History of Digital Technology in Art
1:1 Origins of the Term ‘DigitalArt’
Art and technology are disparate in their domains yet have a unique interrelationship as both have evolved, from the earliest evidence of artistic instinct in prehistoric rock art to the cocreation of unorthodox creativity found inAI-generated artworks. From as early as the Stone Age, technology centred on ‘invention’which helped humanity move forward thus becoming central to human existence. Today, the focus has developed to ‘innovation’, with progressive artistic concepts influencing and intersecting with technology, and digital innovation transforming art production alongside enriching its exploration ‘DigitalArt’refers to using technology in creative thinking, being art that is made or presented using digital tools. In its emergence, digital art received criticism for its lack of complexity and depth found in traditional art forms, which were canonically accepted. Therefore, it continued along a deviant track regarding coherence with art history This exploration of canonical responses to digital art emanated from an interest in the formalist standards of ‘highbrow’art in the Modernist era, whereby new media permeates culture. With technology and humanity reciprocating a persistent response, the history of new media involving digital art has an inevitable connection to the history of the Contemporary era, which can only be described as the evolution of the human experience of reality Regardless, digital art initially faced scepticism and resistance from traditional art institutions due to the established aesthetic principles and techniques ingrained in the art world, as new digital art techniques introduced new aesthetic qualities.
9
The origins of digital art, known as ‘ComputerArt’, in its initial stages, can be traced back to early experimentations with digital tools in the late 1950s and 60s, which was a collaboration of artists and scientists/engineers. Some notable artists involved in this movement wereAllan Kaprow and the group EAT (Experimentations inArt and Technology).
Vera Molnár, a direct forbear to many digital artists working today, began experimenting with basic computer algorithms in 1959. Her concept, which she named ‘Machine Imaginaire’ (Martin, 2023), was her innovative approach to arranging gridded lines and colours in her artwork that laid the essential groundwork of what would consequently follow in contemporary digital art. During the 60s, technological breakthroughs allowed for computers to become broadly available and began to gain cultural significance. Molnár told art historian Vincent Baby that her work was largely criticized by other artists, accusing her of dehumanizing art, explaining that: “Everyone was scandalised, basically, no one looked at what I was doing; it seemed so terrible.” (Baby, 2022). In these early stages, physical punch cards were used as a means of programming, and notably, the word “computer” emanated from the name of the occupation of people who complied these paper calculations, which were mostly women. Molnár was among the early programmers who used the FORTRAN programming language which created straight lines that rotated in several degrees. Her provocative series, entitled ‘Interruptions’(1968-1969), is not only primary in concept, but it also places her conversation with the women who were leading the charge in computer development during the 60s. With the advent of screens, the artist’s process became dialogue with machine, giving Molnár the ability to visualise her imaginate calculations.
Another pioneer in the field of digital art, artist and mathematician Frieder Nake produced a screenprint from a plotter drawing which was produced using a computer algorithm titled ‘13/9/65, Nr.2 “Hommage à Paul Klee”’(1965), (Fig. 1). The screenprint, based on a painting by abstract and expressionist artist Paul Klee, titled ‘High Roads and
10
Byroads’(1929), (Fig. 2), was programmed using this computer plotter to create abstract art, forming complex geometric linework in a black-and-white paradigm which followed Klee’s original artwork. In an interview led by artist MarkAmerika, Nake commented that he, alongside other artists, worked towards an “algorithmic revolution”, which marked a radical break from traditional artistic media and served as an invitation to consider the relationship of working with the computer to more traditional studio practice Nake’s screenprint was one of the first appearances of algorithmic art in a traditional art space, and the response from viewers was bewilderment (Amerika, 2022), with its extensive impact not going unnoticed. Consequently, most images in the Contemporary era are found to be shaped by digital and algorithmic principles
From the introduction of computer art, many critics questioned its validity, with the opinion that a true artwork should be rooted in craftsmanship and human creativity, raising concerns about the potential loss of the artist’s individual touch and their reliance on technology. The first recognisable piece of algorithmic art criticism was written by Canadian art criticArnold Rockman and computer scientist Leslie Mezei (Taylor, 2014), whereby both formed an interdisciplinary union discussing the apprehensions about the movement from two sets of prowess In their seminal article entitled “The Electronic Computer as anArtist” (1964), there was an agreement between Rockman and Mezei that visual artists were oblivious to the computer’s capabilities, and this disinterest was conceivable as “a result of ignorance”.Although many musicians and poets readily embraced using technology as a tool in a creative field, it was undeniable that some visual artists and the art community regarded “the machine as their enemy” The rapid advancement of technology and mitigating digital manipulation raised concerns about the authenticity and inventiveness of digital artworks, with the question of whether they can achieve uniquity or simply reproduce existing images.
