Thanks for the work done so far, shardcore, and your thoughts about it. As these categories form a contextual universe how to understand artwork building on the level of words/tags/(search-terms), I was thinking it a perfect base for making an endless series of descriptive art objects - with some nods to oulipo, pataphysics and a science of imagination, and post-conceptualism.... continuing my long ongoing noemata project in looking at art as 'objects of thought' (phenomenologically or otherwise, ontological). A worked-through set of human-made categories from an established art institutition is of great value. I see them as more aristotelian than kantian perhaps in the bottom-up practicality - (tagging of experience more than a philosophical structuring of possible experiences).
The conceptual space created by the categories could, secondly, function as instructions for artwork, an instructive art - bringing it out of the imaginary only. Going a step further, one could try to fill up the conceptual space by driving the potential artwork through other databanks/search engines to make it more tangible (though in an off-beat, parodical way maybe, well net art). Or another way I'd like to explore it is through using own, often formless, work and (dis-)placing them inside the categorical world, in a sort of mutation by its code (as their 'phenomenological' understanding is altered by the concepts). Another possible usage which would be interesting to see, is how the categories could be facilitated to predict new artwork, in a way how the financial market are predicted by technical analysis of trends. An artist could use the tool to make new artworks within popular categories, finding the right pitch for success (this also on an ironical foot). For this purpose, present each category/tag as a graph fluctuating in popularity over time, so one could analyze it somewhat like google trends. Maybe this is very obvious - though it would also have predictability, and one could 'invest' in wokring on 'non-representational', 'gestural', 'banal', 'machinated' art.... Thanks again, Bjørn On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM, shardcore <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the kind works, everyone. > > autoserota is really just the baseline model of what I'd like to do with this > dataset. > > As I mentioned in the blogpost, the most interesting categories, for me, are > the more subjective ones, the categories which feel like they're furthest > along the 'I need a human to make this judgement' axis. This dataset goes > beyond simple 'fact based' descriptions, which means it contains a whole lot > more humanity than most 'big data'. > > We can imagine machines which spot the items within a representational work > (look at Google Goggles, for example) but algorithms which spot the 'emotions > and human qualities' of a work are more difficult to comprehend. These > categories capture complex, uniquely human judgements which occupy a space > which we hold outside of simple visual perception. In fact I think I'd find a > machine which could accurately classify an artwork in this way a little > sinister... > > The relationships between these categories and the works are metaphorical in > nature, allusions to whole classes of human experience that cannot be derived > from simply 'looking at' the artwork. The exciting part of the Tate data is > really the 'humanity' it contains, something absolutely essential when we're > talking about art - after all, culture cannot exist without culturally > informed entities experiencing it. > > This data is represented in JSON, it's been expressed in a machine-readable > form explicitly for algorithmic manipulation. It gives us a fascinating > opportunity to investigate how machines can navigate a cultural space, > precisely because it's been imbued with 'cultural knowledge' by the > hard-working taggers of The Tate. > > > > On 9 Nov 2013, at 23:30, Rob Myers wrote: > >> On 09/11/13 03:07 PM, Bjørn Magnhildøen wrote: >>> "can you see the $x and the $y?" >> >> Yes it's very simple but the effect of framing it as a question makes it >> very effective IMO. :-) >> >>> i'd like to do something with the categories themselves, interesting >>> how the concepts surrounds and defines the works >>> thinking of an descriptive art from it >>> or instructive art >>> then mutated art maybe >>> algorithmic selection >>> "as stated", dictated, mutated >> >> Definitely. Once we know how existing objects are described we can >> describe objects that don't yet exist. :-) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NetBehaviour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
