https://www.mdu.se/

This article examines resistance to artificial intelligence not only as political opposition but as an aesthetic and ethical practice of refusal. As generative AI and algorithmic infrastructures increasingly mediate work, perception, and decision-making, they produce what I term the clean interface: a frictionless design regime that obscures human labor, power relations, and material costs sustaining digital systems. Within this environment, human actors are gradually displaced from creators of meaning to validators of machine-generated outputs—a process leading to emptification of agency.

Drawing on Florian Klinger [17], I develop and deepen a distinction between Historical Action—what the world should be, a deterministic mode of world-making oriented toward optimization and control—and Aesthetic Action—what the world could be, a frictional praxis that sustains relational and open-ended meaning-making. Through an analysis of the anime 86 EIGHTY-SIX, I explore how AI-driven interfaces maintain legitimacy by projecting violence onto technological “monsters” while obscuring the precarious human labor that maintains digital smoothness. I term this stabilizing condition the Delusional Dilemma: a situation in which confidence increases precisely as ethical contact with reality diminishes. The article concludes by proposing friction, opacity, and care as design strategies for resisting the epistemic closure of AI systems and reclaiming human meaning-making in the postdigital age.

This paper examines Swedish artist Diktgymnasiet and their collaborative CRIP project at Konstfrämjandet Västmanland. Diktgymnasiet show how creativity is not solely an individual phenomenon, but fundamentally shaped by social, cultural, and material contexts, requiring research that moves beyond the individual to integrate these broader influences (Glăveanu, et. al, 2019).

Through Florian Klinger’s (2024) concept of aesthetic action, it explores how their work challenges traditional notions of artistic labour. By situating artistic production in the sick bed and redefining collaboration as an interactive practice, Diktgymnasiet’s work critiques the ableist norms underpinning artistic labour, challenging the hegemony of able-bodiedness and individualism in the art world.

Klinger defines aesthetic action as practices that “act out” new possibilities for being and relating through their very execution, rather than merely representing ideas. Diktgymnasiet’s work operationalizes this framework by transforming the sick bed a site typically associated with passivity. Here, the artist’s constrained bodily condition is a limitation. This practice rejects the ableist binary of “part-time” versus “full-time” labour, which equates artistic value with physical endurance. Instead, aesthetic action unfolds in iterative, durational gestures, dictated by bodily needs rather than capitalist efficiency.

The CRIP project extends this critique through collaborative aesthetics. By co-creating, CRIP rejects the myth of the solitary genius, foregrounding interdependence as both method and politic. Klinger’s emphasis on action as a “transformative encounter” aligns with CRIP’s structure: collaboration becomes a performative act and challenges exclusionary hierarchies. The project’s emphasis on collective, process-oriented labour critiques capitalist notions of effectiveness, proposing instead that slowness, mutuality, and accessibility are integral to artistic practice.

Drawing on Diktgymnasiet’s digital archives, CRIP project documentation, interviews with project participants, and institutional statements, this study analyses how their work enacts Klinger’s theory. The sick bed’s resignification as a studio and the use of poetry as a durational, bodily practice exemplify aesthetic action’s capacity to “reconfigure the possible.” Similarly, CRIP’s collaborative framework materializes Klinger’s claim that aesthetic action “produces new social imaginaries” by centring marginalized perspectives as constitutive of artistic innovation.

Innovation for humans, not for the system

This visual essay examines the creation of collective and sustainable futures in a postdigital world. It critiques contemporary systems of control and digital alienation, proposing a creator ethos grounded in hope, refusal, and Aesthetic Action. Drawing on personal narrative alongside a diverse range of theoretical perspectives, the work rejects individualistic, progress-driven objectives. Instead, it advocates for anti-progressive designing, the conscious dismantling of harmful structures, and emphasises shared, everyday experiences, treating "the ordinary as method" to cultivate futures centred on collective well-being, care, and sustainability. This creative practice is framed as a form of boundary work that, like levelling a steep hill one wheelbarrow at a time, seeks to slow and steady, build a more equitable and lifeaffirming world for all.

This essay analyses power dynamics in our technologically advanced world through the lens of Aesthetic Action, defined by exploring "what the world could be," and contrasting it with Historical Action, driven by a determinate vision of "what the world should be". Using Florian Klinger's framework of Aesthetic Action and this implicit contrast with Historical Action. Through examination of Naoki Urasawa's anime series Monster and Pluto, the essay argues that seemingly innovative disruptions by tech billionaires typically enact Historical Action. This reinforces existing inequalities and imposes narrow, deterministic visions of a desired future "what the world should be". In contrast, the essay champions Aesthetic Action, exemplified by characters in Urasawa's works, as genuine disruption. This approach embraces indeterminacy, fosters ethical responsibility, and opens possibilities for "what the world could be," which includes a more fair, shared future. Through the portrayal of Kinderheim 511 and the depiction of systemic monstrosity in Monster and Pluto, the essay calls for a critical reimagining of our world beyond the profit-driven imperatives of technological power, advocating for collective Aesthetic Action as resistance and transformative change.

This paper showcases Konstlek på Råby, a decade-long community art space in Västerås, Sweden, as a case study in practitioner-led artistic exploration where ethics are integral from the start, not an afterthought. Portrayed and analysed through the co-developed Moral Aesthetic Action (MAA) framework—which embeds ethical imperatives at the heart of creative intervention—our Art in Action Research (AiAR) explores how Konstlek cultivates a liberatory 'third place' (Oldenburg, 1999). We articulate the ‘Råbymodel,’ a practice-derived approach revealing how core MAA principles—including morally driven disruption, fostering creative indeterminacy (Klinger, 2024), robust practitioner support, and principled 'ethical refusal'—are vital for building youth empowerment and community resilience. This research offers transferable, actionable insights for deeply embedding ethics within community art practice and generating impactful, practitioner-led knowledge. 

In response to democratic backsliding, social and environmental crises, and the inadequacy of purely technical approaches, this article advocates for a fundamental reimagining of education. Traditional, rigid, outcome-focused models are failing to prepare learners for twenty-first-century complexities. The article argues for a shift toward open-ended, process-driven education, embracing indeterminacy and challenging established norms. “Aesthetic action,” a philosophy emphasizing ambiguity, process over product, and open inquiry, is proposed as a guiding framework. Design-based research (DBR) is explored as a method to translate this philosophy into practical change through iterative design and real-world problem-solving. Creativity, viewed socio-culturally, and “futures literacy,” equipping learners to navigate uncertainty, are crucial components. Grounded in ethical imperatives of inclusive education, informed by Freire, Baldwin, and hooks, we address the ethical complexities of “unsettling” norms and fostering creativity. This article shows how “aesthetic action,” DBR, and “futures literacy” can “unbind” education, fostering a more equitable, creative, and transformative future. This exploration seeks to start a shift toward a more open and humanizing educational paradigm, not to provide definitive answers.