Right after the Big Bang, in the Planck epoch, the Universe occupied a space region with a radius of 1.4 × 10^-13 cm – remarkably, equal to the fundamental length characterizing elementary particles. Analogue to the way nearly all cells contain the DNA information required to build the entire organism, every region the size of an elementary particle had then the energy necessary for the Universe’s creation.

As the Universe cooled down, electrons and quarks were the first to appear, the latter forming protons and neutrons, combining into nuclei in a mere matter of minutes. During its expansion, processes started happening slower and slower: it took 380,000 years for electrons to start orbiting around the nuclei, and 100 million years for hydrogen and helium to form the first stars. Even more, it wasn’t until 4.5 billion years ago that our young Earth was born, with its oceans emerging shortly after, and the first microbes to call them home for the first time. Life took over our planet in what seems, on the scale of the Universe, a sheer instant, and turned this world into its playground. There came butterflies and tricked the non-existence of natural blue pigment by creating Christmas tree-shaped nanometric structures in their wings to reflect blue’s wavelength only; fireflies and lanternfish which use the chemical reaction between oxygen and luciferin for bioluminescence; and it all goes all the way up to the butterfly effect leading to the unpredictability of the weather forecasts, commonly known as the reason why a pair of wings flapping in Brazil can lead to a typhoon in Texas. The world as we know it now developed slowly, and with the help of continuous evolution and natural selection, the first humans came to life.

Without any doubt, we are the earthly species never ceasing to surprise. We developed rationality, logic, strategic and critical thinking, yet human nature cannot be essentially defined without bringing into the equation our remarkable appetite for art and beauty. In the intricate puzzle human existence represents, this particular piece has given it valences no other known being possesses. Not all beauty is art, but many artworks both in the past, as well as today, embody some understanding of beauty.

To define is to limit, as Oscar Wilde stated, and even though we cannot establish clear definitions of art and beauty. Yet, great works of art manage to establish a strong thread between the creator and receptor. In contrast to this byproduct of human self-expression that encapsulates unique creative behaviour, beauty has existed long before our emergence as a species and isn’t bound to it in any way. It is omnipresent, a metaphorical Higgs field that can be observed by the ones who wish to open their eyes thoroughly. From the formation of Earth’s oceans and butterflies’ blue wings to Euler’s identity and rococo architecture, beauty is a subjective ubiquity. Though a question remains – why does it evoke such pleasure in our minds? What happens in our brains when we see something beautiful? The question is the subject of an entire field, named neuroaesthetics, which identified an intricate whole-brain response to artistic stimuli. As such, our puzzling reactions to art can be explained by these responses similar to “mind wandering”, involving “thoughts about the self, memory, and future”– in other words, art seems to evoke our past experiences, present conscious self, and imagination about the future. There needs to be noted that critics of the field draw attention to the superficiality and oversimplification that may characterize our attempts to view art through the lenses of neuroscience.

Withal, our fascination for art and beauty is certified by facts from immemorial times — let’s go back hundreds of thousands of years, even before language was invented. The past can prove our organic inclinations towards pleasing our senses and communicating ourselves to the world and posterity. Our ancestors felt the need to express themselves by designing exquisite quartz hand-axes, symmetrical teardrops which surpassed the pure functional purposes and represent the first artistic endeavours acknowledged. Around 100,000 years ago, the first jewellery (shell necklaces) were purposefully brought from the seashore as accessories for the early Homo sapiens in today’s Israel and Algeria. 60,000 years later, we marked the beginning of figurative art through the mammoth-ivory Löwenmensch found in today’s Germany, the oldest-known zoomorphic sculpture, half-human and half-lion. Just shortly after, we started depicting the reality of our everyday lives on cave walls: from cows, wild boars and domesticated dogs to dancing people and outlines of human hands; we told our stories the best we could, and we never stopped ever since.

We conferred the strongest of feelings to our workings, making them a powerful showcase of our minds and souls. Time gradually refined and sublimated our taste, going from Nefertiti’s bust to Johannes Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring, up to the point where Robert Ryman’s ‘Bridge’– a white-on-white painting, a true reflection of minimalism – was sold for $20.6 million. But what are we heading towards?

