Re: [-empyre-] making a meta-living / a-life & generative art

clearly I'm not alone in deploring the use of the word or term [!?]
'sublime' in regard to art and works considering its provenance.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitchell Whitelaw" <>
To: "soft_skinned_space" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] making a meta-living / a-life & generative art

> On 23/11/2004, at 7:59 AM, <> wrote:
> > Could this movement to hermetic purity of code in itself be a reaction
> > to our contemporary visual culture? An escape maybe from the
> > omnipresence
> > of images addressing our complex social political and economic reality.
> Yes, I think that's partly right - but I think that our visual culture
> actually (in general) does _not_ address our complex reality, partly
> because it's a very hard thing to make an image of. We see images from
> its surface, "appearances" of it, but how do you make an image of
> something so dynamic, complex, multifarious, etc.?
> One thing that a-life and generative art can do in setting up these
> "aquaria" (exactly), is play with complex dynamic systems in miniature,
> and perhaps discover or intuit some of their properties. Australian
> a-life artist Rod Berry talks about trying to encourage an "aesthetic
> of systems" rather than one of "images" with his work. Of course
> there's Jack Burnham's 1968 "Systems Aesthetics."
> Which brings us right to the sublime, the unrepresentable vastness of
> nature/culture/global capital. I agree with Jon and Alan's analysis.
> Also speaking of sublime and Manovich, there's his paper "The
> Anti-Sublime Ideal in Data Art" -
> Mitchell
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.