1. What is Digital Art?

1.1 The Digital Art World

In its broadest extant sense, “digital art” refers to art that relies on computer-based digital encoding, oron the electronic storage and processing of information in different formats—text, numbers, images,sounds—in a common binary code. The ways in which art-making can incorporate computer-baseddigital encoding are extremely diverse. A digital photograph may be the product of a manipulatedsample of visual information captured with a digital camera from a “live” scene or captured with ascanner from a traditional celluloid photograph. Music can be recorded and then manipulated digitallyor created digitally with specialized computer software. And a movie is now the product of anextremely complex sequence of choices between analog and digital processes at the stages of image andsound capture or composition, image and sound editing, color correction or sound mastering, specialeffects production, and display or projection.

The complexity of the digital cinema workflow draws attention to a further difference concerningwhether reliance on the digital is restricted to the way an artwork is made or extends to the display ofthe work. A work may be made on a computer—say, a musical work composed with Sibelius or a playwritten in Microsoft Word—and yet meant for apprehension in a non-digital format—say, performanceon traditional musical instruments or enactment on stage. Similarly, a movie could be captured andedited digitally before being printed on traditional 35mm photochemical film for projection in theaters.By contrast, works which are purely digital include a film made and projected digitally—for example,Avatar (2009), a piece of music composed and played back electronically—for example, theelectroacoustic works of Gottfried Michael Koenig (see Other Internet Resources), and a work of ASCIIart—an image made up from the 95 printable characters defined by the ASCII standard of 1963 anddisplayed on a computer monitor.

An example of ASCII art is:

(\_/)

(='.'=)

(")^(")

1.2 The Analog-Digital Distinction

The classical account of the analog-digital distinction is found in Nelson Goodman’s Languages of Art(1976). In fact Goodman’s account remains practically the only general account of the distinction.While David Lewis (1971) raises a series of objections to Goodman’s account, Lewis’ alternative accountapplies only to the representation of numbers. And while John Haugeland (1981) returns to the generaldistinction, he effectively qualifies and re-frames Goodman’s account in order to overcome Lewis’s andother potential objections. A few philosophers interested in clarifying the concepts employed by

cognitive scientists have recognized the need for a general account of the analog-digital distinction(e.g., Dretske 1981; Blachowicz 1997; Katz 2008; Maley 2011). But in this context, as well, Goodman’saccount is the essential point of reference. In some ways, this is surprising or at least striking: AsHaugeland points out, the digital is a “mundane engineering notion” (1981: 217). Yet the philosophicalcontext in which the notion receives its fullest analysis is that of aesthetics. As is well-known,Goodman’s interests in this context center on the role of musical notation in fixing the identity ofmusical works. But a musical notation is also a standard example of a digital system.

On Goodman’s broad, structuralist way of thinking, representational systems in general consist of setsof possible physical objects that count as token representations. Objects are grouped under syntacticand semantic types, and interesting differences between kinds of representational system trackdifferences in the way syntactic and semantic types relate to one another. Digital systems aredistinguished by being differentiated as opposed to dense. The condition of syntactic differentiation ismet when the differences between classes of token representations are limited such that it is possiblefor users of the system always to tell that a token belongs to at most one class. The condition ofsemantic differentiation is met when the extension of each type, or the class of referents correspondingto a class of token representations, differs in limited ways from the extension of any other type; so thatusers of the system can always tell that a referent belongs to at most one extension. Goodman providesthe following example of a simple digital computer, a system that meets the conditions of bothsyntactic and semantic differentiation: Say we have an instrument reporting on the number of dimesdropped into a toy bank with a capacity for holding 50 dimes, where the count is reported by an Arabicnumeral on a small display (Goodman 1976: 159). In this system, the syntactic types are just thenumbers 0–50, which have as their instances the discrete displays, at different times, of thecorresponding Arabic numerals. Both conditions of syntactic and semantic differentiation are metbecause the relevant differences between instances of different numbers are both highly circumscribedand conspicuous. This means that users of the system can be expected to be able to read the display, ordetermine which number is instantiated on the display (syntactic differentiation) and which numericalvalue, or how many coins, is thereby being indicated (semantic differentiation).

Analog representation fails to be differentiated because it is dense. With an ordering of types such thatbetween any two types, there is a third, it is impossible to determine instantiation of at most one type.Not every case involving a failure of finite differentiation is a case of density. However, a traditionalthermometer is such that heights of mercury that differ to any degree count as distinct syntactic types,the kinds of things that can differ semantically. Similarly, for pictures distinguished according toregions of color, for any two pictures, no matter how closely similar, one can always find a third moresimilar to each of them than they are to each other. Density is a feature of any system that measurescontinuously varying values. That is, as long as the system in question is designed so that anydifference in magnitude indicates a difference in type.

Returning to the digital, some commentators have questioned whether Goodman’s condition of

(syntactic and semantic) finite differentiation is sufficient to distinguish the kind of representation inquestion (Haugeland 1981; Lewis 1971). John Haugeland, for example, argues that there can bedifferentiated schemes without the “copyability” feature that defines the practical significance of digitalsystems. Haugeland’s solution is to require the practical and not just the theoretical possibility of asystem’s users determining type membership. In fact, however, Goodman himself would likely acceptthis modification. In a later work, Goodman explicitly states that finite differentiation must make itpossible to determine type membership “by means available and appropriate to the given user of thegiven scheme” (Goodman and Elgin 1988: 125).

1.3 Digital Art: Production

Whether or not a work of digital art is a work of representational art, and even with the most abstractworks of digital art, there are layers of representation involved in the complex processes of theirproduction and presentation. Most of these layers, and arguably the most important ones, are digital.Where there are analog systems involved, digital translation makes possible the realization of thevalues of the final work. This is perhaps best seen with paradigmatic cases of digital art. Consider thefollowing two works:

Craig Kalpakjian, Corridor, 1995. Computer-generated animation on laser video disc, in thecollection of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. The video leads us slowly down an emptyoffice hallway that is slightly curved and evenly lit, with blank, pale walls and clouded-glasswindows.Cory Arcangel, Landscape Study #4, 2002. Installation. A “reverse-engineered” video game thataims to transpose our everyday surroundings onto a video game platform. The work “plays” on aNintendo gaming system and displays a continuously scrolling landscape with the blocky,minimalist graphics of the Mario Brothers game.

The first of these works involves digital moving imagery that is entirely generated by a computerprogram. At the same time, the video looks like it was or could have been recorded in an actual officesetting. The particular significance of the work depends on the viewer being aware of its digitalcomposition while at the same time being struck by its photorealistic familiarity. According to the SanFrancisco Museum of Modern Art (SF MoMA),

Kalpakjian thus reveals the complete artificiality of the built environments we inhabit, andtheir aesthetic distance from more humanistic forms. (SF MoMA n.d.)

The second work involves imagery that was initially captured digitally. Arcangel began by taking 360-degree photographs of his hometown of Buffalo, New York. He scanned and modified the photographson his computer so that they could be coded according to the graphics capabilities of the Nintendogaming system, and in order to give the images the distinctive look and feel of the Mario Brothersgame. Arcangel then programmed the landscape imagery to scroll continuously across a TV screen, as

in the Mario Brothers game. Finally, Arcangel melted the chips in a Super Mario cartridge, replacingthem with his self-manufactured chips so that his landscape “game” could be run on any Nintendosystem. As well as all the ways in which Arcangel’s work relies on both the technology and aesthetics ofvideogames, there are clearly ways in which it deliberately removes or blocks certain key features orcapacities of videogames, perhaps most notably their robust interactivity. Playing a videogameessentially involves the prescribed creation of new display instances of a work. But we do not “play”Landscape Study #4, and its imagery is fixed by the artist. The kind of interactivity typical of videogames can also be found in artworks made without computers (see Lopes 2010: 49). But this type ofinteractivity is most closely associated with digital art because it is so much easier to achieve with theuse of computers. This suggests a high degree of self-consciousness in Arcangel’s decision to block theinteractivity of his reverse-engineered videogame. From the perspective of the philosophy of digital art,such a decision highlights the need for further discussion of the link between the nature of the digitaland the nature of interactivity.

What is it about the ways in which the works by Arcangel and Kalpakjian are made that makes themdigital in an appreciatively relevant sense? Computer imaging depends on the inherentprogrammability and automation of digital computers. Digital image capture depends on sampling andsubsequently on the near-instantaneous processes of discrete coding. None of this would be possiblewithout a series of linked systems each with finitely differentiated settings.

At the most basic level, the myriad transistors in a computer are essentially tiny digital schemes, eachwith two types: the “on” and “off” settings of the transistor-capacitor switch. The settings are discreteand distinguishable, as are their compliance classes, of 1s and 0s. The ubiquity of binary code incomputer processing is a consequence of the fact that a digital computer is essentially a vast collectionof on-off switches. A particular sequence of 1s and 0s realized at a particular time in virtue of therequisite arrangement of transistors is a binary instance of a particular number, interchangeable withall other instances of the same number and with no instances of different numbers. The differencebetween instances of one number and instances of other numbers is strictly limited to the difference inthe ordering of 1s and 0s. In other words, Goodman’s condition of finite differentiation is clearly met.In turn, the numbers can refer to other values, including the light-intensity values of an image. Acomputation simply involves the generation of output strings of binary digits from input strings inaccordance with a general rule that depends on the properties of the strings (Piccinini 2008). Themodern (digital) computer encodes both data and instructions as sequences of digits, and it allows forthe internal storage of instructions. This makes it essentially programmable in the sense that it can bemodified to compute new functions simply by being fed an appropriate arrangement of digits.

A program is a list of instructions, and instructions are strings of digits. The modern digital computerhas components that serve to copy and store programs inside the machine, and to supply instructionsto the computer’s processing units for implementation in the appropriate order. The order ofinstructions implemented can be sensitive to the obtaining of a certain condition as checked by the

processor. This is what is involved in a computer executing conditional branching instructions suchthat it can monitor and respond to its own intermediate computational states and even modifyinstructions based on its own processes. Such modifications need not be governed by an algorithm—forexample, if they are made at random. It is the digital computer’s capacity for branching, due to itsdigital programmability, that allows for the kinds of higher-level automation involved in the use ofimaging applications and sequential image-generation. Our artists, Kalpakjian and Arcangel, do nothave to enter the strings of digits for every basic operation of the computer that underlies the complexoperations involved in describing and manipulating images. If they did have to do this, they wouldnever finish making their artworks. Rather, they rely on commercial imaging applications thatautomatically and instantaneously supply the reams of machine code required for the execution of anartist’s imaging decision after that decision has triggered a particular instruction in the higher-levelprogramming language of the application.

The imaging software with which Kalpakjian works allows him to generate architectural interiors inrich detail. Arcangel does not require as much from his imaging software given that he is manipulatingpreviously captured and scanned images. The process of scanning the photographs, just like theprocess involved in digital photography, involves sampling and quantization of a visual source;assigning an integer, from a finite range, to the average light-intensity measured across each small areaof source-space corresponding to a cell in a grid. This process involves averaging and rounding upvalues, and it involves measurement, or sampling, of light intensities at (spatially and temporally)discrete intervals. Some, indeed many, of the differences in light intensity across the source image orscene (and at different times, in the case of moving imagery) are thereby dropped by the process ofdigital image-capture. Among some media theorists, this fact has led to deep suspicion of the digitallyrecorded image, prompting the feeling that the digital image is always a poor substitute for the analog.Current digital technologies for image-capture and display have such high rates of sampling frequencyand resolution that the values dropped in quantization are well below the threshold of humanperception. At the same time, Arcangel’s Landscape Study #4 reminds us that digital artists maychoose to exploit visible pixellation for particular artistic ends.

A digitally recorded image need not appear any less richly detailed or varied in color than an analogimage. All the same, in the terms of D. N. Rodowick, whereas the analog photograph is an “isomorphictranscription” of its subject, a digital photograph is a “data-output”, with a symbolically-mediated linkto its subject (Rodowick 2007: 117–8). This ontological divide—described by William J. Mitchell as a“sudden and decisive rupture” in the history of photography (1994: 59), is then assumed to haveaesthetic implications: Rodowick insists that the “discontinuities” in digital information “produceperceptual or aesthetic effects”. Despite this insistence, however, Rodowick goes on to acknowledgethat, with enough resolution, “a digital photograph can simulate the look of a continuously producedanalogical image”. This concession would seem to work against any attempt to identify the aestheticeffects of pixellation, even if “the pixel grid remains in the logical structure of the image” (Rodowick

2007: 119). But if we are to interpret Rodowick charitably, he could be implying that ontology at leastpartly determines appropriate appreciation; even if a digital photograph can look just like an analogphotograph, its (known) digital status affects which of its perceptible features are aesthetically relevantand how we appropriately engage with them.

1.4 Digital Art: Presentation

The media theorists’ worry about the impoverished digital image primarily refers to the production ofdigital images with its reliance on sampling and quantization. But there are also analogous worries onecould have about the digital presentation of images, worries about deep structural changes to analogimages once they are displayed digitally—for example, on a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen or whenprojected digitally on a movie screen. Of course one could simply be interested in investigating thesestructural changes without being particularly worried about them. This shall be our approach.

The traditional method of film reel projection has been a remarkably stable and entrenchedtechnology, remaining largely unchanged for over a century. But digital projection is on the rise,particularly in conjunction with the networked distribution of movies. And although movie audiencesmay not be able to see the difference on screen between analog and digital projection, theirexpectations are changing—for example, about what can go wrong in the presentation of a movie. Adeeper assumption that has not changed, one that is almost universal among film scholars, is thatcinema fundamentally depends on an illusion. Cinema is the art of moving images and thus its veryexistence depends on our being tricked into seeing a rapid succession of static images as a persistentmoving image. In the philosophy of film, there is a small debate about the status of cinematic motion—whether it really is an illusion as is commonly assumed. An analysis of digital projection technologyreveals new complexities in this debate but ultimately provides additional reasons to stick with thepopular illusionist view.

Traditional and digital projection methods could not appear more different: the former involvesrunning a flexible film strip through a mechanical projector; the latter involves a complex array ofmicromirrors on semiconductor chips, which, in combination with a prism and a lamp, generateprojectable images from binary code. Nevertheless, both are methods for generating the impression ofa continuously illuminated, persistent moving image from a sequence of static images. Compared withtraditional projection, however, digital projection includes an extra step, whereby the images in thestatic sequence are generated from flashes of light. In order to generate each image in the digitalprojector, a light beam from a high-powered lamp is separated by a prism into its color components ofred, blue, and green. Each color beam then hits a different Digital Micromirror Device (DMD), which isa semiconductor chip covered with more than a million tiny, hinged mirrors. Based on the informationencoded in the video signal, the DMDs selectively turn over some of the tiny mirrors to reflect thecolored lights. Most of the tiny mirrors are flipped thousands of times a second in order to create thegradations of light and dark making up a monochromatic, pixellated image—a mirror that is flipped on

a greater proportion of the time will reflect more light and so will form a brighter pixel than a mirrorthat is not flipped on for so long. Each DMD reflects a monochromatic image back to the prism, whichthen recombines the colors to form the projected, full-color image. This image—if it were held for longenough on the screen—would be perceived as static. In order then to produce the impression of motionin the projected, full-color image, the underlying memory array of the DMDs has to update rapidly sothat all the micromirrors are released simultaneously and allowed to move into a new “address state”,providing new patterns of light modulation for successive, slightly different images.

The two-stage process of digital projection, whereby each image in a static sequence is generated byflashing light and the impression of a moving image is then generated by the rapid execution of thesequence, draws attention to the metaphysical complexity of the question of how movies move. Inparticular, one is unlikely to determine the status of the impression of motion that makes possible theart of cinema unless one can determine the status of the imagery that is seen to move. Given thatmotion involves an object occupying contiguous spatial locations in successive moments of time, amoving object must be re-identifiable over time. A moving image in a film, arising as it does out of therapid display of a succession of still images, is not obviously a persistent object that can be seen tomove. Then again, perhaps it is enough that ordinary viewers identify an image—say of a moving train,as the same image, for the moving image to persist (Currie 1996). Alternatively, the moving imagecould be thought to persist as a second-order physical entity constituted by a sequence of flashing light(Ponech 2006).

The second proposal immediately runs into trouble with digital projection. If the traditionallyprojected moving image exists as a series of flashes of light, in digital projection, other “intermediate”objects must be granted existence—for example, the stable point of light consisting of the rate offlashes, and gaps between them, of a single micromirror on the DMD. At the same time, the movingimage itself must be stripped of its existence since it does not consist of flashes of light. This is due tothe fact that, in digital projection, there are no gaps between frames and so no underlying,imperceptible alternation of light and dark. This leaves the realist in the awkward position of claimingthat the moving image goes in and out of existence with the switch between analog and digitalprojection technologies.

The first proposal, on which cinematic motion is a secondary quality, threatens to destroy thedistinction between the apparent and the illusory. It suggests a way of reinterpreting any case ofperceptual illusion as a case involving the ascription of secondary qualities. That is, unless it can beshown that there are independent means of checking that we are mistaken about genuine illusions. Buteven if this can be shown, a problem remains: While there may not be an independent check for themotion in an image, there is likewise no independent check for a genuine illusion of color. Given thecontrived conditions of movie viewing, there is more reason to think of cinematic motion as akin to anillusory, than to a genuine, experience of color. With the introduction of digital projection, theconditions are arguably even more contrived. For it is not just movement in the image but the image

itself that is constituted by rapid flashes of light. And the technology involved is far less accessible thanthat of a traditional mechanical projector in the sense that one cannot, just by looking at the projectiondevice, see (roughly) how it works. In this way, an analysis of digital movie projection serves toreinforce the traditional assumption that cinema is an art of illusion. In addition, however, the analysissuggests that the illusion at the heart of cinema is particularly impenetrable—akin to an illusion ofcolor, and thus an illusion of a mere appearance that cannot be checked (Thomson-Jones 2013).

2. Digital Images

With digital movie projection, we begin to see the importance of understanding the technology ofdisplay for understanding the nature of digital art. Another way we see its importance is in relation toimages displayed on LCD screens. According to Goodman, images are essentially analog. Nevertheless,there seems to be a way for engineers to circumvent the essential analogicity of pictorial schemes byusing digital technologies for encoded subphenomenal discrimination. Arguably, finite differentiationcan be imposed on the scheme of all possible images displayed on high-resolution LCD screens. As weshall see, this has far-reaching implications for the ways in which we think about and properlyappreciate image-based art.

Both in his earlier and in his later work in aesthetics, Goodman commits to “a special relation” betweenthe analog and the pictorial, one that is seen when we compare “the presystematic notions ofdescription and picture in a given culture”. Given two schemes, S and S′, where S consists of alldescriptions or predicates in a language such as English, and S′ consists of all pictures, if we were toldonly of the structures of S and S′, we could distinguish the pictorial scheme by its being analog(Goodman and Elgin 1988: 130). The special relation remains, Goodman claims, despite the possibilityof a digital sub-scheme made up of black and white grid patterns all of which happen to be pictures. Insuch a scheme, the differences between patterned types that matter for the scheme’s being digital donot include all of the differences that matter for distinguishing pictorial types. Pictures aredistinguished by color, shape, and size, which vary continuously; any variation in color, shape, or sizepotentially results in a different picture. When we impose limits on the differences that matter fordistinguishing one grid pattern in the scheme from another, we are not interpreting the grid patternsas pictures; if we were to do so, we would have to treat them as members of a syntactically dense, ananalog, scheme.

Goodman’s insight about grid patterns and pictures suggests an immediate difficulty for explaining thedigital status of images displayed on LCD screens: Clearly it will not be sufficient to point out that suchimages are pixellated, and therefore made up of small identical building blocks that impose a lowerlimit on the differences between display-instances. Remember that pictures are defined by color,shape, and size, which vary continuously. This means that even if the physical pixels of an LCD screenare such that there are gaps between the possible shapes, sizes, and colors that the screen caninstantiate, and there are a finite number of shapes, sizes, and colors that the screen can instantiate,

there is still going to be vagueness at the limits of types. Any means of discretely carving up theproperty spaces of color, shape, and size has to involve grouping into types what are in fact(subphenomenally) distinct shapes, sizes, and colors, some of which may differ less from adjacentproperties grouped into other types. This makes it impossible always to determine unique classmembership; hence, finite differentiation is not achieved.

Pixellation alone, no matter the resolution, cannot account for images displayed on LCD screensbelonging to a digital scheme; digital images qua images thus remain stubbornly analog. But perhapsGoodman’s condition of finite differentiation can still be met with a closer analysis of digital imagetechnology. Current technologies for sampling and instantiating light intensities group objective colorswell below the level of phenomenal discrimination. For example, in the standard “Truecolor” system, adisplay pixel has three 8-bit subpixels, each of which emits a different visible wavelength with anintensity from a range of 256 values, yielding over 16 million objective colors. Such a large number ofavailable colors gives the impression of a color continuum when, in fact, digital sampling technologyhas been used to carve up the objective color space into a disjoint series of wavelength intensities. Onthe one hand, from the fact that display pixels can be lit at intensities between and indiscriminablefrom adjacent discriminable intensities, it looks like finite differentiation is defeated. On the otherhand, precisely because digital technology involves microtechnology and metrology forsubphenomenal discrimination between colors, the light intensity groupings that are expressednumerically as red-blue-green triplets in a system like Truecolor can be narrower than the objectivecolor types that contribute to the resultant image scheme. The key is keeping the variations in theessentially analog properties of color, shape, and size small enough so that they cannot accumulate tothe point of making a difference to image perception (Zeimbekis 2012). The types in the scheme ofdigital images are technologically segmented, transitive groupings of the same color-, shape-, and size-experiences. The carving out of a transitive sub-set of magnitudes has to occur relative to the needs ofthe users of the system. In the case of digital color, the types are classes of light intensities sufficient tocause the same color experience for normal human perceivers. The replicability of digital images ismade possible by the gap between the discriminatory limits of the human visual system and thediscriminatory limits of digital sampling technology.

Digital images can be replicated insofar as they are digital and thus finitely differentiated. They arefinitely differentiated because they rely on subphenomenal sampling and display technology. Inpractical terms, replication depends on the use of binary code, even though this is not in fact whatmakes images qua images digital. Of course binary code representations are themselves part of adigital scheme. But the role of binary code in image-instantiation is just one of consistent preservation;preservation for long enough to permit reproduction. When it comes to artworks comprising digitalimages, even if we have multiple instances of the same digital image on different screens or at differenttimes, it does not automatically follow that we are always in the presence of the actual or originalartwork whenever and wherever its imagery appears on a screen.

The SF MoMA is in possession of the original of Kalpakjian’s work, Corridor; they control access to thevideo imagery. At present, the work is not available to be viewed: it cannot be viewed on-line as part ofa digital archive or collection, nor is it currently on view in the physical space of the museum. Theimage sequence comprising the work could be multiply instantiated and widely distributed, but in factit is not. Similarly with Arcangel’s work, Landscape Study #4: described as an installation, it is to beexhibited in a physical gallery alongside an arrangement of printed stills, with a television connected toa Nintendo Entertainment System. Again, the image sequence displayed on the television could bemultiply instantiated and widely distributed, but it is not. Clips and copies of the landscape imageryare available on-line, but these are not taken to instantiate parts of the work itself. By contrast, worksof net art are instantiated whenever they are accessed by someone on-line.

There are many kinds of net art, including various forms of experimental on-line literature, conceptualbrowser art, and works drawing on software and computer gaming conventions. Extensive on-linecollections of visual and audiovisual net art are rigorously curated and at the same time immediatelyaccessible to ordinary Internet users. The contrast is striking, between the conventions of access andpresentation, for works of net art and for works like those by Kalpakjian and Arcangel. Perhaps adigital artwork comprising multiply instantiable images need not itself be multiply instantiable. At thispoint, in considering the factors determining the status of a digital visual artwork, the philosophy ofdigital art joins an ongoing debate about the ontology of art.

On the question of whether art works are all the same kind of thing or many different kinds of things,ontological pluralism is often taken to be implied by the primary role of the artist in “sanctioning”features of his or her work (Irvin 2005, 2008; Thomasson 2010). A sanction can consist simply in aself-professed artist painting a canvas, say, and handing it over to a gallery with a title attached. Theartist has sanctioned those features of the work that make it a traditional painting. But what was oncelargely implicit is now often explicit: many contemporary works of art are defined by a set ofinstructions for their presentation; the instructions determine what is part of the work and what is not,and whether the work is singular or multiply instantiable. As a result, the instructions guideappropriate interpretation of the work. On this view, ontology precedes interpretation: we cannotproperly and fully appreciate a work, for the work that it is, without a prior determination of what itcomprises. This is a matter of contention, however. On another way of thinking, artworks just areobjects of interpretation, and there is no artwork prior to interpretation whose boundaries can beidentified before we begin interpretation (Davies 2004).

The issue of the relation between ontology and interpretation is a complex and difficult one, butprogress likely can be made on the issue through an examination of digital art practices. This isparticularly in light of the high degree of self-consciousness with which many digital artists and digitalart curators specify the features of digital art works. It is common practice, for example, whenarchiving net art, to have artists fill out a questionnaire in order to specify which features of a work arecrucial for its preservation—whether features of appearance, timing and motion, interactivity

potentials and methods, linking to other sites, or hardware and software. When a work of net art isindividuated by its imagery, the artist has chosen to make the inherent replicability of digital imagerypart of his or her work. That this is a choice is suggested by the existence of singular works of digitalvisual art, like the examples discussed above. If indeed the works by Kalpakjian and Arcangel canfunction allographically—and certainly, this question requires further investigation (see D’Cruz andMagnus 2014)—this would support a primary role for the artist’s presentation instructions in fixing,not just the art form (installation, movie, conceptual work, etc.) but the basic structure of the work: forexample, whether the work is singular and thus identical with a certain kind of physical display ormultiple with no original display.

3. Appreciating Artworks in Digital Media

Reflection on the kinds and significance of choices available to an artist contributes to a fullappreciation of his or her work. For any artwork, appreciation begins with recognition of its status as awork, the product of artistic activity of some kind, and thus something to be appreciated as theachievement of an artist or group of artists. Most commonly, this achievement is understood in termsof the aesthetically significant effects achieved by an artist with certain kinds of tools and materials andin light of certain appreciative conventions. In other words, the achievement is always relative to anartistic medium. Returning to the case of an artist choosing what to do about the inherent replicabilityof digital imagery, another way of thinking about this choice is in terms of the artist recognizing thelimits and capacities of her chosen medium. Images conveyed digitally are always replicable and sowhen an artist aims to convey artistic content through digital imagery, she either has to accept theinevitable multiplicity of her images or resist the tendency of the medium and somehow specify thework’s singularity in presentation. At a more fine-grained level, our appreciation of particular effects—of color and composition, expression, narrative structure, and so on—depends on the effectsthemselves but also on background acknowledgment of their degree of difficulty or innovation in therelevant medium. One worry with digital art is that its production relies on the computer automationof many of the tasks, both manual and cognitive, traditionally involved in making art. The effectsachieved by computer automation cannot be assessed in the same way as those achieved by traditional“hands-on” artistic methods. The terms of our appreciation, therefore, need to be adjusted in thedigital age. This is certainly compatible with the continued relevance of medium-based appreciation, aslong as we can make sense of digital media as artistic media (Binkley 1998). But there is a strongtendency in film and media studies to assume that the medium has absolutely no role to play in theappreciation of digital art.

Summing up this view, it supposedly follows from the fact that modern (digital) computers encodeevery kind of information in the same way—i.e., as a sequence of binary digits—that an artwork thatcrucially relies in its production on computer processing is no longer defined by its mode ofpresentation, whether in images, moving images, sound patterns, or text. A work’s display is renderedmerely contingent by the fact that it is generated from a common code. By adding a particular

instruction to the code sequence specifying a work, imagery associated with that work could beinstantaneously converted into sounds or text, or just into different imagery. This possibility alonesupposedly renders meaningless all talk of an artwork being in a particular medium and being properlyappreciated in terms of that medium (Kittler 1999; Doane 2007).

Given the considerable effects of digital technology on artistic production, it is perhaps understandablethat some commentators are inclined toward a radical overhauling of art theoretical concepts. But theirarguments in support of such an overhaul are, at best, incomplete. We see this once we cite someimportant continuities between ways of making and thinking about art in the analog age and in thedigital age. It has always been the case, for example, that “any medium can be translated into anyother” (Kittler 1999: 1): without using a computer, someone could manually devise a set of rules (analgorithm) for the translation of image values, say, into sounds or text. Moreover, a common storageand transmission means for (moving) imagery and sound is not unique to digital technology: As DoronGalili points out (2011), electronic image transmission going back to the late nineteenth century—inother words, TV and its precursors—relies on the conversion of both images and sound into electronicpulses.

Apart from these important continuities, the media theorist’s inference from translatability tomedium-free art simply does not hold. That we could set about “translating” the imagery of CitizenKane into a symphony does not mean that the original artwork lacks a medium; it is a movie, after all,and as such, it has to be in the medium of moving images. The symphonic translation of Citizen Kaneis not the same work as the 1941 movie by Orson Welles. This reminds us that, in deciding whetherthere is a digital medium, we must not reduce the medium to the artist’s materials, for it also mattershow the artist uses those materials. Nor must we limit the constitutive materials of a medium tophysical materials. The case of literature shows that neither the materials of an art form, nor theirmodes of manipulation, need be physical. The medium of literature is neither paper and ink norabstract lexical symbols, but letters and words used in certain ways. There are, of course, manydifferent ways of physically storing and transmitting literary works, including by the printed page, inaudio recordings, and by memory (human or computer). But from the fact that The Tale of Two Citiescan be preserved in many different formats, it does not follow that this novel is any less decisively anovel and, as such, in the medium of literature.

