Technology is reaching unprecedented heights in the 21st century. Software, hardware, and a lot of creativity allows users of all ages to turn themselves into overnight superstars and online celebrities. As society keeps advancing, a question that has often plagued audiences of modern visual art now arises in areas such as music, film, and media production. If everyone is able to produce art on their Mac at their kitchen table, who’s to say what’s considered art and what is not? If everyone can be their own producer, publisher, and marketing team, is anyone’s talent truly unique? The online documentary series MADE HERE explores this very question.
Supported by a 2009 Rockefeller Cultural Innovation Fund award, MADE HERE is an online project which focuses on performing artists based in New York City. In a series of intimate interviews, artists share their opinions, ideas, and passions with online viewers. The project includes short episodes covering topics such as activism, identity, and creativity in the art world. In the technology issue, featured artists express how “new technologies are enabling an exciting freedom to create and disseminate work on their terms for new audiences.”
As theater artist Jess Barbagallo says, “With the internet, everyone can be a Renaissance man.” If you have an idea for a TV show, go ahead and cheaply produce it, then upload it to YouTube. Millions of hits will plunge you into the growing world of fame. Speaking of YouTube hits, Improv Everywhere founder Charlie Todd remarks that these days, “Someone in a suit in a corner office doesn’t have to approve of what you do in order for it to be seen by billions of people.” The internet is the fastest and most effective way to reach masses of people, for free. Paul D. Miller, also known as DJ Spooky is well aware that most of his listeners have not seen or heard him play live at all. His fame is generated from online downloads and mixes. Miller and his team even deserted their physical office on 14th Street, since they were primarily emailing back and forth to communicate, something which can be done at home. Musician, Composer, and Multimedia Artist Vernon Reid concludes, “Ten years ago there wasn’t Myspace, there wasn’t Twitter, there wasn’t Facebook…and the next ten years are gonna be unimaginable.” So what do you think? If these days everyone can produce art from their living rooms, is anyone truly an innovator? And who gets to make this decision? The amount of YouTube hits?
The episode can be viewed here.
This reminds me of an essay we had to read in the English 110H class, about John Berger. Berger discusses how technology has changed art. However, he would not say it has been ruined. Rather, art used to be associated with the Noble Class and the Aristocracy. The reason for this, is because they were the only people who could afford to have art in their homes. Ever since the appearance of the middle class, though, the upper class has been losing their grip over art. With all the advance in modern day technology, a museum is an extremely archaic idea, Berger argues. Anybody can produce and copy art, so why do we have to go a building that is owned by somebody who is affluent, in order to see art? We don’t, we can see art wherever we go now a days. Look on the internet, look on the “graffitied” walls of the city, listen to all of the sounds coming out of your headphones or stereo. It is an old belief–that the wealthy are still trying to force upon the general public–that art is associated with power. Somebody who owns art, and who can judge what is art and what is not, has power. However, this is no longer valid in modern day society. Look at the modern at that we saw, such as DeKooning. People in the class said that “modern art isn’t art”, and that they “don’t understand it.” Go back a few hundred years, and the only people who were qualified to make such a statement were the Nobles of the land. So does technology ruin art? No, definitely not. If anything, technology has furthered art, as the true artist is always searching for new ways to express his feelings, and is always looking into the future. Think of Thelonious Sphere Monk, who we discussed in class. His vision of art was so ahead of his time, that he died before anybody was able to appreciate his art. However, once they did, he become unbelievably famous, eventually being accepted into the Downbeat Jazz Hall of Fame. Technology is just another avenue for artists to explore: saying that technology has destroyed art is an ignorant statement. Rather, technology has caused art to transform into something that is more relevant in our modern day society.
This is an interesting debate that you have brought up. Your last few words, of ” If these days everyone can produce art from their living rooms, is anyone truly an innovator? And who gets to make this decision? The amount of YouTube hits?” is quite intriguing. In today’s world where Rebecca Black can become famous over night for “Friday,” as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0, it begs the question who should become famous and how do we determine this.