11
A. Michael Noll is regarded as one of the first to approach technology with artistic intention, exploring the novelty of the intersection of man and machine using the earliest and most advanced computers of 1961 as an engineer at Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated (Bell Labs). During the 1960s, Bell Labs conducted pioneering research into digital computer art and expressive animation at its facility in New Jersey, the United States. By that time, digital computer art had gained popularity and worldwide recognition, becoming a reasonably well-established medium for artists, animators and musicians; as a technology-driven art form, it continued to evolve in the aesthetics of the era. During his time at Bell Labs, Noll conducted a diverse range of subjects for research, including the effect of media on interpersonal communication, three-dimensional computer graphics and animation, human-machine tactile interaction, speech signal processing and aesthetics (Huybrechts, 2015); which granted him recognition for his significant contributions in using a digital computer to utilise computer algorithms and random processes to create an artwork.Along with Frieder Nake and Georg Need in Germany, Noll was one of the first to publicly exhibit computer-generated artworks. Noll and Nake similarly imitated contemporary artworks, considering his work to demonstrate that computer-generated graphic inconsistencies were
12
Figure 1: Nake, Frieder (1965) 13/9/65, Nr.2
“Hommage à Paul Klee”
Figure 2: Klee, Paul (1929) Highroads and Byroads
comparable to human creativity, finding that: “In general, completely random twodimensional pictures are not very interesting. However, the computer is also able to mix together randomness and order in mathematically specified proportions to achieve the desired effect” (Noll, 1972). Noll would go on to investigate the concept of ‘human-or-machine’, a correlative study that would have the machine compete with the artist to determine how the aesthetic experience operates. Entitled ‘Computer Composition With Lines’(1965), (Fig. 3), Noll attempted a method of digital appropriation by replicating the process of artist Piet Mondrian’s work, entitled ‘Composition In Line’(1917), (Fig. 4), generating his work using pseudo-random processes by approximating then followed by encoding.Astounding to some, Nolls experiment revealed that his subjects favoured the computer-generated artwork to Mondrian’s real paintings. For many, this experiment exhibited a risk to artistic originality, with the power of technology bringing anxieties that surround the future of art that would undermine the creative genius of artists.
Artist Harold Cohen opened his renowned essay, ‘On purpose, an enquiry into the possible roles of the computer in art’(1974), with the words: “This is not another article about
13
Figure 3: Noll, M (1965) Computer Composition With Lines.
Figure 4: Mondrian, P (1917) Composition In Line.
‘computer art’”, in which Cohen questioned how technology could serve artistic intention, comparable to Noll’s pursuit of using technology as a tool, both of which left an influence from their artistic practice on the manner of which contemporary artists use algorithms and coding as a creative language. Unlike previous ‘computer artists’that were primarily mathematicians or engineers, Cohen previously had a well-established career as an abstract artist and “was one of those selected to take on the responsibility of enhancing the prestige of Great Britain through the arts” and to show “the strength of British abstract art” (Spencer, 1966). In Studio International, 1966, whereby Cohen was celebrated for his abstract work, Marcel Duchamp spoke on the inclination of art and technology, stating that: “They [the artists] have to get somebody as a progenitor so as not to look as though they invent it all by themselves. But art will be sunk or drowned by technology. […] Technology will surely drown us. The individual is disappearing rapidly. We’ll eventually be nothing but numbered ants” (Ashton, 1966). Fortuitously, Cohen proceeded to follow down a path of programming his artworks from that point onward, finding that it would open the door to a distinctive change in how he would use his artistic creativity with his perspective of painting, finding that: “The program does not have eyes, so it could not have the same visual feedback system that a human being colourist has. Instead of thinking about what it couldn’t do, I started to think about what it could do.And I suddenly realised that the computer can do something that human beings can’t. Once it makes marks in colour, it has an impeccable memory of what was there. The programme started to ‘colour adequately’”, (Cohen, 1974). In Cohen’s 1974 essay, he furthered the algorithmic revolution to a ‘cultural revolution’, marking the emergence of the use of ‘DigitalArt’. Cohen went on to develop a computer program named AARON in an artificial intelligence lab, which involved programming a robot to create drawings, evolving on a human-like path whereby it began from primary pictographic forms through to full-colour figurative imagery. The use ofAARON, to Cohen, was not a tool in an
14
orthodox sense but instead a way of aiding the artist in his creations, which came to be a continually maintained artificial intelligence system in future art history.Amidst Cohen’s exploration ofArtificial Intelligence, the question of whether the art practice had artistic integrity remained prevalent in the art world, with anxieties over challenging the role of the artist and its authorship, and the aura that comes with a new genre of aesthetic quality.Albeit the digital medium has unique capabilities and provides new avenues to push the boundaries of creativity, there were concerns over the proper attribution to the original artist as digitality offers ease in copying, altering, and reproducing. Since the introduction of artificial intelligence with the intent to create artworks, there have remained debates about whether the artist or technology can be credited, which has called into question the role of human creativity and the impact of technology on the artistic process.
1:2 The Introduction of the Internet
The 1980s marked a critical juncture in the evolution of digital art, whereby the distribution of personal computers allowed the general public to access computer graphics programs. Despite the constraints of primitive computer systems, the collaborative efforts of visual artists and computer scientists led to technological advancements in the field of digital art. With transformative technologies such asAdobe Illustrator and Quantel Paintbox, artists could create intricate illustrations due to the simplification of complex tasks Synonymous with the algorithmic revolution wherein the boundaries of formalist aesthetic principles were challenged, this new Postmodernist era questioned the traditional notions that art was to serve a purpose of aesthetic contemplation. These technological advances call attention to the possibility that machines could meet the utility of human beings; nevertheless, the actuality is that the rules of representation in imagery changed to a more varied approach, instead extending human capabilities. Keith Haring, one of the most significant artists associated with digital art in the 1980s, experimented with Quantel Paintbox on a then-avant-garde Macintosh
15
computer, a precursor to the now-habitually used Photoshop According to Haring, the use of Paintbox changed the concept of ‘image’(Haring, 1989), with the computer redefining the composition of ‘picture space’due to the disregard for physical gestures in art creation. However, it added malleability of which he explained in his 1989 journal: “This Paintbox I was using in Rome could mix colours just like a palette, as well as pick up colours from the photos and duplicate them. It was just like mixing paint, except no mess. It’s only electrons and light”. Quantel Paintbox brought digital images into all aspects of life, such as television, logos, and music videos (Wilson, 2023), exciting audiences yet also enlightening avant-garde artists of the aesthetics and visual language of the digital age.As artists like Haring embraced new aesthetic and creative possibilities, alongside its accessibility, it allowed them to reassess their relationship with museums and galleries; the emergence of the Internet in the 1990s allowed the public to access digital artworks on a global basis.
