Algorithmic Art and the Transformation of Public Spaces: Hybrid Public Spaces

Abstract

Algorithmic art, one of the new art forms that emerged in line with the effects of digitalization in the field of art, is not only limited to digital installations integrated into physical spaces or three-dimensional installations in which physical space is transformed through digital images but also offers a hybrid spatial experience through artistic expressions that expand via social networks. When this aspect of algorithmic art is considered together with discourses on the democratization of art, it stands out as an important issue that opens up discussions about the possibilities offered by art in the context of hybrid public space. An inquiry carried out in this direction can offer new expansions within the framework of the “art for everyone” approach. In this study, the dynamics between algorithmic art and hybrid public space are examined using a qualitative research design and a case study method, and a model proposal is presented by evaluating the potential of hybrid public spaces and algorithmic art. In this context, the proposed model is structured within the framework of five basic categories - accessibility, inclusiveness, relationality, personalization of experience and collective sensation - and the art projects of Refik Anadol, one of the leading names in algorithmic art, are analyzed within the scope of this model. Based on the findings, the study demonstrates that constructing hybrid public spaces—particularly in the context of Refik Anadol’s projects—significantly enhances the accessibility of artistic experience, fosters a pluralistic approach in artistic expression, dismantles the hierarchy between the work of art and the audience, individualizes the artistic experience, reveals individuals’ relationships with other forms of existence, and cultivates a collective sensation in accordance with this relational structure.

