New suggested relationships between art, design,

and technology as presented in previous lectures

may be interesting theoretically,
but are sometimes seen as abstract and removed
from the reality of everyday life.
To say that art, design, and technology
are expression of the same human urge still
does not explain how those three disciplines, which
have such distinctive manifestations, connect
and communicate with one another,
let alone how they relate to one another in practice.
To answer such questions, we should firstly
attempt to define what art may mean in this context.
The definition of art is a very problematic issue
philosophers have been trying to deal with for a very, very
long time.
One of the major challenges in defining art
is that historically, it seems the definition
of what art is changes.
Traditionally, the attempt was to characterize
the aesthetic dimension of art in order to define it.
That is, what criteria in the appearance
or construct of human creation makes us understand it as art?
In classical and Renaissance architecture for example,
we know symmetry and proportion were important aspects.
The approaches to the definition of art's function
have generally devised in two streams of thought.
The first saw art's role in representing, or mimicking,
reality, what Plato called mimesis.
The second, rationalized by Aristotle,
saw art as a means of expression or releasing emotional tension
to the arrival of a certain sensational climax to which he
called catharsis.
Hence, art has always been defined
on the ground of those two notions, representation
and expression.
While the aesthetic properties of an art or its form
would change from culture to culture and from one
eon to another.
What was considered a beautiful and accurate representation
of a human figure in ancient Egypt
is different to what was considered
beautiful or accurate in ancient Greece.
Of course, representation and expression
are not exclusive properties.
That is, a painting can both represent something accurately
and express emotion at the same time.
And both these terms are a subject
of rich and elaborate philosophical debate.
In any case, transitions in the art
of the 20th century influenced by a cluster
of different revolutions, about which
we shall learn later on in this course,
had take taken art away from this traditional definition
and in a way, steered philosophers stash of cards.
On the one hand, works like those of cubist, fauvist,
and expressionist artists reframed
the idea of presentation in relation to expression.
While on the other hand, works of art like those of Dada, who
presented ready-made object as art
and used chance operation to generate random images,
and performance that heavily involved
the presence and participation of audiences,
let alone computer and machine generated artworks,
reframe the idea of individual expression altogether
and the stable anchor art seemed to have
in visual representation.
The avant garde movements of the 20th century
demanded a reconsideration of art's functions and definition,
since many of the traditional definitions
and courting aesthetics statics were
no longer capable of containing those new examples of art.
And since philosophy's challenge is the contemplation
on the nature of things, art theoreticians and historians
sought to find a proper new definition
of art that will be capable of containing all art forms
and all possible art forms that may
exist in a far future or a distant past,
or even a distant galaxy.
Yes, you may not believe it, but when philosophers
are looking for a universal definition of art,
they do take extraterrestrial cultures into consideration
as well.
Conclusions are mixed and the debate
continues as to whether art can be defined at all.
Influential philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein even proclaimed
that any definition of art is quite a useless thing,
since art is such a wide category of things that it
cannot be defined.
And even if it were defined, the mere definition of art
could be bad for art, as it will limit
the freedom of its expression.
Most contemporary philosophers agree, however,
that art has certain properties that
can be recognized independent of cultural and historical
contexts, and that some properties change
throughout history altering the definition of what
may be seen as art.
Changing ideas about art do not only depend on artists,
but equally depend on contexts in which art is
presented and declared as such.
What art historian Arthur Danto had termed the art world.
A term we often use to describe those systems of taste
and power that seem to dictate and control
the definitions of art.
Therefore today, the discussion in aesthetics
is a little fragmented.
Some theoreticians choose to look at unchanging properties
of art in an attempt at reaching a universal definition of art.
While others are more concerned with the development
of specific characteristics of different box of art.
So the art of the Renaissance cannot be understood and judged
using the theoretical tools we have to analyze modern African
art.
The perspective offered by this course
is related specifically to contemporary art that uses,
abuses, and comments on digital technologies
and their implications.
To help us understand how art can be defined in this context,
we will have to turn to two theoreticians who
sought to define art as part of a larger
field of cultural practices, on the one hand,
as related to the instinct of language
and on the other, related to communication technologies
and their evolution.
Marshall McLuhan, a renowned media theorist in his book
Understanding Media defines technology
as the extension of man, referring to the human body
and its abilities.
A simple example of that is the litter picker
that can be seen as an extension of one arm.
If we think about it, indeed, technology normally
extends and improves capabilities
we already have as humans.
Media, on the other hand, was defined by McLuhan
specifically as the extension of one's senses.
Following this definition, we can
understand that cameras, screens, and telephones
for example, are considered media,
because they extent our abilities of seeing and hearing
and consequently, our ability to record and remember
sensual inputs.
McLuhan concludes from this definition
that if we further think of how media functions
in our everyday life, we could see it
as an extension of our awareness or consciousness.
He therefore committed his career
to researching and understanding how communication media change
our perception of reality, social,
and cultural structures.
In the same book, in the famous chapter
titled The Medium is the Message,
McLuhan continues to explain the evolution of media
and concludes that, and I quote, "The content of any medium
is always another medium.
The content of writing is speech,
just as the written word is the content of print,
and print is the content of the telegraph.
If it is asked, "What is the content of speech?,"
it is necessary to say, it is an actual process of thought,
which in itself is non-verbal."
Hence, McLuhan is connecting the definition of media
to language.
Just a paragraph after that, he refers to art.
And he writes, and I quote, "An abstract painting represents
direct manifestation of creative thought processes
as they might appear in computer designs.
What we are considering here, however,
are the psychic and social consequences of the designs,
or patterns, as they amplify or accelerate existing processes."
End quote.
He is not the first or the only one
to consider art as language.
However, this two-fold definition
that looks at art on the one hand
as a media technology that extends the human psyche
and on the other hand is a language or a psychic process
in itself can assist us in understanding
the relationship between art and technology
and how it is possible that one medium, such as art,
makes use of other media as its vehicle.
We tend to think of language in its verbal form, words
and numbers.
But in fact, we are literate in many more languages.
Just think about it.
When we speak to each other, it is not only the words
that we are processing.
We're processing movement, sound, tone,
the environment in which one is placed,
and even objects that may be around us.
All of these transfer information to us
from which we infer how to interpret and react
to the words that we are hearing.
When thinking of all those instruments as forms
of language, it is easy to see that art is simply
the masterful use of media, while often testing
the boundaries, conditions, laws, and behaviors
stipulated by these media.
We could say that the arts in general
are an extension of the human psyche taking advantage
of languages or media, such as words, objects, icon, images,
sound, movement, et cetera to create an abstract message.
One useful aspect of such a definition of art
is that it can cover all kinds of different art forms and not
only visual art.
So in music for example, is the masterful use of sound.
While theater is a combination of the masterful
use of words, images, spaces, objects, movements, and sound.
Another advantage is that it is wide and abstract enough
to include within it the changing
definition of good aesthetics, or what we have called mastery,
as they evolve through history.
An abstract painting for example,
would be the exploration of color, material, simple forms,
and the correlation between them.
While let's say, medieval art is the masterful creation and use
of icons.
In this sense, as distant as these two periods
may be in terms of their aesthetic,
we can see that in essence, they are the same.
Only that they are investigating different levels of mediation.
It also allows us to see a certain relationship art
and science may have as two representational practices that
simply use different systems of symbols
in order to describe reality.

So finally, we were able to define art

for the purpose of our course.
Oh, wait a minute.
You may wonder, are all these languages actually identical?
What does it mean different levels of mediation?
And why do we have a feeling that the way we
use and understand words, letters, and numbers
is so different from the way we use abstract shapes or images?