technology and art essay

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art

In 1953, Roald Dahl published “ The Great Automatic Grammatizator ,” a short story about an electrical engineer who secretly desires to be a writer. One day, after completing construction of the world’s fastest calculating machine, the engineer realizes that “English grammar is governed by rules that are almost mathematical in their strictness.” He constructs a fiction-writing machine that can produce a five-thousand-word short story in thirty seconds; a novel takes fifteen minutes and requires the operator to manipulate handles and foot pedals, as if he were driving a car or playing an organ, to regulate the levels of humor and pathos. The resulting novels are so popular that, within a year, half the fiction published in English is a product of the engineer’s invention.

Is there anything about art that makes us think it can’t be created by pushing a button, as in Dahl’s imagination? Right now, the fiction generated by large language models like ChatGPT is terrible, but one can imagine that such programs might improve in the future. How good could they get? Could they get better than humans at writing fiction—or making paintings or movies—in the same way that calculators are better at addition and subtraction?

Art is notoriously hard to define, and so are the differences between good art and bad art. But let me offer a generalization: art is something that results from making a lot of choices. This might be easiest to explain if we use fiction writing as an example. When you are writing fiction, you are—consciously or unconsciously—making a choice about almost every word you type; to oversimplify, we can imagine that a ten-thousand-word short story requires something on the order of ten thousand choices. When you give a generative-A.I. program a prompt, you are making very few choices; if you supply a hundred-word prompt, you have made on the order of a hundred choices.

If an A.I. generates a ten-thousand-word story based on your prompt, it has to fill in for all of the choices that you are not making. There are various ways it can do this. One is to take an average of the choices that other writers have made, as represented by text found on the Internet; that average is equivalent to the least interesting choices possible, which is why A.I.-generated text is often really bland. Another is to instruct the program to engage in style mimicry, emulating the choices made by a specific writer, which produces a highly derivative story. In neither case is it creating interesting art.

I think the same underlying principle applies to visual art, although it’s harder to quantify the choices that a painter might make. Real paintings bear the mark of an enormous number of decisions. By comparison, a person using a text-to-image program like DALL-E enters a prompt such as “A knight in a suit of armor fights a fire-breathing dragon,” and lets the program do the rest. (The newest version of DALL-E accepts prompts of up to four thousand characters—hundreds of words, but not enough to describe every detail of a scene.) Most of the choices in the resulting image have to be borrowed from similar paintings found online; the image might be exquisitely rendered, but the person entering the prompt can’t claim credit for that.

Some commentators imagine that image generators will affect visual culture as much as the advent of photography once did. Although this might seem superficially plausible, the idea that photography is similar to generative A.I. deserves closer examination. When photography was first developed, I suspect it didn’t seem like an artistic medium because it wasn’t apparent that there were a lot of choices to be made; you just set up the camera and start the exposure. But over time people realized that there were a vast number of things you could do with cameras, and the artistry lies in the many choices that a photographer makes. It might not always be easy to articulate what the choices are, but when you compare an amateur’s photos to a professional’s, you can see the difference. So then the question becomes: Is there a similar opportunity to make a vast number of choices using a text-to-image generator? I think the answer is no. An artist—whether working digitally or with paint—implicitly makes far more decisions during the process of making a painting than would fit into a text prompt of a few hundred words.

We can imagine a text-to-image generator that, over the course of many sessions, lets you enter tens of thousands of words into its text box to enable extremely fine-grained control over the image you’re producing; this would be something analogous to Photoshop with a purely textual interface. I’d say that a person could use such a program and still deserve to be called an artist. The film director Bennett Miller has used DALL-E 2 to generate some very striking images that have been exhibited at the Gagosian gallery; to create them, he crafted detailed text prompts and then instructed DALL-E to revise and manipulate the generated images again and again. He generated more than a hundred thousand images to arrive at the twenty images in the exhibit. But he has said that he hasn’t been able to obtain comparable results on later releases of DALL-E . I suspect this might be because Miller was using DALL-E for something it’s not intended to do; it’s as if he hacked Microsoft Paint to make it behave like Photoshop, but as soon as a new version of Paint was released, his hacks stopped working. OpenAI probably isn’t trying to build a product to serve users like Miller, because a product that requires a user to work for months to create an image isn’t appealing to a wide audience. The company wants to offer a product that generates images with little effort.

It’s harder to imagine a program that, over many sessions, helps you write a good novel. This hypothetical writing program might require you to enter a hundred thousand words of prompts in order for it to generate an entirely different hundred thousand words that make up the novel you’re envisioning. It’s not clear to me what such a program would look like. Theoretically, if such a program existed, the user could perhaps deserve to be called the author. But, again, I don’t think companies like OpenAI want to create versions of ChatGPT that require just as much effort from users as writing a novel from scratch. The selling point of generative A.I. is that these programs generate vastly more than you put into them, and that is precisely what prevents them from being effective tools for artists.

The companies promoting generative-A.I. programs claim that they will unleash creativity. In essence, they are saying that art can be all inspiration and no perspiration—but these things cannot be easily separated. I’m not saying that art has to involve tedium. What I’m saying is that art requires making choices at every scale; the countless small-scale choices made during implementation are just as important to the final product as the few large-scale choices made during the conception. It is a mistake to equate “large-scale” with “important” when it comes to the choices made when creating art; the interrelationship between the large scale and the small scale is where the artistry lies.

Believing that inspiration outweighs everything else is, I suspect, a sign that someone is unfamiliar with the medium. I contend that this is true even if one’s goal is to create entertainment rather than high art. People often underestimate the effort required to entertain; a thriller novel may not live up to Kafka’s ideal of a book—an “axe for the frozen sea within us”—but it can still be as finely crafted as a Swiss watch. And an effective thriller is more than its premise or its plot. I doubt you could replace every sentence in a thriller with one that is semantically equivalent and have the resulting novel be as entertaining. This means that its sentences—and the small-scale choices they represent—help to determine the thriller’s effectiveness.

Many novelists have had the experience of being approached by someone convinced that they have a great idea for a novel, which they are willing to share in exchange for a fifty-fifty split of the proceeds. Such a person inadvertently reveals that they think formulating sentences is a nuisance rather than a fundamental part of storytelling in prose. Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium. But the creators of traditional novels, paintings, and films are drawn to those art forms because they see the unique expressive potential that each medium affords. It is their eagerness to take full advantage of those potentialities that makes their work satisfying, whether as entertainment or as art.

Of course, most pieces of writing, whether articles or reports or e-mails, do not come with the expectation that they embody thousands of choices. In such cases, is there any harm in automating the task? Let me offer another generalization: any writing that deserves your attention as a reader is the result of effort expended by the person who wrote it. Effort during the writing process doesn’t guarantee the end product is worth reading, but worthwhile work cannot be made without it. The type of attention you pay when reading a personal e-mail is different from the type you pay when reading a business report, but in both cases it is only warranted when the writer put some thought into it.

Recently, Google aired a commercial during the Paris Olympics for Gemini, its competitor to OpenAI’s GPT-4 . The ad shows a father using Gemini to compose a fan letter, which his daughter will send to an Olympic athlete who inspires her. Google pulled the commercial after widespread backlash from viewers; a media professor called it “one of the most disturbing commercials I’ve ever seen.” It’s notable that people reacted this way, even though artistic creativity wasn’t the attribute being supplanted. No one expects a child’s fan letter to an athlete to be extraordinary; if the young girl had written the letter herself, it would likely have been indistinguishable from countless others. The significance of a child’s fan letter—both to the child who writes it and to the athlete who receives it—comes from its being heartfelt rather than from its being eloquent.

Many of us have sent store-bought greeting cards, knowing that it will be clear to the recipient that we didn’t compose the words ourselves. We don’t copy the words from a Hallmark card in our own handwriting, because that would feel dishonest. The programmer Simon Willison has described the training for large language models as “money laundering for copyrighted data,” which I find a useful way to think about the appeal of generative-A.I. programs: they let you engage in something like plagiarism, but there’s no guilt associated with it because it’s not clear even to you that you’re copying.

Some have claimed that large language models are not laundering the texts they’re trained on but, rather, learning from them, in the same way that human writers learn from the books they’ve read. But a large language model is not a writer; it’s not even a user of language. Language is, by definition, a system of communication, and it requires an intention to communicate. Your phone’s auto-complete may offer good suggestions or bad ones, but in neither case is it trying to say anything to you or the person you’re texting. The fact that ChatGPT can generate coherent sentences invites us to imagine that it understands language in a way that your phone’s auto-complete does not, but it has no more intention to communicate.

It is very easy to get ChatGPT to emit a series of words such as “I am happy to see you.” There are many things we don’t understand about how large language models work, but one thing we can be sure of is that ChatGPT is not happy to see you. A dog can communicate that it is happy to see you, and so can a prelinguistic child, even though both lack the capability to use words. ChatGPT feels nothing and desires nothing, and this lack of intention is why ChatGPT is not actually using language. What makes the words “I’m happy to see you” a linguistic utterance is not that the sequence of text tokens that it is made up of are well formed; what makes it a linguistic utterance is the intention to communicate something.

Because language comes so easily to us, it’s easy to forget that it lies on top of these other experiences of subjective feeling and of wanting to communicate that feeling. We’re tempted to project those experiences onto a large language model when it emits coherent sentences, but to do so is to fall prey to mimicry; it’s the same phenomenon as when butterflies evolve large dark spots on their wings that can fool birds into thinking they’re predators with big eyes. There is a context in which the dark spots are sufficient; birds are less likely to eat a butterfly that has them, and the butterfly doesn’t really care why it’s not being eaten, as long as it gets to live. But there is a big difference between a butterfly and a predator that poses a threat to a bird.

A person using generative A.I. to help them write might claim that they are drawing inspiration from the texts the model was trained on, but I would again argue that this differs from what we usually mean when we say one writer draws inspiration from another. Consider a college student who turns in a paper that consists solely of a five-page quotation from a book, stating that this quotation conveys exactly what she wanted to say, better than she could say it herself. Even if the student is completely candid with the instructor about what she’s done, it’s not accurate to say that she is drawing inspiration from the book she’s citing. The fact that a large language model can reword the quotation enough that the source is unidentifiable doesn’t change the fundamental nature of what’s going on.

As the linguist Emily M. Bender has noted, teachers don’t ask students to write essays because the world needs more student essays. The point of writing essays is to strengthen students’ critical-thinking skills; in the same way that lifting weights is useful no matter what sport an athlete plays, writing essays develops skills necessary for whatever job a college student will eventually get. Using ChatGPT to complete assignments is like bringing a forklift into the weight room; you will never improve your cognitive fitness that way.

Not all writing needs to be creative, or heartfelt, or even particularly good; sometimes it simply needs to exist. Such writing might support other goals, such as attracting views for advertising or satisfying bureaucratic requirements. When people are required to produce such text, we can hardly blame them for using whatever tools are available to accelerate the process. But is the world better off with more documents that have had minimal effort expended on them? It would be unrealistic to claim that if we refuse to use large language models, then the requirements to create low-quality text will disappear. However, I think it is inevitable that the more we use large language models to fulfill those requirements, the greater those requirements will eventually become. We are entering an era where someone might use a large language model to generate a document out of a bulleted list, and send it to a person who will use a large language model to condense that document into a bulleted list. Can anyone seriously argue that this is an improvement?

It’s not impossible that one day we will have computer programs that can do anything a human being can do, but, contrary to the claims of the companies promoting A.I., that is not something we’ll see in the next few years. Even in domains that have absolutely nothing to do with creativity, current A.I. programs have profound limitations that give us legitimate reasons to question whether they deserve to be called intelligent at all.

The computer scientist François Chollet has proposed the following distinction: skill is how well you perform at a task, while intelligence is how efficiently you gain new skills. I think this reflects our intuitions about human beings pretty well. Most people can learn a new skill given sufficient practice, but the faster the person picks up the skill, the more intelligent we think the person is. What’s interesting about this definition is that—unlike I.Q. tests—it’s also applicable to nonhuman entities; when a dog learns a new trick quickly, we consider that a sign of intelligence.

In 2019, researchers conducted an experiment in which they taught rats how to drive. They put the rats in little plastic containers with three copper-wire bars; when the mice put their paws on one of these bars, the container would either go forward, or turn left or turn right. The rats could see a plate of food on the other side of the room and tried to get their vehicles to go toward it. The researchers trained the rats for five minutes at a time, and after twenty-four practice sessions, the rats had become proficient at driving. Twenty-four trials were enough to master a task that no rat had likely ever encountered before in the evolutionary history of the species. I think that’s a good demonstration of intelligence.

Now consider the current A.I. programs that are widely acclaimed for their performance. AlphaZero, a program developed by Google’s DeepMind, plays chess better than any human player, but during its training it played forty-four million games, far more than any human can play in a lifetime. For it to master a new game, it will have to undergo a similarly enormous amount of training. By Chollet’s definition, programs like AlphaZero are highly skilled, but they aren’t particularly intelligent, because they aren’t efficient at gaining new skills. It is currently impossible to write a computer program capable of learning even a simple task in only twenty-four trials, if the programmer is not given information about the task beforehand.

Self-driving cars trained on millions of miles of driving can still crash into an overturned trailer truck, because such things are not commonly found in their training data, whereas humans taking their first driving class will know to stop. More than our ability to solve algebraic equations, our ability to cope with unfamiliar situations is a fundamental part of why we consider humans intelligent. Computers will not be able to replace humans until they acquire that type of competence, and that is still a long way off; for the time being, we’re just looking for jobs that can be done with turbocharged auto-complete.

Despite years of hype, the ability of generative A.I. to dramatically increase economic productivity remains theoretical. (Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs released a report titled “Gen AI: Too Much Spend, Too Little Benefit?”) The task that generative A.I. has been most successful at is lowering our expectations, both of the things we read and of ourselves when we write anything for others to read. It is a fundamentally dehumanizing technology because it treats us as less than what we are: creators and apprehenders of meaning. It reduces the amount of intention in the world.

Some individuals have defended large language models by saying that most of what human beings say or write isn’t particularly original. That is true, but it’s also irrelevant. When someone says “I’m sorry” to you, it doesn’t matter that other people have said sorry in the past; it doesn’t matter that “I’m sorry” is a string of text that is statistically unremarkable. If someone is being sincere, their apology is valuable and meaningful, even though apologies have previously been uttered. Likewise, when you tell someone that you’re happy to see them, you are saying something meaningful, even if it lacks novelty.

Something similar holds true for art. Whether you are creating a novel or a painting or a film, you are engaged in an act of communication between you and your audience. What you create doesn’t have to be utterly unlike every prior piece of art in human history to be valuable; the fact that you’re the one who is saying it, the fact that it derives from your unique life experience and arrives at a particular moment in the life of whoever is seeing your work, is what makes it new. We are all products of what has come before us, but it’s by living our lives in interaction with others that we bring meaning into the world. That is something that an auto-complete algorithm can never do, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

An Oscar-winning filmmaker takes on the Church of Scientology .

Wendy Wasserstein on the baby who arrived too soon .

The young stowaways thrown overboard at sea .

As he rose in politics, Robert Moses discovered that decisions about New York City’s future would not be based on democracy .

The Muslim tamale king of the Old West .

Fiction by Jamaica Kincaid: “ Girl .”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

ARTS & CULTURE

7 ways technology is changing how art is made.

Technology is redefining art in strange, new ways. Works are created by people moving through laser beams or from data gathered on air pollution

Randy Rieland

Where would the Impressionists have been without the invention of portable paint tubes that enabled them to paint outdoors?  Who would have heard of Andy Warhol without silkscreen printing? The truth is that technology has been providing artists with new ways to express themselves for a very long time.

Still, over the past few decades, art and tech have become more intertwined than ever before, whether it’s through providing new ways to mix different types of media, allowing more human interaction or simply making the process of creating it easier.  

Case in point is a show titled “Digital Revolution” that opened earlier this summer in London’s Barbican Centre. The exhibit, which runs through mid-September, includes a “Digital Archaeology” section which pays homage to gadgets and games that not that long ago dazzled us with their innovation. (Yes, an original version of Pong is there, presented as lovable antiquity.) But the show also features a wide variety of digital artists who are using technology to push art in different directions, often to allow gallery visitors to engage with it in a multi-dimensional way.

Here are seven examples, some from “Digital Revolution," of how technology is reshaping what art is and how it’s produced:

Kumbaya meets lasers

Let’s start with lasers, the brush stroke of so much digital art. One of the more popular exhibits in the London show is called “Assemblance,” and it’s designed to encourage visitors to create light structures and floor drawings by moving through colored laser beams and smoke. The inclination for most people is to work alone, but the shapes they produce tend to be more fragile. If a person nearby bumps into their structure, for instance, it’s likely to fall apart. But those who collaborate with others—even if it’s through an act as simple as holding hands—discover that the light structures they create are both more resilient and more sophisticated. “Assemblance,” says Usman Haque, one of the founders of Umbrellium, the London art collective that designed it, has a sand castle quality to it—like a rogue wave, one overly aggressive person can wreck everything.

And they never wet the rug

Another favorite at “Digital Revolution” is an experience called “Petting Zoo.” Instead of rubbing cute goats and furry rabbits, you get to cozy up to snake-like tubes hanging from the ceiling. Doesn’t sound like fun? But wait, these are very responsive tubes, bending and moving and changing colors based on how they read your movements, sounds and touch. They might pull back shyly if they sense a large group approaching or get all cuddly if you’re being affectionate. And if you’re just standing there, they may act bored. The immersive artwork, developed by a design group called Minimaforms, is meant to provide a glimpse into the future, when robots or even artificial pets will be able to read our moods and react in kind.

Now this is a work in progress

If Rising Colorspace, an abstract artwork painted on the wall of a Berlin gallery, doesn't seem so fabulous at first glance, just give it a little time. Come back the next day and it will look at least a little different. That’s because the painting is always changing, thanks to a wall-climbing robot called a Vertwalker armed with a paint pen and a software program instructing it to follow a certain pattern.

The creation of artists Julian Adenauer and Michael Haas, the Vertwalker—which looks like a flattened iRobot Roomba —is constantly overwriting its own work, cycling through eight colors as it glides up vertical walls for two to three hours at a time before it needs a battery change. “The process of creation is ideally endless,” Haas explains.

The beauty of dirty air

Give Russian artist Dmitry Morozov some credit—he’s devised a way to make pollution beautiful, even if his purpose is to make us aware of how much is out there. First, he built a device, complete with a little plastic nose, that uses sensors which can measure dust and other typical pollutants, including carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and methane. Then, he headed out to the streets of Moscow. 

The sensors translate the data they gather into volts and a computing platform called Arduino translates those volts into shapes and colors, creating a movie of pollution. Morozov’s device then grabs still images from the movie and prints them out. As irony would have it, the dirtier the air, the brighter the image. Exhaust smoke can look particularly vibrant.

Paper cuts you can love

Eric Standley, a professor at Virginia Tech, is one artist who doesn’t use technology to make the creation process simpler. Actually, it’s just the reverse. He builds stained glass windows, only they’re made from paper precisely cut by a laser. He starts by drawing an intricate design, then meticulously cuts out the many shapes that, when layered over one another, form a 3-D version of his drawing. One of his windows might comprise as many as 100 laser-cut sheets stacked together. Standley says the technology allows him to feel more, not less, connected to what he’s creating. As he explains in the video above, “Every efficiency that I gain through technology, the void is immediately filled with the question, 'Can I make it more complex?'” 

And now, a moving light show

It’s one thing to project laser light onto a stationary wall or into a dark sky, now pretty much standard fare at public outdoor celebrations. But in an art project titled “Light Echoes,” digital media artist Aaron Koblin and interactive director Ben Tricklebank executed the concept on a much larger scale. One night last year, a laser they mounted on a crane atop a moving train projected images, topographical maps and even lines of poetry into the dark Southern California countryside. Those projections left visual “echoes" on the tracks and around the train, which they captured through long-exposure photography.  

Finding your inner bird

Here’s one last take from the “Digital Revolution” show. An art installation developed by video artist Chris Milk called “Treachery of the Sanctuary,” it’s meant to explore the creative process through interactions with digital birds. That’s right, birds, and some are very angry. The installation is a giant triptych, and gallery visitors can stand in front of each of the screens. In the first, the person’s shadow reflected on the screen disintegrates into a flock of birds. That, according to Milk, represents the moment of creative inspiration. In the second, the shadow is pecked away by virtual birds diving from above. That symbolizes critical response, he explains. In the third screen, things get better—you see how you’d look with a majestic set of giant wings that flap as you move. And that, says Milk, captures the instant when a creative thought transforms into something larger than the original idea.

Get the latest Travel & Culture stories in your inbox.

Randy Rieland | | READ MORE

Randy Rieland is a digital media strategist and contributing writer in innovations for Smithsonian.com.

The Intersection of Art and Technology: A Creative Evolution

In the ever-evolving landscape of creativity, the intersection of art and technology has emerged as a dynamic force, reshaping the way artists conceptualize, create, and engage with their work. In this blog post, we'll explore the symbiotic relationship between art and technology, delving into the transformative impact of digital tools, virtual realms, and innovative technologies on the artistic landscape.

