24
   

Is technology killing art?

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 01:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You got me on that one, the word sounded so good, had to rework my mental definition there Smile how about the work is a shining example of the craft at that time.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:08 am
@Fido,
I think maybe you and I share a similar view of impressionist work.
I see the very same thing in Las Meninas as you have shared.
I like Van Gogh, not because he was very successful in his impressions, but because he understood the struggle to produce a successful impression.

I think too many failed impressions get lumped in and misunderstood, because the artist is impressionist.
A successful impressionist painting is very difficult to produce, and I don't know of anyone who has been more than marginally successful at it.
I believe the success depends largely upon the viewer having actually experienced the scene. If the viewer lacks the necessary reference, the impression fails.
My favorite Van Gogh is a man and his dog walking across a snowy field in early spring. Where I live, I have experienced such a day many times and I am intimately familiar with the light and nameless color of the scene.
This interdependency between the artist and the viewer is, IMO, the very soul of impressionism.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:27 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I didn't say Las Meninas was impressionist. I said it fit Fido's description.
And I am not denying that, but my description was neither complete nor accurate... Have you ever seen what I am guessing are Monat's paintings of hay mows... To my family I call them muffins; but these paintings were done from different angles of the sun, and different times of the day.... Now; the mind says that the colors should be uniform, and yet we know better as well, that direct sun brings out colors not evident at an angle or slightly shaded... And we know of distant trees, that they may not have the sharpness and vibrancy of a near tree, but they have something different, depth, shading; a mottling perhaps... I cannot define all of Impressionistic work or post impressionistic work with a few words, and if it tried I would as soon have to resort to some authority... So, If you will allow me to say my suggestions about it we not exactly a definition, I will apologize... Las Meninas have more the character of the photograph, even including the self portrait of the royal painter... The faces fully lit and seen in their best light was exactly the character of early photography, with full light from behind the point of observation... Clearly at least, imprssionism with its color and perspective departed from photography... Can we agree on that, that impressionism was likely a conscious departure from one of the technological achievement of the day???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:38 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

I think maybe you and I share a similar view of impressionist work.
I see the very same thing in Las Meninas as you have shared.
I like Van Gogh, not because he was very successful in his impressions, but because he understood the struggle to produce a successful impression.

I think too many failed impressions get lumped in and misunderstood, because the artist is impressionist.
A successful impressionist painting is very difficult to produce, and I don't know of anyone who has been more than marginally successful at it.
I believe the success depends largely upon the viewer having actually experienced the scene. If the viewer lacks the necessary reference, the impression fails.
My favorite Van Gogh is a man and his dog walking across a snowy field in early spring. Where I live, I have experienced such a day many times and I am intimately familiar with the light and nameless color of the scene.
This interdependency between the artist and the viewer is, IMO, the very soul of impressionism.
I have seen a lot of Van Goghs up close and personal... I was looking at the Stary Night in New York and a clown friend I had with me asked how I knew it was real... No amount of Photo Shopping that would ever capture the experience.. It is as many paintings from as many perspectives and as many occasions as one can give to looking at it...If you mixed up blues, and greens and blacks incompletely and then carved in the mess with a stick you would have a painting, and not his painting, but what he began with... And such three demensional, almost sculptural qualities to his work come through time and again... And they are great for a large room and they always stand out as unique, and they live, seeming almost animated...
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:30 am
Quote:
Can we agree on that, that impressionism was likely a conscious departure from one of the technological achievement of the day???


No.

Impressionism was directly influenced by photography.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 10:31 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

You got me on that one, the word sounded so good, had to rework my mental definition there Smile how about the work is a shining example of the craft at that time.


