Is technology killing art?

"Art is all we do. Hmmm; that's a very broad definition of art, and a great stylistic beginning. But is every way that we innovate in life to be considered "art"? And by dismissing the "means" as insignificant in the process of creative innovation you imply--am I right?--that TECHNOLOGY is no threat to art.
I like your post: after reading it four times.

"It's critical to think of art as something very distinct from the industry that has engulfed it. "

I agree, but then I think that is obvious so that saying I agree is sort of easy on my part.
I'll agree anyway.

Ok, that explains yourself.

Actually I liked that bit...

Art ; even the art of philosophy is a threat to all forms... If it is not iconoclastic, it is not art... If it is like the best art ever done before it is not art... If you want to lead you have to blaze a trail... If you want a better world you have to make it to have it.... There is no easy art, and the bones of artists who were rejected and died neglected litter the world.... You don't do it for them, for others... It is the most selfish pursuit.... If you can buy it, if you can appreciate what you have done, then it has served its purpose...

As you express yourself you become the self you express... It is not about creation, but all about recreation, and it is cool if it pays the bills, but that is not what it is about....Just as one can never step in the same river twice, no one experiencing a work of art is the same person after as before... Reason changes the reasonable to a small extent, but art changes all people to a great extent because we live in our emotions, and it is to emotion that art speaks...

So, no; while there is art in technology, out of technology comes art because it is true in all ages that the forms of our technology mold mankind to them, and the line between man and machine is blurred... It is only in self assertion, and self expression that we can tell the difference between it, and us... Ask yourself... Do we serve technology, or does technology serve us... Since we have many times increased the ability of each person to produce we have grown less free, burdened with work and worries... We wish our lives away expecting some day to trade our wasted lives in on something better... There is nothing better, no other life... The very lives we wish away because they are so gaddamned boring or pointless are the only ones we have... Assert yourself...Even if it means effing things up... Assert yourself...

Anyone can try something new and call it art, who are we to say it isn't. We have the luxury of liking or disliking it. Most illustrators have talent, not much of their work is art. Many musicians play something and call it jazz; it isn't jazz at all.
Until the day I change my mind I like old-fashioned artists and their work.

I'm fond of the Sienese myself..

They look great and serious. They are all about faith.
I love old cathedrals even though I am not religious .
My son and I were once inside the Rouen cathedral,
all alone; it was incredible.

Big fan here of the Lorenzetti good and bad government paintings (frescoes, if I remember).

Yeh. I'm not religious either, but I'm so far away from it that I don't cringe in churches anymore. Saw a Cimabue crucifix in place in Arezzo, in an empty church..

Decades ago I and a fellow non-believer entered a Catholic cathedral in southern Mexico. At the time I was suffering from very itcy hemmoroids (sp?). We were virtually alone in the astonding structure when he began to comment on everything in a loud voice. Embarrassed, I continually admonished him to show more "respect" by lowering his voice--without success. When we left the church we both noticed that I (the respectful one) was suddenly free of itching while he (the disrespectful one) began to stratch desperately. We know that correlation is not causation, but it was impressive. I never fail to take the opportunity--as I'm doing now--to recount this event.

Tangential (that's my way) to the point of the thread - it was at the church of Guadalupe that I went in with believing friends, me not, and cried, out of some complex anger. Typical, I guess, of a recent unloader of past views with rage at the whole construction. That was forty years ago or maybe a few years before. (I've lost track of those trips.) Interesting, well, to me, as this is now the feast day, or so I think I saw on google.


To the thread, I haven't looked back on the posts. Technology can't kill art, and I don't think it wants to as some sort of force field of like minds. Besides, art is very adaptive.

It can't kill art, but it might kill artists by starving them to death.
When technology allows people to create artistic expressions by means of pre-programmed computer software, that undermines the effort a real artist puts into his creations.
It takes years to master the art of painting, and a few hours to learn a computer program. But the products of either man are judged equally as art.
A violinist needs to practice for years and years to make the instrument sound good. But with computer technology people can create violin music without so much as a basic knowledge of music composition.
If this continues, I think that soon there will not be any true artists left. There will be normal, working people who spend an hour here or there when they find time to play with their technology. What will that do to the aesthetic value of art?

