Examples of Artwork Made from Obsolete Technology: A Relationship Between Art and the Appartus3/30/2017 In these works of art, the machine is made beautiful. Technology is not useful for its function anymore but useful to create works of art that, to some, may be aesthetically pleasing or even "beautiful." I don't think I'd say this is an experience of the beautiful for me, or that I see these works as anything I would marvel at in a gallery, but they are interesting and impressive nonetheless. When technology loses its usefulness, artists still want it to be of the world and in their work. They are feeding off of the energy and interest of the masses that leans toward more innovation, more machinery and new, new, new in the art world. Many of the works, which come from 20 examples of art made from abandoned technology in a Weburbanist article, are sculptures, which is interesting to me. The sculptures seem, in large part, to mimic human or prehistoric life. I thought that was an interesting connection, and one we have been discussing in class: humanity and machinery. This is a running theme throughout my montage.
0 Comments
These quotes essentially contain most of my beliefs and theses about the relationship between art and technology — and the benefits and drawbacks of such a relationship — after periods of reflection.
"The art challenges the technology, and the technology inspires the art." -John Lasseter "Technology alone is not enough. It's technology married with the liberal arts, married with the humanities that yields us the result that makes our heart sing." -Steve Jobs "Technology makes possibilities. Design makes solutions. Art makes questions. Leadership makes actions." John Maeda "All art is dependent on technology because it's a human endeavour, so even when you're using charcoal on a wall or designed the proscenium arch, that's technology." -George Lucas "Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons." -R. Buckminster Fuller On the contrary to Benjamin's beliefs about technology and the way it often can isolate us from humanity and the natural world (as evident in poems from the likes of Baudelaire)... . "The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them." -Antonione de Saint-Exupery photoI thought these photos were interesting for several reasons, including their relationship to Benjamin's text concerning photography. First and foremost, these photoshopped photos by French photographer Antoine Geiger demonstrate an artistic way of expressing our addiction to technology in society. Since this project is focused on technology and art, I thought this photographic art was an interesting take on that prompt. I think photoshop is an art in and of itself: it takes creativity, which we have discussed in class as a necessity for art's creation, and mastery of the programming (skill). The creativity in a project like this stems from the photographer's ideas; he saw people looking at their phones in public and this spurred an idea to create a project: essentially, he portrays a situation where people are quite literally sucked into technology and the false reality it provides. I particularly love the photo where the "Mona Lisa" is in the background and people are taking a selfie. Instead of enjoying the beautiful, famous work of art behind them, they are more concerned with capturing the moment on a phone. Here, I will transition to Benjamin's text because I think this photo makes an excellent point in relation to several of Benjamin's theses on photography as an art. I will examine a few aspects of this chosen photos by Geiger: the selfie and the work itself.