That works

Sorry to be a smart-ass. Smile
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 01:58 pm
This thread is disappointing as it is an important question for which I cant get a good read on the answer. Art is for sure in decline, but what is the reason? I think the decline of art mirrors the decline in the spiritual health of man, the soul can not create or appreciate art when the soul is not healthy. But what is the cause of our spiritual problem?? Many claim that it is indeed technology, usually these folks say that technology has cut man off from the earth and thus left us unattached and withering....I tend to think that rather we are detached from our tradition, as evidenced by the steep decline in our religiousness, but I dont see where technology would clearly be the cause. Maybe life is too easy now, it is the lack of struggle that kills the spirit, our lack of having the experience of overcoming obstacles that is the main problem??

IDK, but I would like to hear thoughtful people considering the nature of the problem...
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:15 pm
Art may vary over time, but I don't agree it is declining.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Not tech but fast paced greedy through tech...quite different !
And life is not easier now, that is an illusion...people used to be happier in the old days...even if they lived with allot less...mind that an average Hindu with 45 years life expectancy says his life is going quite well and he is happy while in Europe and the States people that will live up to the 80´s are taking stress pills and feel miserable...one wonders, what was essential that was lost... I recon is quality time, far less stress, and a good community !

(Excessive Consumerism is a problem of emotional Intelligence or lack of it to be clear !)
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:34 pm
What osso said.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:36 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Art may vary over time, but I don't agree it is declining
based upon what? The novel is about dead, visual art is all about the product used and the number of nerve endings that it titillates not about saying anything.

I hear some people claim that the commercialization (as in it art become the province of shallow idiots..the ones who have all the money) of art and the ignorant gate keepers that this put into place was killing art. I hear others say that the Internet and technology doing away with gate keepers is what is killing art. Lots of theories, but no answers.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:42 pm
@boomerang,
Yes...she is wise.
But still there are to many "Turings" and "Hex´s" around...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Lack of time may be killing it...art must be "felt" up close and personnel...it also needs meditation, free roaming, and wondering ...these days we just buy it and drop it somewhere...
(still I would say is not declining, although it lost something fundamental to its soul)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Lack of time may be killing it
Time is not the problem, but the speed at which we move might well be. Just as a work-a-holic keeps very busy to avoid themselves, we might be doing the same thing, using technology as an excuse.

Good point...and I have heard this explanation given before.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 03:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
(still I would say is not declining, although it lost something fundamental to its soul)
??

While there are some who view art as a commodity I think most of us still view art as an expression of the soul and a communication to other souls. If art has lost something fundamental to its soul then it has by definition declined. You may or may not have as much flashy/weird stuff to put in front of your eyes as you did before, but that does not mean that you still have quality art.
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 03:14 pm
What makes you think art is soulless?

When was the last time you visited galleries?

Just because something doesn't speak to your soul doesn't mean it doesn't speak to many other people's soul.

You seriously can't be so pretentious as to think your "soul" is the only one that matters?

What makes you think the novel is nearly dead?

There's some flat out brilliant books being published every year.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 03:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
When do you consider art was at its zenith and what was the first sign od its decline?
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 03:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
good question, curious to see the answer

i see art all around me, i don't think it's the art that's declining it's the viewer

hawk says the novel is all but dead, not true, the reader is diminishing, i would mourn the loss of real books, but if digital was all that was left, i'd still read
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 04:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
When do you consider art was at its zenith and what was the first sign of its decline?
Art is a product of the soul, it moves in soul time which tends to be slowly. We could not have known it at the time but looking back we should have know that we were in trouble with the rise of Andy Warhol, his commercialization and his poking fun at art for profit and his making art about the lifestyle and not the art produced. Lack of seriousness and lack of concern with quality, concern only with what is new and different, characterizes art during its long period of decline. And the lack of caring about it from the masses. I talk to a lot of people, and the people who want to talk about art are few and few between, unless they want to talk about something that they have just acquired or some event that they have just been to. It is no longer about the art, what matters to people is all the stuff that surrounds art.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 04:05 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
i see art all around me, i don't think it's the art that's declining it's the viewer
On one level art is a communication of the soul, lose either the speaker or the listener and you no longer have the communication. It does not matter which is the problem, art not being made or people not caring about it, either way art dies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2019 at 08:24:29