Computers such as the Sinclair ZX Spectrum,Acorn Electron, and Commodore 64 (Lean, 2016) revealed information technology to the masses. Notably, it revolutionised how artists communicated their unique perspectives through online networks. The 1990s was a decade that online art galleries and cyber museums made its appearance, holding key digital art events such as the SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques) conference that exemplified the vigour of the digital art community and interest for the role of the computer in artistic innovation (Linehan, 1990). The year 1992 marked the opening of Cyberspace Gallery in West Hollywood, California, being a notable subspace devoted to computer and electronic art founded by Michael J. Masucci and Patric D. Prince (EZTV Museum, Cyberspace Gallery).Art historian and curator Patric Prince, a pioneering digital art collector, was one of the earliest to acknowledge the significance and possibilities of these emerging art forms. With her involvement in the Cyberspace Gallery, Prince allowed for digital artists to involve a wider audience and bring public recognition to
16
the digital revolution taking place on desktop computers. In addition to showcasing group exhibitions, the gallery went on to present individual shows of well-known digital artists, such as Barbara Nessim, who attracted recognition for her work in traditional media (V&A, Patric D. Prince). The Cyberspace Gallery garnered significant media coverage in LosAngeles, which soon became the primary source for showcasing computer and electronic art to the general public, setting the benchmark for all other digital art galleries to follow (EZTV Museum, Cyberspace Gallery).
Internet art, or ‘NetArt’, describes art production using a computer to download images for online exhibition, or create artwork using a program (InternetArt, Tate Gallery). The term NetArt was first introduced in 1995 and coined by Slovenian artist Vuk Cosic (Greene, 2004), who stumbled upon the term after opening an email with jumbled text due to a software glitch, whereby the only legible text was the words “NetArt”. This term gained vast recognition, characterised by online exchanges such as emails, which merged communication and graphics into a single entity. The Internet became a means of art promotion free of the constraints of institutional approval and the boundaries of aesthetic conformity. Net artists explored the Internet’s distinctive characteristics of immediacy and immateriality, and rather than aiming for refined and clean images shown by algorithmic art of the 60s and 70s, they deliberately embraced an aesthetic of malfunction or breakdown to transgress artistic expression. In her research on the significance of the digital arts in modern communication, Dr Carolyn Kane wrote in her book High-Tech Trash: Glitch, Noise andAesthetic Failure (2019): “They then began finding a new vernacular, a visual vernacular of error, glitch and noise to reintroduce novelty into computer aesthetics”. These changes marked the end of the ‘digital revolution’, with access to the computer, technology, and the digital world perpetually becoming the new natural; the tool or medium was no longer necessarily central to producing an artwork (Cramer, 2014). NetArt refers to the first generation of artists, including Vuk Cosic, Olia
17
Lialina, JODI and Heath Bunting (Greene, 2004), with their involvement in the discourse around defining and materialising the movement within the art market. The intangible nature and presentation of Internet art raises concerns regarding the ideologies of the art world, whereby it cannot be confined to commercial viabilities due to its collaborative style and impermanence as an art form. The development of InternetArt, or New Media, has shifted the traditional framework of authorship thus the role of the artist has become multifaceted
18
Chapter Two
Digital Art in the Twenty-First Century
2:1 Digital Culture
Technology allowed art to evolve into an umbrella term for a diverse range of practices that began to expand in the 1990s and 2000s after the introduction of the Internet to widespread culture. For clarity, regarding Internet art, ‘net art’describes art produced in the 1990s and is referred to as “Web 1.0.” (Chatel, 2019) In 2006, artists and media theorists Marisa Olson, Gene McHugh, and Artie Vierkant coined the term ’Post-internetArt’, defined as art after the internet, en route to a technological adaptation to ‘Web 2.0.’. Intersections of advancements, such as social media, became a means for artists to share their work instantaneously, and hereafter became ubiquitous in society and culture. Contradictory to Olson, many criticised this ‘empty’term of ‘Post-Internet’, with artist and curator Zach Blas finding that it instigated “saturation” and “(pseudo)-totalisation”, whereby it does not manifest the subcultural and transgressive digital discourses and dismisses the idea that this could be a Contemporary moment: “Post internet, and specifically within the context of art, simply could be understood as a term that represents the digitalisation and decentralization of all contemporary art (via the internet) as well as the abandonment of all the New Media specificities. Post-internet, then, is not a category but a condition: a contemporary art” (Rahma, 2022). Existing through physical galleries, Post-Internet, or ‘post-digital’, is not a reflection of art created using the internet but, instead, a reflection of the internet’s effect, being embedded in handling ideas of ownership and originality and blurring the lines between the real and digital worlds. Prevalent in today’s art world under the weight of technology is a reconceptualization of authorship and materiality, meaning that redefining our theoretical notions of how art is viewed and collected
19
is necessary In the early 2010s, artist Petra Cortright became associated with the ongoing digital post-internet movement by creating a series of short statement videos, cofounding the notion of selfies and forms of self-representation in social media (Brown, 2022). In Cortright’s webcam video entitled ‘VVEBCAM’(2007), (Fig. 3 & 4), the artist sits stoically in front of her desktop computer while manipulating cartoonish clip art on her screen before uploading the media to YouTube, expanding contemporary representations of self-portraiture. The museum in which Cortright’s ‘VVEBCAM’was exhibited, the Museum of ModernArt, New York, often kept its collection galleries unchanged for long periods, however when the museum reopened in 2019 it aimed to use its vast collection to tell fresh stories and create a new path toward an era of the deterioration of ‘high’and ‘low’art forms (Boucher, 2020).
Social networks, used by Cortright, allowed artists to involve a much further audience into their works, with ‘Web 2.0’, as previously mentioned, being defined by its participatory features. This participatory aspect can be described as interactive art, and alongside digital art’s newfound acceptance in museums and galleries, which have control of the narrative of art, digital installations, virtual reality, and projection mapping allowed artists and viewers to have the opportunity to experience the digital dimension and its “real-virtual” boundary (Cooper, 2022).
20
Figure 5: Cortright, Petra (2007) VVEBCAM.
Figure 6: Cortright, Petra (2007) VVEBCAM. (Screenshot of Reconstructed YouTube Page)
Although digital artists use technology to produce their works, their characterisation and reflection of our technological age continue to come under scrutiny; therefore, digital art remains in its own domain with rare convergence into the traditional art world from a fine art perspective. This quick transmission of digital images and changes in aesthetic quality adds to the hesitance and anxieties of digital art as a legitimate art form with aesthetic integrity, with art historian James Elkins’explaining that: “We have been moving away from complexity and toward an ideal of rapid communication and schematic clarity. Our pictures are simpler, both in the fine arts and in scientific illustration. There is a practical reason for this, since it is no longer necessary to create complicated networks of lines in order to place three-dimensional (3D) objects on flat surfaces (computers and photographs do that invisibly), (Elkins, 1994). The early 2000s marked the integration of social media in everyday life, with the launch of Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), Twitter (2006) and the iPhone (2007) heavily influencing young artists who incorporated these novelties into their work. Digital culture led to the consideration of online presence, artistic appropriation and copyright limitations (Nascimento, 2022). In contemporary times, it has become ordinary to come across artworks that employ diverse forms such as Internet creations or multimedia, however, these artworks may not necessarily embody the digital art aesthetic. Beginning in the 2010s, the new wave of artworks that emerged relied the concepts and language of the Internet and digital vocabulary (Nascimento, 2022), including a focus on appropriation and borrowing as well as an interest in the mundane.
2:2 NFTs andArtificial Intelligence
Digital art has undergone a significant transformation in the last decade as it continues to enmesh with technology, and the manner in which it is consumed, shared and subsequently sold is in a constant state of evolution. The development of digital art has caused technology and art to intertwine into one entity, and in many ways, it has overlapped and merged into
21
new art forms, such as augmented reality and virtual reality. However, in the art market, this resulted in unique ownership issues concerning digital art which has challenged the traditional methods of commodifying artworks, with efforts to find a stable means of establishing authenticity.Alongside the use of Blockchain technology, the introduction of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) revolutionised the landscape of art ownership by adding verifiable proof toward the new era ‘Web 3.0’. In a pursuit of selling his artworks in digital form, Kevin McCoy minted the first NFT in 2014 titled ‘Quantum’, created using the cryptocurrency Namecoin (Creighton, 2022), which marked the new art form, digital crypto art. NFTs allow digital artists to tokenise their work before selling them on many different online platforms, resulting in more control of their artworks and ability to keep a larger share of their sale proceeds, and therefore, this new approach confronts the conventions of artists to rely on passive income. Regarding digital media, unauthorised copying and distribution of content previously raised concerns that often resulted in copyright infringement (Singh, 2023), however, NFTs has seemingly emerged as a solution to assert ownership and retain control over artworks The artistic and cultural spheres are rapidly embracing NFTs, resulting in a transformation of the conventional art and media landscape, as artworks are no longer confined to private spaces for personal appreciation, shared in both museums and mobile screens. Furthermore, various facets of media, including video games, lines of code, and GIFs (Beyneix, 2023), are newly becoming commercialised and can be regarded as legitimate art forms. The introduction of NFTs fundamentally changes our understanding of the factors that contribute to how we value a work of art, and how society communicates its collective values through artistic expression. The very existence of NFTs transforms artworks into currency, which many criticise as it can be conceived as compressing artistic expression whereby it detaches itself from cultural worth and traditional fine art values.
22
Following the exploration of non-fungible tokens and Blockchain technology, generative art gained momentum as a radical way to create NFT artworks as a crypto art practice. The world of NFT generative art has begun to flourish within the crypto community, offering an alternative to the traditional art scene by using a modern, digital medium. The aesthetic roots of generative art can be traced back to the avant-garde algorithmic art of the 1960s, whereby the artist allows an autonomous system to make the decisions in creating an artwork. The artists of the algorithmic movement placed value upon unpredictability, and combined with the new technologies of Web 3.0, these aesthetic possibilities have continued through to current computer-based generative projects on the Blockchain (Boucher, 2023).