Keywords

• Communication Sociology

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Akpınar, A. (2022). Sanat yapıtında gerçek nesneden uzaklaşma sürecinde teknolojinin rolü ve dijital sanat nesnesi. Art Vision, 28(48), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.54614/ArtVis.2022.1030400
2. Akpınar, A. & Arslan, E. (2023). Mekânsallaşan sanat ve sanatta alternatif mekânlar. Ulakbilge Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 86, 535-548. https://doi.org/10.7816/ulakbilge-11-86-03
3. Al, B. (2019). Generatif sanat kavramı ve görsel sanatlarda sayısal yaratıcılık. Tasarım Enformatiği, 1(2), 78-91.
4. Arat, N. (2013). Kant estetik’inde güzel ve yüce değerleri. Felsefe Arkivi, 21, 69-83.
5. Arendt, H. (1994). İnsanlık durumu (B. S. Şener, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
6. Artan Oskay, B. (2018). 1960 sonrası kavramsal sanatının günümüz resim sanatına etkileri. İdil Dergisi, 7(47), 803-809. https://doi.org/10.7816 /idil-07-47-03
7. Ayaydın, A. (2015). Empresyonizm (izlenimcilik) akımının güncel bakış açısıyla bazı yönlerden incelenmesi. Sanat Eğitimi Dergisi (SED), 3(2), 83-97.
8. Baca, M.; Helmreich, A., & Gill, M. (2019). Digital Art History. Visual Resources, 35(1-2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2019.1556887
9. Bakhtin, M. (2001). Karnavaldan romana (Edebiyat teorisinden dil felsefesine seçme yazılar). (C. Soydemir, Trans.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
10. Bayav, D. (2008). Batı resminde mekânın ele alınışındaki değişimler: Kübizmde mekânın irdelenmesi. Akdeniz Sanat, 1(2), 35-43.
11. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post industrial society. Basic Books.
12. Bell, D. (1978). Modernizm ve kapitalizm, 1900-2000, Değişen fikirler antolojisi. (C. Harrison, P. Wood, Eds.; Sabri Gürses, Trans.). Küre Yayınları.
13. Benn, S. I., & Gaus, G. F. (1983). Public and private in social life. Croom Helm.
14. Bense, M. (1971). The projects of generative aesthetics. In J. Reichard (Ed.), Cybernetics, art and ideas (pp. 57-60) Graphic Society Ltd., Studio Vista Limited.
15. Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Cashen, T., & Gardiner, H. (2005). Digital art history (1st ed.). Intellect Books Ltd.
16. Biçer Olgun, H.& Olgun, C. K. (2020). Çağdaş sanat veya öznesini yitiren sanat: Sanatçının ölümü. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(36), 316-354. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.796203
17. Bourriaud, N. (2005). İlişkisel Estetik. (S. Özen, Trans.). Bağlam Yayınları.
18. Bowen, T. (2003). Making art in a digital/cyber culture: Exploring the dialectic between the manual creator and the digital self. Digital Creativity, 14(4), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1076/digc.14.4.219.27876
19. Braidotti, R. (2014). İnsan Sonrası. (Ö. Karakaş, Trans.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
20. Castells, M. (2008). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür / Ağ toplumunun uükselişi. (E. Kılıç, Trans.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
21. Ceric, V. (2008). Algorithmic art: Technology, mathematics and art. Information Technology Interface Conference, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITI.2008.4588386
22. Cohen, J. E. (2007). Cyberspace as/and space. Columbia Law Review, 107(1), 210-256.
23. Daudrich, A. (2016). Algorithmic art and its art-historical relationships. CITAR Journal, 8(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.7559/citarj.v8i1.220
24. Deleuze, G. (2007). Kritik ve klinik. (İ. Uysal, Trans.). Norgunk.
25. Denson, S. (2023). From sublime awe to abject cringe: On the embodied processing of AI art. Journal of Visual Culture, 22(2), 146-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/14704129231194136
26. Diamond, S. (2019). Parallel processing: Public art and new media art. In B. Buckley, & J. Commons (Eds.), A companion to curation (pp. 41-65). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27. Dorin, A. vd. (2012). A framework for understanding generative art. Digital Creativity. 23(3-4). https://doi.org/23. 10.1080/14626268.2012.709940
28. Düzenli, T., Alpak E. M. & Tarakçı E. E. (2017). The significance of public space art in landscape architecture. Yıldız Journal of Art and Design, 4(2), 143-158.
29. Elbeyi, E. S. (2018). Ideological bots of #Metoo: Towards a theory of the hybrid public sphere [Yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
30. Fernandes-Marcos, A.; Branco, P., & Zagalo, N. (2009). The creation process in digital art. In B. Furht (Ed.) Handbook of Multimedia for Digital Entertainment and Arts (pp. 601-615). Springer.
31. Fidan, M. E. (2023). Yeni medya sanatında ‘kavramsallık’ üzerine bir inceleme. Journal of Arts, 6(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.31566/arts.1971
32. Forlano, L. (2009). WiFi geographies: When code meets place. Information Society, 25(5), 344–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /01972240903213076
33. Forlano, L. (2013). Making waves: Urban technology and the co-production of place. First Monday. 18(11), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i11.4968
34. Fraser, N. (2004). Kamusal alanı yeniden düşünmek. (M. Özbek, & C. Balcı Trans). (Mç Özbek, Ed.) Kamusal Alan içinde (pp. 103-132). Hil Yayınları.
35. Galanter, P. (2003). What is generative art? Complexity theory as a context for art theory, In GA2003 – 6th Generative Art Conference https://philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf
36. Galanter, P. (2012). Generative art after computers. In Proceedings of XV Generative Art Conference (pp. 271-283). Domus Argenia Publisher.
