[jeffreyrogers]

His argument is very time/context dependent. Our understanding of computer art is quite different now, in 2021, than it was in 1971 since the capabilities and ease of use of computers are very different. His point about art dealers is still interesting though.

[nimih]

I find the article quite compelling, honestly. If anything, reframing conversations about computer-generated products from "what were the methods of production" to "whom does the production serve" is even more relevant today than it was in 1971.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Yes - exactly. It's interesting that even though the argument is still at least as relevant today as it was in 1971, it's so far outside the usual narratives that it seems harder to follow it today than it was back then.

It's much safer to frame it as a question about tools - which it isn't - than about politics and power structures.

[jeffreyrogers]

Yeah that's fair, although the methods of production are much more accessible today. Arguably more accessible than traditional art materials, so I think he would be less hostile today.