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}
Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...
Date: 2008-05-07 07:47 pm (UTC)I don't buy this definition.
it might describe some art, but it describes a lot of other things too. is conversation art? is an email? a livejournal post? beating your child? a therapy session? a walk in the park? a blow job?
and it kinda epitomizes the intentional fallacy in that it suggests that an art object only has standing as an art object if one knows the mind of the creator - at least, enough of the mind of the creator to know that it was the result of an emotional state rather than an intellectual exercise or a game or just 'cuz it seemed kinda pretty.
I think art can be very useful in therapy and can be very therapeutic, but stretching that utility to an actual definition seems...insufficiently complex, I guess.
Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...
Date: 2008-05-08 01:12 am (UTC)See, I think that those sound like emotional things. Maybe not "Holy crap I'm going to change the world~" kinds of things, but emotional on some significant level.