The Philosophy of Digital Art

plato.stanford.edu

32 points·Vigier··8 comments

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a wonderful resource and a rare bird: It's a refereed work by > 1500 professional philosophers, and it's free. When I want to read in-depth about a topic in mathematics or logic, for example, (and if there is an SEP article on it) there are few authoritative alternatives on the web.

The articles are written by subject specialists in a field which focuses on the subtleties and complexities of reasoning, and they aren't writing for the evening news, so their articles do take some time and investment from the reader.

Consider supprorting them: http://plato.stanford.edu/support/

Move along. No discernible point made here, philosophical or otherwise.

Since at least Book X of Plato's Republic no one has come up with a better definition of Art than "derivative mimetic representations" of ideal forms. But, is "digital art" any different?

How will "interactivity", "virtuality", "ephemerality", "networks", "presence", "artificiality" and "trans-humanism" alter the traditional notion of a single author of a work attempting to achieve immortality? And does it truly matter? Or are we just prejudiced by the fact we have not yet seen digital Picasso's or Dali's?

Perhaps the pace of technology has outstripped the ability of artists to be the vanguard? Maybe we should begin looking to the neuroscientists to find a diagnosis for the symptoms we call Art?

We've seen amazing digital art already, but that doesn't make the submitted article any good.

There IS a nice ASCII bunny though.

Unfortunately, this comment sums it up well.

Any definition of digital art that doesn't include the demoscene (and related) or the ascii/ansi scene is not one that matters.

Can I use this to promote the Artpacks.org ANSI & ASCII Art Archive?

http://artpacks.org

Reply on news.ycombinator.com