Steve Jobs would be very happy, but what about Da Vinci? The technological world is quickly taking over our day-to-day lives, whether an app helps deter one from procrastinating, or an app that supplies recipes for dinner, if there is a need, there is probably an app for that. The app world has slowly been creeping up in our world, and now it is affecting our arts
As we grow in our technological world, things are expected to go digital; but can we please draw the line at digitizing the arts? On my iPhone, I have an app called “Louvre”, and as one would expect, the app displays many of the paintings on display at the Louvre. On the side of a selected painting, the viewer has the option of reading “About the work”, “Technical information”, and “Location”. This particular app was free, but the recent price of digital art has spiked. Artists including Damien Hirst, Isaac Julien, Shepard Fairey and Wim Wenders have recently created limited edition digital works for a web platform, with Prices ranging from £5 to £500. The capability to now globalize some of the greatest artworks, both old and new, faces possible art enthusiasts with an interesting dilemma. Can we substitute the real masterpiece with a pixelated version delivered directly to the palm of our hands?
Yes, technology does make it simple to view the art, but what about appreciating the art? There is definitely a different experience when viewing and contemplating a piece of art when the piece is in front of you rather than from a computer screen. We can speculate this dilemma through our class’s own personal experiences. When we looked at a painting of Franz Halls in class, I saw the painting as just a picture that was in front of me; there was no excitement or feeling of being in the presence of greatness. Though my sentiment immediately changed when we went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and I saw the painting in front of my eyes. Just by being in front of the painting I was able to see how each brush stroke worked, and I suddenly had the ability to appreciate the tiny details that the digital copy could not accomplish. Even if the digital picture could see the intricate details, the ability to admire the minor discrepancies and then to step back and see the picture as a whole elevates the painting to a different level that cannot be accomplished in some app or Google image.
Science has even decided that the real artwork is the only real way of experiencing art. In the book Blink, a study is referenced, in which people were able to determine that a certain statue was fake based on just a first glance, even though scientific research was thought to have proven otherwise. This study can then be applied here, where our brain can tell that the artwork is not the real thing when looking at it online, but when viewing the real piece, a true sense of excitement should take over a person. As an example of the excitement we feel when seeing the real thing, when a person has a certain role model, one can look at pictures of him/her endlessly, but when offered a chance to speak to the role model, a person would probably freeze up in awe of standing in front of the person he/she has dreamed about for so long.
Technology has brought with itself, both up and downs. Now, many people who have thought that they would never be able to see the Mona Lisa are as close to it as just downloading an app. People can now appreciate and have knowledge of great works of art; but the true appreciation, I think, cannot be accomplished until seeing the piece in front of you. The digital age has allowed us to broaden our knowledge of the arts, but we have to remember that the art itself is awe-inspiring. My parting message to all of you reading this, is to go out there and take advantage of the opportunity you have to see the arts for what it is, inside the museums; for it is only a train ride away.
I definitely agree with you. There is something markedly different between seeing a work of art in person and seeing it on an app. Art isn’t just about looking at a pretty picture. There is an experiential component to it that makes it much more of an immersive activity. It is one thing to see a picture. It is another thing to experience one. The latter component is essentially compromised when you simply just view a photo of an art piece on your phone or on your computer. Sure, you got to see the picture, but that should only be the means to the end (the end being that you are so impressed with what you see that you decide to go to the museum to view it in person).
Besides, artists usually intend for the museum (or the studio, or the gallery, or – you get the picture) to be the middleman between the viewer and the art, not the app. That is why it was produced on canvas in the first place. I’m not saying that they don’t appreciate the wide dissemination of their pieces that has been made possible through the Internet and other forms of modern technology, but I AM saying that cyberspace is certainly not the prime place where they wanted their art to subsist. At least, I don’t think so.
While technology and applications can detract from the beauty and simplicity of works, technology has been show to add an extra pizazz to artistic showcases.
For example, in a recent article by the New York times, Jeffrey Kahane of the New York Philharmonic payed BOTH homage to the past and showed promise for the future. After conducting works by Mozart and Beethoven from memory (which was a common practice of their day), he utilized an iPad instead of a conventional score. Who knows, this could become the future common practice that later musicians reflect upon. Nevertheless, the possibility to incorporate technology will not stop in music, but flourish in the art world. Perhaps in a few years at the MoMA, users on the iPad and iPhone will be celebrated for their innovative ability to incorporate 21 century machinery into masterpieces
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-with-jeffrey-kahane-review.html?_r=1&ref=music
I agree with you that people should go to the museum or other venue to appreciate art rather than just solely view the picture of the painting through your electronic devices. Internet, phone, or whatever any technology,is just a tool to help help us get a faster access to the information that we want to gain; it only gives us a rough view of the visual art; however, if we want to gain deeper understanding of the art work, museum if a doubtlessly right place to go to appreciate art. Also, you cannot impress anyone by saying “oh, I see Mano Lisa in the internet”, unless you go to the Louvre and look at the real Mano Lisa. Same as dancing show, watching the dance through youtube is not enough; you will not get the great experience that you will get if you watch it on live. I feel that watching the opera Don Giovanni through computer is so different from watch inside the Met Opera. Inside the theater, you can feel the wonderful setting, the stage, and the atmosphere there.
I do believe that there is more value in seeing the art firsthand however i must defend the use of technology to some degree. Technology can help us understand the art. The use of the internet can tell us about the artist, their story, and their process in creating their works. I had my own personal experience with beneficiary technology when we went to the MoMa (de Kooning) and took the “audio tour”. It helped me see the painting for more than just abstract shapes by explaining the history behind it and what the artist was likely envisioning when he was working on that specific work. It helped me notice details that I probably would not have noticed on my own. Technology can be a useful aid but it shouldn’t substitute the original!