Art without an artist: is this the beginning of a total dissolution of the myth of creative genius, or a pure art-market fetishism of technological and algorithmic novelty ? A bit of both, perhaps.
Despite that in many ways the procedurally recursive and recombinatory creative aggregation of style, method and idiom is what art is (and what artists do), this all begins to seem like a free-floating system in which human agency and subjective experience are no longer the epistemological anchors, boundaries or arbiters of value. Virtual currencies, distributed systems, remote presence – altogether, a curious inversion of the focal point of subjective individuality which arises (mischievously) as a technological consequence of the accelerating process of symbolic refinement and specialisation that initially generated to support and validate that nodal pivot of individual and cultural self.
At the heights of technological sophistication, do we effectively write ourselves out of our own story ?
Daedelus Kite 
2 replies on “Art without an Artist ?”
I’m reading Frankenstein at the and the monster had a lot of feelings. Did the AI also? Art needs feelings, and humanity. Not so much perfection. I like reading your posts by the way….Lindsay
LikeLike
[…] agent creates a fascinating nexus of all these fields of study and will inevitably be a topic I return to many times. A recent advertisement for a public debate at Oxford University (by diverse SMEs) on […]
LikeLike