Art vs. Science

[mrlich]

I'm no scientist. Not in any real sense of the word. I am, however, not completely ignorant either. I listen to reason (most of the time).

Thus we come to the crux of a conflict that I've been waging in my daydreaming moments. I thought that I would open those thoughts to you, oh Great and Powerful Intarwebs, and seek your thoughts on the subject.

I've encountered a number of different articles over the years about different ways in which technology is replacing humans in the world of art. While this has been happening all over the world in a number of different industries, the world of art seems somehow different to me. Sure - robots can do dangerous jobs on an assembly line. Sure - they can provide recon on the battlefield. But I've worked on assembly lines. You don't need anything more creative or intellectual than a robot. I'm thankful that I've never had to step foot on a battlefield, but I understand the value of technology there.

When technology replaces us in the world of art? That's where I start to get really twitchy. People are creating robots that create 'graffiti'. Other robots are going to conduct a symphony.

I guess when it comes down to it, there's something in me that feels it's alright when an artist uses technology to create art, but a very large part of me feels like it's very not ok when technology 'creates' something and we allow it to be called art.

I know. I'm being a purist. I know that humans created the technology, so it could be argued that the final art is indirectly created by the real artist - the creator of the robot. It feels like watering down. It feels like the dissolution of what makes humanity something more than all the other creatures on the planet. It feels like we're willingly saying that there's no such thing as creativity.

And suddenly I feel like I know how those who are devoutly religious feel when confronted with the concept of Faith vs. Science.

I would really like to get some feedback here folks. How do you feel about this?

Comments

[ms-violet.livejournal.com]

Getting back to your final statement, this is how people who are devoutly religious feel when confronted with the concept of faith vs. science; yes, I understand how you feel. I think i do.

Ok. analogy: robot conducting symphony is to 12-year-old learning Darwin's theory of evolution in science class as technology "creating" art is to the science to explain what some people think faith should. is that the analogy we're making here?

Ok, a robot conducting a symphony is sort of sad. it makes real classical music fans and musicians say "aw, look, you took all the fun out of it." and maybe a devout Christian, confronted by the possibility of a mom telling her kids where babies really come from, might feel as though Mom "took all the fun out of it" by not saying, "If God loves and trusts a man and a woman who are married and live according to God's laws well enough, then he gives them a baby." They might feel as though that is a sincere miracle just like you and I think it's a sincere miracle that someone can take ground up plants and bones and rocks, grind them up with water and oils and smear them on a flat surface in such a way that it creates a false impression of light and shadow that makes someone look at it and add their own joy or sorrow and say, "I remember what my life was like when it was good and now I know how to make it good again."

The difference is, Honda making a robot for the DSO to use in a parlor trick is a cute way to get people who otherwise might not buy a Honda or subscribe to the DSO to change their mind. you and I can say, "NOT ART! BAH HUMBUG! all we like, but it won't hurt anything. On the other hand, if someone shouts it loudly and proudly enough that SCIENCE BAD, FAITH GOOD, SCREW PENICILLIN, PRAYER MORE IMPORTANT, DON'T SEND YOUR KID TO A DOCTOR, THEY WILL GET WELL ONLY THROUGH THE LOVE OF JESUS, somebody might get hurt.

If it were the Philadelphia Orchestra, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd find some way to sneak in there with a trombone and find some way to just start honking away in the back row to see if the robot can find me and give me an ass-kicking worthy of Riccardo Muti. If I were Yo-Yo Ma, I'd tune one string a half step off to see if the robot notices, cause Yo-Yo ma can get away with that.

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

As I said to burningkirby above (http://mrl24.livejournal.com/224633.html?thread=433017#t433017), I think that the 2-part process that you describe is vital. I think that's what makes art... well... art.

The thing that I fear is that enough people who don't care about the concept of art will call an emotionless production 'artistic' that eventually, we'll come to know (as a society) art as something... soulless.

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

The thing that I fear is that enough people who don't care about the concept of art will call an emotionless production 'artistic' that eventually, we'll come to know (as a society) art as something... soulless.

does one have to care about or have an opinion about the concept or nature of art in order to have a response (emotional or otherwise) to specific art objects?

why is the response of those "in the know" privileged over the response of those ignorant enough to like what they want to like rather than what they're told they should like?

who is the arbiter of soullessness?

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"why is the response of those "in the know" privileged over the response of those ignorant enough to like what they want to like rather than what they're told they should like?"

I thought about this, and specifically avoided the concept of knowledge. I'm not concerned with a person's technical know-how. I am, however, concerned that they have that emotive response. And truthfully, it's not even their response that concerns me (in any vital sense) but rather than the object/performance was created with the intent of causing such a response.