Skip to main content

Technology and Art

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.


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 -

no prints can come from fingers
if machines become our hands...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Other Art

I'm not sure we appreciate photography as much as we do other art forms. Part of this comes from the reality that surrounds and permeates a photograph - it's very, very real, and the photographer strives for clarity and crispness in the representations. Perhaps this is why black and white images continue to be relevant - they strip away extraneous information (color) and leave us with something that is at once familiar and also non-existent - for nothing exists in black and white. Nothing. I also think that pictures are becoming too common-place... Everyone has a camera in their pocket, and while that's a very democratic thing (everyone can express themselves in a picture easily and readily, and can find an audience for these images, which are casually taken and casually viewed, and perhaps just as casually forgotten) I think that we embrace that casual attitude, and it spills over to all aspects of the media, making it impotent. So I read this article this morning: h...

Lucky!

So Tomorrow is Amie's birthday. The 12 th is Andy's. The 14 th is Alex's. And the 26 th is mom's. Happy birthday everyone. I recently found that a member of our ward has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer has a survivability rate of less than 5% and you never, ever kick it, even if you live. Once diagnosed, people are expected to live about six months. My wife and I were talking about this wonderful woman. There are very few (too few) people in this world who shine. Literally. This sister shines with a light that is perceptible and discernible . The world will literally be a darker place without her in it. Life is short, folks. Too short for hard feelings, too short for pain and misunderstanding. I love you all so much. Sorry this one is such a downer... I don't mean to be lugubrious on your birthdays... I consider myself lucky to be your brother. You have and continue to bless me and my family in many ways, for which I will be eternally gra...

Excommunication

My heart is heavy this morning. I read that Kate Kelly and others are being brought up on Church disciplinary action. For those who are unfamiliar with the process/proceedings of LDS Church discipline, it can be a bit mystifying. There are several levels of censure that the Church may impose. These range from a simple removal of some privileges for a short period of time to the most severe action - excommunication. When one is excommunicated, the person's membership in the Church is terminated. It is a very extreme measure, and for the faithful it can be a very difficult thing to consider. What people don't understand - what is nearly impossible for someone outside the proceedings to understand - is the amount of love felt. It's discipline. It's intended to be harsh (at times). And it's intended to be unpleasant. But it is done with love and care for the person. Since excommunication is such an extreme measure, it is really only very rarely applied. There are ...