The dehumanization of art

Published by



Modernism radically breaks its ties with the linear mimetic-representational way of presenting the image of the divine found in myth and religion as the idea of beauty and sublimity. Modern art removes the substance of humanity from its works with a new aesthetic that distorts reality and creates unreality. From a sociological point of view, works of art that create a new style are misunderstood by the masses who traditionally see art as an extract of life. Modern art no longer places the content of sensory experience in the center of their works and rejects the burden imposed on it by tradition. In order to be able to understand modern art and its objects, who create a new autonomous language and the new spirit of time, we must change the way we look at it. The process of dehumanization of art serves as a prelude to a posthuman state that will radically establish new types of art through new technologies, such as bio-art and crypto art, through which they will affirm a new aesthetic. There is no doubt that with the new paradigm shift we are facing the most radical philosophical, ethical and cultural changes.

Keywords: modernism, art, human, aesthetics, dehumanization, tradition, radical, posthuman

1. Introduction

The art of the new age is no longer based on myth and religion, but replaces them with aesthetic that can only be understood through political construction of events and as a scientific-technical design of a world in which there is now a rebellion against the old values ​​and in which new aesthetic rules are being established.

Art periods go through a process of approval by the public before they are popularly accepted. The unpopularity of modern art shows that it does not follow this tradition. From a sociological point of view, modern art divides the audience into two types, the individuals who understand it and the masses who don’t. Different principles and views on art separate these two groups. As known, characteristic of the aesthetic experience of an artwork is that some may like it, while others don’t, but in the case of modern art this division takes place on a higher level, because it’s not that the majority of the audience doesn’t like a particular work of art, it’s that they don’t understand it. The masses, accustomed to dominating everything, feel threatened by the modern art, which they see as the art of the privileged. The masses like a work of art if it manages to draw them into thinking about their own humanity. That happens when human destinies are placed in front of them through which they can connect their own feelings and experiences. Modern artists remove this substance of humanity and destroy the bridges that link the real and artistic worlds resulting in a new autonomous image in which the masses are lost and left without any way of connecting.

In optics, if our visual capabilities are not sufficient, we cannot see the object or we see it in a fallacious way. In order to be able to understand modern art and its objects, we have to change the way we look at it. If we make an effort to understand the modern art and its concepts, they will, very quickly, seem more clear, coherent and rational.

The new tendencies are radical and extravagant in their representations and can change the traditional artistic path. It’s necessary to approach the new images with a completely open mind and to come up with a completely new tools which can be used to describe the images of the new aesthetic life. Modernism changed the traditional artistic path and opened the way for a new, more radical and more monstrous, aesthetics of posthumanism, transhumanism and metahumanism, which are led by new technological directions and approaches.

2. Ortega y Gasset and the dehumanization of art

Until modernism, art was constrained to the service of the divine in myth and religion. Since it has been freed, art stepped out of the world of beings and gods into its own world. The liberation experienced by modern art was effective in all its aspects, from the autonomy of the work, the freedom of form and expression, the democratization of social conditions, to the revolutionary cultural assumptions of one’s own relationship with the world.[1]

Modern art manifests itself through rebellion against the existing social order, the liberal-democratic “boredom” of early capitalism, but also as the justification of its scientific and technical innovations. The individual is the essence of modern society, his function is to be at the service of the capitalist order as an ornament of formal freedom of choice, therefore it is necessary that modern art is perceived as a rebellion against the order of old values ​​and as the establishment of new aesthetic rules. Since the art of the new age no longer has its foundations in myth and religion, it replaces them with an aesthetic that can only be understood as a political construction of events and as a scientific and technical design of the world. Thus, the problem that Ortega y Gasset faces here is not the social problem of the status of art, although that is his starting point.[2]

The uniqueness that each art era has, no matter that it manifests itself in different ways, is truly astonishing and mysterious. Within an era, the same characteristics can be found in different artistic media, so without even being aware of it, musicians try to express through music the same aesthetic values ​​as painters in painting, or writers in literature.

Every artistic period must go through a process of re-examination before it is generally accepted by the public, as was the case with the Romantic period. The acceptance of the public and rapid popularity of the Romantic period is very different from the acceptance of the modern art. Unpopularity of the modern art shows how it does not follow the traditional path. Romanticism managed to win the masses over to its side, while modern art did the exact opposite, it managed to turn the masses against itself. This happened because modern art is unpopular in its very essence.[3]

Modern artworks have an interesting sociological effect on the audience, it divides them into two groups, a smaller group of those are in favor of it and a larger group of those who are against it and oppose it. Different principles separate these two groups. What is characteristic for the aesthetic experience of an artwork is that some may like it, while others won’t, but in the case of modern art this division takes place on a higher level because it is not a matter of the majority of the audience not liking a particular work of art, it is that they don’t understand it.

Ortega y Gasset claims that modern art, from its sociological point of view, divides the audience into two types, those who understand it and those who do not. This implies that one group possesses the ability to understand the modern art and the other doesn’t, creating two distinctively different types of groups. Evidently, modern art is not for everyone as was the art of romanticism, and it seems that it is intended for that special, gifted, minority who understand it, what causes a feeling of irritation among the majority who do not understand it. If someone does not like a modern work of art but has understood it, he has a feeling of superiority and doesn’t have a feeling of irritation because he understands why he doesn’t like the work. While if someone doesn’t like a modern work of art only because he is unable to understand it, then the observer feels humiliated and inferior to those who understood it.

The masses who are used to dominating everything feel as if their rights are being threatened by modern art which they see as the art of the privileged. Modern art helps elites to recognize each other in the grayness of the masses. Underlying deeply troubling delusion that all men are equal because every step taken visibly points to the contrary. If the new art is not clear to everyone, it implies that its resources are not generically human. Seems like modern art is not for the masses but for a special group of people, who are no more valuable than others but who clearly differ.

Ortega y Gasset believes that we should consider what the aesthetic pleasure for the mass is, or what satisfies them in a work of art. Undoubtedly, the masses like a work of art that manages to draw them into thinking about their own humanity, that is, when they are placed upon human destinies through which feelings such as love and hate, pleasure and sadness are presented.[4]

The mass thinks of an artwork as good if it manages to create an illusion and a connection with real life. In poetry, they are looking for the passion and the pain of the poet, in painting, they are looking for characters that would be interesting to meet in real life. It seems that what the masses are looking for is to connect the artwork with their everyday affairs. The mass tolerates certain unrealistic forms and phantasies up until the moment they are involved in their conception of humanity. The moment modern artistic elements become purely aesthetic, completely separated from what is considered human, the mass is lost and doesn’t know how to place itself in front of a stage, a book or a painting. Reasonably, the moment a work of art has no sentimental role for a human, it leaves him without a role to play in correlation with it.

In optics, if our visual capabilities are not sufficient, we may not see the object, or we see it in fallacious way. In order to be able to understand modern art and its objects, we have to change the way we look at it. For example, when we look through the window into the garden, we adjust our eyes so that they look through the glass and not the glass. Thus, it’s about the way we direct our vision. If we focus our vision on the glass of window, then the garden disappears from our view and becomes just a confused mass of colors. To see the garden and to see the window are two different and mutually exclusive operations. An observer who wants to include himself into a modern artwork works the same way. Most people are unable to adjust their vision, meaning, the way they look at modern art. Their gaze passes through the glass without focusing on it. If the observer were to focus on the glass, that is, on the modern work of art, he would still say that he sees nothing in it because the human element is missing.

Art throughout history was in favor of realism. Works of this nature are only partly works of art because in order to enjoy them we don’t have to possess an artistic sensibility, it is enough to possess human characteristics and they will make us sympathize with those who feel the sadness, anger or happiness. With that, it is understandable how the history of art, that was inclined to realism, was so massively popular. It was an extract from life.[5]

One of two things can be done with modern artists, we can either try to understand them, or shoot them. If we make an effort to understand them we can very quickly notice new conceptions of the art, and all of a sudden, they seem more clear, coherent and rational. Modern artists try to expand previous artistic horizons and somehow contribute to the artistic evolution.

