Art vs. Science
May. 1st, 2008 09:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrlichI'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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
At least robots aren't longwinded
Date: 2008-05-05 08:46 pm (UTC)I know I am late on this and that you probably got some good answers already but I feel that it is an especially relevant topic given that tomorrow is that silly holiday that I, alone it seems, celebrate. Well anyway I just wanted to say that first of all I don’t like to call art art because someone always wants to argue whether something is art or not. I like to use the term Stories. An Artist is a storyteller. I believe that anything can be a Story, anything that is a attempt at communication of a revelation, or feeling, or truth. Anything past small talk and a conversation. When a shoemaker makes shoes he tells a Story. Certainly visual artists tell Stories. Not linear ones but nevertheless Stories. And well, its these Stories that make human beings special. Its these Stories that make all the down right evil shit we humans do almost worthwhile. Without them we might as well go back to living in the trees. But you see the problem with Stories is that there are also plenty of stories. They are not the same. Stories are for “art” while stories are for entertainment (I realize that my jargon might be more confusing then it needs to be, if it is I am sorry). They don’t necessarily all have truth in them. Tons of movies and television and paintings and novels have nothing behind them at all except they entertaining. That is fine. Entrainment is important. But I feel that people don’t always know the difference. But then again maybe they do, its just that I misunderstand the jargon. My point is that a Story, or art, has something in it that a robot cannot copy. Man is capable of saying something beautiful to his fellow man. Its not intelligence that counts. Its not reasoning. Its not even skill. It is honestly telling someone what you have figured out, or what you have half figured out, or an idea you’ve been kicking around. Its baring human emotions. This sharing can’t be done by robots. A robot can draw a “better” picture than you or write a “better” book than me but it cant be real. It cant ever believe in what its doing. A robot cant believe the lie of a Story because it knows it so very true like we can. I hope I am making sense. But that’s kind of my point. Are imperfections are what make art communal, you know? Well I don’t think that answers your question but hey go read Vonnegut’s Player Piano if you haven’t already. It wont answer your questions but it might make you think which is the point of Stories I guess. I don’t know. I have finals to worry about.
-James
Re: At least robots aren't longwinded
Date: 2008-05-08 01:21 am (UTC)One of my favorites, though I (in truth) had forgotten the date. I will be adding it to the calendar now.
Your thoughts on the subject are delightful to me. You seem to have found the core of what makes one thing art, and another a photocopy.
Well done sir.
On an unrelated note: when do we get some hangin with James and drinkin some coffee time?
Re: At least robots aren't longwinded
Date: 2008-05-14 09:23 pm (UTC)-James
Re: At least robots aren't longwinded
Date: 2008-05-14 10:43 pm (UTC)Re: At least robots aren't longwinded
Date: 2008-05-18 02:36 am (UTC)-James