequence of ommitting information
in everyday human interactions. Olivia Ross proposes the
nonviolent creative code that encompasses the various
interpretations of violence including the physical, sexual,
psychological aspects, but also the deprivation of violence.

It’s an interesting concept and fresh perspective to dissolve
the structure of technological algorithms and find a human
behind the technology. Digital constructs are created and
practiced by humans, so the irony of technical structures to
elicit bias and visualize a dangerous single story precedes
any user in front of a computer screen.

Discussion Questions:

To what extent can we control the bias projected through
technical systems?
How can we create a fair system translating accurate
representations for each user?
How do we gather a wider range of users through data
accumulated prior to the interaction?

Reading #7: Data Heal & Digital Decolonization

Reading #8: Algorithmic Resistance

The intersection between design and capitalism, expanding
to the economy aspect was an interesting segway of considering
art in a broader context. Ari Melenciano’s interpretation of
technology raised to light important considerations of materialism.

I was surprised by the concept of circular design because it
ultimately reflects an environmentally beneficial outcome for
society. Amidst mass-industrialization, I always disassociated
design for art and design for productivity.

However, it was never easy to learn more about the implications
of design for productivity. Design for amusement and art merely
appeared as a vague representation attracting the minimum attention
of those interested in art, and nothing more than generating mass
materialism over actual environmental value.

Respectful design adhering to the ethos of consumers is another
significant aspect of creating art because the impact of design
on various cultures and identities is too lenient for strict
regulations that it easy to unintentionally offend and deceive.

Discussion Questions:

What is the purpose of art and design?
How can we make art a profitable act without wasting resources?
How does the circular design translate to other industries?

Christine Sun Kim’s presentation depicted another aspect of
life as she guided the audience through her narrative using
the audience’s voices. Her idea of sound through feelings
and sight was interesting because the platform of digital
art makes anything possible in this age of modern art.

Her roles as a sound artist was inspiring because Kim’s
exploration of transmuting sound and silence is a fresh
perspective of a mutual art that may appear attentive
to all audience members. She also incorporates other
people’s voices in her art, which implies the complexity
of emotion achieved through collective art.

It alludes to a greater sense of art as a masterpiece of
various emotions achieved through mass audiences. Art is
not only a representation of an ideal or vision, it is also
the interpretation by an audience invested in analyzing
the complexity of the artpiece.

Discussion Questions:
How can we manipulate other senses to create different forms
of art?
What other aspects of digital art can we integrate into our
sensory focus on art?
How can we make art more inclusive in all aspects of society?

Reading #9: Critical Access