We normally think of the arts as very different from technologies in spite of the fact that art (with perhaps a few exceptions) is practiced with the help of technology. This practice creates interdependence between technology and art. To what extent does art respond to, or is shaped by, the technology that enables it? To what extent have advanced and accessible digital technologies, such as websites, digital photography, and YouTube, changed the relationship between art and technology? Are these technologies reshaping our attitudes toward artists?
A good question but to get to the heart of it you need to know something about the history of technology in art and artistic expression. The invention of writing changed story telling orally which was widely done before writing. New musical instruments like the piano changed music. Scholars observe that the invention of the camera changed painting and so on. Electric and electronic recording completely changed music and how it was consumed. Check out some of the historical changes in the arts to get a handle on this issue in discussing more recent technologies.
We should not limit our thinking about music technology to just our western cultural experience. Here are some different music technologies you might find interesting:
Surely art can’t be influenced by technology.
I would definitely have to say that those were some interesting clips although I could not access the second link, but as far as different from what we consider music for sure. And that’s the beauty I guess to hear and experience other forms of art and technology of other cultures that we would not normally be exposed to, but the technology allows us to do exactly that. It also is a very different view that I see now from understanding art and technology that it does go together and both make advances too, where anybody’s artistic expression can be viewed maybe something new or old.
After actually investigating each of the clips that were provided, I found them to actually to be very interesting to listen to, especially the Balinese Gamelan music. Although I could get the 2 clips of the second link to function properly, I found the first one entertaining and also different from the mainstream music I listen. Just by observing the instruments that they were using, they seemed to be quite simplistic in design, yet very innovative to produce the type of sound that they desired. I’d actually consider listening to it more often.
The accessibility and convenience of digital music/video today are some factors that have changed the relationship between art and technology. Before the Internet, music/movies could only be purchased on plastic medium via the “Brick and Mortar” business now it is primarily obtained via electronic/mobile-commerce in digital format (I-Tunes, Amazon, etc to name a few). The “Super 8” amateur films have been replaced with fancy digital, do-it-yourself, creations uploaded on multiple social mediums. Streaming Netflix and Pay-Per-View has also given audiences more options versus being limited to a traditional movie theater.
YouTube for example hosts an endless accumulation of free popular/mainstream music and videos as well as up-and-coming artists trying to get recognized (solo artists or bands). You can also learn how to play just about any musical instrument for free (guitar tabs, reading music etc) from personalized/uploaded lessons. YouTube also provides how-to videos for painting, drawing, etc. from beginner to advanced. Discovering a new art (or artist) or learning “how to” is very effecient on the Internet.
Digital/Internet audio and video has surpassed traditional methods/customs of accessing the art of music or theater. Further it (i.e. YouTube) has provided society with a virtual, high-tech, streaming medium that inspires/optimizes artistic collaborations, opportunities and creations. These innovative changes from analog expression to digital expression have merged/enhanced relationships between art and technology onto a more convenient/accessible platform.
Most popular YouTube Videos: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD7DD392E2E77E775
A useful list of new delivery technologies, have these changed the content of the art form itself? As the question asks, have the new technologies shaped the art forms in new ways. 45 rpms changed music. Sound in film changed film. Photography changed painting. Have these new technologies had no effect on art?
I would say that the new technologies have affected how art is made and distributed. It allows it to me more precise and allow mistakes to be corrected alot more easier.
It still takes the right talent and knowlegde to understand and make the bast art possible, it is just easier for more people to produce art that has a professional touch to it.
I’m not clear how these technologies are affecting the art itself. If you take the elements of film for example:
The form (or techniques) are still somewhat the same. Hold guitar with two hands, strum/pick the strings and create music. Hold paintbrush with one hand, dip in paint, brush across canvas and create picture. The basics are the same, but the advanced application(s) combined with the Internet have made the form better—efficient and improved processes with faster results.
