Andreas Broeckmann
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780262035064
- eISBN:
- 9780262336109
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035064.001.0001
- Subject:
- Art, Art History
This book deals with the ways in which visual artists have reflected on the cultural meaning of technology, and the particular aesthetic of machines, throughout the twentieth century. It is the first ...
More
This book deals with the ways in which visual artists have reflected on the cultural meaning of technology, and the particular aesthetic of machines, throughout the twentieth century. It is the first comprehensive treatment of Machine Art and covers the most important historical developments as well as the key concepts of machine aesthetics. The book examines a variety of twentieth- and early twenty-first-century artworks that articulate people’s changing relationship with technical devices and infrastructures. It traces historical lineages that connect art of different periods, looking for continuities that link works from the end of the twentieth century to developments in the 1950s and 1960s and to works from the avant-gardes of the 1910s and 1920s. The investigation focuses on four specific domains of artistic engagement with technology: algorithms and machine autonomy; image, vision, and the advent of technical imaging; the human body in its relation to machines; and ecology. The book argues that systems thinking and ecological theories have brought about a fundamental shift in the cultural meaning of technology, which has also caused a change in the way technology impacts the formation of human subjectivity. This changing relationship between technology and subjectivity has been articulated by the different types of "machine art" throughout the twentieth century.Less
This book deals with the ways in which visual artists have reflected on the cultural meaning of technology, and the particular aesthetic of machines, throughout the twentieth century. It is the first comprehensive treatment of Machine Art and covers the most important historical developments as well as the key concepts of machine aesthetics. The book examines a variety of twentieth- and early twenty-first-century artworks that articulate people’s changing relationship with technical devices and infrastructures. It traces historical lineages that connect art of different periods, looking for continuities that link works from the end of the twentieth century to developments in the 1950s and 1960s and to works from the avant-gardes of the 1910s and 1920s. The investigation focuses on four specific domains of artistic engagement with technology: algorithms and machine autonomy; image, vision, and the advent of technical imaging; the human body in its relation to machines; and ecology. The book argues that systems thinking and ecological theories have brought about a fundamental shift in the cultural meaning of technology, which has also caused a change in the way technology impacts the formation of human subjectivity. This changing relationship between technology and subjectivity has been articulated by the different types of "machine art" throughout the twentieth century.
Andreas Broeckmann
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780262035064
- eISBN:
- 9780262336109
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035064.003.0004
- Subject:
- Art, Art History
This chapter discusses the ways in which twentieth-century artists have engaged with the aesthetic dimensions of algorithms and machine autonomy. It extends the narrative on the history of machine ...
More
This chapter discusses the ways in which twentieth-century artists have engaged with the aesthetic dimensions of algorithms and machine autonomy. It extends the narrative on the history of machine art from the previous chapter, beyond the program of Hultén’s 1968 “Machine” exhibition. It explains how the dialogue between art and cybernetics has evolved from the 1950s cybernetic artworks of Nicolas Schöffer, through the 1968 exhibition “Cybernetic Serendipity” and Jack Burnham’s concept of Systems Aesthetics, to the more contemporary software and robotic artworks of Max Dean, Seiko Mikami, and others. A focus is placed on the work of Canadian artist David Rokeby who has explored the aesthetics of the human encounter and interaction with technical systems since the 1980s. The analysis aims at adding two further aspects of the aesthetics of machines to the list of five such aspects developed in the previous chapter: one is the aspect of “interactivity”, which adds the dimension of a charged dialogue and exchange between human and machine; and the other is the aspect of “machine autonomy”, which becomes a determining factor in the human experience of increasingly independent and self-referential technical systems.Less
This chapter discusses the ways in which twentieth-century artists have engaged with the aesthetic dimensions of algorithms and machine autonomy. It extends the narrative on the history of machine art from the previous chapter, beyond the program of Hultén’s 1968 “Machine” exhibition. It explains how the dialogue between art and cybernetics has evolved from the 1950s cybernetic artworks of Nicolas Schöffer, through the 1968 exhibition “Cybernetic Serendipity” and Jack Burnham’s concept of Systems Aesthetics, to the more contemporary software and robotic artworks of Max Dean, Seiko Mikami, and others. A focus is placed on the work of Canadian artist David Rokeby who has explored the aesthetics of the human encounter and interaction with technical systems since the 1980s. The analysis aims at adding two further aspects of the aesthetics of machines to the list of five such aspects developed in the previous chapter: one is the aspect of “interactivity”, which adds the dimension of a charged dialogue and exchange between human and machine; and the other is the aspect of “machine autonomy”, which becomes a determining factor in the human experience of increasingly independent and self-referential technical systems.
Francis Halsall
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9781474421041
- eISBN:
- 9781474438605
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474421041.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Aesthetics
My speculation in this paper is to consider, in short, what if art history is a system? In other words what does it means to think about art through the systems-thinking. To do so would mean ...
More
My speculation in this paper is to consider, in short, what if art history is a system? In other words what does it means to think about art through the systems-thinking. To do so would mean understanding both art as a system and how art is also a part of other systems. It is my overall claim that to do so would require a rethinking of particular ideas about art and art history in ways that are both radical and effective.
I begin by introducing some key feature of the systems-thinking approach. In short, systems thinking emerged in the mid 20th century along with related theories such as Cybernetics and Information Theory. Recently it expanded to incorporate the developments of 2nd order cybernetics (Bateson) and dynamical systems theory (von Bertalanffy); examples of such developments include the Social Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann and the use of systems by Bruno Latour and Gilles Deleuze. Whilst often very different these theories share an interest in: self-organizing systems; their behaviour and how they are defined by their interactions with their immediate environment. Systems-theory understands phenomena in terms of the systems of which they are part. A system is constituted by a number of interrelated elements that form a ‘whole’ different from the sum of its individual parts. When applied to art discourse it means considering not only works of art but also art museums, art markets, and art histories as systems that are autonomous, complex, distributed and self-organising. Examples of these types of speculations are offered.
I conclude with two key speculations as to what the adoption of the systems-theoretical approach within art history might entail. Firstly, I argue that it is particularly effective in dealing with art after modernism, which is characterised by, amongst other things: non-visual qualities; unstable, or de-materialised physicality and an engagement (often politicised) with the institutional systems of support. By prioritising the systems of support over the individual work of art, or the agency of the individual artist such an approach is not tied by an umbilical cord of vision to an analysis based on traditional art historical categories such as medium, style and iconography. Secondly, I identify a tradition within art historical writing – Podro called it the Critical Historians of Art – that is known in the German tradition as Kunstwissenschaft (the systematic, or rigorous study of art.) I do so both as a means of clarifying what I mean when I say art history; but also as a means of identifying a tradition within art history of self-reflexivity and systematic investigation of methods and limits.
From a systems-theoretical perspective it is an interesting question in its own right to ask why model of Kunstwissenschaft has become the dominant mode of historiography (since the 1980s at least). As a discourse it has become, in systems-theoretical terms, ‘locked-in’ (via positive feedback). It is my view that the systems theoretical approach to art discourse places it within the art historical tradition of Kunstwissenschaft, and is not in opposition to it. In summary, it is not my intention to either attack or defend a straw-man, or flimsy stereotype of what art history is. I am rather, seeking a body of work, a canon, or discursive system, with which to engage. Overall my claim is that the systems theoretical approach to art discourse is a continuation of this rich and worthy heritage (of finding historical models to match the art under scrutiny)—not a break from it.Less
My speculation in this paper is to consider, in short, what if art history is a system? In other words what does it means to think about art through the systems-thinking. To do so would mean understanding both art as a system and how art is also a part of other systems. It is my overall claim that to do so would require a rethinking of particular ideas about art and art history in ways that are both radical and effective.
