“Art and Interaction: Language and Meaning Production” presented by Fogliano
Symposium:
- ISEA2017: 23rd International Symposium on Electronic Art
-
More presentations from ISEA2017:
Session Title:
- Interdisciplinar Platforms for Coexistence
Presentation Title:
- Art and Interaction: Language and Meaning Production
Presenter(s):
Venue(s):
Abstract:
This study seeks to deepen the understanding of interactive processes in the field of technological art. For such, it will search in the studies of Mark Johnson and George Lakoff the necessary elements for the production of a perspective able to offer a deeper understanding of the processes that involve the production of meaning and aesthetic experience.
Introduction
It does not go unnoticed that we experienced an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of culture. The dilution of the limits between some activities in the field of the studious and critical arts is evident and has constituted a challenge for scholars and crisis. Hybridization between before well-defined forms of artistic expression characterizes contemporary art and these interborder transgressions puts complex conceptual issues, which some critics believe that art today is beyond the historical determination, conceptual definition and critical judgment (Rebentisch, 2011; p. 219). Flores (2011), aware of this challenge, seems to search for new perspectives to face her to wonder if photography and painting are, in fact, two different means. Contemporary culture would be better understood if it was considered beyond just from the diversity of its products among which we must include those arising from the art. Recent advances in the neuroscience point the aesthetic experience as central aspect in the cognitive effect generated by the products proceeding from the artistic sphere of the culture, and that this originates in the sensorial stimulations that the concreteness of these products can produce. The aesthetic in art “relates to what is perceived as beautiful and rewarding,” it is the conclusion reached by Ishizu and Zeki when they talk about the inadequacy of the idea of “significance of the form” proposed by art historian Clive Bell (1914). According to Bell, the visual beauty guesses some quality common and peculiar to aesthetic objects. What Ishizu and Zeki realized is that the aesthetic experience is a cognitive phenomenon of subjective nature, independently from particular properties of objects and includes those constituted inside and outside the formal beauty standards. It is known from these studies that there is an objective form to understand and to measure the conscientious and aesthetic experience through the observation of the state of excitement of the neurons situated in a cortical structure of the brain called medial orbito-frontal cortex (mOFC) (Ishizu and Zeki, 2011) From a different bias, however convergent, the philosopher Juliane Rebentisch argues that it is advantageous to consider the contemporary art from two main aspects: the blurring of limits or “boundary- crossing” and the experience. For the author, these are more adjusted notions for the task to understand the contemporary art and to consider its production than the “post-history” or “culture of the spectacle”. Such categories are important, as they point to fundamental changes in the artistic theory and practice, changes of which are equally fundamental for the understanding of the contemporary art.