Distinguished artists who work in the realm of NFT artworks such as Tyler Hobbs, Refik Anadol andAnna Ridler utilise generative artificial-intelligence (AI) algorithms of which has transpired as an exceptional tool in depicting the aesthetic of unpredictability. Sougwen Chung, an accomplished multidisciplinary artist, merges hand-drawn and computer-generated elements in their work in order to explore the relationship between human and machine. Through various mediums, including installation, sculpture, and performance, Chung investigates the ways in which both manual and digital mark-making contribute to our understanding of humans and digital systems. Chung ‘collaborates’(Kaufman, 2020) with artificial intelligence, calling their work “embodiedAI” (Boucher, 2023) as they explained in an interview with the Washington Post: “I was interested in the physical embodiment, and what it would feel like to evolve my own drawing practice, and I hadn’t seen robots used collaboratively at that time.” (Kaufman, 2020). Throughout their practice, Chung worked alongsideAI driven robot D.O.U.G (Drawing Operations Unit: Generation_1) (Nair, 2020) of which would mimic the artist’s brushstrokes whilst they were painting with their hand (Fig. 7), resulting in a human and machine collaboration. Chung explains that this concept of cocreation is an extension of Harold Cohen’s artificial intelligence program ‘AARON’, as
23
previously discussed, which proposes a mechanical approach to artistic creation, and that her own program suggests “a metaphor for human machine symbiosis through behavioral empathy” (Chung, 2018).
Following Chung’s work, generativeAI has become a tool of noteworthy potential for many digital artists due to the concept of virtual collaborator, which could amplify their artistic vision, being an assistant in creating distinctive aesthetic value The integration of generativeAI with the emerging technologies of the Web 3.0 infrastructure and the Blockchain has potential to lead to the creation of authentic NFTs that display their origin through algorithmic processes, and furthermore, allows for artists to redefine the concept of originality in art (Marr, 2023). Conversely, much ofAI art faces criticism for its lack of fundamental traits of human creativity, being emotional depth and intention, positing that the absence of genuine experiences with the artwork relegates them to be mere simulations of creativity and reality (Chow, 2023). This criticism suggests thatAI generated artworks, while impressive in their complexity on a technical basis, ultimately fall short of being true expressions of artistry as they lack the human capacity to draw upon personal experience and emotion to inform their depictions.AI algorithms are being increasingly utilised by artists to
24
Figure 7: Chung, S (2015) Drawing Operations Unit: Generation_1 (D.O.U.G).
employ new styles, experiment with various mediums, and reimagine classic masterpieces; as shown in Michael Sim’s ‘Starry Night, Reimagined’(2023), (Fig. 8) which was created using Blocklade Labs Skybox AI image generator (Sim, 2023). This process includes training the AI system to comprehend the artist’s style and aesthetics, therefore adhering to their creative vision, however simultaneously raising concerns in regard to where the line exists between the artist’s intentions and the involvement of artificial intelligence.Although artificial intelligence has the ability to construct complex outputs, they currently lack the ability to fully understand the artwork that they generate, and the perceived ‘intelligence’of their systems is subject to interpretation by the viewer (Arielli, 2013). Hence, the key question may not be about genuine authorial intent present inAI-generated creation, but instead the potential influence of this technological advancement on our perception of authorship from the position of viewer.
2:3 Technology asAuthor
Prior to considering whetherAI-generated artworks challenge the notion of human authorship, it is essential to recognise that the possibility of there being no ‘real’author is not novel, and not either is it restricted to the domain of artificially created content. In his
25
Figure 8: Sim, M (2023) Starry Night, Reimagined
renowned 1968 essay, French literary critic Roland Barthes proclaimed ‘The Death of the Author’in which he posited that a work’s interpretation should not be limited to the author’s intentions and personal background since every artistic creation is a culmination of various influences, calling this a “tissue of citations” (Barthes, 1977). This ideology can be linked to the previous avant-garde movements, which lessened, or so much as negated the control of the artist, with the implementation of techniques such as chance or automatism to be observed as spontaneous and collective creativity; therefore, reducing the artist’s role in order to mimic a “machine-like” condition (Arielli, 2013). Theories concerning the “Death of the Author”, albeit convincing, struggle to resonate with general attitudes of the viewer. It can be argued that in daily experiences there is a tendency to attribute intentionality to creation, leading to consequent contemplation of authorship behind it, and despite compelling philosophical arguments that suggest authorial intention to be almost illusory, it remains that is natural to wonder what the motivations behind an individual’s work could be. In application toAI-generated artworks, with its new structure of autonomy which possesses its own decision-making abilities, it can be concluded that human authorship has progressed to an entirely new form of authorship which imitates human creativity. Due to the absence in human authorship,AI-generated artworks have been ruled as an art form that cannot be copyrighted, decided in 2023 by a federal judge in Washington, D.C, U.S. (Legal.io, 2023) in a case involving computer scientist Stephen Thaler who attempted to become copyright author for his artificial intelligence system entitled ‘Creativity Machine’(2023). This ruling consequently obliges the acknowledgement of AI systems as the creators, or author, of original artworks.
Artificial intelligence systems are trained on data, including images drawn from other artist’s work, and therefore the state of originality that characterises artworks comes into question when applying toAI-generated art.An example of this is theAI-generator named
26
‘Stable Diffusion’whereby the system analysed billions of images which are collected from the Internet and recognised their styles and techniques to translate into its own artwork, and consequently, this causes anxieties for artists to publicly share their work online in fear of the generator mimicking their authentic style. The advent ofAI-generated works has accumulated much debate surrounding the replacement of human creativity, and less ‘need’for human artists which can be replaced by robots. However, amongst the efficiency of artificial intelligence, the notion of art generators replacing human creativity is improbable as it is paradoxical to compare with the intrinsic value of the human touch, whereby it cannot provide the depth in our personal insight and experiences which is at the soul of powerful art. It can be concluded that, asAI is created by humans, and artificial intelligence is a technological extension of human capabilities, that with human guidance in the process of generating artworks, it can be considered to have artistic integrity.
