This paper acclaims the sublime of objectified human intellect by utilizing the quasi-autopoiesis in the generative art. Unlike the computational sublime, my discussion turns the computation as a tool for projecting the sublime to the computation as a copied intellect and connects the computation to the humaness.
Generative Art as Quasi-autopoiesis
As an object for aesthetic judgment, the generative art makes its emergence not by the autopoiesis but by the quasi-autopoiesis. Though it is true that the representation of generative art is unpredictable, this cannot be an approval for what our intellect result in a true genesis. Regardless of whether the human has enough ability to judge the generation or not, we have to consider how the result of human intelligence can be independent from the viewpoint of human intelligence itself. And this logic also can be applied to the autonomy in generative art. So, it is not an exaggeration to say that the man-made autopoiesis reflects only the human understanding for the autonomy and emergence. Because the autopoiesis of generative art is always regulated by the human intelligence that designs and demarcates the boundary of generative art. (McCormack and Dorin 2001; 73) Moreover, as Immanuel Kant noted as he-autonomy the autopoiesis that human makes in reflective manner of nature is prescribed “only in a subjective aspect” (Kant 1914; V186) for human and human intelligence. Thus the emergence of generative art is delimited by human intelligence and the autonomy in the generative art is an abstraction of intelligence, the quasi-autopoiesis, derived from the he-autonomy of human.
- Dr. Joonsung Yoon (KR) is professor at Soongsil University (KR), College of IT, the Global School of Media.
- Yonggeun Kim (KR) is a Ph.D. candidate in the Global School of Media, the graduate school of Soongsil University (KR). His research area is the man-machine dis/continuity throughout the theoretical studies on new media art practices.
Full text (PDF) p. 217-218