By analyzing the new style we can notice that it tends to dehumanize life forms in order to ensure that a work of art is nothing but a work of art. In a quick manner, modern art has developed into a multitude of variations, directions and intentions. Modern artists view art as a game and as something that has no spiritual or transcendental value.

If we compare a modern painting with the one painted in the 1860s, we can notice the contrast between the objects represented in them. Works of the artists from the 1860s represented objects such as a man, a house and a mountain, as well as the other objects found in reality. A possible reason for this is that the artists of that time were looking for other aesthetic implications and aesthetic objects that are immediately recognizable and relatable, while on the other hand, these objects in modern painting are not easily recognizable and it takes time and will to find them or they are not even there. An observer would think that a modernist painter is not able “to paint”, but it’s not that the artists of modern painting are not able to achieve realism in their work, it’s that they follow a different path, they decided to separate themselves from reality and dehumanize art.

It is easy to connect with the representational painting, but to connect with a modern painting is almost impossible. Modern artists remove the bridges that connect the real and the artistic worlds. They leave us trapped in a new image and confront us with objects that are impossible to interpret in the way they were interpreted in the past. It is necessary to approach new images with a completely open mind and to come out with completely new tools which could be used to describe the images of the new aesthetic life.[6]

In the age of art without substance human senses are no longer at the center of attention, instead of them, the artist himself becomes the one who forms a relationship between the work and the audience.

Modern art is the first art period that doesn’t use humans and their understanding of the world as its subject, but the subject itself becomes a form of art. In the construction of technical reality, art transcends the distinction between the content and the form, so the dehumanization of art is nothing but a removal of the substance of humanity. Modern art is by no means less valuable just because its missing its historical human aspect, to the contrary, the increasing number of works in all genres surpasses the average idea of ​​pleasure in the newly shaped culture centers of the world. The music of Stravinsky, the literature of Proust, the abstract painting of Kandinsky and Mondrian represent the pinnacle idea of ​​modern art, which artworks create a new elite and the sovereignty of language in the new spirit of time.[7]

What is important to modern artists is not the achievement of a certain goal, but to remove from art every human element they can find. It is not a matter of painting something completely distinctive from a man, a house or a mountain, but to paint a man, a house or a mountain with the least possible resemblance to their representations in reality. The aesthetic pleasure of the new art is presented as a triumph over the human. Moving away from the reality seems simple, but it is actually the most difficult task an artist can have. Surely, it is easy to scribble something vaguely, without meaning, it is enough to connect the words that do not make sense together, or to draw random lines, but to succeed in constructing something that is not just a copy of reality, but possesses its own autonomy and by it has a certain quality, indicates a sublime talent.

For the masses, the representation of the nature or the depiction of life is what constitutes art. Modern artists base their work on the opposite of that vision. Artworks of the 19th century that are far from representing traditional art are perhaps the greatest anomaly in the history of aesthetics.[8]

Realism that ruled throughout the history implied that the artists follow the form of the nature. From Beethoven to Wagner, what was running through the music was one of personal feelings and there was no other aesthetic way of expression. Such music reaches to our subconscious, and in order to enjoy it, it is necessary to empathize with it. Modern artists refer to previous art periods as the one who were playing with the human emotions, weaknesses and feelings such as happiness, suffering, saddens or pain.

When we observe the art that represents the nature, it has a sentimental effect on us, which prevents us from looking at it objectively. It seems that the new principles and the new approaches in art look at the natural and human elements in art as repulsive. It is possible to listen to Debussy calmly, without being carried away or in tears, that’s because he is an artist of sound who represents a new, modern, era of music. A similar transition took place in poetry, which was especially under the influence of the traditional human elements. Mallarme gives power and freedom to poetry through an intricate and associative combination of words that do not indicate towards a specific meaning but leave it for the reader to come up with it independently.

