tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post918430130969343758..comments2023-10-31T01:54:15.348-07:00Comments on Artificial Simplicity: How technology is changing the creative process in not always great ways: the other side of the coinskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09147770743305509403noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-90160809119939677142018-02-21T08:43:19.593-08:002018-02-21T08:43:19.593-08:00thanks keep visitthanks keep visitKeith F. Mounthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050136602730738760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-23946679020115726332010-02-22T13:25:29.987-08:002010-02-22T13:25:29.987-08:00i was just taking a glance at your blog, and when ...i was just taking a glance at your blog, and when i came across this post, in particular, i was reminded of benjamin's 1936 essay, "the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction." in short, benjamin claims that the ability to reproduce (both a piece of art or an idea) mechanically has at once liberated art from ritual--a process that potentially risks stifling creativity--and sacrificed the "aura" of originality, losing the place for imagination and the space for revolution. I think that benjamin referred to this as the politicization of art--the marriage of art and industry. i've often wondered if benjamin was correct in his very keen prescience: have we decreased the value of creativity in this day in age or enhanced it? what is the value/role of authenticity in the creative process, really? is, as benjamin briefly conjectured, the original form of false importance anyway? i think that by looking at the function that these new forms of art serve, i.e. being specifically created for mass audiences, perhaps the demand from present audiences for these past types of authenticities has lessened. benjamin argued that in the case of film, for example, where he claimed the original aura had deteriorated, audiences no longer identified with a particular actor, but rather with the camera, the object with whom the actor was truly present. this begs an interesting question around the experience of technology by consumers and the production of creativity around it. food for thought if nothing else.ktplohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12766338867070602606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-59181316821454026402009-09-22T08:20:10.384-07:002009-09-22T08:20:10.384-07:00Well put, Bruce and totally agree. New tools and ...Well put, Bruce and totally agree. New tools and tech bring shiny mediocrity within the grasp of many people. As you and Edward suggest, the biggest threat to the marketing world might be the recognition that a mediocre design is good enough: easier to bring to the market for sure and possibly effective as well.skhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09147770743305509403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-40816948704730425842009-09-21T14:24:48.634-07:002009-09-21T14:24:48.634-07:00There has been an economic shift in value. The qu...There has been an economic shift in value. The quality of readily available design (for example)has risen due to the communication bandwidth and methods of harvesting creative products. <br /><br />The economy however, has remained the same in the sense that mediocrity is ubiquitous - it just has a better looking face.<br /><br />What's the adjustment to be made? I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I'm very sure of what it isn't. It isn't continuing in a Hope Economy: hoping that the business world wakes up tomorrow with a higher sense of value for brilliance when mediocrity is easier to bring to market.Bruce DeBoerhttp://www.permissiontosuck.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-30469809526459920442009-09-14T05:41:24.196-07:002009-09-14T05:41:24.196-07:00Thanks for the thoughtful engagement, Edward. The...Thanks for the thoughtful engagement, Edward. There are (at least) two different questions at work here. I agree that many great artists from the past would be engaging with new media (and inventing new forms) if they were alive today. Warhol saw where consumer culture was headed before the market did. Though we shouldn't forget that history has more than its share of conservative if not reactionary artists who also developed works of great power by rejecting and critiquing modern developments (Swift, to name one of my favorites, or Tolkien for that matter). Art doesn't care about progress. <br /><br />Completely agree with you and Bogusky on the other point: that ideas are easy compared to bringing those ideas to life. But I'm not asking if art will survive. Of course it will. Because art is finally bigger than business. Rather I'm exploring--and we continue to discuss--how new media might be commodifying a lot of the work artists do. And how artists and writers are coping and responding to this transformation of their economic value.skhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09147770743305509403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081835178172740261.post-34623490814012281792009-09-13T08:16:53.707-07:002009-09-13T08:16:53.707-07:00Scott:
I think that the inspiration, originality a...Scott:<br />I think that the inspiration, originality and power of the creator (writer, painter, poet, even journalist) will always be one of society's greatest assets, and one of our greatest joys. If we have any taste and judgment we should know that they have a talent and a gift: synapses that fire faster than ours, a fresh perspective that enlightens; the ability to actually *see* what we can't until they show it to us. What technology is doing is giving them access to more content as a source of inspiration or background. Also a way to connect with their audience in a more interactive way. On the other hand the same technology is giving the average person the illusion that he or she can create content of similar value. Alex Bogusky thinks that anyone can have a good idea. True. But bringing it to life, expressing it, touching others with it are either natural gifts or skill learned over time. So we're left with the question of what will the marketplace value. Wired magazine this month has a very interesting piece on the new definition of quality, informed by the MP3 and the YouTube video. So here's an easy conclusion. If Michelangelo or Leonardo or Shakespeare or even Warhol were alive today, wouldn't they be doing all of this. Wouldn't their paintings and poems and plays be taking advantage of the technology and the inclusiveness it affords? Wouldn't they invent new models and forms? I think so.edward bocheshttp://edwardboches.comnoreply@blogger.com