Aesthetics of ‘We’ Human-and-Technology
Technology presents that identity of we humans is performed by the collaborative action of the human and technology. The new identity provoked by technology can be called as ‘We’ human-and-technology. In the concept of ‘We’ human-and-technology, technology reconciles politics and the aesthetic. Technology based contemporary art articulates that politics and the aesthetic meet in creative tension between art and technology. Technology’s investigation of relation of politics and the aesthetic in contemporary art claims that art is politics. This claim comes from two ideas. First is the performative: the pairing of politics and the aesthetic is performed in collaborative action of ‘We’ human-and-technology. Second is the intervention: the contesting collaboration of politics and the aesthetic emancipates the sense, and reframes the distribution of the sensible. The way of technology posing the relation of politics and the aesthetic in contemporary art opens a new way of knowing linking art, technology and humanity: the understanding of ‘We’ human-and-technology in the collaborative action based interdependent perspective.
Keywords‘We’ human-and-technology aesthetics politics collaborative action the performative sense
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Heidegger, M.: The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Harper & Row, Publisher, Inc., New York (1977)Google Scholar
- 3.Rancière, J.: The Emancipated Spectator. Artforum 45(7), 270–281 (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Latour, B.: We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
- 5.Lancière, J.: Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy, p. 30. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1999)Google Scholar
- 6.Nietzsche, F.: Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Plato: Republic. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
- 10.Lancière, J.: The Politics of Aesthetics, p. 48. Continuum, London (2004)Google Scholar