Benjamin believes that photography has created an age of the endless repeatable where the difference between a copy and the original is indistinguishable, as we discussed in class. This is a consequence of the masses having access to technology. In photography, "exhibition value begins to drive back cult value on all fronts," according to Benjamin (27); cult value is rooted in ritual, tradition, magic and the "here and now" of the work, which makes it unique in its own right. The selfie is a perfect example of photography that is centered on exhibition value and rooted in "an age of the endless repeatable." I relate this to Benjamin's text in two ways: the technology associated with the selfie allows us the opportunity to take the picture over as many times as we want until it is not authentic anymore. It's a manufactured expression of the human countenance; this even relates to Benjamin's description of film where the scene is framed in a certain manner and redone as many times as the director wants. It is a manufactured and inauthentic image. Therefore, this photography especially loses its cult value. It is purely for exhibition value, as a selfie obviously is since it is typically published online for the masses to gawk at through various social media platforms. Benjamin also believed that photography is meant to disturb us and challenge us to approach it in a certain manner. It often has hidden political or societal messages that "demand a certain kind of reception" rooted in presuppositions (27), according to Benjamin. Photography does not allow for "free-floating contemplation" (27). This photographer's work is a perfect example of this description. Many viewers described Geiger's work as "a disturbing look at reality, jolting, or eye-opening." I think that's what Benjamin is trying to say of much of the photography he knows; for Benjamin, photography has emancipatory purposes. It can help liberate people from sociopolitical oppression. However, in a different work, Benjamin writes that the "camera extends the comprehension of the necessities that rule our lives." These works by Geiger are an obvious example of this. This photo series is a demonstration of the impact of technology on our enjoyment of daily life. It often disconnects us, isolates us, and distracts us from the beauty that surrounds us. That's a point Benjamin tries to make as well: technology creates distracted masses and this is often purposeful. I almost wonder if he would like this series because, like Chaplin, it sheds light on a situation by almost giving us a critical distance (albeit, without humor). Obviously, our faces would not be sucked into a phone in our reality. We see the phone in a new way, from a distance, as an outsider looking in. It's a different and telling perspective. I sink into the abyss, wondering if this is it
Hours upon hours, hit after hit, Trivial, all of it. This addiction rules my life, and it causes me strife. I look in the mirror and I don't see me anymore I see a product of the masses, what I've been told to believe; they've shaped me and forced me to fit a mold. But when I dance, I soar My eyes they bore holes into the spot where they fix. Flames in my heart lick. But when I sing, my heart follows suit -- I feel alive, not aloof. I feel enfolded, not alone. I feel new, I feel grown. When I write, I don't need the abyss of the screen. All I need are my fingers, my words and mind that breeds creativity, breeds all that I am. I could write about it all, how it's all a sham. I tell stories and paint pictures with the clicks of my fingers. No. The clicking. Fingers on keys. The cold metal enslaves me again; it never leaves. I cannot perform my craft without this abyss It pulls me in, I depend Without it I cannot win. I'd always lose, never thrive Without it I cannot survive. I make art. Art starts my heart. But I will always be a slave. Without the dark and new, I cannot behave in a way that brings me money, work or fame. I would always be tucked away in a life so dark, the dark that will never set me apart. So it's time to step into the light, the light that feels so wrong. The light that — without its help — I cannot write of my songs. Teresa Yandl (Sophomore Accounting Major at GU): I believe that technology impacts art in a variety of ways. From the ability to digitally record, reproduce, and view classic art to the creation of modern art that acts as a satire to our society's predilection for new tech, technology has changed the art world. Beyond that, I would even go so far as to say that technology has altered the way we create art. Graphic designers and other artists use programs such as photoshop and indesign to perfect their work. If the question is intended to delve into the way technology changes a layman's interaction with "Art" in its classic glory, I would say that the ability to photograph famous pieces, film musical compositions and performances, and share these records with people around the globe has drastically improved our interactions.
