Art & Technology

[Arty4ever]

An unnamed sub-group of ArtDC.org has formed and an exhibit is being planned. It was decided that we should each write about our thoughts on the impact art and technology has together on artists and culture...

Labeling art as "new media", "digital", or "technologically advanced" shifts viewers attention away from the presentation to instead concentrate on the process. It spoils an experience much like watching the bonus features of a movie to see how special effects are achieved instead of simply enjoying the fantasy.

There are amazing artistic possibilities using modern technological advances but these same tools can be used to make utter crap. The same can be said for more traditional materials and methods of making art. It's important not to be distracted too much by how art was made or what materials were used. Instead, the attention should be on emotion, concept, and communication.

Technology has given artists new tools but no matter how the process of making art may change, an artist's inspiration, creativity, and talent remain just as magical as they have always been and that should be the focus of ones appreciation or critique.

As a freelance illustrator, the majority of what I create is "digital art" using Adobe programs and a Wacom tablet but I don't think promoting that fact will draw a crowd to an exhibit. In fact, rather then display a few digital prints I'd much prefer to show off a painting or two of brightly colored, whimsical robots and so that it's not too traditional, I plan to incorporate special lighting and/or motion effects to make the painting more unusual and modern.

I think the theme of the exhibit should be on a certain subject matter as opposed to the method the art was made.
Which show would you rather go see?

Technology and it's Effect on Modern Art and Culture
or
Shizznit Robots and other Sci-Fi, Techy Art

[seanwelker]

But, er, paintings aren't really playing to the focus of the show I imagined when I put this idea forward.  I'm a little concerned it may push this in a direction that distracts from where I wanted to go. 

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I very much wanted to keep the focus of this show specific to non-traditional media, and failing that, using what people consider "traditional" media in concert with technology to produce something innovative.

I'm thinking paintings of robots, while extremely cool, aren't really part of the vision I had in mind.  To my mind, the process is indeed part of what makes this show unique, and part of what makes the art, er, art.  Shows are put on all the time exploring specific media--photography, as an example--and I don't think doing so to show off creative digital pieces is any different.   

I agree that there's crap art on all sides of the digital divide.  The art that I'd like to see in this micro-collective's show is able to marry the energy and humanity found in traditional forms while giving us a taste of futurism and using communication tools of the current age.

I'd like to discuss this further, but I think it better to do so off-forum.  Let's all please connect via email--mine is sw@secretworm.com.

Below is my statement blurb that we all agreed to write. 

A Meditation on Art and Technology
Art can be much like what most people think of technology.  In both instances it takes special training to make it, it requires specific and often intimidating tools, and indeed, it takes an experienced mind to get it.  In a fashion, both technology and art have become modern mystery cults, guarding their integral secrets within their own subculture.  To the audience outside of these groups, the end result is apparent--the software is working, the painting is beautiful--though it is not often understood.

While both of these subcultures are removed from the mainstream by subtle degrees, they are nevertheless an important part of the culture at large.  Indeed, it can be argued that art and technology share the responsibility of guiding and defining the overall culture.  I believe this happens by inspiring new thought and sensation, realizing new applications for the current, and revisiting and improving upon past experience. 

Like technology, art can be a mirror held up to reflect the world in its current state.  Like art, technology can be a prayer transmission sent through the ether to arrive at a better world.  They are different approaches to witnessing the universe, and yet the overlap between art and technology can produce striking and wonderful results.

A Statement About My Art
As a creative, I am constantly drawing in pieces of information and inspiration. These fragments of memory and connection are transformed into ciphers by which i re-imagine both the world and my experience.

I describe my work as digital outsider.  My work owes as much to prominent futurists as it does to the artists I admire.  I am, however, not a visionary technologist, nor are these pieces traditional art.  This work straddles two seemingly-distant subcultures in a way that demystifies them, opening up an entirely new toolbox by which art is created while bringing the human voice closer to the machine.  I strive to combine the tools, language and cultural landmarks from both worlds to build new insights and offer humankind a new lens to measure evolutions both global and personal.

[Arty4ever]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I very much wanted to keep the focus of this show specific to non-traditional media, and failing that, using what people consider "traditional" media in concert with technology to produce something innovative.

No worries... but, just to clarify, the painting I had considered creating was to include innovative technological special effects... parts that light up, move, etc.  ...so it wouldn't be a that traditional, really... 

However, if you'd prefer I stick with a print from a digital art created piece that's totally fine. I don't want to complicate things and I'm sure we can work something out. I'll send ya an email offline. 

[Jesse]

That makes me think of a tribute to Jasper Johns.  For a long time, artists have been fighting to include technology in their work.
See the beer can, neon, and light switch.  The pic below is small, and a bit tough to make out, but you can see it...


Jasper Johns, Field Painting, 1963-1964, oil on canvas with objects, Collection of the Artist
http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/johns/archaeology_8a.shtm

[jwhitsitt]

I have two perspectives on technology's role in culture, as it pertains to my art. First, I've always struggled with the concept that there is "technology" and "stuff that isn't technology". I never really believed that there was an inherent line there. The only thing that really rings true is Douglas Adams' quote on the subject. He said something to the effect of "Technology means 'stuff that isn't quite working right yet'".  Pencils, oil paint, paper, cameras - they're all technology. They're absolutely the same thing as computers and any other digital mechanisms for interacting with human senses.

So, my first interest in technology, art, and culture is in the process of cultural integration of new technology into the "stuff that works" category. Things we forget about.  I'm interested in the creation of and interaction with art that REFUSES to distringuish between itself and any other "old" tools used to create art.  I like to see moving images framed behind museum quality glass hanging from a wall. I enjoy the idea of traditional tools being used as part of the creation of what would otherwise be considered "new technology" art.

Along these lines, I'm also fascinated by the artifical lines and boundaries we (humans) create to keep our perception of the universe coherent.  Technology has always helped people do more better faster, but until the advent of science allowing long distance communication between people, our boundaries expanded, but tended to retain the same shapes.  As people began to communciate over vast distances, however, our sense of "place" began to erode a little bit. TV accelerated that process, cell phones turned the process into an avalanche, and the internet looks like it might eradicate the bond between place and self altogether in our culture.  Not only that, but with the variety of identities we are begining to maintain, our most basic sense of "self" is getting fuzzy. Who are we when we can "be" in multiple places at once. Who are we when we can be physically perceived by others in different ways at the same time? We have IM accounts, blog accounts, we exist (well, some of us ) in virtual worlds, etc.  Part of how we perceive and understand who we are ourselves is by how we are reflected back by other people.  What happens to us as our reflections become fractured and non-contiguous?

Art, over time, has often been used to explore our relationship - as people - to the universe around us. In my mind, these particular technologically-wrought changes in our culture are accute and our exploration of them as humans is well-served by doing so through art.

[Jesse]

Very good thoughts.  Right in line with mine. 
Looking at art from the view of a photographer, I've constantly looked at things from a technological point of view. 

I keep going back to dictionaries or wiki's to find existing ideas or definitions to help direct my thoughts.  Some may say, can't this guy have an original thought? It's possible, that I have too much of a science background where several educators directed us to quote or cite everything that was not an original thought.  They next thing you know, you have a huge paper, that for all practical purposes has a number next to every statement.   

"Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment. In human society, it is a consequence of science and engineering, although several technological advances predate the two concepts."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

Cellulose film, negatives, enlargers, cameras, and boxes of light are all tools.  What separates technology,  Old vs. New?  Digital vs Platinum? 

Jack, I like that border too.  For the last few years, I've been trying to mix old and new technology, and I think it's quite possible.  Mechanics constantly develop new technology, but to the average joe, not a lot has chnaged with the socket wrernch.

[BarryS]

The modernists were to first artists to directly address technological change in their art.  Modernist art examined the technological advances of the time, but also the broader social concerns associated with a new industrial age.  For all its concern with the advancing industrial age, Modernist art stood on the sidelines when it came to incorporating the new materials and technologies of its age.  At the turn of the last century it was radical enough for art to slip into abstraction and to speak of itself or its own creation.  As we begin this century, art has a new relationship to technology that mirrors our own contradictory combination of facile acceptance and anxiety over the changes washing over our culture. 

Our art isn't about technology, its already co-opted technology.  Digital--its ubiquity has almost caused the concept to lose all meaning.  Digital is nothing more or less than the translational technology that allows the sum of our creative, intellectual, and financial output to be stored and manipulated in the same hash of ones and zeros.  The barriers don't need to be broken down, because they already came down while we were looking in another direction.  The same matrix of bits holds our films, photographs, music, data, our history, and our bank accounts.  Digital is the ultimate triumph of abstraction that equalizes science, art, and commerce.

Science into art into money into music into history into...  We're artists, but also cartographers mapping the coordinates from one transformational state to the next in order to fold culture back on itself and reveal the threads that lie beneath.

[funkergirl]

wow this has become really complicated hasn't it 

[jwhitsitt]

No. Not really. This is all just going to be edited together (pieces of it) for the show descriptions. We're all mostly making this shit up anyway

Are you still interested in playing? 

[Jesse]

Jack's right.  This is just brain storming.  Post your thoughts...

[seanwelker]

Hey funkergirl!  On my list of things to do today was hit you with a note asking if you were still on board. 

When we met last week, we all agreed to offer up a few paragraphs to better crystallize what we mean by abstractions like technology and art, and how they both shape us and the culture.  If you're game, I think we'd all love to read what you think. 

Hope all is well.  What I might do now is cut & paste a bunch of quotes from this thread to see if we can come up with a collective statement.  I'll put it up here for y'all to review.

[Arty4ever]

Sounds good. After that's put together I think we'll have a more solid concept for our exhibit.

~Michael


PS: After talking to Sean (aka secretworm) by email I'm going to switch from showing paintings to instead show a few prints of my digital artwork.
Going with the flow and just happy to be part of the show.

[BarryS]

Michael--I think that's a good move and more in line with the theme.  I was actually thinking that it would be cool to have some of your animations in the show.

[Arty4ever]

That's a good idea... 

Depending on when the show happens will determine if it will be prints or animation. 
    

[funkergirl]

Hey all - yes I am still interested....
i will come up with some writing some point soon and post here.  today is my last day at my job, so it's a little crazy today!   

[J.L. Grillo]

I like where the conversation is going in this thread.

Let me toss out a my story:

In my own case, digital art has been a realm that I just haven't been able to enter, because I don't have the money to invest in the tools - a computer, a scanner, the software, you name it. When I was growing up I loved drawing, but as the digital artists started making all the big splashes, my work felt more and more like scribbling on napkins. Now keep in mind that I was particularly susceptible to popular opinion, and the whole world seemed to be crying out for more digital, more CG, more technology! And there I was, stuck in pencils and scissors.

Mine is a boring story actually. I got overwhelmed by the changes I saw and I didn't practice art for a long time. I was 4 years and 8 months into my Undergraduate degree when I realized that I should have gone to art school and the reason behind that epiphany was that I began drawing again and realized that it wasn't the technology that made the art, it was the artist.

(^_^)

[Arty4ever]

Well said, John. Too true.
+1 Karma point for you. 

 

[jwhitsitt]

the whole world seemed to be crying out for more digital, more CG, more technology!

Thats the part that always turned me off.  People were (and still are in the art world) all ooooooooh...cool...electronics! nevermind what the electronics were -used- for.

[Jesse]

Really, I always got the opposite.  Oh.  Yuck.  Archival Digital Print.
It's information on paper!  Come on! (or at least that's what I'd think to my self...)...

[seanwelker]

Actually, I second Jesse.  Lots of artists and gallerists see what I do, and you can nearly *hear* the eye-rolling.  I've actually had other artists all but pat me on the head and tell me to come back when I'm ready to make "real" art. 

A paint brush is technology.  A camera is technology.  Some are older and more established, and have better art cred, but that doesn't make them any more pure or "real".

Do I really need to name-drop Dave Chappelle in:re When 'Keepin' It Real' Goes Wrong?  A crappy painting, even with the finest tools money can buy, is still a crappy painting. 

That said, exceptional tools in the hands of people who know what they're doing and have a clear vision can make things so beautiful they'll break your heart. 

For the purpose of this show, I did want to focus on so-called "new media": computers--both hardware and software, robotics, post-human engineering, memetics, video.  Weird bleeding-edge ideas presented which explore the human identity through these new tools.  Futurism, not 'futuristic'.  Stuff that doesn't have a nice tidy niche or an existing following.

When there's a show that focuses strictly on photography, no one would think of asking that curator to include a painting or sculpture.  Likewise, I want to keep the focus of this exhibit tight, but I want the interpretations to vary.  I have no doubt that I'll be amazed. 

funkergirl, may I please ask that you offer up some kind of blurb on the art-technology-culture thing by this Tuesday (that's January 15th)?  I'd like to get this moving, and I want to include you on the street level.  So while I know you're busy with "real life" stuff, I also don't want to hold back the entire group moving forward.  If you need help, more time, or anything else, feel free to discuss that here, as a PM or my email (sw@secretworm.com).  Thanks in advance!

So yeah.  I'll spend most of this Monday working on the first draft of our "vision statement".  I'll incorporate funkergirl's when it comes.