Digital Canvas: Redefining Artistic Boundaries: The advent of digital tools has redefined the traditional canvas. Artists now wield digital brushes, manipulate layers, and experiment with textures in virtual spaces. The digital canvas provides a dynamic platform for exploration, offering unprecedented possibilities for artistic expression.

Immersive Experiences through Virtual Reality (VR): Virtual Reality (VR) technology has opened new frontiers for immersive artistic experiences. Artists can create virtual worlds, allowing audiences to step into their creations. VR transcends traditional boundaries, transforming art into an interactive and multisensory adventure.

Augmented Reality (AR) in Artistic Exploration: Augmented Reality (AR) seamlessly blends the virtual and physical worlds, providing artists with tools to overlay digital elements onto real-life environments. This technology enables interactive exhibitions, public art installations, and a fusion of the tangible and digital realms.

Generative Art and Algorithms: Algorithms and generative art have forged a symbiotic relationship, with artists using code to create dynamic and evolving artworks. The marriage of art and algorithms produces mesmerizing visuals, challenging notions of static creativity and inviting the element of unpredictability.

3D Printing: Sculpting in a New Dimension: 3D printing has revolutionized the world of sculpture. Artists can now bring their digital creations into the physical realm with precision and intricacy. This technology expands possibilities in form, structure, and materiality, pushing the boundaries of traditional sculptural practices.

Digital Collaboration and Global Connectivity: Technology facilitates global collaboration among artists. Digital platforms and collaborative tools connect creators across continents, fostering a rich exchange of ideas, styles, and cultural influences. The global connectivity afforded by technology creates a diverse and interconnected artistic community.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Creative Partner: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming a creative partner for artists. From generating music compositions to creating visual art, AI algorithms contribute novel perspectives and push the boundaries of what is conceivable in the realm of artistic creation.

Digital Storytelling and Multimedia Expression: Technology has transformed storytelling into a multimedia experience. Artists can combine visual elements, sound, and interactivity to craft immersive narratives. Digital storytelling transcends traditional mediums, inviting audiences to engage with narratives in dynamic and participatory ways.

Access to Learning Resources and Tutorials: Technology provides artists with unprecedented access to learning resources and tutorials. Online platforms offer instructional content, virtual workshops, and collaborative learning spaces, democratizing artistic education and fostering a culture of continuous skill development.

The Digital Gallery: Expanding Artistic Reach: Digital platforms serve as expansive galleries, allowing artists to showcase their work to global audiences. Social media, online exhibitions, and virtual galleries provide a space for artists to share their creations, receive feedback, and connect with art enthusiasts worldwide.

Conclusion: The intersection of art and technology represents a creative evolution that continues to shape the artistic landscape. From digital canvases to immersive experiences, the synergy between art and technology offers boundless opportunities for innovation and expression. As artists navigate this dynamic intersection, they become pioneers in a transformative journey where the fusion of creativity and technology opens doors to uncharted realms of artistic exploration.

Recent Posts

Post-Show Reflection: Lessons Learned from Creating a Themed Art Exhibition

Discover the power of reflection after creating a themed art exhibition.

From Hobby to Masterpiece: Combining Art and Your Favorite Pastimes

Unleash your creativity by blending hobbies with art.

Balancing Your Artistic Voice with Market Trends: A Guide for Artists

Struggling to balance your artistic vision and market trends?

Join The Art Club

Join Our Email List so You Never Miss A New Blog Post

Thanks for submitting!

Just another University of Oregon Sites site

Technology and Art Essay

In the article, “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origin,” the primary thesis from the author Beverly J. Jones is that “to establish the relation of specific image, object, event, or environment to conceptual frames” (p21). Jones wants to point out the connection between the technology and art in our life and society. One historical example Jones provides as an illustration of her thesis is that “Electronic and photonic art forms have been and will continue to be influenced by their origins and practices”(Jones p21). This example lets people know more about the relationship between art and technology in people’s daily activities. Otherwise, give more information about how technology and art have steadily continued to interact each other, and influence people step by step. Today, many “computer scientists and technologists may assist individuals in the arts and humanities to understand potential uses for computers”. That means scientists and technologists are wanted to cooperate with artists to make technology and art become better. Otherwise, that kind of cooperation can make the category of art become more, make it become digital form, and make the art become wilder used by more people. In addition, in the article “Technology and art against cancer” the author Luciano Armaroli states that technology and art can fight against cancer, to make people reduce their pain and become better. She gives an example, “I had a patient (subsequently a good friend) who is one of the greatest 20th century artists in the Province of Reggio Emilia—Arnaldo Bartoli, painter, sculptor, poet, and naturalist”. She wants to explain that his friend try to treat the patients’ cancer through the art works, from their paintings and lots of beautiful sceneries in the hospitals, that is a special way for patients to treat their cancers. Otherwise, she says that “Since June, 1992, we have treated several thousand patients in the frescoed bunkers, and many others have passed through the corridors and waiting rooms. They have not shown any signs of terror or claustrophobia while lying under the huge radiotherapy machines, whereas in the past when people came into the gloomy bunkers for radiation treatment we often saw reactions of repulsion and fear”. That means when patients face the machines in the hospitals, they will feel scary, that may not good for their treatment. However, when there have some beautiful picture and images in the hospitals, patients feel better when they walk in the hospitals. “That so many people appreciate what has been done makes us more and more convinced that the juxtaposition of technology and art is beneficial in a hospital setting”. So that is a good connection between the technology and art, and this is a good method for treating people’s illness, make people’s life become healthier and better.