27
Conclusion
This dissertation set out to discuss the intersection of art and technology and its impact on digital art, focusing on the validity, integrity and artistic principles of new forms of art creation. This study evaluates that the integration of art and technological advancements allows for exciting and innovative artistic possibilities, bringing forward interesting and essential discourses surrounding the role of the artist who collaborates with technology.Art is both influenced by, and reflective of society With the newfound accessibility of technology, by the means of mobile phones or computers, it is become increasingly common for artists to seek for digital art to be introduced into society. The impact of technology throughout digital art history has repeatedly charged debate over the dependence of technology to create an artwork, however it can be concluded that it acts as an extension of human capabilities.
Throughout this dissertation, the research in the evolution of aesthetic qualities and individual artists’intent has informed the response from artists and critics alike, who have been hesitant to accept the use of technology in art throughout history. The experimentations and resolved works of digital artists from the 1960s through to current time have continuously pushed the boundaries of creativity, by exploring the digital medium’s special capabilities that create new avenues for aesthetic change.Although there is prevalent discourse that dismiss digital art as a true art form for not the vagueness of whether the artist or technology can be credited, this era fundamentally questions the traditional notions that art is to serve a purpose of aesthetic contemplation; which can, on reflection, be considered as a contemporary moment. This study has found that the use of technology in the arts reflects the technological age we live in, with Petra Cortright demonstrating the novelties of ‘real-virtual’ boundary that has become increasingly relevant as digital culture intertwines with contemporary daily life. The introduction of Internet art, virtual reality, and digital
28
installations has introduced a type of digital language which initiates new aesthetic qualities and in turn new audiences This research concludes that although the medium or tool changes, the ultimate goal for most digital artists is to reflect contemporary life by utilising the new technologies that coincides it.
The contributions to the evolution of digital art by Vera Molnár, Harold Cohen andA. Michael Noll of whom partnered with scientific labs to gain access to the most advanced computers of the time, contributed to moulding current digital technologies and aesthetic qualities. Cohen’s work with his drawing machineAARON has explored the advent of artificial decision making, which has informed the work ofAI-generated artworks today. This research has shown that artificial intelligence has evolved to be a unique means of aiding an artist in creating their work, however it is undeniable that the weaknesses regarding authorship, authenticity and uniqueness remain as a relevant debate Artificial intelligence is congruous with operating repetitive and data-driven duties, and therefore, it could be concluded that AI can only be accepted as an extension of the artist, as shown in Sougwen Chung’s work, as the human interaction with an artwork are inevitably more valuable in the art world than a pureAI-generated artwork that does not involve sufficient artist-AI collaboration In regard to the ever-growing model of non-fungible tokens, the risk of plagiarism, and the necessity for protection of the rights of artists, has contributed to the concerns that NFTs are illegitimate, and therefore it is clear that work needs to be done to safeguard artists creations and ensures indemnity.
The evolution from early algorithmic experimentations through to artificial intelligence of the twenty-first century has pushed the conversation of what art is characterised by, whether that be only human expression, or if there is an essential attribute to art that we cannot yet pin down. The future of digital art would ultimately anticipate the further development of technology due to the rapid advancement ofAI models, however the
29
imitation of human tendencies and experiences could be considered nonpareil to the familiarity of the creation by the human artist. This dissertation has explored the retention that there is an uncertain future of digital art in our rapidly evolving digital age. The relevance of artistic integrity gains emphasis in regard to the ongoing progression of complex systems and dynamic nature of artificial intelligence, with the role of the artist and artistic intention edging further toward a grey area; creating the essentiality that we continue to consider the impact of the technological impact on the art world.
30
Bibliography
Amerika, M. (2022) An interview with Frieder Nake, RSS. Available at: https://www.rightclicksave.com/article/an-interview-with-frieder-nake (Accessed: 27 November 2023).
Anderson, M. (2023) Brief history of digital art, World Art News. Available at: https://worldart.news/2023/01/23/brief-history-of-digital-art/ (Accessed: 01 January 2024).
Arielli, E. (2013) AI-aesthetics and the artificial author. thesis. Available at: https://philarchive.org/archive/ARIAAT-8 (Accessed: 09 January 2024).
Arora, N. (2023) Vera Molnár: The Pioneer of Computer Art, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@nitisharora41/vera-moln%C3%A1r-the-pioneer-of-computer-art-5300e225457e (Accessed: 23 December 2023).
ArtPlacer (2023) What is Digital Art?: A definition of a new medium and media, ArtPlacer. Available at: https://www.artplacer.com/what-is-digital-art-the-history-and-value-of-an-evolving-concept/ (Accessed: 27 November 2023).
Ashton, D. (1966) ‘An interview with Marcel Duchamp’, Studio International, 1 June, p. 247. Available at: https://archive.studiointernational.com/SI1966/june/vol171-no878.html (Accessed: 10 December 2023).
Baby, V. (2022) ‘Vera Molnar Interview with Vincent Baby (Version Anglaise)’, AWARE
Barthes, R. (1977) Barthes, Roland the death of the author, sites.tufts.edu. Available at: https://sites.tufts.edu/english292b/files/2012/01/Barthes-The-Death-of-the-Author.pdf (Accessed: 10 January 2024).
Berry, D.M. and Dieter, M. (no date) Postdigital Aesthetics, Uc Santa Barbara. Available at: https://raley.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/Engl800/postdigital-aesthetics.pdf (Accessed: 04 January 2024).
Beyneix, I. (2023) Non-fungible tokens pose new challenges to art and media law, LSE Business Review Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2023/10/10/non-fungible-tokens-pose-newchallenges-to-art-and-media-law/ (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Boucher, B. (2020) As moma rehangs a full third of its collection, the art of the internet age takes center stag, Artnet News. Available at: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/moma-reinstalled-collection-galleries1924027 (Accessed: 29 November 2023).