Just as with a literary work, the preservation and transmission of digital works in different formatsdepends on the use of a common code, but a binary numeric code rather than a lexical one. If wordsand their literary uses constitute the medium of literature, then binary code and its artistic usesconstitute the medium of digital art. This allows for the possibility that the digital medium containsvarious sub-media, or “nested” media (Gaut 2010). For instance, within the medium of digital art, themedium of digital visual art comprises artistic uses of computer code specifically to create images. Intechnical terms, such uses can be referred to as (artistic) “bitmapping”, given that a computerultimately stores all images (2D and 3D vector) as bitmaps, code sequences that specify the integers

assigned to light intensity measurements in a pixel grid. The medium of bitmapping is thusdistinguished by a kind of digital technology, but the kind used to produce just those items belongingto the traditional medium of images.

Once the notion of digital media is revealed to be no more confused or mysterious than the familiarnotion of literary media, its irreducible role in appreciation becomes apparent. To take just oneexample, proper appreciation of movies in the digital age depends on recognizing that digital movie-making tools do not just make traditional movie-making easier; they also present new creativepossibilities and challenges. Given the maturity and mass-art status of the cinematic art form, it is easyto take for granted the medium of moving imagery; we may think we know precisely its limits, and wemay even think we have seen everything that can be done with it. The digital medium is different,however, and digital cinema is in both the medium of moving imagery and the digital medium.

At first glance, it might seem odd to speak of “challenges” or “limits” in relation to digital processes,which allow for instantaneous and endless modification with increasingly user-friendly applicationsand devices. The high degree of automation in the process of capturing an image with a digital videocamera, along with increasingly high image resolution and memory capacity, could make it seem asthough digital images are too easily achieved to be interesting. Then there are the practically endlesspossibilities for “correcting” the captured image with applications like Photoshop. Digital soundrecording is likewise increasingly automated, increasingly fine-grained, and reliant on ever-largercomputer memory capacities. Modifying and mastering recorded sound with digital editing softwareallows for an unlimited testing of options. In digital movie editing, sequence changes are instantaneousand entirely reversible—quite unlike when the editing process involved the physical cutting andsplicing of a film (image or sound) strip. Digital tools thus allow moviemakers to focus (almost) purelyon the making of choices about the look and sound of the movie without having to worry about thetechnical difficulty or finality of implementation.

Rather than dismissing all digital movies as too easily achieved to be interesting, medium-basedappreciation requires that we consider the digital on its own terms and allow for the possibility thatcertain kinds of increased technical efficiency can bring new creative risks. For example, even thoughcommitting to certain editorial decisions does not entail irreversible alterations to a filmstrip, arrivingat those decisions involves sifting through and eliminating far more options, a process which can easilybecome overwhelming and therefore more error-ridden. When we properly appreciate a digital movie,therefore, part of what we need to appreciate is the significance of any scene or sequence looking justthe way it does when it could have, so easily, looked so many other ways. This is undeniably a form ofmedium-based appreciation, but the medium to which we appeal is the digital medium rather than thetraditional cinematic medium. If the digital medium is computer code used in certain ways—forexample, to make moving images, then it is only when we think of a digital movie as in this mediumthat we can appreciate it as a particular response to the creative problem, introduced by coding, offinalizing selections from a vast array of equally and instantly available options.

The case of digital cinema is perhaps a useful starting point for work in the philosophy of digital art.Digital cinema is a multi-media art form, after all, involving 2D and 3D moving images as well assound, and with the potential for robust interactivity, whereby audiences select story events orotherwise modify a movie’s screening in prescribed ways (Gaut 2010: 224–43). Many of the digitaltools developed by the movie and video game industries are now available more widely to artistsinterested in making other forms of digital art, including net art, digital sound installations, and virtualreality art (Grau 2003). In terms of how the use of these tools affects proper appreciation, there areimportant continuities between the movie-making context and the wider digital art world. In addition,the philosophy of film is a well-established subfield in aesthetics, one that engages with both filmtheory and cognitive science in order to explicate the nature of film as a mass art (Thomson-Jones2014). For many of the standard topics in the philosophy of film, interesting and important questionsarise when we extend the discussion from analog to digital cinema. There is a question, for example,about the kinds and significance of realism that can be achieved with traditional celluloid film ascompared with manipulated digital imagery (Gaut 2010: 60–97). The philosophy of film can providesome of the initial terms of analysis for artworks in a broad range of digital media. At the same time, itis important to approach the digital arts on their own terms under the assumption that the digital is anartistically significant category.

A brief survey of the contemporary art world suggests that two prominent features of digital art in needof further study are its potential interactivity and transmissibility. So much of digital art is networkedand so much of networked digital art prescribes Internet users to modify or collaboratively buildparticular display instances of a work. Interactivity of the kind that relies on computer processing isgrowing in prominence across a wide range of art forms, changing the ways in which meaning iscreated for works in those art forms. There are works of virtual performance art—for example, works ofperformance art in Second Life—and there are works of performance art in the actual world thatincorporate a networked video feed. In both kinds of case, the networking of the performance allowsfor interactivity. Wafaa Bilal’s Domestic Tension (2007) provided a live video feed of the artist’smonth-long stay in a cell-like gallery space. In response to the video, Internet users could control apaint gun that fired at the artist. While this work does not have a purely digital display, its use of digitaltechnology to allow remote yet instantaneous, and extremely widespread, interaction based oninstantly replicable imagery is crucial for its serving to protest the use of remote-controlled missiles inthe US Iraq war.