The purpose of art is to interpret the world and relay emotions and concepts to the audience. It is a method of communication that is as much emotional as it is visual or audible. While technology cannot fully convey the true power that art can possess when it is viewed and experienced first-hand, that does not outweigh the fact that art is meant to be witnessed. Technology aids in this purpose. With modern technology, people around the world can view the Mona Lisa, listen to Taylor Swift or watch theatre in the Globe. Just as it is possible for anyone to be an artist, it should be possible for anyone to experience art. Technology brings us one step closer to this ideal. Jordan Martinez (Sophomore Music Education Major at Gonzaga): I'm going to target cinematic art, because FAR too many seem to forget cinema as a genuine art form. Technology's impact on cinema can be commonly acknowledged every year with every new release. The start of the Cinematic Tech Age almost assuredly began with George Lucas and his Special Effects software- which later become "Industrial Light and Magic". George Lucas needed new technology to ensure that scenes from his Star Wars film would appear realistic, creative and utterly convincing. This was because the available technology was a combination of matte paintings behind minatures and would look too obviously fake with the diversity of Lucas' proposed planetary settings. Lucas wanted each created landscape to feel as unmistakeably real to the audiences as Earth. Specifically, Anakin's pod ship race on the planet, Tatooine. For the scene, Lucas utilized photography and computer graphic imaging to create an organic and convincing alternate planet scene through which Anakin would move. This integrated technique was the first of its kind, though the industry standard for every live action thereafter, even up til movies like James Cameron's Avatar or the Harry Potter series. Lucas' company, ILM was the first Special Effects company to offer its services to all filmmakers. And because it ran independantly, ILM was able to really experiment with numerous projects that most in-house Spec Eff studios wouldn't try because the work load was so enormous. ILM developed the first computer generated special effects in Wrath of Khan, all the way down to Forrest Gump's famous pingpong scene. And ILM didn't just work visuals! They're responsible for technology that realizes cinematic sound! Those light sabers flaring up? ILM. Harry Potter's MANY spells? ILM. The sound of the Titanic sinking, propellers from any nautical film since Star Wars, trees crushed in apocolypse classics? ALL ILM-based tech! Before ILM, studios had to experiment with real sounds and hope they covered enough to trick the audience into thinking they heard what they saw. George Lucas sponsored a lot of cutting edge sound system technology IN FILM where before it was mainly used for avant garde musicians (like Luciano Berio) or what have you. He pioneered sound mixers in film for the purpose of Spec Effects. Lastly, Lucas' ILM is the starting point for MOST of the biggest furtherances of tech in cinema. Ever heard of PIXAR? That was a spinoff from ILM's Digital Animation department and they get more realistic with every picture! Because of film technology, we now have film as an expanded and accessae art form! Not everyone can read. Not everyone has the education to appreciate abstractions in art(cough cough Minimalist music!), but everyone can pick up what they experience and film is the ultimate art form because the audience can-if the technology believably supports it- experience the film as if real while still picking up on subtle artistic nuances. Because of SFX tech, audiences can experience their films as if they have genuinely lived it. Even animated films! Because technology is improving the accessability of sensory processing. Donna Brenneis (Author): I'm going to set aside everything but writing. Software programs have made it easier to set up and write a screenplay. If one is not the brilliant Aaron Sorkin, the programs are extremely helpful. Amazon's CreateSpace has made it possible for Indie writers to desk-top publish their own books without having to take a Photo Shop class for two years. Initially, I felt too many of the books coming out of CreateSpace could have been better, but that is no longer the case. We are getting some great writing from authors who don't want to mess with big publishers that allow books to languish in a basement, brush aside good writing for economic reasons. I think technology will continue to bring us better and more courageous writers. Technology has provided a way to by-pass any leftover bureaucrats, intellectual snobbery that doesn't help the mass of people. Technology has provided many paths to creativity despite the fact that there can be some down sides. Laura Carroll (My Mom): Simply put, new inventions or processes of any kind can always lead to shifting your perspective, which is more often than not, very beneficial. Ian Loe (Senior Broadcasting and Music Composition Major at GU): Technology has helped spread and expedite the appreciation of art. However, I think it has diminishing returns as far as what art has become and what can be defined as art. Sammy Ollmann (Sophomore Economics and Psychology Double Major at GU): Technology impacts art in wonderful, amazing ways. Technological advances have broadened our artistic horizons so that we can collaborate cross-culturally and develop our own artistic style. Art has become more accessible, more people consider trying new crafts and ideas. People are coming up with 3D pencils so that people can sketch sculptures right before their eyes. Looking at animation and the success of things like Moana, they created new technology just so the ocean can be a true character. There are aspects of life that can be more vividly depicted and skewed by technology and its advances. People seem to be at war with technology today, and I don't really understand why. It's not the technology that is "inhibiting artistic growth" in any way, it's culture if you want something to blame. No one would state that the computer was a hindrance to people writing novels, the ability to animate in 2D and then 3D forms is not destroying artistic integrity, so why is it today that everyone seems to be at war with technology? I think it's a rather ridiculous thought when so much of today's culture is riddled with it. Art isn't just about going back to the roots of things, but it's about expression, and technology being such a large component of daily life is something that should definitely be taken advantage of for artistic purposes. Today, much of the general public would call video games artistic works: they often contain storylines, the graphics are drawn and created by artists who specialize in the field, and they require complex knowledge of code and design. However, many video games today are quite violent (first-person shooter games like "Call of Duty," horror games like "Last of Us" and others, to name a few). We have always seen violence in art, even before the onslaught of technology in the art world. For instance, artists like Peter Paul Rubens have painted images of Christ's whippings, flagellations and beatings (See this link for the Rubens painting: http://www.jesus-story.net/images/The_Flagellation_of_Christ_-_Rubens_-_1607.jpg.).
It seems that artists have often been fascinated with violence and horrific imagery in their works. Research has often pointed to the role of violence in video games as desensitizing. If Benjamin were living today, I think he would likely agree. One of his main theses concludes that the role of technology in art has almost entirely desensitized us as a population to "subtle beauty in art." Violence, quite obviously, is not subtle. and is often described as a desensitizing agent (distracting human beings from real pain or the world around them). New research, however, suggests that violent video games may not be as desensitizing as we once thought. A recent article from the Huffington Post (April 16) suggests that when one plays violent video games, they may consider moral issues more deeply. This is not a desensitizing effect; on the flip side, it draws us closer to humanity and the plights human beings face. Despite previous research findings, a SUNY-Buffalo professor concluded that violent video games do not desensitize players to feelings of guilt. However, the article does state that desensitization is still a force at play in some manner. The study concludes that, for example, if you play a video game as an immoral "bad guy" over a span of time, you will worry less about the game's morality and be more desensitized when you play other violent games in the future. Over time, players may not feel guilt about the video game's immorality, but the study concludes that this does not desensitize us to "real world violence" and guilt as a result of it. This continues to beg the question: Does the violence that permeates our technologically-infused art world today desensitize us? If it desensitizes us to all violent video games in a way, are we desensitized as a person? Does this draw us away from human kindness and empathy, and interacting with others in a genuine way? Does violence in art and technology entice us? This study's findings seem to suggest that this is not the case. However, I may have to disagree. Lack of empathy while playing the games, and lack of guilt while acting immorally in a simulated situation, draw us further away from humanity. It draws us into a world of chaos and violence. I think Benjamin would say (if he were living today and could see these advances) that violent video games are a way of expressing relation to an apparatus: maybe a gun or other mechanized means of war. They condition us to believe that the use of the apparatus for murder is moral, or "the norm." Violence resulting from technology becomes the new normal in these games. In his section on film, which I mention in various montage entries, Benjamin writes about the dangerous tensions technology can "engender in the masses" (38). These tendencies can often take on a psychotic character and we can be "immunized" against mass psychoses, he continues. Is this not desensitization in its truest form? The tensions we see played out in technology, which could translate into violence and death on a small screen in front of you, could transport the viewer into a dangerous frame of mind. Benjamin writes of a tendency to be drawn in by sadistic or masochistic acts. Isn't that all what violence in gaming exudes? The taking of innocent lives, bodies strewn around and profanities cursed at the enemy before a shot are sadistic acts, and, since many people in society play these games, it's almost as if a massive part of the population is complacent in what may be an addiction to sadistic images and blindly walks through the motions of a virtual violent world. However, I do question my beliefs after the study found that players still reacted negatively to real-world violence, though we it's not stated what "negatively" truly means. It's hard to say: does violence in our art - video games, film, mass media - draw attention to the plight of others and force us to act, or does it make us simply shake our heads and say, "Oh. Another shooting. Another genocide"? I would argue that some violent media (especially video games, but also film and television), which many people would call art, that floods our society does have a desensitizing effect, but maybe not to the degree we may believe. If we are lost in these video games that portray violence, will we ever pay attention to real-world violence? Will we be able to distinguish it from the fabricated violence of films, video games and mass media? I am still unsure of the answer, as one can never be positive in this type of thinking, but I think this recent study continuing on years of work about violence in video games in particular raises some interesting questions about the role of technology in various art forms today. Source Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-j-ferguson/media-violence-and-desensitization_b_9684170.html Benjamin's short critique of journalism summarized: Benjamin seems to slam journalists for inaccuracy and deems some papers "a joke," focusing particularly on the Paris evening papers of his time, for prematurely announcing triumphs or outcomes (353). He uses a scathing tone in this short, one-page writing, relating newspaper editors' inaccurate work to Medieval scholastics' views on God: "he can make real what never happened" and "unmake what really happened" (353). He seems to believe that newspapers are more often than not tied in with bureaucracies, which much of America believes to be true today, especially of TV news stations; these are owned by very few large corporations so, in some regard, this is very true).