A poet in the era of romanticism shared his own private emotions, his sufferings, his nostalgia, his interests, religiosity or political ideology. Occasionally, there would be an individual, a genius, who would subtly emancipated himself from the traditional approach to poetry, such as Baudelaire. In short, throughout the history, all the traditional poet has ever wanted is to be understood as a human being, while all the modern poet wants is to be a poet.

Modern poets believe that life is one thing, while poetry is another. The poet transcends the worlds, adding to what is real, an unreal aspect. Mallarme was the first poet of the 19th century who wanted to be nothing but a poet. He rejected nature and composed new objects woven from words that differ from traditional human flora and fauna. His poetry does not have to be felt because there is nothing human about it, there is no melancholy, suffering or sadness encompassed in it.

From whatever position we approach modernism, we will come to the same conclusion, it’s about escaping from what’s human. There are several processes of dehumanization, they are somewhat different from those presented by Debussy and Mallarme. But if we want to understand the essence of the new style, both of these names are extremely important.[9]

Metaphor is probably one of the most fruitful resources to use if we want to express the art of thought. Its involvement in our life is on the edge of the mysterious and miraculous. Interesting how modern art has turned metaphor into substance and not ornament.

The influence of the past on art is something that cannot be overemphasized. Within the artist there is a constant struggle between his own original experience and the art already created by his predecessors. An artist does not consider himself to be facing the world by himself because the artistic tradition always gets involved. That gives him a sense of affinity towards the past, seeing himself as someone who is inherently subordinate to it. If he would be subjected to the tradition, he would only repeat its sacred rituals. It could be that’s why modern artists resisted it with the radical character of their artwork, which is aggressively opposed to the standard established in the past.

A new style is often formed by a deliberate and complicated negation of the traditional models. The fact is that you cannot understand the path from Romanticism to the present day unless you consider the radical approach as a real part of aesthetic pleasure. Baudelaire exalts the black goddess precisely because she is traditionally depicted as white. The centuries of previous art periods, became kind of a burden for the inspiration of the new artists. Modern art will, thus, blaspheme and negate everything that traditional art once exalted and enjoyed to such a degree that it will be reduced to a complete negation of it.

Dehumanization of art comes from the very animosity of the modern artists towards the traditional interpretation of reality. Thus, modern artists feel affinity towards arts that are far back in time and space, such as the primitive and exotic arts of the prehistory found in caves, which for them seem more autonomous and not under the service of the institutionalized tradition.

Modern art could be considered a farce if we see artists like the Cubist painters pretending to be competing with the art of the past and trying to achieve the same emotional and religious goals as Michelangelo’s statues. Modern art makes fun of art and wants to be understood as a game. It demonstrates all its magic by making fun of itself, and by trying to destroy itself, it continues to be art.[10]

There is a visible bond between the feeling of hate and love, suffering and enthusiasm, among the modern artists. What causes hate and suffering for them is when the art it is realistic, serious and human, and what causes love and enthusiasm for them is when art is taken as a game and a farce, mocking everything, including itself. One of the main characteristics of the modern art is that it is detached from everything that’s spiritual and religious. This does not mean that the artist has less interest in his works, but that the spiritual and religious in him is not important, which was not the case centuries before.

Poetry and music were arts of great importance to the man and were seen as salvation. If we say that the modern art is a salvation, it is only because it’s saving us from the seriousness of life. So, modern art begins to be understood when we realize that what makes it magnificent is that it seeks to pour the elixir of youth into an antique world.[11]

Through his essay, Ortega y Gasset, described modern art’s distinctive characteristics and established certain programmatic principles which state that art is freed from human content, that it avoids living forms, that a work of art is only a work of art, that it is a game or it is nothing, that irony becomes a fundamental artistic tool, that it strives for the purity of abstract representation, and that art for the new artist no longer has any transcendental meaning.

