Tech Art Speculative
“Artists are not held back by a fear of failure because, in art, success is often found in the unexpected. Experimentation with advanced technologies can magnify artists’ potential for good because these are the emerging media we are studying to write the future1 -Han Ulrich Obrist
Concerning new directions in the art world, art made with advanced technology form the purpose of this research, exploring possible critiques of nonfungible tokens, immersive digital experiences, art viewed with virtual reality hardware, and art created through machine learning and artificial intelligence. Argued here is whether these new and technologically advanced art forms take on the fallibility of their chosen medium. Art in these new forms requires new forms of critique and this paper will attempt to use prior critical discourses to gain a deeper understanding of these new forms. At stake is art, where it may be reduced to less than what it should be when taken on by a more technological sphere; art will neither have a special significance as a cultural treasure nor contain indicators of our moral imperative. Technology equalizes all into data, but not all is equal, not everything is usable material like the life of our natural world. Nor are there any data points that can be assigned to our mythic nature, although some artists believe we may be creating, in AI, what some indigeousnous people believe to be fetishes or totems. These are objects with special and unnatural powers, an inanimate object that houses a spirit. Thus, our art most sacrosanct, will be folded into “the technological spirit presiding over the modern world that reduces human beings to material subject, to calculation and planning, as just another resource.”2
This investigation will be conducted in three sections. The first section will talk about the digital landscape where new art is being made, exhibited, and sold; with emphasis on the implications of art production within networks and platforms intended primarily for commercial enterprises. The second section will cover three artworks that are examples of these new artforms, reviewed and critiqued for their capacity to contain aura as defined in Walter Benjamin’s essay Art in the Era of Mechanical Reproduction. The last section will attempt to contain art and technology of the fourth industrial revolution within a structuralist mythological dialectic with special attention given to artificial intelligence.
The fourth industrial revolution concerns integration of network technologies3. Orit Halpern’s article Perceptual Machines4 from the Journal of Visual Culture, argued here, is the location of the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution with designer Gyorgy Kepes. Kepes developed design practices to network space that enhanced, modulated, and increased capacities of human cognition and perception5. Halpern avers that Kepes’ technically transformed vision were due to a new armory of sensory devices coming from atomic physics and electronic computing, which operated beyond the human sensorium and produced a ‘new foundation’ for our material existence. Technology moves the art world both forwards in time to the future and is also a back facing current receding into our past. Now employed to authenticate the paintings of old masters, artificial intelligence is a tool that forces the reassessment of art history6. Racializing structures of history persist, coded into technology through biased data sets. Artists like American Artist engage with the beginnings of technology and the classist and racial underpinnings of its early construction7. Art collectives like Orphan Drift innovate solutions like training artificial intelligence with Octopuses, reasoning animals contain no such human biases, hence not transferring them to the AI. The artists discussed here are experimenting with advanced technologies to create art. In 1997, on the cusp of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, photographer Charles Traub put forth a Creative Interlocutors Manifesto with this maxim about engaging with the imagery and art of the computer:As our collective memory embraces new media artists instead of rejecting them, we will be able to reach into the great depth and potentiality of hypermedia, virtual reality, interconnectivity, and new meaning [Traub].
Traub goes on to say that we must understand the antecedents of technology in order to reach its great potential. This paper will use Walter Benjamin’s concept of aura to explore the depth and potential of art made with and presented by advanced technologies. In Walter Benjamin’s 1935 essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, he states, “because it is infinitely accessible, what art that is reproducible lacks is its own presence in time and space; its unique existence at the place where it happens to be [Benjamin].”8 In this case, he was talking about photography and films as works of art but his criticism is less about the process of reproduction, and more about the decrease in the social significance of an art form and the rapidly changing perceptions of the masses that uncritically fuse visual and emotional enjoyment. Lost by this change in perception is the aura of an artwork; perhaps of more significance than aura, are the antecedent analytical tools outlined in Johnathan Crary’s 1990 Techniques of the Observer. Crary is interested in “the productive subject of the observer, and how concepts of subjective vision pervade not the only areas of art and literature but are present in philosophical, scientific, and technological discourses[Crary 9]. ”
1. Non Fungible Tokens and Online Platforms
Non fungible tokens, a type of cryptocurrency artwork, are now cultural artifacts. Created when someone registers an image or other visual asset on a blockchain, NFTs provide ownership of a digital file. However, according to Serpentine Gallery, a purchaser of an NFT becomes the owner of the “legal title to a chain of letters and numbers” that contain the “parameters pointing to where the digital file is stored and who should receive sale proceeds when a transaction occurs.”9 Under scrutiny because the technology they use, blockchains, NFT platforms consume copious amounts of energy that contribute to the climate crisis. The digital sector is responsible for 4% of greenhouse emissions10 and Nicole De Groot argues that big data and tech companies use selective words that fail to reveal the reality of digital waste. by using terms like E-waste and cloud services. These bring to mind etheric volumes of infinite cyberspace but the truth is that immense tranches of data are housed in physical data centers and server farms. By some estimation, out of 1.9 billion websites, only 14% are active. Of an estimated 200 terawatt-hours of electricity used by data centers each year, collectively abandoned websites, duplicate files, and forgotten downloads use 85% 11.
