23
   

Is technology killing art?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:10 am
Things change as we all know.
And these days, anyone, if they have a minimum of skill in using photoshop, can make rather impressive looking works.
People who have never spent an hour practicing to learn music can make music by means of computer programs that "know" everything for you.

In a local gallery, one "painting" made in photoshop is hanging next to an oil painting that was painted by another, in the old way, using paints and brushes on canvas. Below each artwork is a pricetag, and the prices on the two works is almost the same.
One spent a few hours on photoshop, clicking buttons and chosing among presets. The other spent years and years training his skill, and days and weeks painting the picture.
I am not prepared to grant both of those works the same status as art.
It's the same with music. Someone who has spent years and years practicing their instruments and composing music and someone who just bought a pc can both make music. There are programs that allow you to input the sampled sounds of violins so that you can't tell the difference. Is it a computer or a violinist? Except that a trained musician can hear the difference.

Anyway, it has always seemed to me that the long process of advancing from novice to master in your craft is what grants the wisdom and skill art should express, be it music or painting.
The bottom line is that a computer is a tool. But the tools are so good now that soon we don't need knowledge and skill, only the tools and they do everything for us. But is it still art?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 23 • Views: 20,851 • Replies: 121

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:22 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Things change as we all know.
And these days, anyone, if they have a minimum of skill in using photoshop, can make rather impressive looking works.
People who have never spent an hour practicing to learn music can make music by means of computer programs that "know" everything for you.

In a local gallery, one "painting" made in photoshop is hanging next to an oil painting that was painted by another, in the old way, using paints and brushes on canvas. Below each artwork is a pricetag, and the prices on the two works is almost the same.
One spent a few hours on photoshop, clicking buttons and chosing among presets. The other spent years and years training his skill, and days and weeks painting the picture.
I am not prepared to grant both of those works the same status as art.
It's the same with music. Someone who has spent years and years practicing their instruments and composing music and someone who just bought a pc can both make music. There are programs that allow you to input the sampled sounds of violins so that you can't tell the difference. Is it a computer or a violinist? Except that a trained musician can hear the difference.

Anyway, it has always seemed to me that the long process of advancing from novice to master in your craft is what grants the wisdom and skill art should express, be it music or painting.
The bottom line is that a computer is a tool. But the tools are so good now that soon we don't need knowledge and skill, only the tools and they do everything for us. But is it still art?
I think, Not... Art is subject, and without nobility, humanity in the works the work will always be base, artistic; but not art.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:44 am
@Cyracuz,
i don't much care how a piece of art is produced, if i like it, i like it

the technology used in music is one of my favourite things, i love a good mashup, creating a new song using bits of other songs, if it's done well it can be a truly unique experience, a favourite artist is eric kleptone, in one song he takes three tunes i have no interest in and blends the hooks from each into a wonderful chorus, using lines from the amy winehouse song rehab, the song disco inferno (by who, i don't know) and b. spears toxic, he crafted the chorus try to make me go to rehab, i say, burn baby burn, don't you know that i'm toxic


boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:46 am
I suppose the same question was asked artists who ground their own minerals and made their own paint started seeing paint available in tubes.

Or cameras... don't forget how cameras were thought to kill art.

The battle between "high art" and "low art" has always kind of baffled me in that it seems more concerned with technique than creation.
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 06:59 am
@Cyracuz,
your claims of ease are also not really true, not everyone can create great things using photoshop or music programs, the internet is full of examples of bad stuff, it does take some talent to manipulate the technology
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:04 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i don't much care how a piece of art is produced, if i like it, i like it

the technology used in music is one of my favourite things, i love a good mashup, creating a new song using bits of other songs, if it's done well it can be a truly unique experience, a favourite artist is eric kleptone, in one song he takes three tunes i have no interest in and blends the hooks from each into a wonderful chorus, using lines from the amy winehouse song rehab, the song disco inferno (by who, i don't know) and b. spears toxic, he crafted the chorus try to make me go to rehab, i say, burn baby burn, don't you know that i'm toxic



If a work costs next to nothing to produce, that is what it will be worth, and people, artist included cannot live on next to nothing... Consider that when gold is found and mined, it is not the wages of all who found no gold to mine that are paid... Only the expenses of the successful are paid, and no one will part with something for less life than they put into it... If most art is worthless it is because it is so imitable, and costs nothing to produce... If I give my art away it is as a gift to those with some appreciation, but with the expectation that most people do not, and never will have the sense to appreciate art of any sort... The idiots cannot and will not afford what I produce, and those who might appreciate what I do have lives, and experience, which for the artist is art all on its own without translation, so they do not need what I offer...

So what is the difference today between the age of primitives when all people were artists, and now, where all people might with the sligtest desire express themselves with what ever art they own??? Two things in my opinion... People once felt so on the verge of being swept away into oblivion that art as an expression of self was paramount...And to primitives, the thought was the thing, and the evocative quality of art gave a literaly physical power over the object conceived... Our lives do not seem to depend upon what we represent in art, though perhaps it does, because as we conceive so shall we know, and we must suffer knowledge today that is all certainty and no clarity... As our knowledge is really uncertainty so our actions must always be tentative... Because we cannot see and know clearly, we cannot act firmly even in our own defense...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:30 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I suppose the same question was asked artists who ground their own minerals and made their own paint started seeing paint available in tubes.

