DE

/

EN

<< Press

PRESS RELEASE

GÖTZENDÄMMERUNG

Twilight of the Idols

 

Kunst und KI als ästhetischer Diskurs im Zeitalter von Trans- und Posthumanismus /

Art and AI as Aesthetic Discourse in the Age of Trans- and Posthumanism

 

Exhibition workflow and live act

 

24.09.2020 - 01.10.2020

Haus der Kunst, München, South gallery

Artists' association at the Haus der Kunst Munich

 

by Berkan Karpat / Dr. Cornelia Oßwald-Hoffmann / Rainer Ludwig

with the collaboration of Hakan Gündüz, DECOL (KI Tools)

 

 

Artist Installation

MEMO AKTEN, SOUGWEN CHUNG, HAKAN GüNDüZ, PATRICK TRESSET, OBVIOUS

 

 

Artist Live Act (collaboration with AI)

ELKE DREIER, MANUEL EITNER, JUDITH GOLDSCHMID, ZITA HABARTA, NICO KIESE,

GüNTHER NOSCH/FLAVIO CURY, TAMIKO THIEL + /p, FELIX WEINOLD

 

 

Analogous works on the subject of Twilight of the idols

Elke Dreier, Federico Delfrati, Judith Egger, Manuel Eitner, Amit Goffer, Judith Goldschmid, Gerhard Hahn, Zita Habarta, Nico Kiese / Bernhard Slawik, Vera Lossau, Günter Nosch in Zusammenarbeit mit Mounsif Chetitah, Susanne Pittroff, Susanne Thiemann, Tamiko Thiel + /p, Felix Weinold

 

 

 

Every new beginning comes from some other beginning’s end - Seneca

 

The fact that man has entered into a new epoch-making relationship with machines.  At the same time art is becoming more and more of an aesthetic strategy in the world of everyday social politics and it is generating a new relationship between men and machines.  This is how “aesthetic mechanical people” are created.  The first Robot machine in the Saudi kingdom is called Sophia.  The evening news in China is read by a humanoid robot.  In Japan a man married the hologram-popsinger, Miku Hatsuna. It can therefore be inferred that fusion of man and machine cannot fail to affect art.  Also new technical and material inventions have always produced new forms of art.

 

 

Will art be overcome by the abolition of man?

 

To ask the question: “can/will art gradually be replaced so that eventually it is overcome by the abolition of man?” assumes a permanent cohesion between man and art.  Logically, the end of man would coincide with the end of art.  This suggests that the trans-and post-human Cyborg is no longer in a position to notice art, to value art, to enjoy it or to gain knowledge from reflecting on it.  And it assumes that the Cyborg has its own non-humanoid genetics, according to which it makes judgements.  A special bond between science-fiction and ideas about AI, as well as awareness of its transient scientific reality, has led to the creation of the Golem.  This is a new mechanical-digital super-brain that works flawlessly and is incorruptible.  It can be made responsible for following correct procedures so that it contributes to humanoid and social optimisation. However, this Golem could also be a hallucination generated by the desire to ease a burden.  For, in the end, it would be made into an image of man and would be based on the sum of the genetics of its human creator. Does man treat the Cyborg as a mechanical image of himself which is superior in terms of speed and plausibility but nothing else? Does the Cyborg simply surprise and overwhelm us with his artistry and, because of our surprise, do we imagine it has a human mind which does not exist?

But why do artists work with AI?  What do they expect from it?  Why do they allow what was once analogue art to be deprived of its metaphoric artistic gestures by changing it from analogue to digital?  And when, in the cleaner aesthetic of AI, can the moment of authenticity, autonomy and imagery be regained?  Is AI the instrument of the artist or is the artist the instrument of AI?  Does the artist re-use his own work with the help of AI, so that he can produce it again in a new dimension? And is that still necessary when, for years, it has been breaking away from the aesthetic superficiality of what was once a “copy-paste” culture?  Anyway, does that not threaten a break-up of the cohesion between artist and art? Reduced to its aesthetic digital superficiality, art frees itself from its humanoid connection and condenses itself to a large, independent, creative whole.  Only then will it become an algorithmically usable factor, which, as such, can be included in the process of trans-humanisation, i.e. the more trans-human the person becomes, the more trans-human the art that it produces and consumes will be.  Thus, art does not break away from society, but helps shape it and is re-shaped like it.

It is possible to imagine such a scenario, but will it actually happen? And, if so, is it desirable?  Do we want to move forward or backwards in this spiral of innovation, accelerate or slow down, abandon or stand by ethical values?  Idols’ service or idols’ twilight?  Or something completely different? At the moment “La possibilite d’une île” (M. Houellebecq, 2005) still exists.  We are still at the beginning of the process of trans-human development and can think very carefully about our democratic values.  We should do this before it is too late.

 

 

 

Mit freundlicher Unterstützung von

George Washington Gedenkstiftung

Kulturreferat Technik