Second page
[^1]
- Why listen to academic, activist, or artistic approaches?
- Why take a specifically intersectional approach?
- Why does considering multiple perspectives and different identities matter so much for thinking about technology?
- Why attach such convoluted-seeming phrases to these ideas, and what do they even mean?
- Why a print zine or a digital platform where anyone can contribute?
- Whose responsibility is it to make the effort to learn, to try harder? (The difference between barriers to access and privileged discomfort.)
"Many artists sought to provoke audiences by defamiliarizing the opaque and proprietary nature of software tools commonly covered by trade secret protections and functioning as "black boxes." [...] Other artists described deploying defamiliarization to mobilize audience emotions as an explicitly ethical act."(Stark & Crawford 2019, 446)[^2]
"As a tactic, destabilizing and defamiliarizing the audience in the service of politicizing aesthetics predates digital computing. [...] Benjamin argues that revolutionary artists must juxtapose tactics provoking both destabilization and reflection in order to awaken a progressive political consciousness in their audience." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 447)[^3]
"Many artists also noted concrete plans for educating and contextualizing were vital to the ethics of their art practice." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 448)[^4]
"many of the artists we interviewed also claimed that the mantle of "artist" meant working in a space of social and even legal exception. [...] These tensions animated many artists' sense of their own ethical process." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 449)[^5]
"artists are the vanguard of exploring the ethical, political, and aesthetic potential of emerging technologies and in recognizing the interconnection between the techniques of artistic production and their political effects." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 450)[^6]
"The experience of artists reinforces a point we have each separately argued elsewhere: that abstract ethics conversations are a necessary but not sufficient condition for progressive politics around digital technologies and that everyday digital practice is the terrain around which broader ethical and political ends must be staked out." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 452) "artists saw value in reaching shared normative practices through engagement between artists and audiences, suggesting a model for participation and collaboration often missing in other forms of digital research and development.(Stark & Crawford 2019, 452)[^7]
"An ethics of ambiguity confronts artists with the responsibilities of autonomous choice and its consequences; defamiliarization is the formal outcome that best translates this ethical impulse to the audience, prompting reflection and heightened presence of mind. The conscious bundling of the aesthetic and the ethical in the minds of artists we interviewed was what kept this twinned impulse politically emancipatory, along with the expression of this connection in both social interactions and formal critiques." (Stark & Crawford 2019, 451)[^8]
[^1]: Laci Green & Francesca Ramsey
[^2]: Stark, L., & Crawford, K. (2019). The Work of Art in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: What Artists Can Teach Us About the Ethics of Data Practice. Surveillance & Society, 17(3/4), 442--455. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.10821
[^3]:
[^4]:
[^5]:
[^6]:
[^7]:
[^8]: