Technology versus the Arts
09-20-2005, 04:58 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Technology versus the Arts
This morning while getting ready for work I got thinking about some Beatles songs that I had listened too last night. That got me thinking about some of their lyrics and how by some of today's standards they would be considered politically incorrect such as the lyrics from "Run for Your Life". Of course compared to gangster Rap there is little comparison. That of course if one can compare the music of The Beatles with their blending of guitars with sitars and orchestration as well as their wonderful harmonies, with "Rap" to begin with?
That got me thinking about how in many peoples minds (mine included) one could conclude that with all of the advances in technology (aviation, PC's, communications, medical, etc.) over the last fifty or one hundred years, that as far as the arts go (music, movies, TV, Art, etc) we seem to be living in the past. I.E. All of the "classic Rock radio stations, the MTV generation embracing the music of Tony Bennett, the popularity of movies from the thirties and forties, classic TV from the 50's that is still very popular on cable, not to mention classical music and art if one goes back in time a little further.
The question popped up in my mind: Has creativity in technology replaced the arts in our society? Is "technology the new art form"?
Then on my morning drive I heard this interview and sampling of music from Anoushka Shankar. Ravi Shankar's daughter (not to be confused with Grammy winner Nora Jones. The interview along with a sampling of her new CD that blends ancient instruments including the Sitar with modern technology, (including the fact that the album was produced in no less than four separate locations) can be heard here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4855112
What do you think? Is technology the "new art" form? Or a hundred years from now will people be looking back on Rap Music and Pop art as the classics?
That got me thinking about how in many peoples minds (mine included) one could conclude that with all of the advances in technology (aviation, PC's, communications, medical, etc.) over the last fifty or one hundred years, that as far as the arts go (music, movies, TV, Art, etc) we seem to be living in the past. I.E. All of the "classic Rock radio stations, the MTV generation embracing the music of Tony Bennett, the popularity of movies from the thirties and forties, classic TV from the 50's that is still very popular on cable, not to mention classical music and art if one goes back in time a little further.
The question popped up in my mind: Has creativity in technology replaced the arts in our society? Is "technology the new art form"?
Then on my morning drive I heard this interview and sampling of music from Anoushka Shankar. Ravi Shankar's daughter (not to be confused with Grammy winner Nora Jones. The interview along with a sampling of her new CD that blends ancient instruments including the Sitar with modern technology, (including the fact that the album was produced in no less than four separate locations) can be heard here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4855112
What do you think? Is technology the "new art" form? Or a hundred years from now will people be looking back on Rap Music and Pop art as the classics?
09-20-2005, 05:26 AM
#2
Originally Posted by matt_inva,Sep 20 2005, 08:58 AM
Or a hundred years from now will people be looking back on Rap Music and Pop art as the classics?
But I'll be glad that I'll be dead in 100 years if at that time people think Rap music is a "classic."
09-20-2005, 05:54 AM
#3
Matt, I don't know what you are refering to with those musical artists, but the other day I was thinking that photography has essentially replaced realism. We will never again see works like those of the great masters. It takes to long to train to draw the human form and other real images in the correct perspective. Why bother to learn when everyone with a camera can take a perfect image of whatever they want a picture of. The overwhelming majority of modern art is abstract or at best impression. Most of it leaves me cold.
09-20-2005, 06:24 AM
#5
Matt
Good post. I think art plays off technology and always has. I think rap will be looked at as ragtime is today eventually as will most other kinds of music.
Whether your looking at the evolution of the piano or the moog synthesizer, they are just instruments of art. Kind of like pigments and colors during the Rennisance.
Good music or art translates no matter what the medium used. Lyrics often reflect culture and often don't survive times test.
Art in all its auspices comes from within. Instruments or media are just a means to the message.
fltsfshr
Good post. I think art plays off technology and always has. I think rap will be looked at as ragtime is today eventually as will most other kinds of music.
Whether your looking at the evolution of the piano or the moog synthesizer, they are just instruments of art. Kind of like pigments and colors during the Rennisance.
Good music or art translates no matter what the medium used. Lyrics often reflect culture and often don't survive times test.
Art in all its auspices comes from within. Instruments or media are just a means to the message.
fltsfshr
09-20-2005, 06:45 AM
#6
Registered User
[QUOTE=matt_inva,Sep 20 2005, 07:58 AM] That got me thinking about how in many peoples minds (mine included) one could conclude that with all of the advances in technology (aviation, PC's, communications, medical, etc.) over the last fifty or one hundred years, that as far as the arts go (music, movies, TV, Art, etc) we seem to be living in the past.
09-20-2005, 07:03 AM
#7
Thought provoking...
Personally, I think technology is and always will be part of the evolution of 'art'.... in all forms (good and bad). I don't believe it will replace art, unless it makes us too lazy to create art.
As wonderful as CDs and DVDs are, does anyone think their sound.... played on the best 'high end' equipment.... is comparable to that of a concert hall?
Photographs have certainly come a long way, but not even the most outrageously expensive top-end equipment can capture the range of light.... or the nuance of color... that is seen by the human eye.
Much of today's 'music' seems to be constrained by conformity, rather than by creativity. The pendulum will continue to swing. Right now, it is at an extreme which is defined by $$$. Radio stations don't allow any creativity in format, or in programming. For the most part, music moguls won't record anything outside of what they think 'sells'.
Art will continue.... some of it will be comfortable, and some won't.
Personally, I think technology is and always will be part of the evolution of 'art'.... in all forms (good and bad). I don't believe it will replace art, unless it makes us too lazy to create art.
As wonderful as CDs and DVDs are, does anyone think their sound.... played on the best 'high end' equipment.... is comparable to that of a concert hall?
Photographs have certainly come a long way, but not even the most outrageously expensive top-end equipment can capture the range of light.... or the nuance of color... that is seen by the human eye.
Much of today's 'music' seems to be constrained by conformity, rather than by creativity. The pendulum will continue to swing. Right now, it is at an extreme which is defined by $$$. Radio stations don't allow any creativity in format, or in programming. For the most part, music moguls won't record anything outside of what they think 'sells'.
Art will continue.... some of it will be comfortable, and some won't.
Trending Topics
09-20-2005, 09:56 AM
#8
Art follows many forms, music, painting, photography, sculpture, wood working, ceramics, film...etc.
One form of art music, has found that it can generate great amounts of money, and you are correct, that discovery was made with the broadcast of radio. This was furthered by TV and in particular MTV and its progeny. This, in my opinion, has made music more of a cultural phenomenon. It has become business because technology has allowed this and therefore people try to put music "on the air" that will have the station owners make money. The bulk of discretionary spending belongs to....vintage age (and near vintage age) people looking for memories of their pasts.
This is also evident in film. Charlie's Angels, Beverly Hillbillies, etc. Again, this is a cultural/business play.
As far as the arts (pure arts) I agree that technology is changing some of what we look at as art. 35mm photography is being replaced by digital. This takes the "photographer" out of the photographic process, if you consider the talent of the the "manipulator". (the Photoshop-per)
With motion pictures you have the same thing. CGI can truly remove cinematography from the movie making process.
Music as a medium, again, synthesizers have become a part of almost all music these days. Having been a drummer in my younger days, I found drum machines (beat boxes) to be a heresy, but if you find a good "programmer" of these instruments, they can create very good music.
I am not sure that I would call this technology taking over...but perhaps enhancing.
That being said, there are still a great number of wonderful artists in all realms.
I find many contemporary painters to be quite interesting, and yes there are still many painters that do realism. Most galleries are hanging contemporary realism along with abstracts and sculpture and glass art.
We have collected a number of contemporary artists and I truly do see their work as art in the classic sense with little or no intrusion of technology. Tim Cantor, Andreas Nottebohm, Orlando, Chihully, Stankard, Wyland and a number of "newer" artists.
The media might progress, but I still art as art with technology offering only an assist.
One form of art music, has found that it can generate great amounts of money, and you are correct, that discovery was made with the broadcast of radio. This was furthered by TV and in particular MTV and its progeny. This, in my opinion, has made music more of a cultural phenomenon. It has become business because technology has allowed this and therefore people try to put music "on the air" that will have the station owners make money. The bulk of discretionary spending belongs to....vintage age (and near vintage age) people looking for memories of their pasts.
This is also evident in film. Charlie's Angels, Beverly Hillbillies, etc. Again, this is a cultural/business play.
As far as the arts (pure arts) I agree that technology is changing some of what we look at as art. 35mm photography is being replaced by digital. This takes the "photographer" out of the photographic process, if you consider the talent of the the "manipulator". (the Photoshop-per)
With motion pictures you have the same thing. CGI can truly remove cinematography from the movie making process.
Music as a medium, again, synthesizers have become a part of almost all music these days. Having been a drummer in my younger days, I found drum machines (beat boxes) to be a heresy, but if you find a good "programmer" of these instruments, they can create very good music.
I am not sure that I would call this technology taking over...but perhaps enhancing.
That being said, there are still a great number of wonderful artists in all realms.
I find many contemporary painters to be quite interesting, and yes there are still many painters that do realism. Most galleries are hanging contemporary realism along with abstracts and sculpture and glass art.
We have collected a number of contemporary artists and I truly do see their work as art in the classic sense with little or no intrusion of technology. Tim Cantor, Andreas Nottebohm, Orlando, Chihully, Stankard, Wyland and a number of "newer" artists.
The media might progress, but I still art as art with technology offering only an assist.
09-20-2005, 12:25 PM
#9
Originally Posted by JonasM,Sep 20 2005, 10:04 AM
09-20-2005, 01:08 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Warwick
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject for me is one that I have given more thought to than I probably ever should. I'm almost consumed with the arts. I believe that art is for all intense and purposes a reflection of where a society is at that given time. One must factor in the different cultural differences in the time line as well. I will not fault or degrade a composition on the merit that a new media is implemented. I will fault a composition when the composer doesn't take advantage of the latest technology. I do find myself going back to some of the masters of modern music like: Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Beatles,etc. The compositions that they wrote thirty years ago for me blow the doors off of most of what I've been hearing lately.