The future holds the enticing promise of a legacy like no other: passing the artistic capabilities to machines, the ultimate step in making them human-like. How would this be possible since real art cannot catch contour without the touch of human creativity? The emergence of computational creativity aims to prove us that designing machines exhibiting creative behaviour is, in fact, a possibility that can be achieved. The earliest remarkable attempt was AARON, a computer program generating artworks with the help of AI, with its foundations put in 1968 by Harold Cohen. It continued to be improved until 2016, but regardless of the switch between C programming language to the more artistic-friendly Lisp, it was still restricted to hard coding and could not learn on its own. A giant leap was made after Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), first introduced in 2014, started being used for generating art. A noteworthy example is AICAN, “the first and only AI artist trained on 80,000 of the greatest works in art history”, its artworks having been exhibited in major New York galleries and dropping as NFTs in 2021. It is complemented by AIs that experiment with fragrances and flavours (such as the ones designed by IBM), or compose emotional soundtrack music (see AIVA). The artistic community allowed for other countless tasks to be taken over by AIs; take ArtPI, an API optimized for visual searching based on style, color, light, composition, genre and other characteristics. The world seeks to improve whatever can be improved, technology mimicking whatever can be mimicked, never seeming to run out of options and ideas.

For an indefinite period of time, we will continue to assimilate and replicate the world’s astonishing beauty, transposing it into art and eventually passing it on to machines. This idea of continuity is deeply rooted in human nature, giving us hope for the much-yearned transcendence: we want to feel that we can overcome our transience, loneliness, fears, and limitations. And art is here, for humans and posthumans alike, to serve this purpose for as long as we need it and yield beauty as never seen before.

Under Space Policy Directive-1, NASA has been charged with leading a “sustainable exploration of the Moon together with commercial and international partners.”

In response to this bold directive, NASA is working with U.S. and international partners to lead the development of the first permanent human spaceship in orbit around the Moon, known as the Gateway. The Gateway will be a part-time home and office for astronauts farther in space than humans have ever been before.

The Gateway will be important to building a permanent human presence on the Moon. Astronauts will visit at least once per year, living and working aboard the spaceship in deep space for up to three months at a time. NASA is looking at options for astronauts to shuttle between the Gateway and the lunar surface, to explore new locations across the Moon. Even before our first trip to Mars, astronauts will use the Gateway to train for life far away from Earth, and we will use it to practice moving a spaceship in different orbits in deep space.

Just like an airport, spacecraft bound for the surface of the Moon or Mars can use the Gateway to refuel or replace parts. The Gateway’s core functions include power and propulsion, communications, habitation, logistics resupply, robotics, and an airlocks for science and spacewalks.

By partnering with U.S. companies and international partners to design and build the Gateway, NASA will ensure this groundbreaking lunar laboratory is available to multiple users, providing more access to the Moon than ever before.

You can learn more about the Gateway with this quick Q&A: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/questions-nasas-new-spaceship

The goal of this challenge is to develop a graphic to represent the Gateway. The product should graphically convey the key theme of space exploration and what the Gateway represents. The graphic will be used in multiple ways internally at NASA, but will have limited external/public use, if any. A small version of the graphic may be used in the top corner of documents, a larger version could be used on the title page of internal presentation materials, or the graphic may be used on other products developed by the NASA Gateway team.

Graphic Requirements

• Both a color version and black/white version are required.
• Source File Requirements: All original vector source files of the submitted design. Files should be created in Adobe Illustrator or Inkscape and saved as layered AI or EPS files. Note that PSDs saved as EPS files are not true vector / scalable files and will not be accepted.
• All fonts (and operating systems) must be listed in a text file within your Submission Zip file. Include the name of the font and a link to where it can be downloaded/purchased. DO NOT include any font files in your submission or source files.
• All text in the graphic should be converted to outlines.
• Submission should also include 1024 x1024 version of the graphic in jpeg or png (on both a black background and a white background). The NASA insignia or other NASA logos cannot be used as any part of the submission.

Other Preferences

• Color pallet is open, but limited to 6 colors.
• Please avoid gradients or other special effects as they are difficult to reproduce across all media.

Stock Photography Requirements

• Stock photography is not allowed in this contest. All submitted elements must be designed solely by you.

Judging Criteria

• Requirements: Does your submission meet the requirements as stated within the challenge?
• Quality: Does your submission look fresh, professional, and clean?
• Concept: Does your submission represent what the Gateway stands for?

Please note that NASA employees/contractors are not eligible for competing in this contest.

Supported Submission File Types

• JPG
• PNG
• GIF

Join the Contest

https://www.freelancer.com/contest/NASA-Contest-Design-the-G…51793.html

“Made in 1999 by Dutch director Jan Bosdriesz, the documentary Metamorphose: M.C. Escher, 1898–1972 takes its title from one of Escher’s more well-known printsin which the word “metamorphose” transforms itself into patterns of abstract shapes and animals.”

Read more

“Müller, who is based in Chile, calls the concept improvisational carpentry. He traveled to New York and wandered the city streets and dove into dumpsters searching for materials he could turn into pieces that are part sculpture, part theater, and part design. He believes that working with cast-off items reflects the city’s character. (The mottled woods certainly captures New York’s tougher side.)”

Read more

Art and photography often dovetail nicely, to the point of being indistinct at times. But rarely does photography achieve the sort of free-flowing, brush-like effects that Matt Molloy imbues his incredible Time Stack photographs with. “My time stack series is a lot like a digital version of what the impressionist painters where trying to achieve in the 19th-century,” says Matt.

Read more

“OS FERMENTATION events have included installations, workshops, prints, and tastings. The installation includes digital prints created by custom electronics and software that allow microbes to take their own “selfies” and add image manipulation effects to their images based on the shifting pH levels, oxygen, and color values of the fermentation process.”

Read more

“When you consider that one of the most vulnerable targets of violent extremism are kids who don’t have access to education, we really had to try and make the art captivating and yet simple enough to explain the story to someone even if they can’t read the words,” Aftab told Hyperallergic.

Read more

It’s not a physical landscape. It’s a term reserved for the new technologies. It’s a landscape in the future. It’s as though you used technology to take you off the ground and go like Alice through the looking glass.
John Cage, in reference to his 1939 Imagined Landscape [1].

In the last installment (see here, here and here) I argued that the increasing prominence and frequency of futuristic aesthetics and themes of empowerment-through-technology in EDM-based mainstream music videos, as well as the increasing predominance of EDM foundations in mainstream music over the past 3 years, helps promote general awareness of emerging-technology-grounded and NBIC-driven concepts, causes and potential-crises while simultaneously presenting a sexy and self-empowering vision of technology and the future to mainstream audiences. The only reason this is mentionable in the first place is the fact that these are mainstream artists and labels reaching very large audiences.

In this installment, I will be analyzing a number of music videos for tracks by “real EDM” artists, released by exclusively-EDM record labels, to show that these futuristic themes aren’t just a consequence of EDM’s adoption by mainstream music over the past few years, and that there is long history of futuristic aesthetics and gestalts in electronic music, as well as recurrent themes of self-empowerment through technology.

In this part I will discuss some of these recurrent themes, which can be seen to derive from a number of aspects shared by Virtual Art (any art created without the use of physical instruments), of which contemporary electronic music is an example because it is created using software. I argue that this will become the predominant means of art production — via software — for all artistic mediums, from auditory to visual to eventual olfactory, somatosensory and proprioceptual artistic mediums. The interface between artist and art will become progressively thinner and more transparent, culminating in a time where Brain-Computer-Interface technology can sense neural operation and translate this directly into an informational form to be played by physical systems (e.g. speakers) at first, but eventually into a form that can be read by given person’s own BCI instantiated phenomenologically via high-precision technological neuromodulation (of which deep brain stimulation is an early form).

In the second part of this installment I will be following this discussion up with a look at some music videos for EDM-tracks that embody and exemplify the themes, aesthetics and general gestalts under consideration here.

Odditory Artificiality

The music- videos accompanying many historical and contemporary examples of EDM tracks display consistently futuristic and technoprogressive thematics, aesthetics and plots, as well as positive, self-empowering and often primal-pleasure-appealing depictions of emerging and as-yet-conceptual technologies. Many also exemplify the recurrent theme of human-technology symbiosis, inter-constitution and co-deferent inter-determination. It is not just physical prosthesis – for in a way language is as much prosthetic technology as artificial arm.  This definition of prosthesis doesn’t make a distinction between nonbiological systems for the restoration of statistically-normal function and nonbiological systems for the facilitation or instantiation of enhanced functions and/or categorically-new functional modalities. And nor should it. I argue that such a dichotomy is invalid because our functional modalities are always changing. This was true of biological evolution and it is true of mind and of cultural evolution as well. Other recurrent themes depicted in the video include technological autonomy and animacy and the facilitation of seemingly magical or otherwise-impossible feats, either via technology or else against a futuristic background.

These videos are not wrong for picking up on the self-empowering and potential-liberating inherencies of technology, nor their radically-transformative and ability-extending potentials. Indeed, as I argued in brief in the first installment of this series, electronic music exemplifies a general trend and methodology that will become standard for more and more artistic mediums, and to an increasingly large degree in each medium, as we move forward into the future. Contemporary EDM and electronic music is made using software – and this fundamental dissociation with physical instrumentation demonstrates the liberating potentials of what I have called virtuality – the realm of information, the ontics of semiotics, and the ability to readily create, modulate and modify a given informational object to an arbitrarily-precise degree. Not only do artists have the ability to modulate and modify a given sound-wave or sound-wave-ensemble with greater magnitude and precision, but they can do so to create end-result sound-waves that are either impossible with current physical instruments or else significantly harder to produce with physical instruments.

