This page will be updated weekly as part of Computational Arts-based Research (2017-18)
given by Helen Pritchard as part of my MFA Computational Arts at Goldsmiths.
First week, we read and discussed Computational Aesthetics in The Practices of Art as Politics
Patricia Ticiento Clough, Queens College and The Graduate Center CUNY
Although a challenging paper on first reading, it proposed a useful first glimpse of our course ahead. Notably, it was important to identify words and phrases used in the paper we are at best unfamiliar with, if not totally unsure of, including:
Computational Aesthetics in The Practices of Art as Politics
Patricia Ticiento Clough
Queens College and The Graduate Center CUNY
Patricia Clough (PC) delivered a tightly written and somewhat challenging paper for us to read and summarise as part of our first mini assignment. I have carefully read the paper several times and for me, the material was not the sort I am used to reading, however after several readings, I have made some sense of it. The final two paragraphs did help me as they formed a precis of the whole paper, namely, the advent of digital technology has had a profound effect on how we evaluate and practice Art in a Political context. PC lays out several examples of how the practice of art is challenged not only by the rapid emergence of digital technologies but also the intense commodification of human processes. She points out these factors has affected philosophical examination of art and the potentiality of the object(s), promoting a debate as to whether potentiality exists already in and object or whether it is dependent on the relation to other objects (possibly human).
Further examination of change brought on by digital technology is in relation to aesthetics. Art’s singular claim to aesthetics has been undermined by commodification of human processes and expansion of digital. Art has become so intertwined in market systems globally, it no longer serves as a means to inform us, to de-alienate us, serving more as a means to re-think itself politically re-assert itself and highlight the alienating and divisive effects of capitalism. PC quoting Claire Bishop who also, points out how, art paradoxically dovetails perfectly to fit in with neoliberalism’s recent forms.
PC discusses the opportunity that technology has given us tools to further explore the relationship of aesthetics, ontology and the term ‘calculative ambience’ (where calculation, action and materiality intertwine) via machine interfaces, big data and sensors, yielding a “mathematical seeing”.
PC then discusses the example of nano-technology and big data, positing the differences between the primary and secondary qualities of objects in relation to object-orientated ontologies, she suggests this may lead us to displacing the need for human intervention ultimately, its being our only way to engage the emotion (affect) through art, as politics.
At this point I have to admit I became a bit overwhelmed – no doubt this is a great academic paper but it seemed to become too complex, at least for me to understand. The paper concludes however – we have to re-evaluate aesthetics – All works can be considered as works of art – art is inexorably bound up with our ever-increasing commodification. She quotes Manning who says art where “we might glimpse the relational force of an eternal object coursing through the actual”. Also, where art as forms of play with objects, “with the mediatic spaces or the indeterminate, internal complexity of all objects or entities where incomputable probabilities are still real and present”.
To realise other possibilities, art as politics must be interdisciplinary, incorporating philosophy, mathematics, science, media and technology, requiring all sorts of groupings and alliances.
Art as politics …”The practices of art as politics must lead the way, instructing us in how to play and with our play make the world anew”.