Art has come to mean creative communication, but at one time it meant technology, as in: tanning leather is an art, and I might add, a lot of work... Cooking is an art... Living is an art... Safe driving is an art, a driving with a lot of God damned idiots on the road is an ART... For technology to kill art, it would have to be suicide, by way of killing the artist... If you mass produce a piece of good art, as in casting a statue, the price would not necessarily drop 1% for every one hundred produced... A greater or more wide spread experience of it might increase the market to a point, but then, the labor involved and materials of casting would reduce the profit... You would almost have to say that art is a luxury both for the artist and the buyer... I am certain that more artists support their art than are supported by their art... If people did not have to do it, they would not... To create, and to transform vision into objective reality is a painful process driven by compulsion..

I'm very much happy that I've read this article. Thank you!

I don't think so, technology can help in improving your imagination and art. People need to update with use of technology and can improve their capability.

Yes, technology interrupt in upcoming art or its hurdle.

I see your point but I would say that computers are an extension of human skills.

The computer replaces the canvas and the blank piece of paper but the artist still needs to write and draw upon these medium and create something new.

The skill factor is still there.

I have a much greater advantage as a contemporary solo music artist because I can sing, play pianos, organs and many stringed instruments. Today's musicians and artists need to not only know their instruments and tools but they need to also know the programs and hardware that make art in technology. So one has to have at least two majors, the skill and the tech. One needs to be both a painter/illustrator and a computer graphic designer in order to succeed. One can add many more hats to that also.

Today's artist has to be everything. They have to write the words, compose the music, sing the vocals, play the instruments, record it all, mix, master, create the album art and any subsequent music videos translate that into several audio/video formats, and then publish them to the world while maintaining an active social network with many thousands of people.

People will hear on the radio and say, "That is the London Philharmonic Orchestra!", then they may change the station and hear a techno song.

No, those are "recordings" of orchestras and bands not the actual bands. That is a digital recording of Celine Dion, not actually her. The technology it took to create those recordings is a whole other discipline that a creative content artist is at a disadvantage if they do not include it in their overall art curriculum.

It is like being a great writer and not having a language with which to express ideas.

In today's digital domain, art without technology is dead. One single digital photo can be sent to billions of people within a few seconds. Without digital exposure an artist cannot replicate and mass distribute media... So if technology does detract from art it certainly makes up for it.

As for people who make art without skill. It shows because their music is repetitious and simplistic. So in order to fix this they need to learn another skill and that is called, "production or being a producer". (another hat)

So by carefully evolving digital art over a long period of time complexity can be built in with editing skills.

What I say to "the purest" is they need to get their hands dirty in technology, buy a powerful PC and invest in the most useful art editing software, develop a social following, (there is nothing like winning an important contest and not having anyone to tell...) and don't expect others to do it for you. You may have a long wait before they realize how great you are.

As a born-again Christian, I think a great deal about the sensitive relationship between intelligence and spirituality. Technology is the stuff of intelligence, while art is the stuff of spirituality and both are important to humanity.

The animated science-fiction film "Transformers: The Movie" (1986) presents several imaginative A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) robotics avatars such as Laserbeak (a ravenous bird robot that transforms into a spy gear audio cassette) and Blur (a super-speedy racer robot who talks as fast as he rides). I believe these tech-fantasy avatars represent intelligence communication and praise the notion that gadgets can be balanced with trendy hunger.


Where else would we get a lifestyle anxiety avatar such as Chef Smurf (from the fantasy animation world of the lovable art creatures, the Smurfs)?

If the proper science-fiction avatars are distributed wisely, then technology will not extinguish the thirst for nature and art.

I do watercolor and plein aire oils and Ive sort of turned the question. 'HAs technology helped my art?"
In some cases it has and in others, its irrelevant because I want to achieve a style of presenting my work.

Yes, in a respect. YouTube can devalue the act of watching a film, but is it worth the effort of banning the uploading of any film?