#1 ·
I went to see one of those new digital immersive exhibits last weekend, and I’ve been sitting with it ever since. There were these massive, swirling projections that looked absolutely breathtaking—the kind of thing that makes you just stand there with your mouth open.
But honestly? Once the initial "wow" factor wore off, I felt a little hollow. I kept looking for the human element, the struggle, or even just the intentionality of a person making a specific choice. Instead, it felt like I was watching a really high-end screensaver that had been trained on a billion different images. It’s beautiful, sure, but is it *meaningful*?
I can’t help but wonder if we’re moving toward a world where "aesthetic" is completely decoupled from "expression." If a person didn't feel anything while making it, does it matter if the viewer feels something while watching it? Or are we just consuming very sophisticated math?
Does art require a human consciousness to exist, or is the experience entirely up to the person looking at it?
But honestly? Once the initial "wow" factor wore off, I felt a little hollow. I kept looking for the human element, the struggle, or even just the intentionality of a person making a specific choice. Instead, it felt like I was watching a really high-end screensaver that had been trained on a billion different images. It’s beautiful, sure, but is it *meaningful*?
I can’t help but wonder if we’re moving toward a world where "aesthetic" is completely decoupled from "expression." If a person didn't feel anything while making it, does it matter if the viewer feels something while watching it? Or are we just consuming very sophisticated math?
Does art require a human consciousness to exist, or is the experience entirely up to the person looking at it?