There is an expanding philosophical literature on the nature of interactivity in the arts (see, forexample, Preston 2014; Smuts 2009), stimulated in part by a growing awareness of the artisticpotential of digital tools (see, also, Lopes 2010; Salz 1997). Further investigation is needed into thequestion of whether some forms of interactivity are distinctively digital, and whether digitalinteractivity has distinctive aesthetic features. Such an investigation would be paradigmatic of thephilosophy of digital art, requiring formal and technological understandings of digital systems,

familiarity with central topics in philosophical aesthetics, and engagement with the digital art world.

Bibliography

Binkley, Timothy, 1998, “Digital Media”, in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, M. Kelly (ed.), New York:Oxford University Press.Blachowicz, James, 1997, “Analog Representation Beyond Mental Imagery”, Journal of Philosophy,94(2): 55–84.Currie, Gregory, 1996, “Film, Reality, and Illusion”, in Post Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, D.Bordwell and N. Carroll (eds.), Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 325–44.Davies, David, 2004, Art as Performance, Malden, MA: Blackwell.D’Cruz, Jason and P.D. Magnus, 2014, “Are Digital Images Allographic?” in Journal of Aesthetics andArt Criticism, 72(4): 417–27.Doane, Mary Ann, 2007, "Indexicality: Trace and Sign", differences: A Journal of Feminist CulturalStudies, 18(1): 1–6.Dretske, Fred I., 1981, “Sensation and Perception”, in Knowledge and the Flow of Information,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Galili, Doron, 2011, “The Post Medium Condition, circa 1895”, presented at the Second InternationalColloquium of the Permanent Seminar on the History of Film Theory: The Impact of TechnologicalInnovations on the Theory and Historiography of Cinema, Montréal.Gaut, Berys, 2009, “Digital Cinema”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film, P.Livingston and C. Plantinga (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 75–85.–––, 2010, A Philosophy of Cinematic Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Goodman, Nelson, 1976, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols,Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Co.Goodman, Nelson and Catherine Z. Elgin, 1988, Reconceptions in Philosophy, London: Routledge.Grau, Oliver, 2003, Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Haugeland, John, 1981, “Analog and Analog”, Philosophical Topics, 12: 213–26.Heim, Michael, 1998, “Virtual Reality”, in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, M. Kelly (ed.), New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Irvin, Sherri, 2005, “The Artist’s Sanction in Contemporary Art”, Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism, 63(4): 315–26.–––, 2008, “The Ontological Diversity of Visual Artworks”, in New Waves in Aesthetics, K. Stock, andK. Thomson-Jones (eds.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-19.Katz, Matthew, 2008, “Analog and Digital Representation”, Minds and Machines, 18: 403–08.Kittler, Friedrich, 1999, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Lewis, David, 1971, “Analog and Digital”, Noûs, 5(3): 321–27.Lopes, Dominic McIver, 2010, A Philosophy of Computer Art, London/New York: Routledge.Maley, Corey J., 2011, “Analog and Digital, Continuous and Discrete”, Philosophical Studies, 155(1):

117–31.Mitchell, William J., 1994, The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Paul, Christiane, 2008, Digital Art, 2nd ed., London/New York: Thames & Hudson.Piccinini, Gualtiero, 2008, “Computers”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89: 32–73.Ponech, Trevor, 2006, “External Realism about Cinematic Motion”, British Journal of Aesthetics,46(4): 349–68.Preston, Dominic, 2014, “Some Ontology of Interactive Art”, Philosophy and Technology, 27(2): 267–78.Rodowick, D.N., 2007, The Virtual Life of Film, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Saltz, David S., 1997, “The Art of Interaction: Interactivity, Performativity, and Computers”, Journal ofAesthetics and Art Criticism, 55(2):117–27.San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SF MoMA), n.d., “Craig Kalpakjian: Corridor (1995)—About theArtwork” [Museum Exhibit Label]. San Francisco, California. [Available online]Smuts, Aaron, 2009, “What is Interactivity?”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4): 53–73.Tavinor, Grant, 2009. The Art of Videogames, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Thomasson, Amie L., 2010, “Ontological Innovation in Art”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,68(2): 119–30.Thomson-Jones, Katherine, 2013, “Sensing Motion in Movies”, in Psychocinematics: ExploringCognition at the Movies, A.P. Shimamura (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–32.–––, 2014, “Philosophy of Film”, in Oxford Bibliographies Online: Philosophy, (last modified date 24-Jul-2012, accessed 13-Feb-2015). <available online>.Zeimbekis, John, 2012, “Digital Pictures, Sampling, and Vagueness: The Ontology of Digital Pictures”,Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 70(1): 43–53.