This article critiques data ontologies through artistic practices, highlighting implications for understanding data's role in knowledge.
Data art is usually seen as an art form that uses data as material in the same way that sculpting uses stone or clay. This article suggests a different view. Data are never simply “raw material.” Consequently, the expression is better suited to forms of practical critique that problematize data ontologies through a focus on primary data, metadata, and data transposition. By experientializing these areas, the artistic practices under discussion – those of Ọnụọha, Elahi, Fujihata, Miebach and Dewey-Hagborg – shed light on complex data processes, the imbrication of archiving and anarchiving, quantity and quality, materiality and immateriality, and, most importantly, on data’s relation to knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natasha Lushetich (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: