La Lucha Moderna (What Exists and What Doesn’t)

Let’s start by saying that only a vivid color brings its own shade that comes directly from its color. A spirit is a spirit because it is covered with a shadow, that is the only way you know it; neither direct nor color delayed. The spirit revolves around the same, pure sign of its stupid existence: there is no material reference to anchor it to reality.

Sometimes political, cultural, market, artistic and even technological systems – given the current inflation of AI – just need to increase their escape velocity: mutated in pure phantasmagoria, there is little doubt about our shadows; believe you are sending signals to a country you cannot see; jamás regressan. One of the risks driving the art of the immediate future is in this phantom limbo. Let us always bear in mind the initial warning and think above all about the future of what exists.

How fitting these exotic things are

There is a historical dynamic, a spontaneous balance of forces that makes up complex systems, which when applied to art says this: when politicians behave like artists—and including some, on a metaphysical level, like aspirants to a work of art in the same way—more and more politicians turn to art, and artists tend to postulate themselves as politicians, which is never emphasized as necessary today.

But beware, love is the devil that always blinds us. Not for nothing, the current trend must be revised if we do not demand an uncritical future of art, satisfying the market and the decorative, rather than what never changes, dogma and craft. I say it differently Does real art have a kind of heat death in its universe? All this indicates that an ecstatic balance is progressing, in which the internal forces disappear and with it the necessary difference in the potential of its elements.

This fate would be equal to the actual degree of reality creation that has always been required of artistic practice. The activities brought two decades of healthy salvation, today developed in themes, market practices, acechadas by the dark formula of corporate language, “what works”.

Just look at the recent great biennales or the latest documentation from Kassel and check discussions about discussions that took place over a decade or two expressed all the sentimentas well as the emergence of paradoxes, typical of each end of the cycle, as in the intention of incorporating cultures and arts previously forgotten by the Western art system, these were newly colonized – colonized twice; inexplicably, it seems necessary for the power centers of Western art to be legitimate.

Our tradition, exhausting its “autonomous” semantic space, more or less conceptualist and derived from illustrated discourse, as if it decided that there was no need for new blood to follow beyond the réditos, decided on an art that is clearly emotional, clearly anti-intellectual and implicitly led by exoticism – let us not forget that exoticism is its own exoticism, exoticism does not exist in essence, exoticism does not exist in appearance.

Future art must rethink this March, updating its concepts of radicality and creating a new reality: restarting modern life. Without a genuine and mutual universalist project, all expression of modern and contemporary art takes on meaning and dilutes the emergence of any minority in the rhetorical aesthetics of the marketplace.

Not off the list, Señora IA

We have talked about the future of art in terms of what exists in it, let us now look at the future of things that did not exist before. This can only happen through the inevitable disruption of artificial intelligence at various levels of artistic activity, be it discourse creation, cultural management or – most feared – the body that functions independently.

This is similar to how a sword art apparatus, as if covering the head with a saber, will be enough to make the monster that lives in your house disappear. The intervention of AI in art should make us rethink the same art from now on –If there is anything exotic on the planet, then this is it– .

To put it plainly: the inertia of art is determined to turn art created by artificial intelligence into a cultural object before the existence of artificial intelligence, by using artificial intelligence to create art that imitates the existing one, without addressing the undeniable fact that artificial intelligence changes the ontological status of the artistic giant. “It’s not off the list, ma’am!”, we hear in our heads every time we approach one of these artifacts.

So the paradox is that we humbly or simply out of fear ask AIs that behave as if they are not AIs to end up not existing. All this does not happen to the artist, because it is precisely the act that allows AI to replace the human artist.

You have to think about the art that takes care of the specificity of the AI if you are looking for an imitation pastiche of the existing one. Is AI-art not worth the result until the same code is created? Or have we quizzed on deep-rooted interests in a critical agenda that has led us to ask “what are we all about”? This is the qualitative network that awaits them in art. To modern lucha. (Ah, future charity appeal, no more birkenstocks).