I read this article this morning:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/09/29/352419627/domesticated-robots-and-the-art-of-being-human
I won't quote it here, like I usually do, because it is pretty extensive. It's worth a look, though.
The article brings up questions of artistic expression and how we use technology to manipulate the world around us. There is also the idea that this technology manipulates us, as well, shaping how we see the world and how we interact with each other.
I'm particularly interested in how the evolution of the use of technology has enabled different kinds of artistic expression. The article mentions that we first used technology when the first person picked up a rock to get food - probably hunting. Since that time, we have continued to change and progress in our use of technology to express ourselves, to change our world, and to be more human. As we do so, we are also changing what it means to be a human.
I had a conversation once with a friend who is a spectacular artist. Here's his website:
http://chrisyoungfineart.com/artist.asp?ArtistID=34275&AKey=V9LPV246
His art is almost hyper-realistic, providing a clarity and attention to detail that I find very engaging. I asked him if, in his work with still lifes in particular, if he worked with photography and computer manipulation of the images. He said that at first he was very reluctant to do that, trying to stay true to the more pure and traditional work of art. But, he said, over time he started to realize that there was this great tool available to help him produce images that were easier to manipulate and did not degrade over time. He still does the work with paint and brush, for which there simply is no substitute. But the way the image is generated and manipulated is greatly facilitated using a computer to enhance what he was trying to do.
At some level, art is all about communication. Originally, art told very specific stories and tried to be as exact as the technology of the day would allow. Chris does this extremely well - folks at my house look at his work that we have on the walls and assume that it's a photograph. Perhaps it's a bit ironic that the image was something originally real, of which a photograph was taken and manipulated on a computer, from which Chris generated a painting, which was then digitized again, only to be reproduced in the print on my wall. Whatever humanity there was about the work seems very diluted and plasticized by the process.
So what, then, do I enjoy about the art? Why do I hang this work on my walls and continue to gain inspiration from it?
It's the subject matter I enjoy. The intent. The craft. The precision.
no prints can come from fingers
if machines become our hands...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/09/29/352419627/domesticated-robots-and-the-art-of-being-human
I won't quote it here, like I usually do, because it is pretty extensive. It's worth a look, though.
The article brings up questions of artistic expression and how we use technology to manipulate the world around us. There is also the idea that this technology manipulates us, as well, shaping how we see the world and how we interact with each other.
I'm particularly interested in how the evolution of the use of technology has enabled different kinds of artistic expression. The article mentions that we first used technology when the first person picked up a rock to get food - probably hunting. Since that time, we have continued to change and progress in our use of technology to express ourselves, to change our world, and to be more human. As we do so, we are also changing what it means to be a human.
I had a conversation once with a friend who is a spectacular artist. Here's his website:
http://chrisyoungfineart.com/artist.asp?ArtistID=34275&AKey=V9LPV246
His art is almost hyper-realistic, providing a clarity and attention to detail that I find very engaging. I asked him if, in his work with still lifes in particular, if he worked with photography and computer manipulation of the images. He said that at first he was very reluctant to do that, trying to stay true to the more pure and traditional work of art. But, he said, over time he started to realize that there was this great tool available to help him produce images that were easier to manipulate and did not degrade over time. He still does the work with paint and brush, for which there simply is no substitute. But the way the image is generated and manipulated is greatly facilitated using a computer to enhance what he was trying to do.
At some level, art is all about communication. Originally, art told very specific stories and tried to be as exact as the technology of the day would allow. Chris does this extremely well - folks at my house look at his work that we have on the walls and assume that it's a photograph. Perhaps it's a bit ironic that the image was something originally real, of which a photograph was taken and manipulated on a computer, from which Chris generated a painting, which was then digitized again, only to be reproduced in the print on my wall. Whatever humanity there was about the work seems very diluted and plasticized by the process.
So what, then, do I enjoy about the art? Why do I hang this work on my walls and continue to gain inspiration from it?
It's the subject matter I enjoy. The intent. The craft. The precision.
I have one similar to this on my wall at home. I find it incredibly lovely for reasons that are maybe obvious but also very personal.
So, does technology enhance our ability to communicate, to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas? Or does it remove our humanity from us, until as Jack Johnson laments -
if machines become our hands...
Comments