An NFT is essentially a financial product. Artists mint a unique code that is attached to their digital artwork that is essentially a contract of sale. In the NFT world, there are gatekeepers just like the pre-internet art world of gallery owners, art critics, auction houses, art brokers, and collectors. The positive potential of NFTs is that they make things more equal for artists, possibly more ethical, but chances are this new way of selling art makes things less ethical for artists. Proponents claim to be against established systems of power and intermediaries, yet NFTs place an unprecedented level of power and market control in the hands of platform marketplaces and collectors12[Quaranta]. NFTs create another gatekeeping situation in which artists are jumping through hoops to be recognized and paid. NFTs are a form of platform capitalism that exploits artistic creativity while breeding cultural ineptitude. This global technoculture is resistant to critique and, as is the case with non non-digital art market, the few decide what is the cultural capital for the many.
Artists wanting to stay current produce NFTs. Their artworks are exhibited in online galleries and digital platforms. Online platforms are more than just websites to share artwork, for artists trying to enter the NFT world, choosing a platform can be like choosing a neighborhood. Rival Strategy, an advisory group founded in 2016 to maximize the potential of services, places, and organizations defines a platform as a strategic object that lends itself to thinking about transforming situations (such as organizations) in very particular ways insofar as it is a way to imagine a link between present action and future consequences — a means to experiment with multiple different futures. Foreseeably, the creation of NFT artwork will play a larger role in the quickly approaching horizon of the internet of the future.
One such future is the metaverse. In a recent article following Facebook’s announcement that it is moving toward a Metaverse company, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg claimed the Metaverse is an embodied internet “where millions of people around the world can be doing creative work that they really enjoy, building experiences or virtual items or art or different things that are more inspiring to them.” Embodiment involves all of the senses working together but currently Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality hardware, the equipment required to experience the Meta Verse, is a sight-based technology. The Metaverse is the next version of online common space. Coined in Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson’s 1992 sci-fi novel, the term refers to a convergence of physical, augmented, and virtual reality in a shared online space operated by many different players in a decentralized way.[Casey]13
In the metaverse, users obtain avatars, animated characters that perform as the surrogate likeness of the user. Avatars can be visually represented by any form of figuration of the user’s choosing, this alter-ego offers anonymity and enables the user to embody a new identity and self-image. This new form of self-image commercialization is the ultimate manifestation of what Vance Packard wrote about in 1957 in his book The Hidden Persuaders. Packard quotes the president of The Institute for Motivational Research, Ernest Dichter Ph.D., “One of the main jobs of the advertiser in this conflict between pleasure and guilt is not so much to sell the product as to give moral permission to have fun without guilt.14” Dichter also made this prediction: by A.D. 2000 — perhaps all this depth manipulation of the psychological variety will seem amusingly old-fashioned. By then perhaps the biophysicists will take over with “biocontrol,” which is depth persuasion carried to its ultimate. Biocontrol is the new science of controlling mental processes, emotional reactions and sense perceptions by bio-electrical signals. The ultimate achievement of biocontrol may be the control of man himself. . . . The controlled subjects would never be permitted to think as individuals.[144]. IMR identified eight hidden needs, also referred to as hidden weaknesses of the consumer: selling emotional security, selling reassurance of worth, selling ego-gratification, selling creative outlets, selling love objects, selling a sense of power, selling a sense of roots, and selling immortality [47]. It’s not surprising that Meta, formerly Facebook, will contain all of these within the metaverse, including Dichter’s correctly predicted bio-electrical signal hardware. Artists who engage with technology and online platforms risk the meaning of their artwork taking on the fallibility of tools intended not only for mass appeal and commercialization but also subjugation and control.
