Art and technology have always been seen as two completely separate topics, but are they so different? Or have they actually been working together longer than we would think and could we be more successful if we combined them?
People have for a long time separated and compartmentalized different areas of study rather than recognizing how they all work together. The author states, “educational institutions remain rooted in origins and prior practices. Among these origins and practices are the separation of intellectual disciplines” (Jones, 22). The author then goes on to talk about how “although most institutionalized education remains inside disciplinary boundaries, the most innovative research in many disciplines has become transdisciplinary” (Jones, 22). Take for example biochemistry or neurochemistry. If you study just biology you gain some knowledge, but if you combine chemistry, you learn so much more about biology, and same with neurochemistry. Computer graphics is like this. You can create your own graphics which would be called art, but when you combine it with computer technology, you get amazing things that we have never seen before. Another form of technology as art are laser shows at concerts. People create beautiful light shows that compliment music at concerts and sometimes people choose to go to these shows more for the laser show than for the actual music.
August 10, 2014 at 3:35 pm
I really like your example of how light shows combine technology with aesthetics to create an artistic visualization of music. This is an interesting point because it is not only the combination of disciplines but of sensory input. At a concert, would you consider the ‘art’ to be the music, the lights, or performance, or all of these aspects put together? Also, drawing from the McGonigal video, do you think that technology can open the doors to how art might be able to influence and effect people’s behaviors? McGonigal discusses how the potential benefits of gaming, especially problem-solving based games, could increase traits such as optimism in gamers and might transfer into real-life problem solving effectiveness (TED, McGonigal). Could the combination of technology and art also do the same, by opening the doors of what art can accomplish and making it accessible on a daily level?
August 10, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Briana,
I love your example using biochemisty/neurochemistry. As a biology major/chemistry minor I can really relate. I have learned so much more when I am taught to combine different aspects of different subjects. And I don’t think this is limited to science, I think this applies to art and technology as well. Technology is a great tool that can be used for so many things. It surrounds us in our daily lives. So why not use such a versatile tool for art as well? I think the answer to that is that it is silly not to. Especially since our generation has grown up with technology. Our generation is so tech savvy and has a huge potential for being able to create art with the tools we grew up with. We are so accustomed to using technology for everything else in our lives, I think it would be great if we used technology more often to create art.
Best, McKenna
August 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm
It’s interesting that we feel the need to polarize… just about everything. If it makes use of technology, it’s not “art,” if it’s remixed it’s stolen, etc.
I’ve never understood this distinction. The common factor between both the art vs. tech debate and copyright RW/RO dialogue seems to be age and tradition. It seems some folks are just incapable of progressing with an ever evolving world, and so they cling ever more desperately to antiquated notions about… whatever.
Realistically technology, of whatever fashion, is just a tool — like a pencil, or paint brush, or mound of clay. I find deconstructing arguments like these replacing the key items (art and tech) to be invaluable: how ridiculous would it sound for someone to argue that only painted portraiture were art, and the camera was merely technology. (I’m actually pretty sure this was a debate at one point )… it’s just… bizarre… and archaic.