Ortega y Gasset

3. Posthuman Art

Ortega y Gasset’s reflections on the relationship between art and technology unfold before us the possibility of reflecting on the posthuman state of the world which is confronting its last possibilities. We can ask ourselves if such reflection on art and the historical relationship between the notion of being and human is an alternative to what is already happening everywhere around us, which is a cybernetic, informational and autopoietic system of life production, placed beyond nature and the spirit of culture, from which emerges a more monstrous and deeper apathy than the one Ortega y Gasset recognized in his 1925 essay.[12]

The duality between the immaterial mind and the material body is one of the philosopher’s eternal preoccupations, since it is not so easy to answer the question how is it possible for two such radically different substances coexist.

Immaterial is connected to the good, stable and rational, while the material is connected to the bad, changeable and emotional. The dualities that came to existence in Ancient Greek theatre, such as the one between the audience and the performers, were not originally set, but developed through the institutionalization of theatre, before which there was only a group of people who would sing and dance together without dualistic separation.

Plato made a distinction between human beings who possess a rational soul, and animals who don’t, hence the rational soul belongs only to a man and manifests itself through the use of language. Aristotle calls it zoon logon echon or a living being that is able to speak. Descartes will raise these Ancient Greek dualities to a higher level by distinguishing the physical (rex extensa) and the mental (rex cognitas). For him, a human being possesses both mental and physical substances, while the animals possess only the physical one. Thus, the first ideas of what makes us human will come to exist based on the dualities that will become deeply rooted into traditional ontology.

On the philosophical level, changes from dualistic to non-dualistic ontology will occur with the appearance of philosophers such as Nietzsche, Wagner, Darwin and Freud, who made a cultural shift towards a non-dualistic way of thinking, i.e. the end of the traditional understanding of man. Posthuman philosophy is used as a term that denotes different contemporary approaches to man and art that go beyond all previous thoughts and actions.

Each of these approaches shares certain characteristics, such as the common term posthuman, which is interpreted in different ways, given that there are several ways to interpret it. There is also a realization that each of the approaches share the same interest, which is to find an answer on how to overcome human possibilities, in one way or another, through new technologies.[13]

Posthumanism is a term that arises as a further development of the postmodern philosophies established by the works of Deleuze and Foucault, while transhumanism is a term that arises from the Anglo-American evolutionary tradition.

Posthumanists believe that one should think and act in a non-dualistic, non-essentialist, non-anthropocentric and non-structuralist way, while transhumanists think about how to expand human possibilities by using new technologies, genetic engineering, robotics and chips. Metahumanism represents an alternative approach and is outside the traditional understanding of the human and somewhere in between posthumanism and transhumanism.

Non-dualism is the main characteristic of the postmodern artworks, but what they lack is the focus on new technologies, which is one of the main characteristics of the posthuman art.

The works of the scientist Kevin Warwick are extremely important for the posthuman field since they challenge previously mentioned categorical dualities of the mind and the body in organic and inorganic forms. His work transcends dualistic ontology by advancing human possibilities through the notion of the cyborg. Warwick created a new computer-generated mind which he connects to his nervous system by using the technology of neural implants which he controls via the internet all while physically being in another location. Using neurological signals sent over the internet towards a University in Great Britain, he controlled a mechanical hand that was able to pick up, drop, move objects as well as sense their texture through sensory stimuli located on the tips of the mechanical fingers. What is shown in his work is the unsustainability of the rigid categorical duality of mind and body.