37. Gordon, E., and Adriana de Souza e S., A. (2011). Net locality: Why location matters in a networked world. Wiley-Blackwell.
38. Graham, M. (2010). Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: Web 2.0 and the construction of a virtual earth. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 101(4), 422-436.
39. Grau, O. (2021). Digital art’s political impact: Time for hard humanities. In O. Grau and I. Hinterwaldner (Eds.), Retracing political dimensions: Strategies in contemporary new media art (pp. 34-52). De Gruyter.
40. Gürdere Akdur, S. (2016). Kamusal sanat ve kamusallık kavramı. [n]Beyin Dergisi (Mayıs-Haziran), 56-60.
41. Habermas, J. (2002). Kamusallığın yapısal dönüşümü. (T. Bora ve M. Sancar, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
42. Haraway, D. (2006). Siborg manifestosu. (O. Akınhay, Çev.). Agora Kitaplığı.
43. Iveson, K. (2007). Publics and rhe city. Blackwell Publishing.
44. Joo, J. M. (2006). The breathtaking algorithmic art. The virtual dynamics intelligencer. Accessed from https://www.academia.edu/20055406/The_Breathtaking_Algorithmic_Art
45. Kitchin, R., & Dodge, M. (2014). Code/space: Software and everyday life. MIT Press.
46. Kılıç, Y. (2017). From object to image – image to object: Conceptual art. İdil Dergis,i 6(30), 511-527.
47. Kılıçoğlu, B., & Kahraman, M. E. (2022). Sanat ve izleyici deneyimi üzerine bir araştırma: ‘Makine Hatıraları: Uzay’ Sergisi örneği. İdil Sanat ve Dil Dergisi, 745-759. https://doi.org/10.7816/idil-11-93-09
48. Klinke, H. (2020). The digital transformation of art history. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Routledge companion to digital humanities and art history (pp. 32-42). Routledge.
49. Klütsch, C. (2012). Information aesthetics and the Stuttgart school. Mainframe Experimentalism In. H. B. Higgins, & D. Kahn, (Eds.), Early computing and the foundations of the digital arts (pp. 65-89). Univ. Of California Press.
50. Koca, B. (2017). Kavramsal sanat. İnönü Üniversitesi Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 3(2), 97-103.
51. Küçüköner, H. (2023). Kavramsal sanat perspektifinden Ai Weiwei ve toplumsal hassasiyeti. SMART Journal 9(76), 4939-4946. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/smryj.72959
52. Küpeli, A. E. (2020). İnteraktif eylem aracı olarak performans sanatı. İdil, 77, 40-52. https://doi.org/10.7816/idil-09-75-04
53. Laletaş, M. (2020). 20. yüzyıl kavramsal sanat deneyimiyle Joseph Kosuth’un ‘Bir ve Üç Sandalye’ eseri üzerine. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 6(34), 2255-2262. https://doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.499
54. Lancelin, Herve (2024). Refik Anadol: The illusionist of empty data. https://www.artcritic.com/en/refik-anadol-the-illusionist-of-empty-data/?utm.
55. Langstraat, F., & Van Melik, R. (2013). Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A comparative analysis of publicness in British and Dutch urban spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.800451
56. Mouffe, C. (2013). The ethics and politics of democracy: An agonistic approach. In H. Greif, & M. G. Weiss (Eds.). Ethics, society, politics (pp. 313-327). De Gruyter Ontos.
57. Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. Warner Books.
58. Negt, O., & Kluge, A. (1993). Public sphere and experience: Toward an analysis of the bourgeois and proletarian public sphere. The University of Minnesota Press.
59. Nemeth, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modelling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057
60. Özel Sağlamtimur, Z. (2010). Dijital sanat. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3), 213-238.
61. Paul, C. (2008). Digital art/public art: Governance and agency in the networked commons. Art and Science of Interface and Interaction Design, 141, 163-185.
62. Pearson, M. (2011). Generative art: A practical guide using processing. Manning Publications Co.
63. Sağlam, F. (2015). Kavramsal sanat ve felsefesi bağlamında sanat eğitimi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(21), 428-436.
64. Sağlam, F. (2020). Peter Kogler’ın dijital mekânları. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 10(1), 52-67. https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.830550
65. Saltz, Jerry (2023). Art critic Jerry Saltz gets into an online skirmish with AI. Superstar Refik Anadol. https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/refik-anadol-vs-jerry-saltz-2400275
66. Sarı, E. (2018). Sanat olgusunun tarihsel süreçte değişen tanımı, işlevi ve değeri üzerine. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi XLV(2), 131-154.
67. Sennett, R. (2013). Kamusal insanın çöküşü. (S. Durak, & A. Yılmaz, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
68. Stallabrass, J. (2021). Sublime calculation. New Left Review, 132, 83-88.
69. Tan, F. (2022). Production of hybrid public space: The potential of the hybrid space concept for public space production. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 5, 209-221.
70. Toffler, A. (1981). Üçüncü dalga. Altın Kitaplar.
71. Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. O’Reilly.
72. Van Melik, R.; Van Aalst, I., & Van Weesep, J. (2007). Fear and fantasy in the public domain: The development of secured and themed urban space. Journal of Urban Design, 12(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800601071170
73. Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502350
74. Weibel, P. (2004). Algorithmic revolution: On the history of interactive art, In Video Archives. Center for Art and Media, ZKM. https://zkm.de/en/media/audio/peter-weibel-algorithmic-revolution.
75. Yılmaz, M. (2005). Modernizmden postmodernizme sanat. Ütopya Yayınevi.