For example, instead of writing/developing music with an entire band/orchestra etc., the artist or music company simply uses computer music composition software—or instead of scribing the music by hand it is processed via software/hardware. Photographers, painters or filmmakers can manipulate or create pictures using high-tech audio/digital software. Along with the professionals, amateurs can obtain software and develop their own creations. You can either go to Hobby Lobby (or wherever) or buy the tools of your trade/form or go online to buy software and do the same thing but in a more high-tech fashion. Either way, with whatever application—the Internet (with social medium) has created a worldwide forum of virtual collaboration and sharing. So the delivery of art has improved—along with the advanced techniques to create it and share it with the world.
45 rpm, 33 and 1/3, 8 track tape, cd all affected the type of music, performed and recorded due for one thing to length of music availabe, 45 rpm for example were limited to about 3 minutes, hence popular songs had to be limited to that length.
Sound in film, color in film, film quality etc allowed different elements of film to become more or lest important. But what about the newer technologies, has the safe of the art be affected, made better? worse?
I suppose you can keep on theorizing, philosophizing, drilling down answers or begging the question about the past, present and future of technology in the arts/entertainment world. You can have high-tech, expensive computers, software and cameras—or you can have a broken pencil and ½ a sheet of paper. Maybe technology changed the art format maybe it didn’t. It really doesn’t matter because what has never changed in the myriad of technology achievements…is the individual ability or talent to innovate/visualize and express creativity in their respective art.
I would just like to add that innovation needs a tool to aid it usually. There is a limit to how much we can accomplish without help, and sometimes that new technological innovation can enable us to fully discover what we were unable to share before. I used to be very gifted with either pen, pencil, chalk, or charcoal. But sometime around the new millennium something changed for me that made it harder to rediscover that ability to take what was in my mind and express it in a visual medium others could appreciate. Thanks to the technological advances in distilling techniques for alcohol, I have been able to break down the wall that limits my ability to access my prior skill set and can again create beauty thanks to an inebriated state.
Art cannot be created without an artist free from inhibitions and the established limits of society.
It may be your opinion that it is not important whether technology affects the arts or not but that is what the question is asking (if I read your post correctly). I agree that humans have always been creative, but if mechanical/electrical recording has not been invented, you can’t write music for it no matter how creative you are. I movies have not been invented you can’t direct a film, if the electronic guitar or the saxophone has not be developed you can’t play them or write music for them. So I’m not sure that technology is irrelevant to the arts because they are creative. Each musical instrument in use today was at one time a technological innovation. Musical notation which we take for granted today was invented at one time. To me this suggests that technology has always had an important impact on the arts. This question is asking if recent technology has had an impact on the arts. I really do think this is hard to see and specify but that doesn’t mean its not a good question.
Your post really raises a critical issue in this discussion, I think we tend to miss the connection between what technology allows or constrains and what human creativity allows can do. Very insightful.
The biggest advancement that technology has given to art is the ease that we can enjoy it. No longer to we have to travel to muesuems around the world or spend large amounts of time in the library searching. We can instantly access art from our phones.
I think the new technologies have changed art. Because it is delivered in a whole new way, the artist and the audience have changed. Youtube is one example. How going viral has changed art talks about youtube, tumblr, and spreading art through the internet.
The first thing that came to my mind came before youtube and tumblr and instagram: the digital camera. This article says that there are 2.5 billion people that own a digital camera right now. Five ways the digital camera changed us. And we share all of our photos with each other. 10 of the best photo sharing apps for android Everyday pictures have come so far since I was a kid with my 110-film pocket camera! Remember this?
(Yes I do remember Kodak 110…and even older versions) You raise an important issue here. That the contemporary delivery systems have an impact on art not just in terms of distribution and consumption even due to the massive change in terms of how much “art” we are not exposed to and consume.
