

The Philosophy of Digital Art - Vigier
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/digital-art/

======
hackuser
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/](http://plato.stanford.edu/support/)

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

~~~
fitzwatermellow
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?

~~~
001sky
We've seen amazing digital art already, but that doesn't make the submitted
article any good.

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

------
sjs382
Can I use this to promote the Artpacks.org ANSI & ASCII Art Archive?

[http://artpacks.org](http://artpacks.org)