I begin by introducing some key feature of the systems-thinking approach. In short, systems thinking emerged in the mid 20th century along with related theories such as Cybernetics and Information Theory. Recently it expanded to incorporate the developments of 2nd order cybernetics (Bateson) and dynamical systems theory (von Bertalanffy); examples of such developments include the Social Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann and the use of systems by Bruno Latour and Gilles Deleuze. Whilst often very different these theories share an interest in: self-organizing systems; their behaviour and how they are defined by their interactions with their immediate environment. Systems-theory understands phenomena in terms of the systems of which they are part. A system is constituted by a number of interrelated elements that form a ‘whole’ different from the sum of its individual parts. When applied to art discourse it means considering not only works of art but also art museums, art markets, and art histories as systems that are autonomous, complex, distributed and self-organising. Examples of these types of speculations are offered.
I conclude with two key speculations as to what the adoption of the systems-theoretical approach within art history might entail. Firstly, I argue that it is particularly effective in dealing with art after modernism, which is characterised by, amongst other things: non-visual qualities; unstable, or de-materialised physicality and an engagement (often politicised) with the institutional systems of support. By prioritising the systems of support over the individual work of art, or the agency of the individual artist such an approach is not tied by an umbilical cord of vision to an analysis based on traditional art historical categories such as medium, style and iconography. Secondly, I identify a tradition within art historical writing – Podro called it the Critical Historians of Art – that is known in the German tradition as Kunstwissenschaft (the systematic, or rigorous study of art.) I do so both as a means of clarifying what I mean when I say art history; but also as a means of identifying a tradition within art history of self-reflexivity and systematic investigation of methods and limits.
From a systems-theoretical perspective it is an interesting question in its own right to ask why model of Kunstwissenschaft has become the dominant mode of historiography (since the 1980s at least). As a discourse it has become, in systems-theoretical terms, ‘locked-in’ (via positive feedback). It is my view that the systems theoretical approach to art discourse places it within the art historical tradition of Kunstwissenschaft, and is not in opposition to it. In summary, it is not my intention to either attack or defend a straw-man, or flimsy stereotype of what art history is. I am rather, seeking a body of work, a canon, or discursive system, with which to engage. Overall my claim is that the systems theoretical approach to art discourse is a continuation of this rich and worthy heritage (of finding historical models to match the art under scrutiny)—not a break from it.
Inge Hinterwaldner
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780262035040
- eISBN:
- 9780262335546
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262035040.003.0003
- Subject:
- Society and Culture, Technology and Society
Computer simulations are introduced as processes shaped according to the ‘systems perspective’. This expression is a parallel to central perspective. While the latter is a specific medium to form ...
More
Computer simulations are introduced as processes shaped according to the ‘systems perspective’. This expression is a parallel to central perspective. While the latter is a specific medium to form space, the former organizes dynamics. There exist various attempts to reformulate a kind of perspectivation in the domain of new media. They differ from the proposed as they are not elaborated with respect to the rules of its construction logic. In order to assimilate the new, for the ‘systems perspective’, the eye point is compared with parameters or variables, the vanishing point with the aspect of the real time, and the cut through the visual pyramid with the phase space. A first critique of the simulation dynamic is conveyed with the argumentative help of Jean Baudrillard. It touches the generalization through laws, the discretization of dynamic, and the specific mode of communication.Less
Computer simulations are introduced as processes shaped according to the ‘systems perspective’. This expression is a parallel to central perspective. While the latter is a specific medium to form space, the former organizes dynamics. There exist various attempts to reformulate a kind of perspectivation in the domain of new media. They differ from the proposed as they are not elaborated with respect to the rules of its construction logic. In order to assimilate the new, for the ‘systems perspective’, the eye point is compared with parameters or variables, the vanishing point with the aspect of the real time, and the cut through the visual pyramid with the phase space. A first critique of the simulation dynamic is conveyed with the argumentative help of Jean Baudrillard. It touches the generalization through laws, the discretization of dynamic, and the specific mode of communication.