Cite this publication

@article{akyoloktan2024algorithmic,
  author = {Akyol Oktan, Kevser and Ulusoy, Meliha Demet},
  title = {{Algorithmic Art and the Transformation of Public Spaces: Hybrid Public Spaces}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {42},
  number = {2},
  pages = {578--596},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2024},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  doi = {10.32600/huefd.1638009},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/algorithmic-art-and-the-transformation-of-public-spaces-hybrid-public-spaces},
  language = {en},
  keywords = {Communication Sociology},
  abstract = {Algorithmic art, one of the new art forms that emerged in line with the effects of digitalization in the field of art, is not only limited to digital installations integrated into physical spaces or three-dimensional installations in which physical space is transformed through digital images but also offers a hybrid spatial experience through artistic expressions that expand via social networks. When this aspect of algorithmic art is considered together with discourses on the democratization of art, it stands out as an important issue that opens up discussions about the possibilities offered by art in the context of hybrid public space. An inquiry carried out in this direction can offer new expansions within the framework of the ``art for everyone'' approach. In this study, the dynamics between algorithmic art and hybrid public space are examined using a qualitative research design and a case study method, and a model proposal is presented by evaluating the potential of hybrid public spaces and algorithmic art. In this context, the proposed model is structured within the framework of five basic categories - accessibility, inclusiveness, relationality, personalization of experience and collective sensation - and the art projects of Refik Anadol, one of the leading names in algorithmic art, are analyzed within the scope of this model. Based on the findings, the study demonstrates that constructing hybrid public spaces---particularly in the context of Refik Anadol's projects---significantly enhances the accessibility of artistic experience, fosters a pluralistic approach in artistic expression, dismantles the hierarchy between the work of art and the audience, individualizes the artistic experience, reveals individuals' relationships with other forms of existence, and cultivates a collective sensation in accordance with this relational structure.},
  affiliation = {ONDOKUZ MAYIS {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I} and HACETTEPE {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Akyol Oktan, Kevser
AU  - Ulusoy, Meliha Demet
TI  - Algorithmic Art and the Transformation of Public Spaces: Hybrid Public Spaces
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 42
IS  - 2
PY  - 2024
SP  - 578
EP  - 596
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
DO  - 10.32600/huefd.1638009
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/algorithmic-art-and-the-transformation-of-public-spaces-hybrid-public-spaces
AB  - Algorithmic art, one of the new art forms that emerged in line with the effects of digitalization in the field of art, is not only limited to digital installations integrated into physical spaces or three-dimensional installations in which physical space is transformed through digital images but also offers a hybrid spatial experience through artistic expressions that expand via social networks. When this aspect of algorithmic art is considered together with discourses on the democratization of art, it stands out as an important issue that opens up discussions about the possibilities offered by art in the context of hybrid public space. An inquiry carried out in this direction can offer new expansions within the framework of the “art for everyone” approach. In this study, the dynamics between algorithmic art and hybrid public space are examined using a qualitative research design and a case study method, and a model proposal is presented by evaluating the potential of hybrid public spaces and algorithmic art. In this context, the proposed model is structured within the framework of five basic categories - accessibility, inclusiveness, relationality, personalization of experience and collective sensation - and the art projects of Refik Anadol, one of the leading names in algorithmic art, are analyzed within the scope of this model. Based on the findings, the study demonstrates that constructing hybrid public spaces—particularly in the context of Refik Anadol’s projects—significantly enhances the accessibility of artistic experience, fosters a pluralistic approach in artistic expression, dismantles the hierarchy between the work of art and the audience, individualizes the artistic experience, reveals individuals’ relationships with other forms of existence, and cultivates a collective sensation in accordance with this relational structure.
KW  - Communication Sociology
LA  - en
AD  - ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ
AD  - HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -