I have no idea what Matthew Fuller is talking about in the final session at ISEA. He’s got images flickering above his head, and a terminal window that seems to be picking out words from what he’s saying and searching the web for images “about” that word. It’s totally cool and totally distracting.

I’ll be able to tell you many of the words he used. Slap, virtue, methodology, contemporary, techniques, art, beyond.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “distracted

  1. noah

    He began by saying that one of the things he’d like to do is, well, talk about art — which none of the other keynotes have done. He argued it’s kind of dangerous for ISEA to end up just a transdisciplinary junction point, with no direct connection to art. Of course, there’s been art, but a lot more time for seeing presentations, and only a percentage of these have touched on art.

    He just got a time signal from the moderator, and now is showing some art… JoDI’s work on a Sinclair Spectrum starts out — you can’t run it, just see it as video.

  2. Scott

    That presentation was dead boring. Saying you’re going to talk about art and saying something meaningful about art seem to be two entirely different things. As far as I could tell, his paper was an exercise using theory to say very little over the course of 30 or so pages. If his keynote an example of what we talk about when we talk about digital art, we don’t talk about much at all.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]