I am very aware that some people do keep them, but it is not as prevalent as it use to be when people had to get actual photos developed. Now the inkjet cartridge manufacturers are really eating it up nowadays. The price that people go through to actually print is astounding.
that’s an interesting observation that it is thought of as a necessity to have a camera at all times – digital or on your phone. We have some pictures taken with a phone at times when we wouldn’t have taken along a camera in the old days. My niece has pictures of herself with the Manning family because they were at a table next to her in a restaurant at the Super Bowl last year, and with Michael Phelps at a mall. t also made me think about how many things we’ve become aware of because someone was taped or photographed without their knowledge – and how this has changed things. A good example would be the tape of Romney’s 47% comment at that fundraiser during the last election. Or Obama’s comments about some people clinging to their guns at a fundraiser during the 2008 primaries. You could make a good case that both these comments, never intended for public consumption, changed the political debate. In the case of Romney, it might have contributed to the election result. And I would guess it’s at least a possibility that in both cases, the person doing the taping was initially just trying to capture a famous person on their phone, not necessarily practicing “gotcha journalism.” Public people can have no expectation of privacy outside the confines of their homes anymore. We can all be paparazzi now. And cell phones have also captured crimes in process and helped in catching criminals. It’s a different world.
The new art that is drive by hi tech is video gaming. this is huge industry worldwide apparently. The article i found states this is currently $74 billion a year industry which is more than music and movie box combined. They expect to be at $90 billion by 2015. “There are big games businesses and successful one-man businesses. In theory anyone can join in. Distance is no barrier to international sales. Video games can be created in the lounge, with luck, sold over the internet and played on the run. No wonder the industry is spawning such breathtaking statistics.” The art of gaming The author states that video games give people ability to experiment with the world. The games contain all levels of art such as music, photo and art.
good reading here http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/games/8059984/The-art-of-gaming
The use of new technologies throughout history has always affected the art and artistic expression. Just taking the example of photography, it had dramatic effect in the world of artistic expression. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when photography prevailed as an important medium, painting underwent a dramatic change towards abstraction. In reaction to Edward Muybridge’s successful documentation of photographing a horse galloping, Thomas Eakins painted Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand, which portrays a horse galloping more in accordance with Muybridge’s photographs rather than with previous paintings of horses, where artists had only assumed the way a horse would appear in mid-gallop. Another advancement in science and technology that precedes photography and is undoubtedly connected to it is the implementation of the camera obscura in fine art. Similar to the photographic camera, the camera obscura creates a projection of light onto a dark screen, but without the ability to capture the image on a surface.
Today technology is transforming every form of art whether it is sculpture, architecture or other handicraft items. With the information revolution, the art form and artistic expression has been changed because of multimedia, virtual reality, and the Web. Internet platform such as MySpace or Napster is making the production, distribution, consumption or availability of music much easier. Various art forms can now be viewed on YouTube and many other websites. Using computer graphics, people can create truly marvellous images and animation movies are perfect examples of the same.
Eric Jones, Creating New Forms: Art, Technology, and the Imagination. Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
Albergotti, J. Clifton. Mighty is the Charm. Boston: University Press of America, 1982.
“production, distribution, consumption or availability” are all important changes in art as well as other things but the question also asks how the new technologies have changed the art itself. You have some good examples of that for earlier technologies.
Art has come a long way at one point, the color blue was bleeding-edge technology. A near impossible pigment to obtain, ultramarine could only be made using lapis lazuli, a rare semi-precious stone that most commoners — not to mention starving artists couldn’t afford. (This is why blue and purple are considered the colors of royalty.) When artificial pigments burst onto the art scene, suddenly skies were literally bluer and artists were faced with a whole new palette of choice This is what artists are facing now with the onset of new technology: more tools, more options, and in some cases, whole new ways of stimulating people’s senses. New York City’s Museum of Modern Art featured an Augmented Reality art exhibit in the fall of 2010 that asked museum-goers to use a smart phone app to view the semi-virtual exhibit. So, if nobody with a smart phone was on the 7th floor of the museum, to the naked eye, it appeared to be completely devoid of art.
I especially enjoyed the Mongolian throat singing! Just the exercise of being able to listen to these different types of music sitting at my desk underscores how technology makes art more accessible. You think back to when the wealthy “owned” access to fine art for all practical purposes – the symphonies in the concert halls, the commissioning of work by notable artists of the time, etc. The common person had few opportunities to be exposed to fine art. This changed with the gramophone, however you still had to be able to afford to buy one. Radio also made music more accessible to the average person. In its early days and to some extent still today, PBS has provided programming that gives access to great music and recorded live concerts that many people would not be able to afford otherwise. And the reverse is true. There’s a reason everybody understands what “starving artist” means. If an artist was not underwritten by a wealthy benefactor, there was little chance their work would become known or that they could earn a living with their art. So once again, technology has been a great equalizer, in this case for both the artist and the consumer.
Increased accessibility is certain an important issue in art consumption but the question also asks something else very important, have the different new technologies changed the art forms themselve, that is had an impact on the elements of the various art forms?
I did some more research and found some more interesting facts about how the changes in technology has impacted the world of art. For instance, the invention of portable tubes of paint in the nineteenth century encouraged artists to move their studios outdoors, thereby contributing to the Impressionist movement, which drew inspiration from the dazzling effects of natural sunlight and atmosphere. The invention of photography in 1839 spurred a different approach to painting. Impressionism became the opening volley of Modernism, the movement that overthrew the 400-year-old tradition of the Old Masters and perceptualism in Western art. This was the a revolution as radical for art as the Industrial Revolution was for technology.
If we look at the present time, we have examples such as computers assisting in projecting holographic images, and as virtual-reality technologies are being perfected, the creation of three-dimensional fictions are becoming possible. Meanwhile, the compact disc, digitalization, and video technology have altered photography in many ways. For instance, Kodak’s compact-disc photography which can hold hundreds of photographic images on a compact disc and can be displayed on TV has made traditional photographic negatives and prints obsolete.
Ptacek, Robin Thorne. (1994). Art of the twenty-first century. The Futurist 28. 1: 29.
Are storage and distribution systems the same as affecting the art itself?
Storage and distribution of the art forms are not the same as affecting the art itself in a direct way but the ease of access, compressed storage and distribution of art is resulting into creation of hybrid art form where the works of art is blending together and combining sound, light, painting, sculpture, or other media into a single creation. So, I am not sure if this would mean “affecting the art itself”.
Outside of new distribution and storage effects, what about when a novel is made into a film, or when a remake of a classic film is made. I know standard films sound dated, but take for example, John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath. When the film was made in 1940 (only a year after the book was published), the film creators cut out and/or changed many of the scenes (the camp scene is much ‘kinder’ in the movie). How else can someone fit a giant novel into 2 hours of film?
Also, what about the remakes that modernize the film setting? Does anyone remember the 1990s movie based on the old Beverly Hillbillies TV series? The entire scene of the film is surrounded with new techno gadgets that were unheard of in the 1960s. There’s one scene in the film where Elly May hears a phone ring in the high school bathroom and at least 15 girls pull out mobile phones and hollar, “hello.”
Rotten Tomatoes – The Grapes of Wrath Movie
Rotten Tomatoes – Beverly Hillbillies Movie
Yes true. When one tries to change the medium or the platform on which the art was originally shared to something new, it would mean making sure that it is palatable to the receptor’s/audience’s aesthetic taste and can be appreciated by them in the new medium. Of course, expression of the art reaches to the viewer within the limitation of that medium. Obviously, trying to put everything out of a large novel into a film will make the length of the reel/movie unusually long. And the same applies to the remake of old Beverly Hillbillies TV series to a movie, there has to be some difference/better effects for the viewers to go and watch it on a large screen. Can we say that technology in this case is trying to extend the reach of the art through multiple medium to newer people.
In the middle 19th century, pianos, which had always been made one at a time by hand, were extremely costly. But about that time manufacturers began to mass produce pianos using contemporary innovative production techniques. Of course prices dropped dramatically. It became the fashion that middle class families would have one of these cheap pianos in the parlor. Daughters were often trained to play them, not very well perhaps, but it was thought to be a suitable skill for a girl and a help in the marriage market. For these girls to play the piano, it was necessary for a new type of piano music to be written. Something simple and easy to learn and play. You may have heard the term “tin pan alley”. This location in New York City became a center for writing this mass produced sheet music, it was simple easy to play and responsive to the tastes of young females….and some older females for that matter.
Yes, in this case, surely, It would mean affecting the art itself. Tin Pan Alley was the name given to the publishing business that hired composers and lyricists on a permanent basis to create popular songs. The publishers used extensive promotion campaigns to market these songs to the general public in sheet music form with attractive covers. The song’s popularity was determined not by the number of records it sold but by the number of copies of sheet music it sold at that time.
They certainly changed the distribution of artist’s works Tannica. My question is would the songwriters not have written songs had it not been for Tin Pan Alley? Perhaps there would be thousands of notebook binders scattered across the country with hits that never would be (I imagine there are plenty of those irregardless).
Antique stores and malls usually have large numbers of these published songs for sale. They often have the picture of the a famous singer or song writer on the front. Highly collectable.
It seems that the drivers of art (imagination and creativity) really have never changed since the stone ages. It’s just the tools being used that are always evolving. My wife has a ‘Kindle’ that she swears by. The books contain the same narratives as the paperback version, but the medium has changed. Now it’s certainly disrupting the old brick-n-mortar stores of yesteryear. I personally prefer to read a physical book, but I’ll come around once the last bookstore closes its doors (if that should ever come).
I agree with you imagination and creativity has not changed a hole lot since the stone age. The technology we have today has changed things alot from the floor module tv’s to the flat screen. I have seen alot of things in my life time I remember when I was deployed to Iraq the way they live over there makes me free so blessed about how we have changed when it comes to technology.
It might be worthwhile to look up the earliest musical instrument. When did humans make the first musical instrument. What do you think it might have been?
So far that is likely the oldest found if we don’t count the human voice, rhythmic clapping and other uses of body parts
That sounds like it was a great experience, especially for a musician. In this week’s lecture, the professor also talked about Sunstein’s article, and WikiArt. It does sound like it has similar elements to the festival you attended. Art as a community experience, dynamic, always in flux, with little concern about authorship. Nobody owns the “product.” I think this appeals to our “better nature.” Recently, my son-in-law was saying that he wouldn’t buy a device where he couldn’t use open-source software because it wasn’t democratic. (He’s down on Apple and high on android devices.) I’m a tech dinosaur so I’m not sure I understand what he was saying, but I think this applies to our discussion.
I wonder if both our sons are linked together somewhere out there on the net Doug. My 13 y/o is a member of many different gaming design communities. It all started when his grandfather sent him to a software design summer workshop at Duke university a couple of years ago. From there he took off. The really neat thing is how polite and diplomatic all of the members in the community are (from what I can hear in passing). There have been some bad apples from time to time, but the majority always steps up and corrects the undesireable behaivor. Not bad for a community of young teenagers, is it? Maybe these same people will figure out a way to solve the really big problems facing humanity (cancer, hunger, terrorism, etc.). I guess it’s a good start by creating groups who identify that badwill and bullying is not desireable, or ‘cool’ one bit…when the group gets larger, it becomes popular and more people want to get involved and the process becomes infectious.
An interesting observation, John, that the throat singer performance included interaction with a live audience. Most of our delivery technologies do not allow that to happen do they?
Art is definitely influenced by technology. I understand that art may not exist if we didn’t have the tools in order to create it. Much like a brick layer needs tools and natural resources to build a brick house or a wall an artist needs his tools and creativity to produce his works. He needs a paint brush or colors to blend and create his masterpieces. Art can change people’s lives and produce works that can astound generations of people 10, 20, 100’s or even 1000’s of years prior to our existence. I think art transcends humanity in this aspect. If a line of code is or an invention such as UNIX can change or impact our lives then I think we can also relate this development to art. It impacts and changes our lives. Facebook, digital cameras and other developments helped us find new ways to create art also. Technology in my opinion is like an artist’s paintbrush, he can use it to show us our world from a different perspective. Music artists can reproduce sounds and beats with technological instruments and digital clarity that couldn’t be experienced prior to advances in technology . One item that Wilson points out is that authenticity is lost when a work of art is copied and reproduced, the copy is exactly like the original and it is difficult to determine which is which (2013). A work of art can be copied into a string of binary or digital code and it can be reproduced infinitely. In this aspect technology can be somewhat negative in its influence of artistic authenticity.
Wilson, S. (2002). Intersections of Art, Science and Technology. Department of the Arts – Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/AdvancedIntegratedArts/ReadingsAIA/Wilson%20Art%20Science%20Cultural%20Acts.pdf
Technology has deffinently had an impact on art. Even with the obvious improvement on instramunts that technology has brought many themes and genres that express technology in music, literature and paintings in their own way.
A huge one would be Sci-fi in which it shows alternate futuristic technologies as to what the author or artist has though it to be. Probably the most common series of this genre would be Star Wars and Star Treck, both showing how technology might be in the future, even though most of the technologies were too advanced at the times when they came out.
Another genre would be techno, in which it has used technology to create its own style of music.
A third genre would be Steam Punk, in which it shows technology in a more grungy yet styled way. Some Examples of this genre would be the game Borderlands.
how Sci-Fi is the result of new film. One of the earliest popular films was Georges Milies A Trip to the Moon in 1902. What is the difference with the “new technology”.
Techno is an interesting example.
I believe that technology greatly impacts art. Art responds to and is shaped by the ‘age’ of technology. Take for example pre-Pixar we had ‘stick people’ animation (one of the first on the web was JavaSrcipt Tip of the Week – May 1996 … then as technology advanced, along came Pixar with their first animated movie The Adventures of Andre and Wally B (1984), and now we have evolving block-busters like Toy Story featuring Buzz Lightyear (created in 1995 by John Lasseter); and there was Avatar (created in 2009 by James Cameron). Technology’s expansion enables the expression of art to be unending, and one could say, truly magical.
I believe that these types of technologies, through advanced and accessible digital technologies, such as websites, digital photography, and YouTube are changing and reshaping our attitudes toward artists. The days of the use of pencils and paper are practically obsolete, now it is mostly computer graphics that are used to create these beautiful movies and broaden our minds to the capacity and capability of technology.
The stick men reminds me of a new marketing phenomenon involving video integrated with hand-drawn animation for marketing. It is literally the utilization of technology as a conduit to deliver a marketing message that is visually artistic, you have probably seen it on the web somewhere. I am very much interested in marketing so it captured my attention immediately. I think it is very fascinating and engaging. From what I am hearing, the impact has been great with many reports of increased conversion rates on sites that utilize this new technology. Check it out here:
Has technology affected the art of the novel? I don’t mean production and reproduction but the art of novel writing itself? I thought your interest in video games might give you some insight into this other art form.
I believe the manner in which the novel is put together may be slightly skewed by the wish of the authors to have their writing turned into a screenplay. I certainly don’t believe all novelists want their work to be adopted into the mainstream like George R R Martin’s “Song of Ice and Fire” series has (Before anyone asks, no, I have not actually seen the series, but I have been reading it since first printing. Not jumping on the bandwagon because of the cable series like so many others).
Other authors may want to reach a large readership, but would prefer their work not be acknowledged as something for the silver screen (is it even called that any more?), or a TV series. They merely wish for their work to be appreciated. I think something technology does aid in (though it could be a distraction) is when the writer is looking for more information on a subject they’re writing about, they can do a Google search, or reach out to people who have the experience in that specific area, in order to be more precise with their descriptions. I can see this as being a great tool for those writing in many different genres because along with the strengths of the technologies, there are also the weaknesses, such as Internet Trolls .
I think technology has affected the art of the novel. I think it hard to think of a new story that hasn’t been told. Technology give a new way to tell that story. An example of this is Star Wars if there was never a rocketship invented I think George Lucas would has never wrote a story about traveling to a new planet. I think technology affects the author’s imagination and that changes the art of a novel.
Often at about this point in the course I notice that the definition of technology is beginning to slip into a conventional terminology that seems to assume that “a technology” is a physical thing, a tool. .It’s important for us to remember that a technology is a set of skills and knowledge not a physical thing. “Technology” is not synonymous with computers or electronics. rather a technology is the knowledge and skill to know how to achieve a desirable goal. If you think of it this way —a computer is a wonderful technology but only if you have language, understand how the system works, live in a world where you have electricity, and people who know how to build and repair them. Otherwise a computer has no value at all other than as a paperweight…if you have paper technology. So using technology in context as meaning a computer or video game is okay as long as we do not forget the basic definition of the term is much broader and much more significant for out understanding of how technology affects culture.