My take: There are many journalism outlets and sites in the digital age working in tandem with research-based technologies to do good work. ProPublica is an example of one of these outlets; it exposes the truth behind many social justice issues and causes, government coverups and corruption, bias in education systems, and police violence (to name a few). The organization wins awards for its excellent fact-checking, accuracy, and in-depth reporting. While news today can be fabricated, stretch the truth, or misrepresent the truth — which I find especially true in TV — there are some incredible outlets that work tirelessly to tell the whole truth and nothing less. If they get it wrong, it's usually unintentional and typically corrected. I wish Benjamin would have shed a more positive light on journalists along with his critique, though it is partially true and his example supports his commentary. However, I think he focused on one specific instance and generalized, or stretched the truth, which is precisely what he is criticizing. Retaliation in the "Trump era" against the media with claims of "fake news" and "alternative facts" almost echo Benjamin's short but unfavorable commentary on journalism. It's frightening to see a resurgence of this attitude. I suppose an inherent scorn toward and distrust for the media has always been present after reading Benjamin's work. However, trying to put all biases aside since it's my line of work and greatest love in life, journalism is an art form to be respected. It takes skill to learn and utilize the writing style of inverted pyramid and AP Stylebook grammar, creativity to generate and execute (through interviews and writing skills) story ideas, and technology to broadcast your work to a large audience. Journalism as an art form is now more reliant on technology than ever. In the digital age, this is where it generates its ad revenue and receives the most hits. News is instantaneous in a way and can be shared with anyone at any time anywhere throughout the world. Journalism as an art form would die without technology to provide a national and global audience for writers. As we reflected on film, and art in the age of technology, I kept coming back to the film "Her" starring Joaquin Phoenix and its connection to Benjamin and our discussions. In the film, a man who works writing personal letters for others is left heartbroken after his marriage falls apart. Theodore, played by Joaquin Phoenix, finds out about an operating system for his phone and computer that has intuitive qualities and a lifelike personality. He becomes obsessed with the operating system, pushing away genuine human communication and real relationships for this "love." This relationship only leads to heartbreak and confusion for both Theodore and the human-like operating system.
