Wesley Bull
Responding to this week’s reading I found the comparison of human engagement with art and technology to be the most intriguing part. It made me consider a lot of what we do is controlled by our devices and source of understanding. Especially the writing “ The Cybernetic Stance: My Process and Purpose” by Roy Ascott he refers to the idea of how art and technology interact and what questions it brings. For example, he explains his theory of a paradox; the battle between living in the future and how objects (art) consist of time. I constantly find myself confused about the topic of art and how it plays a role in society. Obviously, because of the new age of art, the resources and concepts have become further from the human hand stemming more into a theoretical understanding. Art traditional being created from tangible material seemed to be more realistic, whereas now art being created in a fictional realm seems alien, but is it that different? I wonder about the contradicting notions of art and technology; humans being the root of all things that demonstrate function but creating things that contain their own complex form of communication and language making them function without humans.
Ascott also mentions how to interpret art, even though I think it’s impossible to trap the concept of art in a box, I always appreciate people’s determination to try. He explains the context of the art and how the historical intentions of art have played a role in our motives. In a similar way, I feel that art could offer more if we comprehended the origins and meaning, but I remind myself how glorious art can be by allowing the freedom of self-interpretation. Whereas technology plays a more literal role because we don’t need to question its function and it acts on our demands through programming.