Armaroli, L.(1999) Technology and art against cancer  The Lancet, 1999, Vol.353(9149), pp.332-332

http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/science/article/pii/S014067360574887X

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

10 Comments on Technology and Art Essay

Because I was focused on writing my dissertation and just didn’t have time to apply. If my friend would have advised me earlier dissertation help service , I would have applied and maybe even won something. But I’m not discouraged because I know that my dissertation will definitely get the highest rating, because I still asked for help with proofreading by certified authors”

jennapierce

Hi all! I am a lover of interesting life stories and books. Discover Elena’s incredible blog, Booknerd Addict https://booknerdaddict.com/ . She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia and found solace in reading and blogging. Her encounter with Twilight rekindled her love of books, prompting her to share her thoughts and feedback with the world. Her story is full of strength and passion.

Hello all! Valhalla Medics not only provided comprehensive medical support at our event but also offered a unique educational aspect through their blog. The articles detailing the experiences of medics on movie production sets were enlightening. It reflects their commitment to not just providing services but also fostering understanding in the community. Dive into their informative blog here https://valhallamedics.com/professional-on-set-medics-for-the-film-production/ to gain insights into the world of professional medics in diverse settings.

Want to start your own business but have absolutely no understanding of logistics? Then you should definitely visit https://pnwwarehousing.com/rework-freight.html . They provide the most essential logistics services for any business such as broken pallet replacement, inspection services and freight consolidation which includes temporary storage, inventory management, supply consolidation and many other useful features. So, rather click on the link and put the logistics work in the hands of professionals.

Jesis Dredi

Good afternoon. I have recently started university and I need to write a lot of different kinds of essays. Since I am not a creative person, it is difficult for me. So I turned to the service essay writer generator . Thanks to the optimised interface, I was able to order a paper in a few clicks. What I liked most was that the essays were written by an artificial intelligence author who is simply perfect. He wrote an essay for which I received an excellent grade from my teacher.

At AK8AUD, players are greeted with a seamless and efficient login process, offering easy access to a diverse range of captivating online entertainment options. With a secure and user-friendly interface, AK8AUD provides players with a hassle-free experience, ensuring swift navigation through various gaming offerings. From classic favorites to cutting-edge releases, AK8AUD boasts an extensive selection of games to cater to every preference and interest. The login platform is designed for convenience, allowing players to quickly access https://goo.su/Gsa5ue their accounts and dive into an exciting world of entertainment. Additionally, AK8AUD prioritizes player satisfaction by offering enticing rewards, robust security measures, and responsive customer support, ensuring an exceptional gaming experience for all. Whether you’re an experienced player or new to the online gaming scene, AK8AUD invites you to log in and embark on an exhilarating journey filled with endless possibilities and excitement.

无论您是大学新生还是在获得博士学位, 我们都可以为您提供任何学历水平和科学的帮助。我们的专家涵盖250多个不同的学术领域, 可以帮您完成各类Essay代写 https://www.essayghostwriting.com/ 任务。

So, if you could try it once Drift Boss , would you like it?

Madonna James

Discover the convenience of Assignment Desk’s essay typer tool, blending technology and artistry effortlessly. Streamline your writing process with innovative features that enhance creativity and efficiency. Explore new possibilities in essay composition today!

Expert in skincare and writer Jane Doe has devoted years of research on the science underlying private part whitening cream . Her curiosity is how these products could correct uneven skin tone and black patches. Jane’s works clarify the components of skin-lightening treatments, like arbutin and kojic acid, and how they brighten the skin. Many people have made wise selections regarding their skincare regimens thanks in significant part to her easily readable instructions. Additionally, Jane fervently supports wearing sunscreens to avoid further skin harm after whitening treatments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

6 Artists Who Use Technology in Their Work

From robots to social media, explore art which uses machines

Installation view of Hyundai Commission: Anicka Yi at Tate Modern, October 2021. Photo by Will Burrard Lucas

Throughout history, art has both influenced and been influenced by technology. This relationship has led to many exciting artworks. Here we explore six artists who have used machines within their work ...

1. Anicka Yi, In Love With The World, 2021

Hyundai commission: anicka yi: in love with the world.

What would it feel like to share the world with machines that could live in the wild and evolve on their own?

Artist Anicka Yi is interested in the links between art and science. Her practice explores the merging of technology and biology, breaking down distinctions between plants, animals, micro-organisms and machines. Through her work, Yi challenges the idea that humans are distinct from other forms of life by blurring these divisions between technology and biology. The artist's studio collaborates with experts across many fields including philosophers, fabricators, engineers, microbiologists, and perfumers.

Yi’s installation In Love With The World populates the Turbine Hall at Tate Modern with floating machines which she calls aerobes. The shape of these uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is based on ocean life forms and mushrooms. They do not require humans to pilot them. Instead they follow a unique flight path generated from a vast range of options in their software. The aerobes’ individual and group behaviours develop over time, influenced by the ecosystem, including the heat signatures of people nearby.

Combining forms of aquatic and terrestrial life, the aerobes signal new possibilities of hybrid machine species. They prompt us to think about embodied and biodiverse forms of artificial intelligence (AI), and new ways machines might inhabit the world.

