Art is as we desire to be, not be and all between. Sure, digital art is valid as cubism, dadaism, minimalism or any other kind of ism "is". Warhol demonstrated that repetition, duplication and industrialization makes "acceptable" art, if it's time has come. My outlook on art is to never reject, but relentlessly ridicule. It's all garbage if it does not express my own exact cultural experience while making me believe I am creating the art myself as much as observing it. Humans wish to be seen, heard and most of all, understood. The question is "does computationalism demand to be seen, heard and understood?" As projections of tools for expressing the human experience, I would suggest they inherently do. So much as humans wish to extrapolate the essence from conscious experience, so will computational systems from a mirrored, virtual reflection of the human experience.
A new avant-garde emergence is always true. Generationalism is inherent in the human experience and always seeks to permeate. Do we envision a reflection of our best traits, habits and patterns, are we attempting to represent our best selves or are we simply attempting to create between the folds of failure and error, to glean a new perfected, ascended state? These are thoughts keeping me awake and aware of algorithmically augmented cognition.
October 14, 2015