I think this movie makes important points about several of Benjamin's major theses in his essay. First, I'll begin with his short focus on Chaplin and relate it to this film in particular. Benjamin quotes Scoupault's writing, which states that Chaplin's films are "imbued (permeated with a feeling or quality) with a poetry that everyone encounters in life, admittedly without always being conscious of it" (335). While many of Chaplin's films are comic and, as Benjamin writes, appeal to the audience's need for laughter, the film "Her," is different but fundamentally serves the same purpose as a Chaplin film about industry. "Her" gives us critical distance from a technologically-driven society by placing the film in an almost dystopian setting. Much like Scoupault wrote, we all encounter the feelings and experiences that arise from dependence upon technology. However, much like Chaplin's comedy, this dramatic film provides an over exaggerated look at what the world could be if technology took over. Both Chaplin and the crew behind "Her" satirize industry and technology in a way, though Chaplin's work is comedic as opposed to the drama in "Her." One of Benjamin's main theses also claims this: "The most important function of film is to establish equilibrium between human beings and the apparatus" (37). Film essentially instructs us on how to be in relationship with industry, technology and machines. Benjamin primarily considered "man's presentation of himself to the camera" and "representation of one's environment" (37), but I found other ways to relate a dystopian film like "Her" to his subsequent claims. Benjamin writes that "film furthers insight into the necessities governing our lives" by its use of various means (37); in our society, we believe that technology is a necessity. We cannot function with out it. Therefore, a film like this provides insight into the ways that technology could govern our lives in such a way that it would drive out human communication, intimacy and socialization. He also writes that film explores our "commonplace" social environment through the guidance of the camera (37). A film such as this is exploring the way we socialize, or are expected to socialize, in a technological age, and the ways in which we do not exist in social environments at all. Benjamin also writes that our world full of dull offices, city streets, industry and factories acts as a type of "prison-world" and encloses us within it, almost in a suffocating manner (37). Film explodes this world and allows us to travel to faraway places, which is why audience members enjoy the art form. A film like "Her" may be enjoyable because it explodes the world we know and makes it more interesting and innovative. It takes what is typically human and morphs it into technology. We are not simply stuck in the monotony of our daily tasks performed by technology and those that are present within social media, and instead see its potential, whether this is negative or positive. A film like this represents the "collective dream" (38) or collective identity that Benjamin writes of in his work; the story in this film presents the way we may relate to the apparatus in the future, and the ways in which it slowly but surely permeates many aspects of our society. Over my spring break, I visited the Seattle Art Museum to view Jacob Lawrence's "Migration Series," a special exhibit in the gallery. This exhibit displayed the profound impact of technology upon artwork. The entire series was centered on industrialization in the north a poor black workers' migration south in search of work. It chronicled a people's identity rooted in their ability to perform mechanized work in factories much like that which is present in the Charlie Chaplin films we viewed in class; the migrants hoped that this new technology would provide them with a better life. The series, of course, also touched on immigration officer violence, race riots and bombings of low-income housing during this period. However, the artist features some paintings where onlookers are gazing longingly out the window at the huffing factory chimneys billowing with smoke (see an example below, though there are many more). The series also contains a painting of a standalone train painted in a way that makes it seem that it is rushing to its next destination. The series highlights the allure of technology and mechanized work, but also the strife and pain it brought to these migrants, through the art of painting. It also highlights the necessity of technology in creating a better life for the migrants. I don't think this is much different than our society today: all over, you find art made about the benefits and drawbacks of technology. A student in my interdisciplinary arts class centered her final project, for example, on social media's detrimental effects on her mental health.
In viewing this exhibit at the SAM, I definitely understood what Benjamin wrote about aura and the object's energy present in an experience of the original work (this was my first time at an art gallery, I might add). The vibrancy of the colors, the little bubbles in the paint and the authenticity of the work was so clear. It even included original captions from the artist and his wife. It was almost as if I stepped back in time into the painter's world and his ritual in creating the work. I believe a thinker like Benjamin would say that this art paints a picture of our relationship to technology, or the apparatus, and how it tends to dehumanize us in a way. It's almost as if those portrayed in the painting have one sole purpose in life: the pursuit of mechanized work. Though these migrants were mistreated in the south, they left their families, their loved ones and all they had known for the industrialized world. It controlled their lives in a sense. This art series demonstrated that almost perfectly; it controls our lives in a completely different manner today, but the mechanization of our world quite possibly began at the time of this industrial revolution. I found it fascinating that an entire art series of 30+ paintings could revolve around this cultural shift and still be interesting for the viewers in the gallery. Everyone was transfixed, including myself. |
AuthorMegan Carroll is a junior at Gonzaga University studying print journalism and interdisciplinary arts. This blog contains her reflections on the nature of art. ArchivesCategories |