Musings over Art and Technology

How does technology determine what we imagine Art to be?

I think technologies such as photography and mass production has definitely changed what the privileged classes once considered Art. In the old days, the most accurate representation of a nobleman—or the most accurate depiction of how he wished to be seen—was the goal of the artist. However, with the development of cameras which could readily and precisely reproduce an image of the subject, art was then viewed as more expressive than photographic. This lead to a sort of playing with the medium of paint itself, such as in the impressionist, cubist and modern art movements which followed the invention of the camera. The upper classes were now not the only ones who could have an image hanging in their homes, however, they were the only ones who could afford an original.

Technology influences how Art is prepared, depending on how it will be displayed-- from the first magic lantern shows, phenakistoscopes (drawings arranged on a circular wheel and viewed through slits behind the wheel into a mirror), zoetropes (on short strips of paper, put into a cylinder and viewed through slits in the side as it turns), thaumatropes (bird in cage—only part of one image on one side of a card, with the other part on the other attached to a string), to silent film, sound film, filmic “improvements” such as Technicolor and cinemascope, television, on to computer screens, and the newest digital displays with greater detail than ever before.

The Internet has allowed massive distribution of Artistic work within seconds of its uploading. Access to digital replications of Art is immediate and global. The fact that Art can become a digital file which can then be copied and disseminated with no generational loss has affected our understanding of not only what original art is but what ownership is.

Did tools change what Art is?

Not to digress, but I think of “2001: A Space Odyssey” when asked a question like this, because my title for Kubrick’s masterpiece is “Tools and Turf.” In the film we watch cavemen fighting over meat with bones used as tools, which when thrown into the air dissolves into a spaceship floating gracefully through the universe (new tools; new turf).

In one sense, Art started with the cavemen blowing pigments around their hands and leaving the outlines of their hands on cave walls, or depicting animals in motion, possibly assisting them in “the hunt.” Art would remain irreproducible for centuries until people like Gutenberg, Dore’ and Blake developed techniques in printing and learned how to create plates of artwork which could be printed and mass produced. Further improvements of production followed with screen printing and the prepping of prep of materials within digital computer applications. Originally, art would be displayed hanging often framed on a wall, but now it can turn up literally almost anywhere—on a t-shirt, postcard, television broadcast or youtube viral film.

How did institutions of the 19th and 20th centuries (corporate, academic, creative) shape authorship and complicate the lone wolf/creative genius?

Institutions influence and shape the standards of “craft:” a creator of a written (or other type of) text has certain hoops he/she must jump through to be considered up to standard. In American film studios, the development of screenplay formats as well as structures (3-acts and a denouement, etc) must be achieved for a script considered a “serious” submission.

Academic testing standards as well shape if a student can continue on or must relearn the current standards for each grade level. As Howard Becker said in an essay last week, standards make things easier not only for the institutions that are going to display or promote certain work, but it’s also easier for the audiences to know what to expect.