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

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[glaucon.livejournal.com]

I think that ms_violet has something pretty solid there. Art is an emotional thing and folks are pointing to what robots are doing and calling it art. It will only take so long until we've done that enough that people will begin to forget what 'real' art is.

but what is "real" art?
what traits does "real" art have that distinguish it from...fake (?) art?

I think using the words "real" and "fake" in reference to art is a dangerous proposition. the whole point of art is mimesis, right? that it is a depiction or reflection of reality. if the art becomes the real thing itself, then what is it reflecting?

if anything, calling some art "real" only lends strength to the defining of robot art as art because it's engaging in mimesis of the real object that is "real" art. that is, if the shadow becomes the substance, then it needs a new shadow.

A 'watering down' of our concept of high art.

and what is high art as opposed to...non-high art? when I raised this subject on friday with my beer and nachos crowd of armchair intellectuals, we immediately got into an elaborate discussion of defining the difference between art and craft or high art vs. low art. an interesting point that was raised, and I didn't entirely agree but I think there's something to it at least, is that the difference can in large part be traced to privilege and that the construct of "high art" is inherently gendered and classed.

furniture making (until the mid-20th century) was something practiced by the working class and thus it's a craft. knitting and sewing - practiced by women and thus a craft rather than high art. commercial art - usually created in exchange for food thus not "real".

is high art dying or being watered down then? well, maybe but then again, maybe this is a good thing. nowadays, anyone with a cheapo digital camera and a copy of Photoshop is a photographer. does this devalue professional "art" photographers? maybe, but it also turns everyone into an artist (albeit often not a very good one). what's the goal? consolidation of art in the hands of a few? or art for the masses? I lean toward the former personally, but I also have no problem with the fact that I'll probably be killed in the second or third set of purges once the Revolution comes. and the same goes for high art.

Re: well, if we're really going to talk about this...

[mrlich.livejournal.com]

"but what is "real" art?
what traits does "real" art have that distinguish it from...fake (?) art?"

Here's my definition in a very simple phrase: Something created with emotion, to convey an experience or emotion for someone (or a group of someones) to have an emotional response to.

A note: In my mind, it's less important that the audience have an emotional response to the piece of art than it is that the artist intends for them to.

"mimesis"
Good word. I would say that mimesis is a good word for art, but it can be (imho) misleading. If we use this as the definition of art, then a photocopier is an artist. Add to this my own definition from above, and we find that the same copier can't be an artist because it feels no emotion. So (again - mho here) mimesis is good for starting the definition, but it doesn't quite cover it.

"he difference can in large part be traced to privilege and that the construct of "high art" is inherently gendered and classed"

Hmmm... interesting direction. I would say that I would agree that high art is inherently classed, and maybe even a little gendered, though possibly not for the reasons that you guys/gals were thinking.

If we were to travel back in time and visit your furniture maker, we would find them working in their shop. When they made a piece of furniture, it was for their livelihood. It was to put food on the table. I'm not saying that what they did wasn't art - on the contrary - the best of them almost certainly produced art regularly (whether or not it was called art by others). That is that they took a great deal of pride (emotion) in their work, they created it for someone to have an experience, and hopefully, that person was pleased with the result (emotional response) enough to pay for the piece.

Continuing with this concept, we find that people who could dedicate time to what has commonly been called 'high art' would have to do so exclusively. That is that they would have to have some kind of financial backer to keep them under a solid roof and food in their belly. More often than not, this would have been found in high brow circles where they would have the money to spend on non-necessities like 'art'. What's more, the furniture maker who really crosses over into the world of 'artist' would likely be able to charge more (high society) for their work. You won't find (many) simple four legged stools in an ART museum. Beautifully crafted furniture created with care and skill - that you will.

I'm not sure exactly why the gender barrier might have been their, but it was. Perhaps it was some form of social faux pas for women to be artists. I seem to remember something about that in a recent exhibit in the Delaware Art Museum (http://www.delart.org/). If memory serves, they talked about how women artists produced all these beautiful works which, in turn, were called 'crafts' because they came from a woman. Dumb? Yes. Reality? Also yes.

Over time, this concept of 'high art' is becoming less and less that of the financially (and/or socially) elite do to this 'watering down' that I mentioned. Your 'anybody' with a camera and photoshop is becoming a photographer.

While I like the concept of 'art for and/or by the masses', I'm afraid that's where it ends for me. I really just want the artist to give a shit about the art, and that is becoming less and less common. It seems a facet of the photographer with a cheap digital camera, no processing fees, and a pirated copy of photoshop uploading a thousand pictures of their navel lint in the hopes that someone might like one of them.

Infinite number of monkey and typewriters...

There's more, but I'm feeling like I'm already kinda 'ranty', so I'll save it for later. :)