Artist Jamie del Val goes far beyond dualistic media with his radical projects. In his metaformances like “Pangender Cyborg” he lays out the meta-body. It is important to point out that a metaformance is not a performance, given that the performance assumes a categorical distinction between the performer and the audience, which metaformance tries to reverse. A meta-body is a body that is united with technology, and in the metaformance del Val uses a device that is equipped with several cameras located on his naked body, that projects an image through a projector strapped to his chest, while loud speakers on his back emphasize the sound of his movements. Metaformance is a rigid critique of the duality made between subject and object, the classification of the anatomy of the body which he calls postanatomy, as well as the questioning of the meaning of sexuality.[14]

Posthuman art goes a step further than the modernist avant-garde art whose radical aesthetic is comparable but not sufficient to explain the genetically modified fluorescent rabbits that are an artwork made by the bio-genetic artist Eduardo Kac named “Alba”. It cannot be said with a certainty whether “Alba” should be viewed as a project of scientific genetic engineering or as an artwork equivalent to Albrecht Dürer’s “Young Hare” painting in a new form. Posthuman art is a turning point in the paradigm of what was considered beautiful and pleasurable in aesthetics, such as the golden ratio formed by mathematics, the peacock’s tail that is a product of evolutionary biology, or the power structures that appear in the philosophical works of Lucretius, Nietzsche and Foucault.

Kac is the creator of the term bioart, which appears in his book called “Time Capsule”, and his works such as the hybrid, genetically modified, flower containing his DNA called “Edunia” who can be described as an innovative art form considering how it was made. These artworks, thus, represent a paradigm shift in understanding art. A turn that modern art y Gasset wrote about once had, as well as the radicalism that can be compared to the works of conceptual artists like Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol.

What was once a divine activity, namely the creation of life forms, becomes one of the main preoccupations of the posthuman artworld, especially those who work with bio-genetic art. Patricia Piccinini’s hyperrealistic sculptures, such as the one called “In The Flesh”, are created by combining different genetic materials to create a whole new life. It seems that the story of Prometheus, a titan subordinate to the main god Zeus, who, although forbidden, creates a man in his own image, has its modern continuum in the man himself. It is possible that such ideas come from the very idea of ​​transhumanism, which offers complete morphological freedom and whose central idea is to change the world through technology.

Along the area of ​​biogenetic innovations, there is also an area of ​​those innovations that take place in the realm of digital codes from which a new art an aesthetics emerges. It is named crypto art and in the world of digital culture its better known as NFT or non-fungible token. Crypto art has developed through the internet by establishing a meta-verse which is also called our “second life”.[15]

In the world of NFTs, there are artworks such as the ones of the American digital artist Mike “Beeple” Winkel entitled “Everydays: the First 5000 Days”, which is a collage composed of 5000 digital artworks in a digital form, and a work entitled “Human One”, a rotating 3D video sculpture composed of 4 screens that is in phygital form or digital-physical form that represents a hybrid of two different and separated worlds.

What is interesting about the world of NFTs is that with it the concept of aura or authenticity, which Walter Benjamin wrote about in his essay about the art in the age of technical reproduction, makes its comeback, given that the owner of each NFT, i.e. the original work, can be clearly traced and recognized.

Although digital works can be easily copied and visually indistinguishable from the original, the original is cryptographically protected via blockchain. It can be said that crypto art came to an end to the loss of authenticity or aura in the age of technical reproduction, or at least that it established a new aura that can be called a posthuman aura.

In Ancient Greece, the term technê stood for both art and technology, but with the establishment of dualism, or the separation of the mind and the body, the mind became associated with the immaterial, and the body with the physical, which separated art and technology. In the Middle Ages, art was considered the sensory knowledge of the non-present (poiesis), while technology was considered a way to achieve immanent goals (praxis). This categorically established duality is being lost as a result of the paradigm shift in the posthuman era. Through Eduardo Kac’s bio-artworks, art and technology are reunited, and this represents a substantial paradigm shift like the one made by modernist artists.