In my opinion, art today has become more of the mentality of the artist than of the art itself. I think the beauty of Aaron Young’s project “Greeting Card,” as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV0Rvqi9mvw is interesting for the method and his thought process to creating the work. He is innovative because of the use of motorcycles in creating his masterpiece. The finished product is not easily distinguishable from the scratch cards that are given to children. The same holds true for DeKooning. He is famous for Woman 1, which we saw at the Moma, and his new take on abstractionism. He is not famous for his still lifes that were visible at the beginning of the exhibit, which many people would argue are prettier than Woman 1. Technology may make it easier to become famous, but the true artists are the ones who think about the art before producing it.
We might be talking a whole different ballgame.
The saying “if everyone’s special, nobody is” may not quite translate into “if everyone’s an artist, nobody is.” The way I see it, if everyone’s an artist, then, well, everyone’s an artist. Simple as that. If there are a lot of popular innovators on YouTube then all that tells me is that there a lot of innovative people in the world. More artistic presence in the art world doesn’t threaten anyone’s artistic vision (although it might threaten their bank accounts). In fact, those who are threatened by the increasing ubiquity of artists and innovators might want to take a second look at themselves. If someone is truly confident in his abilities as an innovator, then it shouldn’t matter how many choose to partake in the same profession. I’m not sure anything is ruined with the advent of YouTube and Twitter and the like as far as ART goes. Creativity is more rampant now than ever, and I think that that is a beautiful thing. Of course, with more expressive mediums, you also run the risk of allowing a lot of pretty mediocre stuff in too, but that fact alone should not impede such a great phenomenon.
It’s funny that you talk about making art in your own home, in your living room or kitchen, as if artists haven’t been doing this for some time now, but I digress… The “Does technology ruin art?” question is the same as the “Does money ruin art?” question and the answer I want to give to your question is the same answer I gave to the latter question. Regardless of the medium, there will always be “good art” and “bad art.” It doesn’t matter that the artist is holding a paintbrush or holding a computer mouse. And technology does not necessarily make… making art easier. For example, Photoshop is probably the most complicated thing to come around since I-don’t-know-what and I hardly think that the CGI technicians and the video game designers will appreciate you calling their jobs easy or their final products “un-quality.” No, technology does not ruin art. Technology simply expands the art world by adding another possible medium for the artist to explore in. It is a tool for good, not for bad.
I have read Ayala’s article and decided to interpret the information a different way. Technology does not ruin art, but I believe that it promotes the creative process. Now, with the power of technology, art, music, film, prose becomes extremely accessible to virtually everyone…who can access a computer or television at least. Before the power of instantaneous streaming online and recording apparatuses and photography, one had to usually be an aristocrat to see an opera or be invited to an artist’s gallery. Art appreciation was almost impossible for those of the lower class who were too concerned with their unstable financial status to set aside a day for leisure at the local museum.
With technology, art has become accessible and has therefore, widened its audience’s demographic. While yes, I do agree that the internet makes it possible for bad art to circulate (please visit deviantart.com for a plethora of examples), it makes the exchange of culture so easy. If I wanted to watch Nirvana’s concert footage, I could simply look it up online instead of hoping that someone soon invents the time machine. I constantly thank the internet actually for providing me with music, pictures, and concert footage of two of my favorite bands because without the this technology, this would be absolutely inaccessible to me. These two bands are from England and rarely if ever tour and do promotion in the States. I can still appreciate their music without having to save up for a plane ticket.
The counter argument is that with all this technology, no one will want to leave the internet. No one will want to go to a concert or a museum when they can access the same music and art in their home. But, I disagree. There will always be live entertainment and art galleries because experiencing art in the flesh possesses an element that touches us that no computer screen can ever imitate. If what I claim is false, then why are people still traveling the world when they can just look up pictures of exotic beaches, put on their swimsuit and tan by their pool in the blazing sun? Maybe that example was a bit strained, but the message is understood. Technology does not ruin art; it makes it more accessible. However, it may be that accessibility is what lets everyone claim they’re an artist. The ones who commission art in galleries however are not looking to become patrons for the “amateur artists” on deviantart.com