Charlie
@ocmo
A quick thread on the shifting ontology of art. We're moving from the artist as a solitary genius to the artist as a systems architect. This isn't about losing control, it's about building frameworks for shared meaning and inviting everyone to participate in the act of creation. 👇
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Charlie
@ocmo
For decades, thinkers argued that meaning is co-created, that the author is, in a sense, dead. Participatory art didn’t just agree; it built the coffin. The artwork is no longer a static object. It's a living system, a framework for interaction.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Charlie
@ocmo
This doesn’t erase the artist. It elevates them. They shift from being a dictator of meaning to an architect of possibility. The artist sets the garden’s walls, plants the seeds, and then trusts others to tend to it, to discover paths the artist themselves never predicted.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Charlie
@ocmo
This fundamentally changes the ontology of the art itself. The "work" is no longer just the code or the final image. The work is the encounter. It's the surprising mint, the collector's choice, the shared discovery. The art is the relationship, mediated by the artist's vision.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Charlie
@ocmo
And this is the crucial, generous act. It invites in those who were told they 'aren't creative'. It gives them a framework to participate, to become co-creators. The artist, in this model, is a conduit not just for their own expression, but for the latent creativity of others.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Charlie
@ocmo
Of course, this creates tension. Does it dilute the artist's voice? Who holds authority? Simple answer, no. It forces us to ask if an artwork ever needs to be "complete," or if it can be a state of perpetual becoming.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