2. TeamLab: Continuity, Judit Navratil’s The Szívküldi Lakótelep, Anna Riddler’s Let Me Dream Again
TeamLab: Continuity
A new techno-trend in the art world is immersive digital experiences. San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum exhibition, TeamLab: Continuity, is a social practice art projection of moving and floating, birds, fish, and plant life set to music that is an ambient mix of both soothing sounds and dream-like orchestral movements. Continuity is a spatial experience of new and exciting visual worlds shared with others. The immersive digital experience space is several darkened movie theater-like galleries, some with mirrored walls. All electronic and digital, luminously rich and vibrant colors contraposition different thematic narratives of an artificial nature, a dreamlike place replicating the sublime of the natural world. Brushstrokes of calligraphy display successful intimacy with the latest technologies. At times dizzying, the motion of the projections overwhelms the visual senses and appears to be the goal of the attraction. A delivery of culture and transcendent thought within a relational art space, Continuity is also a physical environment that involves the viewers’ whole body where one wonders about what is around the corner. By the rhetorical analysis applied in this paper, TeamLab:Continuity contributes to the “subjectification of the observer.” and perpetuate[s] nineteenth-century modernization in which increasing rationalization and control of the human subject in terms of new institutional and economic requirements, I.e. new experiments in visual representation[Crary].” Immersive Experiences like Teamlab: Continuity commodify the observer and by an extension of the use of their tools and technologies, tools and commodities of modern capitalism.
TeamLab is a digital design studio out of Tokyo known for making deeply immersive digital art installations, the latest of which is being shown at the Asian Art mUseum in San Francisco. Unlike other artworks, many people can experience the same thing at once and everyone gets a different experience but it is all happening in a shared space. Information technology is painting with a wide brush and Continuity plays on our attention to moving lights. The art envelopes the viewers’ senses, lines of light traced along the walls lead viewers deeper into the experience. The excitement builds as viewers encounter juxtaposition positions of natural and artificial space and time, excitement and calm, large shapes and small shapes of all sizes and volumes. 45-degree inclined walls become floors and the 90-degree angle of the floor and wall disappears into the many layers of projections reflected on the floors. Every surface including the bodies of the viewers are flooded with beds of flowers and schools of animal characters seem to display personalities activated in the environment. The vivid projections are constantly moving, everywhere the viewer can look there is a stimulating animation. Dark intimate spaces, dreamlike worlds of flying colors, and lights with triumphant and courageous musical accompaniment make an overwhelming feeling of freedom in the entire installation. The space is a landscape without borders, movements of open migrations of stylized animals bring to mind visions of bodies in a boundless new nature of metaphysical freedom.
The audio track is overwhelmingly colorful to match the colored lights of the world-building installation. The world that is created reflects the world of a future where unencumbered freedom abounds in their virtual digital world generous with generation and creation. The projections can make the viewer feel spatially twisted and disoriented, but the space is comforting because animals guide us, as they swim and fly in this new wonderful dreamlike journey of visual and sensational colors. The installation is perfectly crafted for all the members of the family.It brings out the inner child of the viewer into a hopeful world where all bodies enjoy the experience of remembrance of being a child. The borders between the images are shared, opened, blurred, and closed freely.
The best part of the exhibition is the way the trails of lights seem aware of the viewers’ presence because the installation is befriended by artificial intelligence that performs the installation. This is a tremendous shattering of tradition that activates the aura of this artwork, because of the electronic brain behind its composition, the interconnected artworks are governed by dynamic algorithms and are never exactly the same twice because they are based on the actions and presence of the people in the space. This is more than an art installation, it’s a platform of network co-curation, a space of operationally and performativity, which creates “the possibility for a complex dance of intention, anticipation, creativity, and emergence based on individual people, algorithms, and the social and technical structures that bracket them all” [Dekker, Finn 2017b][15].
Judit Navratil -.The Szívküldi Lakótelep and VR Art Camp
Judit Navratil is a Hungarian national that has an MFA from CCA. Her work in virtual reality space is inspired by being far from her family and her use of digital platforms to stay connected to her community in Hungary. She mentions the virtual space as a site of home for community and also artificial intelligence that could possibly learn what unconditional love is and a place to teach this to AI or at least have them learn from us in this way. Navratil talks about her body as a device, akin to Dona Haraway’s cyborg manifesto, or looking at the body as having surrogate extensional forms of technology. Her body and mind extend into the digital virtual space. This creates a connection between two worlds and spans and crosses her body boundaries beyond the physical world.