The new posthuman artistic approaches of bio-art and crypto-art certainly have one common characteristic with what Ortega y Gasset recognized in his essay on modern art, namely that they completely erase the notion of human in their artworks. But, posthumanist are doing it on a higher level, that is, to the extent that the notion of a human as a whole is being erased by establishing autonomous digital revolution led by autonomous artificial intelligence (A.I.). It is undeniable that by opening these issues, we are facing the most radical philosophical, ethical and cultural changes.[16]

4. Conclusion

Debussy begins a new era of music that can be listened in piece without being carried away by emotions, and Mallarme begins a new era of poetry that can be read freely without anything being forced upon you. They restored the autonomy, and gave back the power and the freedom to art by not pointing out to something specific, but leaving room for the listener or a reader to come to it independently. Throughout history, all that traditional artist wanted is to be understood as human being, while all that modern artist wants is to be an artist.

Modern art no longer focuses on the content of the sensory knowledge of the world, it is art without substance, thus, the artist himself becomes a form of relationship between the artwork and the audience. The notion of dehumanization of art that appears in modernism is nothing but the removal of the substance of the human. The new style distorts reality and creates unreality, which implies the process of dehumanization.

Modern artists point out how previous periods played with human weaknesses and personal emotions, and how they, as artists, do not face the world autonomously, freely and independently, precisely because the artistic tradition always gets in the way. For this reason, the new tendencies established in modern art were radical and extravagant, especially those of the historical avant-garde.

The reflections of Ortega y Gasset foreshadow a new, more monstrous and deeper apathy than the one he recognized in his 1925 essay on the dehumanization of art. Which is the posthuman state of the world and the end of the traditional understanding of man. Posthumanism, transhumanism and metahumanism are terms that open up new worlds in philosophy, science and art. Bio-arts and crypto-arts create a new type of aesthetics that is led by new technologies. What modern and posthuman art have in common is the removal of the human from their works, but posthumanism goes one step further, so far as to completely remove the notion of human by raising an autonomous digital revolution run by artificial intelligence (A.I.).

5. Literature

1. Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968.

2. Paić Ž., Tehnika i duša: José Ortega y Gasset i pitanje o smislu umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2015.

3. Paić Ž., Vizualne komunikacije, CVS – CENTAR ZA VIZUALNE STUDIJE, Zagreb, 2008.

4. Lorenz Sorgner S., Philosophy of Posthuman Art, Schwabe Verlag, Basel, 2022.

[1] Paić Ž., Vizualne komunikacije, CVS – CENTAR ZA VIZUALNE STUDIJE, Zagreb, 2008., pg. 9-10

[2] Paić Ž., Tehnika i duša: José Ortega y Gasset i pitanje o smislu umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2015., pg. 659-661 [3] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 3-5

[4] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 5-8

[5] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 8-12

[6] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 12-21

[7] Paić Ž., Tehnika i duša: José Ortega y Gasset i pitanje o smislu umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2015., pg. 662

[8] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 21-23

[9] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 23-30

[10] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., str. 46-48

[11] Ortega y Gasset J., The Dehumanization of Art, Princeton University Press, 1968., pg. 47-52

[12] Paić Ž., Tehnika i duša: José Ortega y Gasset i pitanje o smislu umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2015., pg. 662-667

[13] Lorenz Sorgner S., Philosophy of Posthuman Art, Schwabe Verlag, Basel, 2022., pg. 15-20

[14] Lorenz Sorgner S., Philosophy of Posthuman Art, Schwabe Verlag, Basel, 2022., pg. 21-28

[15] Lorenz Sorgner S., Philosophy of Posthuman Art, Schwabe Verlag, Basel, 2022., str. 28-35

[16] Lorenz Sorgner S., Philosophy of Posthuman Art, Schwabe Verlag, Basel, 2022., str. 35-41

Author Profile
Karlo Opančar
Karlo Opančar

Karlo Opancar is a contemporary artist, designer, and theoretician with a B.A.A. degree in Fashion design and theory in the field of Visual Studies and Japanese deconstruction (Kawakubo, Yamamoto, Miyake); Japanese language and culture (日本語と日本文化) student; Kusa Judo Club (草柔道倶楽部) member and associate. The National Museum of Modern Art guide. Currently taking M.A.A. degree study on Faculty of Textile-Technology in Zagreb interested in multimedia art and posthumanism.