Most AI functions like a mind without a body, but living organisms learn so much about the world through the senses. Knowledge emerging from being a body in the world, engaging with other creatures and environments, is called physical intelligence. What if AI could learn through the senses? Could machines develop their own experiences of the world? Could they become independent from humans? Could they exchange intelligence with plants, animals and micro-organisms? - Anicka Yi

2. Gustav Metzger, Liquid Crystal Environment, 1965

Gustav Metzger Liquid Crystal Environment (1965, remade 2005) Tate

© Gustav Metzger

In 1961 German artist Gustav Metzger became interested in the concept of auto-creative art which uses technology to construct processes of positive change and growth. We can see an example of this ‘auto creation’ in Liquid Crystal Environment. The work consists of heat-sensitive liquid crystals which are inserted into projectors, then heated and cooled to form crystal patterns of alternating colours. These are then projected onto screens around the exhibiting space, all under the control of a computer program. The psychedelic patterns projected create a total sensory environment, inviting us into a world where art and technology collide. In 1966, the artwork became the stage set for performances by Cream, The Move and The Who at the Roundhouse, London.

3. Nam June Paik, Bakelite Robot, 2002

Nam June Paik Bakelite Robot (2002) Tate

© Nam June Paik Estate

Often recognised as a founder of video art , Nam June Paik worked across video sculpture, television productions, robotic devices, performance and installation. In a pre-internet era, Paik embraced mass media and predicted that ‘technology would enable people to communicate immediately’ . Inspired by his visits to Tokyo, and often using rejected media artefacts within his work, Paik constructed Bakelite Robot from nine vintage Bakelite radios to form a miniature robot sculpture. Associated with access to information and entertainment, the radio has become a symbol of the twentieth-century modern home and technology featuring as part of everyday life. Where the radio dials would usually sit, Paik placed tiny television monitors displaying footage from science fiction films and recordings of vintage robot toys. Interested in the connection between technology and the human body, the work demonstrates Paik’s attempts to ‘humanise the technology and the electronic medium’.

4. 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering and Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.)

Technician Billy Klüver believed that specialists in art and technology should collaborate. Throughout the 1960s and 70s, Klüver worked at Bell Laboratories, a research facility at the centre of the American telecommunications revolution and also had access to the avant-garde artistic circles of New York. He was able to bring these two worlds together and pave the way for a new digital age. In 1966, thirty engineers from Bell Laboratories and ten artists, including Robert Rauschenberg and Jean Tinguely , took part in the New York art project 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering . Led-by Klüver, this series of collaborations between artists and technicians resulted in many ground-breaking artworks, dances and pieces of theatre and music. The engineers involved used new technologies, such as wireless microphones and fiber optic cables, and the artists pushed their work in new directions, incorporating technological elements. 9 Evenings: Theatre and Engineering highlighted the artistic potential of electronics and is considered a turning point in media art. Following the event, Klüver founded Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.) , an organisation which aimed to create further collaboration between artists and engineers. The group grew to have over 5000 members, including artists Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns , as well as choreographer Yvonne Rainer.

5. Angela Bulloch, West Ham - Sculpture for Football Songs, 1998

Angela Bulloch West Ham - Sculpture for Football Songs (1998) Tate

© Angela Bulloch

Recognised as one of the Young British Artists , Angela Bulloch works across multiple media such as sculpture, sound, video and installation. She uses electronic technologies to bring a ‘gadget quality’ to her work. Bulloch’s work often contains an interactive element which responds to, or is triggered by, the viewer. The use of digital technology within her art enables Bulloch to manipulate how the viewer interprets different types of information and their understanding of her work. The colours of the lights within West Ham – Sculpture for Football Songs reflect the colours of the West Ham football strip. The lights turn on and off depending on the presence of the viewer. If the microphone (positioned nearby) detects the sound of a viewer, the bulbs are illuminated for a shorter period of time. In this way Bulloch invites the viewer to be an active participant within her work. While technology is integral to her work, Bulloch argues that she is not interested in technology for its own sake, but rather the ways in which people ‘interface’ with it and ‘what psychological effect this has’.

6. Amalia Ulman, Excellences & Perfections (Instagram Update, 8th July 2014), (#itsjustdifferent), 2015

Amalia Ulman Excellences & Perfections (Instagram Update, 8th July 2014), (#itsjustdifferent) 2015 © Courtesy Arcadia Missa and The Artist​

Amalia Ulman works across mediums including painting, installation, video and graphic design. Her works explore issues of class, gender and sexuality, and often use social media apps and an iPhone to do so. In 2014 Ulman began her Excellences & Perfections project, a durational performance which was displayed on her personal Instagram account. Creating a fictitious character, whose story unfolded across the course of the four-month long performance, the artist fooled her followers into believing in her character and following her journey from ‘cute girl’ to ‘life goddess’. As she explains:

the idea was to bring fiction to a platform that has been designed for supposedly “authentic” behaviour, interactions and content’. The provocative work uses everyday technology to highlight the potentially manipulative nature of social media.

Hyundai Commission: Anicka Yi: In Love With the World is on at Tate Modern 12 October 2021 – 16 January 2022

You might like

The future according to nam june paik.

Discover how the artist predicted the future of technology

Make a Thingamajig

Make a digital toy that moves and blinks!