In a similar way TeamLab: Continuity contains aura, Navartil’s The Szívküldi Lakótelep and the artists in her VR Art Camp contain aura. Hungarian for “Heart-sent Social Housing Neighborhood” and is the title of a virtual reality space created by Navratil, this work led to the creation of an VR Art Camp, an online artists residency program launched in 2020. Navratil’s use of advanced technologies brings together artists to explore their potential to create art in VR art spaces on Moz//illa, a public VR platform. Currently twenty two artists have attended VR Art Camp and have created art spaces, or as Navratil refers to the process, “growing the space.” These can be experienced on an internet browser or a VR hardware such as the Oculus. The site specificity of VR Art camp succeeds in creating a social housing neighborhood online because at the end of the residency artists have a show-and-tell and the individual artists’ spaces continue as an archive of the interior of the artists imagination.
One might think of the digital space as an interior and the physical space as an exterior. The interior of the cyberspace is more closely connected and representative of the artist’s interior space of the imagination. The artist spaces differ greatly from each other in concept and content. Although, because they are all using the same technology to make the art spaces, they do have a similar look. The art works in VR Art camp are self portraits of the artist’s imagination. Objects in the space are geometric and rectilinear and are covered with flat textures of repeating patterns. Many of the spaces have orbs that can be entered. Two dimensional planes sometimes contain photos or frames that can play video and music. As the viewer, one can fly around the spaces that can be enormous in scale. Impressively, objects within the virtual space tower above the user and from the point of view of the avatar, can be hundreds of feet tall. The environments can contain motion elements such as planes simulating waves of oceans and undulating hanging transparent fabrics.
Network Co-curation[16] is new in the history of online curation. Online curated art shows have taken many forms since the inception of the internet. In response to the isolation of lock downs due to Covid 19, Navartil created VR Art Camp as an online artist residency. Considered a site specific installation, the art is made under certain parameters like data limits and are presented specifically on the platform, Mozilla hubs. This definition of platform is closely related to Rival Strategy’s definition of platform as a place where future contingencies and different futures can be explored. More than a website, rather a site of network-co-curation, artworks like VR Art Camp are intelligent objects where multiple futures can be explored. Not just a place for profit and capitalism but a place where different actors can gather for the purpose of creating different futures. Navratil’s notion of “protector shelters” as the function of the VR space platform is an example of this type of networked co-curation; a departure from platform capitalism that lends itself to the discourse of possible new futures. Art can be thought of as the medium between the physical and material world of bodily experience and the metaphysical and psychic interior world of the mind and imagination. In a reflection of this, Navratil’s VR spaces allow viewers into the mind of the artist, admitting them into a space without boundaries or horizons. The entrance into the interior world of the artist is a witnessing of new realms that have never been accessible until the implementation of VR technology. Artists in the VR art camp are challenged by the, at once, daunting potential of the new technological medium and the always present decisions faced by art making like texture, surface, scale, and color.
Association of Mouth and Brain Painting Artists of the World // AMBPA by Judit Fischer and Miklós Mécs (SEPTEMBER ‘21) is a cemetery of ridiculous traumas. Friends of Navratil, they are Hungarian artists who have been collaborating in art for fifteen years. Said by the artists during the show and tell, “In cyberspace there is not a safe space for everyone because something will be traumatic to somebody.” The space is a a graveyard of memories and confessions of traumas. Tombstones display traumas collected from students where the artists’ work. The texts are both in English and Hungarian, some are puns in Hungarian that don’t translate into english. Surrounding the graveyard are five enormous sarcophagi, their covers ajar, with the exception of the one in the center. The space has audio of a marching band which plays on a loop in the background. Within the coffins, play videos of home movies and family photos, as well as other previous artworks from the artists. Still in other coffins, play pictures of radially arangended vegetables, some form swastikas. Still within another coffin, plays a video of a small coffin plastered with stickers of brands of corporations. People surround the coffin and open it to reveal a young boy playing on his laptop. The focal point of the whole scene is a gigantic egyptian cat pooping a nuclear bomb, hovering over a brightly colored pink poop with a shiny texture. The pink poop has two photos of actual tombstones. Adjacent to the graveyard is a row of eight faceless men in business suits standing with arms outstretched in a crucified form, or a t form. At the center of this row of businessmen is a giant human hand reaching up from the ground. On the other side of the scene is a large object that resembles a large piece of furniture, a music player and a video of a carved potato resembling a face. Next to it is a video of the same carved potato face laying in an open grave.These site specific art installations are infinitely reproducible because they are infinitely accessible; yet there is no loss of aura in this case of these art works. These art spaces meet viewers where they are in space and time, and according to Benjamin this is the opposite of the loss of aura and his concern for loss of criticality, furthering the unquestioning pleasure of vision and technology; so astonished by technology, viewers don’t critically question cultural or social meaning. Amazing visual experience can play on viewers desire for sumptuous colors of light and moving images. Benjamin feared artworks made with new technologies manipulate us into not caring about social issues.
