Living in an individualistic world, we seek resonance. Mirrors of ourselves. Two people looking at the same surface, one is the maker the other the viewer. We share the same world even if it is different for both. Yet there is something that connects us. We speak to each other through this surface. We share space but not the time. We do not speak directly and what I intend does not have to be the same as you receive.

The shared human experience is what connects us. The deeper I dig the more universal the message. Recognition and discovery are the great forces behind aesthetics. Art that is made only for beauty will be automated by market forces and technological progress. And will therefore increasingly lose its relevance in art.

TL, DR The indirect connection between sender and receiver with both their own story, reflecting on their own humanity and experience creates a symbiotic relationship that is necessary for the sustainability of art. Art made for beauty will largely lose its artistic relevance through automation.

Art is a reduction process of reality. Our world and its experience are divided and processed into small elements. If the whole of these elements together yields a greater experiential value than the reality from where it originated, it sublimates into art.

TL; DR Art comes from our experience but transcends the normal.

We create the reality around us. The heuristic neurological preferences of our species form the basis for this.

We are fixed to a Scaffold (fabric) of culture, which is built up from the same preferences and choices of our ancestors.

We are operating in this system. We react to its structure, we break free of it, and thereby creating new frameworks.

TL, DR Art is in a framework formed by human characteristics from the present and the past. This framework is the stage of art.

The aesthetic experience is a neurological phenomenon. This experience is ontologically measurable and includes the beautiful, the ugly, the idea, the sublime, the drama and the comedy. A work of art itself has no aesthetics. The game of art is formed by the intention of the maker, and the experience of the viewer who mirrors himself in this object. Aesthetics serves as the packaging of this intention. And with this, it becomes the playing field of art. We seduce "the other" with the promise of an experience of value. Only then will the other person pay attention to the scarce attention. And will open itself to the experience.

TL; DR A work of art is a normal object. It is the experience of the viewer who makes this special. Aesthetics is not the same as beautiful, it is a collection of measurable qualities: beautiful, ugly, the idea, the sublime, the drama and the comedy. The function of this: The packaging of the artist's cargo. If the packaging is tempting, the spectator wants to pay attention and the artist can pass on her contents.

In the information age, everything that was closed is now open. Nothing is locked up anymore in libraries and museums, rich copies exist as data. The data is immediately available, and therefore present.

Because the entire history and discourse are available in a frictionless way, the influence of time and distance as a container will decline. Art will react to the words and images of the whole or parts of history in real time in an ongoing process.

The great art movements of the past are the outcome of a linear world, and a framework for studying and categorizing created afterwards. We now live in a lateral world. The current culture consists of an endless network of echo-chambers or niches. Because these are smaller, they will be easier to influence, and therefore dynamic. Small cultural elements with the viscosity of syrup clump together and split apart, like an endless regenerating (scale-free) network.

TL; DR Through the internet almost every artwork or document is readily available as a rich copy, so all discussions and art movements are current. Art movements are today numerous and dynamic in nature.

See also: Manifesto — Julian Rosefeldt.

Art moves with a slower development rate than society, although it pretends to be a forerunner. Our current high-level technical progress has produced a great deal of distance between the experience of the viewer and the proposed experience of art.

The media channels and information sources are curated and personalized for us, we watch films on demand. We are used to immersing ourselves in great aesthetic spectacles, in countless worlds we experience unique personal experiences in the games we play.

For her part, art is still busy with the contemplations of single individuals. In still flat surfaces she tries to lure the spectator in a screaming manner towards the next rebellion, but closes her eyes to that fact that the world outside has changed. With the gamepad in hand, the public has the power to move through different worlds. And although these experiences are scripted. It is the artist providing for the player an experience so that he wants to continue and return. Without becoming superficial.

Interactivity and reciprocity would be a great revolution for art that could help her regain her status.

TL, DR The changes in society and technology go faster than in art. Modern innovations such as on-demand and games are changing the playing field.

But between these, art can function as a separate entity. Where philosophy is rational, religion is spiritual, and politically it is administrative, art has the capacity of experience. As a filter, art makes complicated structures more palpable. It is in this the spectator can immerse himself in sensory experiences, to deepen himself.  Activism is therefore a logical outcome, although the transcending timelessness will be limited by the focus on the current state of affairs instead of the broader.

It is the reciprocity between art, the public and these elements that creates a rich and  fertile environment for cultural development

TL; DR As a bearer of experiences and a giver of insight, art can act as a platform between politics or philosophy or religion and the individual.

The ambiguity that art evokes is the ambiguity it has received.

Nurtured and strengthened by repetition of values ​​into a closed system, the last major art movements of the last century had a cynical attitude towards the masses. The other was not important.

The audience was reduced to accidental bypassers. Who feel the need to apologize if he or she wants to give their own opinion.

The artwork no longer has the monopoly position on the aesthetic experience. Games and streaming media give the public control and on-demand.

Pure ambiguity is an alluring trap because it makes an artwork seemingly intelligent. But the walls that she evokes are also the walls with which we surround ourselves.

We have to take a close look at ourselves and the existing situation, and investigate whether this one-sidedness and also the glorification of the genius is the right one. It should perhaps be replaced with a more inclusive attitude with the public as an important stakeholder.

TL; DR The self-centered attitude of art must be broken open. The society around her has changed. The attitude that art adopts towards the public should be re-examined, to guard its own right to exist.

Art usually has only one direction. From transmitter to receiver. The genius lets the public see his art. Sometimes with little regard to their experience. The super-individual in the form of a single artist has long been seen as the highest good. It is the genius, the prodigy. This creates the non-genius and the normal child on the other side. Instead of maintaining this hierarchical structure, art should form a bridge for the other, for understanding and growth. Instead of using ambiguity as a weapon, to use it as a tool and so create on a "non-zero-sum" game. In which both parties win. A relationship has to be formed with the spectator,  Why does he or she come here? What does the other have to gain with this interaction? A symbiotic relationship that leads to an endless spiral of possibilities and depth.

TL; DR The public should be embraced as a full partner, rather than the worship of a single genius, often appointed by chance.