Objectives:

• Learn about the history of computer graphics
• Examine the role of technology as force for cultural maintanence and change
• Discuss the validity of art created with the aid of machines

Art, Games and Technology Research

As I looked back on this I realized that I addressed only 2/3 of the objectives. I did not discuss the validity of art created by machines. To be brief, I find the argument that art created with the use of machines is somehow less valid than “traditional” art to be weak and ridiculous. Do relegate computer artwork down to some lower tier of art seems to be shortsighted. It’s merely another medium for art. Shouldn’t this be celebrated? Are film or photography any less of an art because they require a mechanical device to produce? Does singing hold more validity as an art form than piano because one is unaided by a man made device? I don’t see how you could call one medium more valid than another and I still have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary.

I learned a great deal from this section as a whole. Most notably, that there is a huge upside to ignorance when trying to invent something new. Bringing in someone from another field sometimes results in the person being unrestrained by the typical methodology and releases them to think of things in a brand new way. Jane McGonigal perfectly phrased these positive outcomes in her TED talk when she said, “An epic win is an outcome that is so extraordinarily positive, you had no idea that it was even possible until you achieved it.” She later states that we need more of these in our lives and I believe that people from different disciplines coming together is the first step in achieving that outcome.