Anna Riddler’s Let Me Dream Again
Google Machine Learning and Art awardee Anna Ridler created through the use of neural networks a haunting artwork from the lost archive of early silent cinema. The artwork is simply an infinitely generating stream of images that blur and melt into themselves. Ridler used a GANS algorithmic protocol, a generative adversarial neural network, to create the artwork. Ridler gave this form of artificial intelligence the instructions to re-create the missing spaces of a data set of early cinema, films that have largely been lost to decomposition. The result is a strange unearthly artwork with aura that blends the past with the present and that is irreproducible and that raises significant questions about our loss of collective memory.“This film and soundtrack are endlessly generated using machine learning trained on the visuals and audio of early Hollywood and European Cinema. The vast majority of these early films are lost; however, this experiment uses the fragments that remain to recreate what might have been.”said Ridler. The decay of old formats is our historic legacy. Machine memory and now, by default, human memories are intertwined and face similar fates, loss, degradation, corruption, and alteration over time. Files when they are uploaded, re-uploaded, downloaded, and are transferred between formats lose something of their original; our memories do as well. When we think of a memory, we bring to our present mind not the original memory itself but the memory of our last recall of that memory and when a memory is shared orally, that memory takes a new form. Memory transferred between two separate minds changes format in a similar way to files converted between formats. David Hall’s performative lecture A Brief history of loss demonstrates this through the custom script he wrote. The command tells the computer to open a file, Hollis Frampton’s Nostalgia, then it saves the file again and repeats this process 10,000 times. The file deteriorates beyond recognition. Today we use social media platforms as proxy memory banks, prosthetic grey matter to hold our past. Like so many movie collections on VHS tapes stored away in garages and attics, we risk the same happening to our disembodied recollection that exists on social media platforms17.
Tom Gunning wrote about the aesthetics of attraction and astonishment regarding the technology of early cinema, the projector. There exists a legend about the reaction from audiences when the first silent film was projected in a cafe in Paris. The film was of a locomotive engine pulling into a station and to the surprise of the audience members the projected image of the train began to move toward their direction. As legend has it, what followed were screams of terror and people scrambling from their seats to jump out of the way of the oncoming train. Gunning dispels this myth about the seemingly dumbfounded terror of audience members who actually believed a locomotive could materialize from thin air and enter the cafe. These were people who were familiar with projected still images; what made them scream and leap from their seats was the power of the apparatus itself. the power of the visual illusion and the astonishment of a new technology produced in them a mix of pleasure and anxiety18. Parsed here is whether the artworks being made with advanced technology contain an aura as defined by Walter Benjamin or if they are producing astonishment through their use of advanced technology. In this way, both the concept of aura as an analytical tool and the use of advanced technology to create art will be challenged. First a military technology, the internet is a social, commercial, and economic technology. Heidegger suggests tools are technology that form systems, of which inventions are from a larger system where they obtain meaning. Also arguing cultural context is implicit when anything is made with tools.19 Technological artifacts embody specific forms of power and authority[Stern].20 In these hyper-technological times, arts organizations prepare to deal with quickly changing digital ecologies, aware of this authoritative power.
Conclusion
The question of if we should give a critical evaluation to artwork made by AI the same as we do to artwork made by human beings is completely irrelevant. However, if art historians, art critics, art theorists, and scholars of Visual Criticism were to give serious consideration to this question, two camps would quickly form followed by an acrimonious dispute. Before anyone can answer this question, two preceding questions must be answered. That is, who is the author or the artist of a poem or picture created by AI? Some would agree that the AI is the true maker of the art, others believe it to be the individual or group of individuals who coded the AI. Secondly, there is the question of how to give AI its proper position and place in the history of art and even more specifically, in the history of things. What is the typology and morphology of AI?
If we follow the guidelines set forth by Kubler in The Shape of Time regarding the phenomenon of actuality, open and arrested sequences, the climactic entrance of prime objects, and technical innovations, we can arrive at some understanding of where AIs fall into the timeline of human and object history21. One can only guess what Kubler would say about whether the invention of AI signals a closed sequence and if AI is a prime object and has . made a climactic entrance. It’s hard to know if we have seen the climactic entrance of a Prime AI, which all other AIs become replicas of. Naturally, this Prime AI would be an artist, whose art would be given identical consideration as any art that’s made by a human.
