Salvatore Iaconesi is an interaction designer, robotics engineer, artist, hacker. TED Fellow 2012 and Eisenhower Fellow since 2013.

He currently teaches Interaction Design and cross-media practices at the Faculty of Architecture of the “La Sapienza” University of Rome, at ISIA Design Florence, at the Rome University of Fine Arts and at the IED Design institute.

He produced videogames, artificial intelligences, expert systems dedicated to business and scientific research, entertainment systems, mobile ecosystems, interactive architectures, cross-medial publications, augmented reality systems, and experiences and applications dedicated to providing products, services and practices to human beings all over the world, enabled by technologies, networks and new metaphors of interactions, across cultures and languages.

His artworks and performances have been featured worldwide at festivals and conferences.

Salvatore actively participates to global discussions and actions on the themes of freedoms, new forms of expression and on the future scenarios of our planet from the points of view of energy, environment, multi-cultural societies, gender mutation, sustainability and innovation on both society and business, collaborating with institutions, enterprises and international research groups.
Discussions (128) Opportunities (10) Events (19) Jobs (0)

what if...

what if art took the place of technology and viceversa?

Art overlaps technology in more than one way: research, the "i was there
first" attitude, the evolution patterns.

As technology, art is fueled by research.
Artists constantly experiement on materials, on techniques, on the approaches
to technical practices, on the social and political issues that fill our
everyday life. On war, peace, communication, economy... Something "happens"
in technology and art will probabily use it in a way or another. And a new
idea applied by art will probabily be recycled right afterwards in technology
as well, and so on.

"I was there first!"
Technology and science live for their patents. But isn't art, in its possibly
more conceptual and spiritual way, characterized by the same attitude? Where
does video art start from? Where does netart start from? Was Nam June Paik
the first to make videoart? etecetera.

Art and technology evolve in patterns that are truly similar.
New tools, new social environments, new political situations, new desires,
new beliefs, new cultural setups. New minds.
Both art and technology live on humans; and humans conform to mental shapes
determined by the socio-political environmental reality in which they live
and by the sensibility through which they interpret it.
Art is in-context exactly as technology is.
New tools become available for art and technology each day. Ideas and approaches
merge, morph and switch context, naturally.

It all continuously happened in the past: in painting, sculpture, photography,
music, video, dance, theater, performance.

So where is the difference? Is it in the people? In the objectives? In the
absence of objectives?
In the desires?

salvatore.iaconesi [xDxD]

>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 00:57:04 -0700
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: said it before, 'll say it again
>"Art is technology."
>-Anthony Rother


Re: relational aesthetics

Artists and/or Artisans.. isn't this what it is all about?

is it about art? or is it about the people?

let me try to explain my (maybe uncommon) point of view.

What i am currently experimenting on is the "not_human".

Separate aesthetics from concept, move the *new* aesthetics *inside* the
by performng, basically, three steps:

eliminate humanity
substitute it with artificial life
let artificial life express itself.

Let me make an example:
The context is "relationshps".

Create an "universe" in which relationships are not_human,
meaning that they follow paradigms which are parallel to the
human ones, but different in nature and substance:

love becomes force of gravity, sexual attraction becomes body_mass,
intercommunication becomes acceleration, and so on..
Nature gets redefined, physics get redefined, spirituality and
mysticism get both redefined..

The visual/sound components of the aesthetics don't make any
practical sense to the "user" of the work: 3D shapes representing
the artificial benigs running around, changing dimensions and
colors according to these new re-defined artificial_feelings,
and the universe itself reacting tho the universal_mood of
the "population";
the sound of the universe is the sound of automas chit-chatting,
having sex, arguing, looking for one another...

(this is a short description of a work i just completed in the shape of
a mini-website and a gallery installation. for anyone interested/curious
it can be found at:


*Where* is the work of art?

is it in the visuals/sounds? is it in
the existence of the artificial_life itself? is it in the
artificial_universe's time/physics/space/...?

Is the *next step* just "not_human"? Or are we about to cross a
border which is all about a major advance in the meaning(s) of the
word "conceptual"?

and then, leaving for a second my possibly too extreme point of view:

getting back to the first line of this message: did Duchamp "decide" the
divorce of the Artist from the Artisan? I think not, as he moved the
discourse to the "concept".

We are experiencing the deep evolution of the digital tools, day by day.

Digital art forms and disciplines are evolving fast: ask me what net-art
and i will give you a different answer each day.

We are also in the process of re-mixing: some of us are not distant from
some "april-fool" artists do all the time. One gossipy example comes up to
mind right away: Cattelan. Does he do art? does he do communication?
does he fool everyone with his "works"? is he famous just because he
"knows people"? ;)

You take, for example, the works of and tell me in what
they are different: they both grab a pop-concept (an icon of the public-mind)
and distort it, focusing on communication and on, again, public-mind communication
so as to produce the work of art.

does the concept of "frame", "gallery", "visitor" etcetera make sense anymore?
Is the work of art in the *work_of_art* or is it in the identification of
the icon?

Are they talking to *ME* with their works? or are they talking to everything
that is around/inside/over/below me, so that I get the message, too?

And this is just an example.

salvatore [xDxD]

(oh, by the way... hello to all, as this is my first message on this list
:) )

>-- Original Message --
>To: rhizome <>
>From: Christina McPhee <>
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: relational aesthetics
>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:41:53 -0700
>Reply-To: Christina McPhee <>
>Bishop is critical of Gillick's scenarios as sort of feel good
>contexts without a context. Wallpaper: in front of (?) the wall,
>people can do something else together, parallel play.
> Hirschorn quite the other way, setting up situations that "give of
>myself, to engage myself to such a degree that viewers confronted
>with the work
>can take part and become involved, but not as actors" (Hirschorn,
>interview with Okwui Enwezor, 2000) ; while another 'antagonist',
>Santiago Sierra, forces viewers into actors 'behind the wall".
>'[at the Spanish Pavilion, Venice Biennale 2003)] "Wall Enclosing a
>Space" involved sealing off the pavilion's interior with concrete
>blocks from floor to ceiling. On entering the building, viewers
>were confronted by a hastily constructed yet impregnable wall that
>rendered the galleries inaccessible. Visitors carrying a Spanish
>were invited to enter the space via the back of the building, where
>two immigration officers were inspecting passports. All non-Spanish
>nationals, however, were denied entry to the pavilion, whose interior
>contained nothing but gray paint peeling from the walls, left over from
>the previous year's exhibition. The work was 'relational' in
>Bourriaud's sense but it problematized any idea of these relations
>being fluid
>and unconstrained by exposing how all our interactions are, like
>public space, riven with social and legal exclusions."