It is so easy to look at technology from a very physical dimension. When we do this we lose sight of the fact that technology represents the evolution, advancement, adaption and transformation of ideas into structured methods that change the way we do things (Winston and Edelbach, 2012, p. 2). This is my interpretation of what Winston and Edelbach’s were saying as they attempted to defined what technology really is. When we look at technology from this perspective, it is so much broader.
I agree that ‘Technology’ has become a common term and is usually directed at things that are computer-related. Technology, as you mentioned above, is an advancement of knowledge in any given field – in computers, in medicine, in art. Technology, by definition, broadly refers to any advancement we make in any field.
I’m not sure about the idea of “advancement”. Compare a bow and arrow with a pistol. The bow and arrow are weapons probably more than 25,000 years old. Anyone who thinks they are simple to use has probably not used them seriously in hunting or competitions. Being able to use a bow efficiently and effectively takes much knowledge, skill and training. To shoot a pistol requires you to pick it up and pull the trigger. Not to deny that some skill and knowledge is involved in using a pistol but is shooting the pistol an “advance” for the shooter? It is true that much more “knowledge” goes into producing the gun but not in shooting it I would think. Or is it more “advanced” to have a greater level of skill and knowledge to make it work?
First of all, there was a lot of knowledge that went into the manufacturing of bows, so much so that we lost the ability and knowledge required to manufacture bows to the standards that were prolific before the appearance of gunpowder, in fact Ben Franklin was reputed to suggest that with a regiment of longbow men victory on the British would be assured. Secondly, while it is true that pistols and rifles are more user friendly, their manufacturing can be extremely simple, to create a simple firearm all you need is a tube, a spring, and a simple firing mechanism (the Israelis manufactured a simple version of the Stan gun during their war for independence from sprinklers in simple machine shops). Becoming proficient with either is requires time, patience and a lot of practice, yes everyone can point a gun and shoot something which is harder to do with the bow, but snipers/professional shooters and hunters spend a lot of time perfecting their skill, the same as with archers.
When you ask are these technologies reshaping our attitudes towards artist? I think it is changing our attitudes as more and more availability of artist that we are not accustomed to come to light and shared with anybody that can access the internet or phones we open ourselves to it. Whether we enjoy or dislike what is presented I tend to think that we have a better and broader outlook to the world than ever before and I think it is great to show and share different cultures to kids in the classroom of for example a tribal group in South America to see their way of live, or types of music like the examples you have posted I think it just opens our eyes to the world more and I believe we become better as human beings to appreciate life itself.
There is a great correlation between art and technology in the automotive world. One of my favorite publicly traded companies happens to be an American auto maker, Tesla Motors. Tesla specializes in performance electronic vehicles. They have brought to market two successful products so far, the Roadster – which is based on the Lotus Elise, and the Model S, which is a four door luxury sedan. While the body of the Roadster was largely shaped based on a slightly more aerodynamic version of the Lotus, the Model S is something a little more special. The entire shape of the vehicle is formed by science. Because of it’s aerodynamics, it can acheive performance metrics that are attained by gasoline powered vehicles that generate much more power. Arguably, it’s even a very aesthetically pleasing vehicle. Check it out:
Great art is something that makes me feel a certain way whether that’s happiness, melancholic, excitement, etc. I’d agree that an original Rothko would be somewhat more special than a reproduction, but I’d never know the different unless I was alerted of it’s authenticity. Art, whether paintings, sculptures, music, or otherwise is still exceptional in reproduction.
Technology has really changed the way the world it self works, I remember when I was a kid I never heard of a GPS and now they come in just about any car, and now you can use you cell phone as a GPS. If you didn’t know where you where going you got a map and now its at your finger tips. Technology may have made the world faster and more productive when it comes to a business stand point but some times I think its ok to pull out a real map some times you now.
Nowadays technology has advance tremendously, I remember not owning a cell phone when I went to middle school I did not own a cell phone. Now the majority in elementary owns a cell phone. We depend on technology more than we use to.