24
   

Is technology killing art?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:34 pm
@ossobuco,
Not just money...these day´s people want to buy intellectual status...they buy art in trucks, as they buy yoghurt PHD´s and recollections of know how...
I know what you mean to an extent, but I am sorry to disagree.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:41 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I would ad "Il Divo" as the nowadays perfect example...its horrifying !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...Or the famous Cirque du Soleil...could n´t get worse then that...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
These days are not different from others.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:09 pm
Let me recommend Celini's Autobiography. One of my favorite books, not that that would convince you, but check it out. At the least interesting.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:11 pm
Quote:
HORA

HORA...
ENCONTRO DE VAZIOS DISCRETOS COM ILUSÕES SONORAS,
"ENTRESUBSTANCIA" DISSONANTE DE ALGARISMOS À SOLTA,
POEMA DE PORTAS FECHADAS E PERSIANAS CORRIDAS...

HORA...
INSTINTO FANFARRA DE SONOS DIURNOS E CIGARRILHA,
ALVORADA E OCASO DE ALHEAMENTOS POR DESEMBRULHAR...
PRÉ PENSAMENTO E PROTO ÁCÇÃO DE RECORDAÇÕES POSTERIORES...

HORA...
VESTIDO SEM BAILE. FATO SEM CAUSA. GRAVATAS DO FALSO TRIUNFO!
MALA DE VIAGEM SEM BILHETE, SEMPRE AQUEM E ALEM DE QUALQUER DESTINO
VIDRAÇAS DEPOIS DA CHUVA OU ANTES DELA...

Atentamente>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE


This little poem of my own is precisely about it...unfortunately its almost impossible to properly translate it...for those of you who know Portuguese or even Spanish it is possible to get it, and through it to get my perspective on the subject.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:17 pm
@ossobuco,
Thank you for the tip...I will look at it.
Edited: its a reply to your next to this link post...sorry for the mess...typping late night from android in bed now...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
ok, ok, I'll push you read the book.
Also Vasari - Lives of the Painters or some such name.
Cellini knocks Vasari..

This was how I understood those people in history are just like us.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:32 pm
@ossobuco,
Yes I know you right...maybe I was not clear enough...I meant like now it reached critical mass and momentum, its massive and will erode institutions from the inside...its an all out assault...

ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Rest and read.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 12:10 am
@Cyracuz,
Yes it's true, as technology improves it becomes easier for the layman to produce the equivalency of art. Further the point will come when machines can not only equal man's abilities but surpass them, in fact machines already surpass man's abilities in a number of ways.

The question is not "is technology killing art?" the question is "what rights will man accord machines?"
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 12:18 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
No problem, glad you pointed it out.
That was one of those words I had a skewed meaning in my head, I'm here to improve, learn, if I can.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 01:09 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

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


I think you've hit the nail on the head .
I am reminded of Stephen King's gunslinger, wandering through a world that has moved on.
Neil Young, in a fairly recent interview, discusses how he always saw the need to move on, to follow the music, while everyone else wanted more of the same.

There's tons of art out there, some of it really good.
The viewer has the responsibility to seek it out.

The novel is dead? Some of the best novels were written centuries apart, wait for it.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:42 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I have looked at the two of them side by side. I've studied the two of them side by side. Four art history courses I've taken deal with Impressionism (General Art History 2, History of Photography, Modern Art Survey, and briefly in The History of Printmaking).

I know how photography influenced the Impressionist painters. I'm not guessing at it.
I am only guessing since their differences are obvious while their development in time is simultanious... How exactly would you know such a thing??? I mean, no matter how many times such a notion would appear in a book, and I have never read it in any book, how would you ever be able to say you know it??? What occurs in the minds of others, no matter how obvious from their actions must always remain a secret; N'est pas???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:43 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

Osso nailed it. Arts aren't taught in school. It isn't on the test.

