Re: [-empyre-] Is it digital art?

[Reiner Strasser <reiner.s@netartefact.de>]

Digital has to leave digital that we can perceive it.

(As long as technology is like it is now - I use my senses --- even when
digital is connected to nerves - it is no longer digital --- ignoring the
thesis that our brain is working digital - or similar - synapsis etc.)

> Hi,
> 
> had this conversation in uk recently ... the exchange went something like:
> 
> - if the artwork doesn't somehow respond to the medium then it's not truly
> digital work.
SOMEHOW
> - therefore something that is just a narrative, with images, is 'bad'
> digital art (for example).
SOMETHING
(is narrative or un-narrative a criteria for "digital art"?
Scanned images become digital even when we do not recognize it.
Who sees the difference between analogeous and digital video?
.............)
> - what would digital art that is purely responding to the medium look like?
Is an art which is purely (and only) responding to itself of any interest
for humans?
(is art working in the digital medium per se digital art?)
> - perhaps nothing at all: perhaps no concession to the (human) user would be
> made; there would be no GUI or sensual ramifications, only some code doing
> invisible things at the level of cpu cycles....
> - and so digital art swallows itself ...
> 
> cheers, geniwate
101 (is a transformation of digital in numbers - feel the voltage - silicon
in the head)


Reiner