Boucher, B. (2023) What is generative art? A quintessentially Modern Art Form, Sothebys.com. Available at: https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/generative-art-a-quintessentially-modern-art-form (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Brown, K. (2022) ‘I’m a defender of beauty and simplicity’: Petra Cortright on why she has no interest in jumping on the political art bandwagon, Artnet News. Available at: https://news.artnet.com/artworld/petra-cortright-societe-2064414 (Accessed: 30 November 2023).
Bull, A. (2017) To what extent has new media been a driver of change in art and society. thesis. University of York.
Camille, M. et al. (1996) ‘Rethinking the canon’, The Art Bulletin, 78(2), p. 198. doi:10.2307/3046172.
31
Chatel, M. (2019) Net art, post-internet art, new aesthetics: The fundamentals of art on the internet, Medium Available at: https://medium.com/danae/net-art-post-internet-art-new-aesthetics-the-fundamentals-of-arton-the-internet-55dcbd9d6a5 (Accessed: 30 November 2023).
Chow, Z. (2023) Is ai art really ‘art’?, Medium. Available at: https://zafchow.medium.com/introductiondefining-the-ai-art-debate-54a45a120284 (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Chung, S. (2018) Myths of human and Machine, Sougwen Chung (愫君). Available at: https://sougwen.com/myths-of-human-and-machine (Accessed: 09 January 2024).
Cohen, H. (1974) On purpose: An enquiry into the possible roles of the computer in art, Studio InternationalVisual Arts, Design and Architecture. Available at: https://www.studiointernational.com/index.php/onpurpose-an-enquiry-into-the-possible-roles-of-the-computer-in-art (Accessed: 25 November 2023).
Cooper, Z. (2022) The future of art: 8 digital installations and interactive spaces - architizer journal, Architizer Available at: https://architizer.com/blog/inspiration/collections/digital-art-projection-installations/ (Accessed: 20 December 2023).
Cramer, F. (2014) What is ‘Post-Digital’?, Lab404. Available at: http://www.lab404.com/142/cramer.pdf (Accessed: 04 January 2024).
Creighton, J. (2022) NFT timeline: The beginnings and history of nfts - NFT now, nft now. Available at: https://nftnow.com/guides/nft-timeline-the-beginnings-and-history-of-nfts/ (Accessed: 05 January 2024).
Delaplaine, S. (no date) The Brave New Virtual Art World The Evolution of Digital Art: NFTs and their Effects on the Art Market in 2021 MA thesis. Student Scholarship and Creative Work at Digital Commons at SIA.
Digital Art · V&A (no date) Victoria and Albert Museum. Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/digitalart (Accessed: 25 November 2023).
Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (European Parliament), Santos, C. and Girão (1970) The historical relationship between artistic activities and Technology Development, Publications Office of the EU. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/80680aff-be3f-11e99d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-239784962 (Accessed: 26 November 2023).
Druid (2022) AB 101: Historical figures in Generative Art - A. Michael Noll, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/the-link-art-blocks/ab-101-historical-figures-in-generative-art-a-michael-noll5a23ea78ac41 (Accessed: 29 November 2023).
Dsouza, L. (2022) Evolution of art and technology, Motiva. Available at: https://www.motiva.art/blog/arttechnology-evolution/ (Accessed: 26 November 2023).
Elkins, J. (1994) ‘Art history and the criticism of computer-generated images’, Leonardo, 27(4), p. 335. doi:10.2307/1576009.
EZTV Museum (no date) EZTV online: Cyberspace Gallery, CyberSpace Gallery - EZTV Museum. Available at: https://eztvmuseum.com/cyberspace-gallery-introduction (Accessed: 01 January 2024).
Greene, R. (2004) ‘Web Work - A History of Internet Art’, in Internet art. London, United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson, p. 162.
Haring, K, Designboom, M.B.| (2023) Keith Haring, Digital Artist? rare 1980s computer drawings resurface as nfts at Christie’s, designboom. Available at: https://www.designboom.com/art/keith-haring-nft-digitalartworks-1980s-amiga-computer-christies-09-06-2023/ (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
32
Harold Cohen: The first digital artist (no date) Chiswick Auctions. Available at: https://www.chiswickauctions.co.uk/news-item/harold-cohen the-first-digital-artist/ (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
Huybrechts, H. (2015) A. Michael Noll, Hannes Huybrechts. Available at: https://hanneshuybrechts.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/a-michael-noll/ (Accessed: 27 December 2023).
Interruptions by Vera Molnar (2021) DAM MUSEUM. Available at: https://dam.org/museum/artists_ui/artists/molnar-vera/interruptions/ (Accessed: 08 December 2023).
Kaufman, S.L. (2020) Artist Sougwen Chung collaborates and paints with A.I. Robots - the ..., Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/ai-artificial-intelligence-artsougwen-chung/ (Accessed: 09 January 2024).
Lean, T. (2016) A brave new world: The 1980s Home Computer Boom, HistoryExtra. Available at: https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/a-brave-new-world-the-1980s-home-computer-boom/ (Accessed: 20 December 2023).
Legal.io (2023) The AI art debate: Can machines own copyrights?, Legal.io. Available at: https://www.legal.io/articles/5441314/The-AI-Art-Debate-Can-Machines-Own-Copyrights (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Linehan, T.E. (1990) SIGGRAPH 1990: Digital image-digital cinema, ACM SIGGRAPH ART SHOW ARCHIVES. Available at: https://digitalartarchive.siggraph.org/exhibition/siggraph-1990-digital-imagedigitalcinema/#:~:text=The%20SIGGRAPH%20’90%20Art%20Show%20is%20made%20possible%20through %20the,both%20artistic%20innovation%20and%20conservation. (Accessed: 01 January 2024).