Mo goes to one of the best funded public schools in town and the parents run the art program. Every supply comes from private funds. The school supplies the room for the 12 week program but other than that it doesn't cost them a penny. The only reason the school has art is because some of the parents think it's important.
As if creativity can be taught, or denied...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:49 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I agree with that whole post except that I know artists personally making a living out of it - not as many who aren't, though. There is also an in between. And some work in allied fields but are still paid well for some of their art work. Remuneration isn't the measure of art, not that you, Fido, are saying that.
I think it is rare for people of one paradigm to recognize universal or eternal values, though it is possible for many to recognize works of little value... Todays values may be tomorrows junk, but junk today will always be junk....There is probably a law stating that fact somewhere...
0 Replies
 
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 10:37 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?


Let see if this is going to happen. Suppose some future computer can produce all the music of the past from some programmer. Would this mean the end of art? I think not. In every time in the past, there were new innovations, and onces people adopt to these innovations, they actually could find a new medium to which they can express more of themselves.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2011 09:29 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent wrote:

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?


Let see if this is going to happen. Suppose some future computer can produce all the music of the past from some programmer. Would this mean the end of art? I think not. In every time in the past, there were new innovations, and onces people adopt to these innovations, they actually could find a new medium to which they can express more of themselves.
The art was in the production of such a computer, and programing it...

But; If computers could produce the most beautiful music without the help of people; then the art of the musician would be a combination of dissonances into a form consistent with the lives we would then live, contrary to the perfection conceived through mechanics, digitation, science, and electronics... Humans live in the form; but art to be art must also break the form... Subject makes art, but for any artist to conceive of himself as human he must conceive of himself as heroic, because that is what we are: Little Godamned Man Monkeys, daring to create better lives for ourselves than the ones we find ourselves with...

Isn't it true that the music of the next generation is the noise of the last generation??? Why do you think that is??? I know why it is... When art no longer challenges us, and no longer engages us in our live then we or our art is ready for the grave... I am close to sixty... I don't like heavy metal and I have worked with metal most of my life... But taking my youngest daughter to a bar with a band with a small cult following I saw the most amazing guitar perfomance... The guy was burning through two or three picks a song getting everything there was out of his guitar... I told him; that I'm no fan and maybe never will be; but he could play, and there was no denying that...What a performance.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2011 10:52 pm
I cannot understand how technology can kill art. I cannot imagine how anything can bring about the so-called "end of art" written about lately. I can, however, imagine ways that the BUSINESS of art, qua a highly commercialized enterprise, can be affected negatively. What seems to have affected art proper negatively--in my judgement--is the impact of the likes of Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and Marcel Duchamp. But that's just my personal perspective. I remain, more or less, with the values of the abstract expressionists who dominated painting in the days (1950s) when I was an art student in Los Angeles and Mexico City.
Technology can permit new ways of expression, but I cannot see how this in itself could constrain artists who prefer to work with more "primitive" instrumentalities, as long as they can transcend the demands of the market.
It's critical to think of art as something very distinct from the industry that has engulfed it. They are no more similar than are canned food and french cuisine.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 08:46 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I cannot understand how technology can kill art. I cannot imagine how anything can bring about the so-called "end of art" written about lately. I can, however, imagine ways that the BUSINESS of art, qua a highly commercialized enterprise, can be affected negatively. What seems to have affected art proper negatively--in my judgement--is the impact of the likes of Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and Marcel Duchamp. But that's just my personal perspective. I remain, more or less, with the values of the abstract expressionists who dominated painting in the days (1950s) when I was an art student in Los Angeles and Mexico City.
Technology can permit new ways of expression, but I cannot see how this in itself could constrain artists who prefer to work with more "primitive" instrumentalities, as long as they can transcend the demands of the market.
It's critical to think of art as something very distinct from the industry that has engulfed it. They are no more similar than are canned food and french cuisine.


Art is all we do; but art as ART has a very specific sort of task that it must perform to be ART... We live in the form, a form, many forms, like society, culture, ethnicity, locality, and even, art... And forms are like structure, much like a form of dwelling in a social sense, and like ideas in the philosophical sense... We have these social structures, these ideals, and the paradigms because we seek perfection in stability... But the other side of every form is the relationship, and where the form means stability the relationship means change... Every artist realizes that life is change, and life is found in the dynamics of relationship...It is not in the doing as others have done that art is found; but in cutting a new path, and in creation... The means are insignificant in the process... The goal, and the subject is what makes art... The artist breaks free of his form...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 06:46:29