Virtuality De-Scarcitizes

The ability to create without constraint (i.e. if it’s an information-product then we aren’t constrained by the use of physical resources or dependency on materials-processing and system-configuration/component-integration) means that our only limiting factor is available or objective-optimal memory and computation. The ability to readily duplicate an information-product with negligible resource-expenditure (e.g. it doesn’t cost much, in terms of memory or computation, to create and transmit an electronic file) means that any resources expended in the creation (whether computationally or manually by a human programmer) or maintenance (e.g. storage) of the information-product is amortized over the course of all the instances in which it is doubled – that is, it’s cost, or the amount of resources expended, in comparison to the net product is cut in half every time it’s doubled).

Is it coincidence that these de-scarcitizing and constraint-eschewing properties inherent in information-products are paralleled and reflected so perfectly, in thematic, aesthetic and gestalt, by electronic-music videos? Or could such potentials be felt by our raw intuitions, seen in the ways in which technology empowers people, expands their choices, frees possibilities and works once-wonders on a daily basis, and simply amplified through the cultural magnifying-glass of art? After all, if one looks back throughout the history of electronic music one can see many early pioneers and antecedents of electronic music, we can see individuals and movements that acknowledge these de-scarcitizing, possibility-actualizing and self-empowering potentials in various ways. This very virtue of virtuality could be seen, exemplified in embryonic form, in early forms of electronic music as long as 100+ years ago — for instance in the works and manifestos of Italian Futurism, an early 20th century art movement, which embraced (among other artistic sub-genres) Noise Music, an early20th century embodiment of electronic music

It’s not as though EDM came out of nowhere after all (claims to constraintless creation aside); the technological synthesis of sound can be seen as a natural continuation of the trends set out by the creation and development of recording equipment  in the early to mid-20th century, and harkened by the explosion of popularity the electric guitar and synthesizers saw in the 1960s. In an interview with Jim Morrison given in 1969 essentially predicts the predominance of electronic music we are seeing today, saying that “I guess in four or five years the new generation’s music will have a synthesis of those two elements [blues and folk] and some third thing, maybe it will be entirely, um, it might rely heavily on electronics, tapes… I can kind of envision one person with a lot of machines, tapes, electronic setups singing or speaking using machines.”

Sound-Wave Sculptor

I believe that the use of noise to make music will continue and increase until we reach a music produced through the use of electrical instruments which will make available for musical purposes any and all sounds that can be heard. Photoelectric, film and mechanical mediums for the synthetic production of music will be explored.
John Cage, The Future of Music: Credo, 1937 [2].

When did these underlying potentialities inherent in virtual or informational-mediation really start to become obvious, or at least detectable in nascent or fledging form?

The de-scarcitizing effects of virtually-mediated art (a class that includes such early embodiments and antecedents of electronic music) seems only to have become obvious on a level beyond intuition when the ability to artificially synthesize sound brought with it a greatly increased ability to directly modulate and modify such sound.

This marked the beginning of the trend that distinguishes this class as categorically different than physically-mediated art. After all, playing an instrument can be considered modulating it just as operating a turn table can, so what constitutes the effective difference? Namely the greatly increased increased range and precision (that is, the precision with which the artist can modulate a given sound or create a given sound to his liking, which corresponds to the degree-of-accuracy between his mental ideal and what he can produce physicality) of modulation made possible by the technologies and techniques that allows us to artificially-synthesize sound in the first place.

Sound-waves can be modulated (i.e. controlled or affected in real-time) or modified (i.e. recorded, controlled or affected in iterations or gradually, and then replayed without modulation in real-time) with greater precision (e.g. ability to modulate a waveform within smaller intervals of time or with a smaller standard-deviation/tolerance-interval/margin-of-error). The magnitude of such changes (e.g. the range of frequencies a given waveform can be made to conform to, or the range of pitches a given waveform can be made to embody, through such methods) is also greater than the potential magnitude available via the modulation of playing a physical instrument. What’s more, fundamentally new categories of sound can be produced as well, whereas in non-virtually-mediated-music such fundamentally new categories of sound would require a whole new physical instrument — if they can be reproduced by physical instrumentation at all.

The earliest synthesizers harkened the future of all art mediums; artificially-created, modulated and modified sound via the user-interface of knobs, dials and keys is one small step away from music produced solely through software – and one giant leap beyond the watered-down and matter-bound paradigm of music and artistic-media in general that preceded it.

References:

[1] Kostelanetz, Richard. 1986. “John Cage and Richard Kostelanetz: A Conversation about Radio”. The Musical Quarterly.72 (2): 216–227.

[2] Cage, John. 1939. “Future of Music; Credo”.