Or cameras... don't forget how cameras were thought to kill art.

The battle between "high art" and "low art" has always kind of baffled me in that it seems more concerned with technique than creation.
Actually, cameras gave new life to art... When the impressionist had to define art as seen by the eye, and mind, and not simply by lens, art took off... All the sort of anti rationalism from Baudelaire, Van Gogh, Nietzsche, and even Freud is part of a set piece... Compare what the camaras of the day could show and what the art of the day shows... The cameras were exact, but backgound was often washed out, and black and white, all so opposite to reality... In addition, photos required the light behind the camera which was a very limiting demension, and so much of impressionism and post impressionism deals with light and shadow, reflection and background, and color, color, color... What does happen when the light hits distant leaves or flowers??? The mind tells us what they are without them being distinct in any sense... So soon as the technology of photography represented reality with a scientific exactitude it forced modernity upon art, and ever since art has been translation rather than representation... What do you think
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:36 am
@djjd62,
Exactly, DJ. I often watch Jeph Jacques live stream his drawing sessions. He's the creator and artist of the famous webcomic Questionable Content. He uses a professional level of photoshop program and he's been doing it for years.

The process is quite intimidating to watch and he uses year's worth of experience and learned shortcuts to drawing a single page in about 2 or so hours.

Like Boomerang said, this issue is moot as it already has been made so with the example of the film camera and the subsequent digital camera.

The only valid complaints to be made in your stated original posting is not how they are made but are they good works of art as well as how do we evaluate original work from its subsequent forgeries. The issue of forgery in art has predated this latest round of technological advancements.

Egyptian pottery allegedly created thousands of years ago have been forged in the late 1800's/early 1900's. PreRussian Revolution modern paintings have been forged post Russian Revolution due to a particular artist's records being destroyed during the Revolution. Etc....
Fido
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:41 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Exactly, DJ. I often watch Jeph Jacques live stream his drawing sessions. He's the creator and artist of the famous webcomic Questionable Content. He uses a professional level of photoshop program and he's been doing it for years.

The process is quite intimidating to watch and he uses year's worth of experience and learned shortcuts to drawing a single page in about 2 or so hours.

Like Boomerang said, this issue is moot as it already has been made so with the example of the film camera and the subsequent digital camera.

The only valid complaints to be made in your stated original posting is not how they are made but are they good works of art as well as how do we evaluate original work from its subsequent forgeries. The issue of forgery in art has predated this latest round of technological advancements.

Egyptian pottery allegedly created thousands of years ago have been forged in the late 1800's/early 1900's. PreRussian Revolution modern paintings have been forged post Russian Revolution due to a particular artist's records being destroyed during the Revolution. Etc....
I do not think you get the whole art thing, really..
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:47 am
@Fido,
here's the deal, you "get" your art and me and tsar and everybody else will get ours

tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 07:48 am
@Fido,
What qualifies you to make that judgement? When was the last time you actually went to a museum or gallery or taken an art history course?
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:10 am
@Fido,
I think Las Meninas was the first painting that fits your description and it was painted about 200 years before the camera showed up.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:46 am
@Cyracuz,
I don't see art's value as coming from the amount of time put into it. As long as it speaks to its intended audience, the labor is irrelevent. If technology allows more efficient expression of artistic intent, great. I also think you are ignoring some types of artistic expression in favor of others. If a programmer turns his years of computer experience and his artistic vision into a program that creates art, why is that less valuable than the work of an artist with paint and brushes?

As for sampling violin music, there is a difference between "playing notes" and "playing music" and it is pretty easy for someone with some appreciation of music to pick it up. Designing a computer program that could produce music with feeling would be a serious artistic accomplishment.
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:51 am
I don't this the medium is the argument. I've seen wonderfully creative things done from paperclips to huge steel chunks to minute sticks to oils.

I think it's the longevity that counts.

Good art is good forever.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 08:57 am
To clarify:
Technology can only be a prejudice to the production of Art if it disrupts the rhythm for its possible expression...
The problem does not reside necessarily in Technology but in its goal...if Technology is meant to be fast, and fast above everything else, then it might prove disruptive for Human beings not only in Art but in many other things...
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 09:27 am
There's nothing wrong with "fast" - even above all else - Pollack was "fast" and reckless.

Everyone's invited: http://www.doobybrain.com/2007/12/11/make-your-own-jackson-pollock-painting/
wayne
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 10:06 am
@Fido,
Yes , I much agree with your description. Painting really became art with the appearance of the camera.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 10:28 am
@PUNKEY,
Fast, bare in mind, IF and WHEN disruptive of human Natural Rhythm...I guess Pollack was human...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 10:46 am
A relevant article re David Hockney - re his explorations with IPods and IPads. (Before that he played with polaroids..)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-hockney-ipad-20110123,0,5309610.story

Anyway, technology is just one more tool, or many more tools.
And, art certainly occurred before cameras.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Feb, 2011 10:47 am
@ossobuco,
...yes, it is that simple !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is technology killing art?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2018 at 03:17:36