3 ms·

If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers"- sure, but that's an exceptionally limited subsection of potential artistic engageme

If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers"- sure, but that's an exceptionally limited subsection of potential artistic engagement. So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. The memorable amazing/sublime/unique auditory experiences I have had have been in the presence of the artist. Even the best speakers are a poor shadow. Can't do smell with technology at all. Touch and physical engagement is possible but still extremely limited. And technology usually completely obviates the going-to/work/energy expediture to experience something, also a negative. The really unique artistic opportunities (speaking personally) enabled by software are those based on human interactions that heretofore were impossible. A lot of these have been automatically commoditized and commercialized as games or social network apps but there still is plenty of vein to mine. I thought Wordle was a great example of interactive-for-the-joy-of-it-social-art-in-the-small uniquely enabled by technology, and its charm for me was completely lost when it was sold (for which I of course don't begrudge the author at all). I would think that translation services are a potentially interesting enabling function for social art that have been underexplored.

tyre 5y ago
> So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. Do the Pandora ride at Disneyworld. It is raw visceral awe. Yes there’s movement but the scenery alone is stunning. There’s also generative arts. I’d put Tyler Hobbs on that list. His work is beautiful
- jonahbenton 5y ago
  Sure, thanks for the pointers.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  I'd also put some video game art in this category. Translating art from the real world to the screen loses the awe, but art created for a digital environment can easily awe.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
There is plenty of 3D printed art created by programs as well, but it more of an emergent complexity via fractals kind of thing.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers" Computers have more potential output peripherals than speakers and screens, and computer programming can also be used for interactive art that leverages input peripherals, as well. > So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. I think a lot of people who have experienced cinema, perhaps especially large-format cinema, would disagree about visceral awe being impossible with a screen.

tyre 5y ago

> So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. Do the Pandora ride at Disneyworld. It is raw visceral awe. Yes there’s movement but the scenery alone is stunning. There’s also generative arts. I’d put Tyler Hobbs on that list. His work is beautiful

jonahbenton 5y ago
Sure, thanks for the pointers.
Mezzie 5y ago
I'd also put some video game art in this category. Translating art from the real world to the screen loses the awe, but art created for a digital environment can easily awe.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

There is plenty of 3D printed art created by programs as well, but it more of an emergent complexity via fractals kind of thing.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If by "anything" you mean "anything on a screen or coming through speakers" Computers have more potential output peripherals than speakers and screens, and computer programming can also be used for interactive art that leverages input peripherals, as well. > So much visual art is just raw visceral awe, which is just not possible with a screen. I think a lot of people who have experienced cinema, perhaps especially large-format cinema, would disagree about visceral awe being impossible with a screen.