JERES • Pandigitalism
Pandigitalism is an embrace of the digital medium while not rejecting our analog context and established languages of expression.
Pandigitalism is more about process and intent than aesthetic. It is about having a fluid expressive grammar.
Pandigitalism explores the tension between technology and humanity as one becomes fused with the other—tangibly and psychologically.
Pandigitalism believes spiritualism falls between understanding and ignorance—whether biological, analog, digital, etc.
Pandigitalism is a rejection of pedantic or fascist views of what digital art ought to be, whether that be a dogmatic approach to the digital medium or the religious recycling and replication of a purely analog process.
Pandigitalism believes that art is incestuous and feeds on itself, recontextualizing it in the current state of existence and the transformations that are transpiring.
Pandigitalism shows evidence of analog influence and digital methods coexisting or can merely imply it.
Pandigitalism invites vulnerability into the digital realm by creating space for the imperfection of the analog world.
Pandigitalism embraces the intuition of digital entropy as a reflection of biological evolution and believes there is ambiguity in free will and determinism, whether biological, analog or digital; that each share more than what separates them.
Pandigitalism reflects a perceived reality where it has become harder to parse what is true and not, what is created by hand or by machine, or what is physically mechanical or code-based. It finds beauty in the blurry lines between artificial intelligence and biological instinct or knowledge. It questions whether the former is a threat because it creates its own morality or merely because it amplifies humanity's faults. Pandigitalism is a reflection of that tension and transformation.
Pandigitalism embraces the notion that the future must not forget the past, as if that's possible.
Pandigitalism is about intersection and inclusion.
— JERES, 2/1/2024
I know a lot of people have been talking about similar topics lately—especially, simply—that there is a lot to consider in between the skeuomorphic and digitally native poles of the conversation... and that we shouldn't have to think that is a binary decision in the first place.
This is meant to extend that thought/approach and apply a label to it... or just express my just my take on it, in manifesto form... (which I know... puke.)
While I was originally thinking of this label/idea/term in regard to my upcoming work, namely Heuristics of Emotion (and a few others that I haven't released yet), I feel it retroactively applies to much of my work and the work (and views) of others (from what I've read by artists and felt from their work.)
Again, I felt compelled to write this as a response to the larger conversation in the space but also just reflect on how I want to work/think/practice... so if your work feels in line with this thinking, please use the term, or build on the idea of what it may mean.
Or, roast me on Twitter or your private discord. (Actually, please don't, I'd love to chat about it—kind of, I'm an introvert with crippling social anxiety—but let's not let social media turn us into angry little trolls even if their algorithms will reward you for your vitriol.)
In any case, I am not attacking anyone in particular or any piece of art. In fact, I love a lot of art that feels purely digitally native or completely skeuomorphic... I just don't think any one thing is The One True Way™️
Return to Portfolio ⤺