1 “Art x Advanced Technologies.” Future Art Ecosystems, Serpentine R&D Platform, Issue 1, Feb 2020, London.
2 Karsten Harries, Philosophy, politics and technology. Martin Heidegger Politics, Art, and Technology. Ed. Karsten Harries and Christoph Jamme. Holmes and Meier, 1994. p.232.
3 Schwab, Klaus (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Publishing Group (published 2017). ISBN 9781524758875. Retrieved 29 June 2017. Digital technologies […]
4 Halpern, Orit. “Perceptual Machines” Journal of Visual Culture, vol. 11, no. 3, 2012, pp. 328–351. Sage Publications.
5 Kepes G (1956) The New Landscape in Art and Science. Chicago, IL: PaulTheobald and Co.
6 “A Non-techie’s Handbook for A.I. Art Authentication.” The Gray Market, 07 Oct 2021, http://www.thegray-market.com/blog/2021/10/7/a-non-techies-handbook-for-ai-art-authentication.
7 Evrim Oralkan and Eser Coban.“Nothing More American: In Conversation with American Artist” Collecteurs.com, 2021, https://www.collecteurs.com/interview/nothing-more-american-in-conversation-with-american-artist
8 Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 1935. In: Illuminations Ed. Hannah Arendt. Shocken Books, 1969.
9 Kushnir, Alann.1 “The legal ambiguities of Art Collaborations and their Compatibilites with NFTs.” Future Art Eco-Systems, 21 May 2021, https://futureartecosystems.org.
10 Debetty, Regine. “Digital Art for a Planet on Fire.” Künstlerinnenpreis, 10 October 2021, https://digitalart.kuenstlerinnenpreis.nrw/blog/digital-art-for-a-planet-on-fire.
11 De Groot, Nicole. “Digital Detritus the Physicality of Invisible Data.” KABK:Lectorate Design, Oct 6th 2020, https://www.kabk.nl/en/lectorates/design/digital-detritus-nicole-do-groot.
12 Quaranta Domenico. “Code as Law. Contemporary Art and NFTs.” 2021. https://digitalart.kuenstlerinnenpreis.nrw/blog/code-as-law-contemporary-art-and-nfts.
13 Newton, Casey. “Mark in the Metaverse.” The Verge, 21 July 2021, https://www.theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-ceo-metaverse-interview?fbclid=IwA R2z6FPz0u2MyAt5rbsesj4bXBSG8Kf9AGxTg80EHXwuAFqjpzBEy-d0Iko
14 Packard, Vance. The Hidden Persuaders. Longmans, Green & Co, 1957, p. 38.
15 Annet Dekker, Gaia Tedone. Networked Co-Curation: An Exploration of the Socio-Technical Specificities of Online Curation. Arts. July 2019. Finn, Ed. 2017b. Art by Algorithm. Aeon. September 27. Available online: https://aeon.co/essays/how-algorithms- are-transforming-artistic-creativity (accessed on 10 May 2019).
16 Annet Dekker and Gaia Tedone. Networked Co-Curation: An Exploration of the Socio-Technical Specificities of Online Curation. Centre for the Study of the Networked Image, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, UK
17 A Brief History of Loss. David Hall. 2016–18. https://www.kabk.nl/en/lectorates/design/a-brief-history-of-loss
. 18 Gunning, Tom. An Aesthetic of Astonishment Early Film and the Incredulous Spectator. Viewing Position Ways of Seeing Film. Ed. Linda Williams. Rutgers. 1995.
19 Loh, P., Burry, J. and Wagenfeld, M. (2016), ‘Reconsidering Pye’s theory of making through digi- tal craft practice: A theoretical framework towards continuous designing’, Craft Research 7: 2,pp. 187–206, doi: 10.1386/crre.7.2.187_1 Heidegger, M. (1967), What is a Thing? (trans. W. B. Barton, Jr. and V. Deutsch), South Bend, Indiana: Gateway Editions, Ltd.
20 Stern, Jonathan. “The MP3 as a Cultural Artifact.” New Media and Society, Vol8(5):825–842, http://nms.sagepub.com/content/8/5/825
21 The Shape of Time remarks on the History of Things. Kubler, George. Yale University Press, 1962.
.