Marr, B. (2023) The future of art: Generative AI, Web3 and the immersive internet, Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/07/28/the-future-of-art-generative-ai-web3-and-theimmersive-internet/?sh=4701279a1357 (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Martin, B. (2023) Vera Molnár: The grande dame of generative art, Sothebys.com. Available at: https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/vera-molnar-the-grande-dame-of-generative-art (Accessed: 08 December 2023).
Museum, V. and A. (2009) Hommage à Paul Klee, 13/9/65 nr.2: Nake, Frieder: V&A explore the collections, Victoria and Albert Museum: Explore the Collections. Available at: https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O211685/hommage-a-paul-klee-13965-print-nake-frieder/hommage%C3%A0-paul-klee-13965-print-nake-frieder/ (Accessed: 23 November 2023).
Nascimento, B.L. (2022) The Digital Art Paradox - Understanding Its Issues and Dynamics. thesis. Available at: https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/28550/1/Master_beatriz_lopes_nascimento.pdf (Accessed: 07 January 2024).
Nair, S. (2020) Sougwen Chung talks about her robot collaborator D.O.U.G. and the future of ai, STIRworld. Available at: https://www.stirworld.com/see-features-sougwen-chung-talks-about-her-robot-collaboratord-o-u-g-and-the-future-of-ai (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Nake, F. (2005) ‘Computer art: a personal recollection’, Proceedings of the 5th conference on Creativity & Cognition, London, United Kingdom, April 12-15, 2005 [Preprint]. doi:10.1145/1056224.1056234.
New technologies: Pushing the boundaries of Art - Hello Future (2022) Orange: Hello Future. Available at: https://hellofuture.orange.com/en/interactive/new-technologies-pushing-the-boundaries-of-art/ (Accessed: 26 November 2023).
Noll, A.M. (1972) Man-machine tactile communication. dissertation. University Microfilms.
33
Norman, J.M. (2023) Michael Noll’s ‘human or machine’ : Comparing Computer-generated art with human created art, Michael Noll’s ‘Human or Machine’ : Comparing Computer-Generated Art with Human Created Art : History of Information. Available at: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3978 (Accessed: 23 December 2023).
Rahma, A.A. (2022) Post internet phenomenon and its representation in the world of art, Al Tashkeel. Available at: https://altashkeel.ae/post-internet-phenomenon-and-its-representation-in-the-world-of-art/ (Accessed: 27 December 2023).
Sim, M. (2023) Starry Night, reimagined: A gallery of ai artwork inspired by Van Gogh’s masterpiece, Medium Available at: https://medium.com/@ChicagoDesign/starry-night-reimagined-a-gallery-of-ai-artworkinspired-by-van-goghs-masterpiece-821fe4058c33 (Accessed: 09 January 2024).
Singh, A. (2023) The impact of nfts on Digital Art and media ownership, LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-nfts-digital-art-media-ownership-aasthasingh#:~:text=The%20inherent%20transparency%20and%20traceability,be%20used%20and%20by%20 whom. (Accessed: 08 January 2024).
Souter, A. (2017) Digital Art Movement Overview, The Art Story. Edited by K. Nichols and P. Aramphongphan. Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/movement/digital-art/ (Accessed: 27 November 2023).
Spencer, C.S. (1966) ‘Venice Biennale: choosing the artists’, Studio International, 1 June, pp. 230–32. Available at: https://archive.studiointernational.com/SI1966/june/vol171-no878.html (Accessed: 10 December 2023).
Tate (no date) Digital Art, Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/d/digital-art (Accessed: 27 November 2023).
Tate (no date) Internet art, Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/i/internetart#:~:text=Net%20art%20emerged%20in%20the,political%2C%20social%20or%20cultural%20constrai nts. (Accessed: 29 November 2023).
Taylor, G.D. (2014) ‘When the machine made art: The Troubled History of Computer Art’, International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics, 7. doi:10.5040/9781628929980.
Team, L. (2023) The history of nfts, LCX. Available at: https://www.lcx.com/the-history-of-nfts/ (Accessed: 07 January 2024).
Thomson, K., Purcell, K. and Rainie, L. (2013) Section 6: Overall impact of technology on the arts, Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/01/04/section-6-overall-impact-of-technology-on-the-arts/ (Accessed: 03 January 2024).
V&A (no date) Patric D. Prince: Digital art visionary, Victoria and Albert Museum. Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/patric-d-prince-digital-art-visionary (Accessed: 01 January 2024).
Vass, K. (2022) Harold Cohen Aaron - Computer art, Kate Vass Galerie. Available at: https://www.katevassgalerie.com/blog/harold-cohen-aaron-computer-art (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
Wands, B. (2006) Art of the Digital Age, Immersence. Available at: https://www.immersence.com/publications/2006/2006-BWands.html (Accessed: 28 November 2023).
West, K. et al. (2020) The long 2010s, Kunstkritikk. Available at: https://kunstkritikk.com/the-long-2010s/ (Accessed: 07 January 2024).
34
Wilson, A. (2023) ‘How Quantel’s Paintbox Changed Our World’, How Quantel’s Paintbox Changed Our World Exhibition Catalogue. Available at: https://computer-arts-society.com/exhibitions/CAS-QuantelPaintbox-Catalogue.pdf (Accessed: 27 December 2023).
35