Gustav Metzger on Life and Art

'All I can say is this totality of life, whatever that might mean, this attempt to grasp what is important, this attempt to merge with what is most important. That is, I think, is the centre of my life'

Introducing Liliane Lijn

Meet the American artist who pioneered the use of technology to make moving art

Tech Impact on Contemporary Art Trends: Exploring Effects

You’ve probably noticed that art isn’t what it used to be. It’s not just about painting on canvas or chiseling marble anymore. Thanks to technology, today’s artists are exploring new mediums and techniques, taking creativity to another level.

But it’s not all bright and shiny. This digital revolution has its critics, with some fearing it dilutes authenticity and stifles creativity.

And let’s not forget the audience. The way you engage with art has changed, too. Social media and the internet have made art more interactive and reshaped your expectations and behavior. Do you buy tickets months in advance or minutes before the show?

This article will delve into how technology impacts contemporary art trends, the concerns it stirs, the opportunities it presents, and how it’s changing your art experience. So, let’s dive in and explore this fascinating intersection of art and technology.

How Technology Influences Art

You’ve seen how technology has infiltrated every corner of our lives, but have you considered its transformative impact on the world of contemporary art? It’s taken creativity to new heights, helping artists translate their vision into unimaginable pieces in the pre-digital era.

Technology’s influence is undeniable, whether it’s digitally created music, e-books, or 3D-printed sculptures. Yet, it’s more than just a tool; it’s also a medium. Artists like David Hockney have even turned to their iPads for inspiration, proving that age isn’t a barrier to embracing tech.

However, this digital revolution isn’t without controversy. Some fear it could dilute the authenticity of art, while others worry it could stifle creativity as artists become too absorbed in tech’s capabilities.

Expanding Creative Horizons

Imagine the boundless possibilities now at your fingertips, as the digital realm has dramatically broadened the canvas for your creative explorations. Traditional mediums no longer restrict you. With technology, you can blend paint with pixels or harmonize acoustic tunes with digital beats.

The world is your studio and the digital tools, your brushes. You can craft 3D-printed sculptures or design immersive VR experiences. Your art can be interactive, inviting audiences to participate and influence the outcome.

But technology isn’t just expanding your creative horizons; it’s also granting you a global audience. You can share your creations, inspire others, and spark conversations with the internet.

So, embrace the digital revolution and redefine the boundaries of art.

Concerns and Criticisms

Despite the many exciting opportunities, it’s critical also to address the concerns and criticisms surrounding the marriage of art and technology.

Some artists and critics worry that digital art is an inauthentic version of the discipline with the potential to dilute the intrinsic value of traditional art. There’s also a fear that the overwhelming capabilities of technology could stifle creativity rather than enhance it.

• Authenticity : Critics argue that graphic designers’ and hackers’ reproductions and alterations of famous paintings strip digital art of its authenticity.
• Dampened Creativity : The limitless options provided by technology can be so absorbing that they hinder, rather than foster, artistic creativity.
• Quality Concerns : As technology increases competition for arts organizations with other entertainment forms, there’s a concern it may negatively impact the quality of live performances.

Changing Audience Expectations

As digital innovations continue to reshape our world, they’re also revolutionizing how we experience and engage with art, pushing audience expectations to new frontiers. You’re no longer just a spectator; you’re an active participant.

The internet has made art more accessible and interactive, allowing you to delve deeper, learn more, and even create alongside the artist. But these advancements come with new challenges. With a wealth of art just a click away, competition for your attention is fierce. Artists and organizations must adapt, offering quality and an immersive and engaging experience.

And while technology has opened up a world of possibilities, meeting these rising expectations on limited budgets can be daunting. So, don’t just consume art; be part of its evolution.

Challenges and Opportunities

You’re navigating a new terrain where opportunities and challenges go hand in hand, right?

Technology has been a game-changer in the art world, offering countless possibilities for art creation and distribution. Yet, it’s not without hurdles.

You’re competing with a myriad of entertainment forms, aren’t you? Digital art may be accessible, but it’s also challenging to monetize, especially regarding copyright and fair payments.

You’re also grappling with the reality of shorter attention spans and increased smartphone usage during performances.

But don’t fret. Remember, technology can also be your ally. It helps you reach diverse communities globally, break geographic constraints, and engage audiences in more immersive, interactive experiences.

You need to adapt and evolve. Don’t you agree?

Follow us on  Pinterest  for more tips, tutorials, and artist reviews! 

Outmane is the founder of Proactive Creative. He is an artist/designer.

You may also like these articles

• Acrylic Canvas Painting Ideas

• Easy Canvas Painting Ideas

• Cityscape Canvas Painting Ideas

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Welcome to Proactive Creative. We recommend carefully selected items and tools, as well as original resources with a focus on art, design, and creativity.

The Latest Articles

• Painting On Canvas Ideas
• Painting Ideas on Canvas
• 50 Strawberry Drawings to Fuel Your Creativity
• 39+ Simple Colored Pencil Art Ideas for Beginners
• Creative Colored Pencil Drawings with Simple Techniques
• Simple Colored Pencil Art | 34 Easy Ideas for Beginners
• Easy Colored Pencil Art for Novice Artists

The form you have selected does not exist.

Affiliate Disclosure We may receive commissions when you click certain links to products & services on this site and make purchases. There is no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.

Navigation About Contact PrivacyPolicy Disclaimer

Copyright © 2024 Proactive Creative

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Arts Organizations and Digital Technologies
• Section 6: Overall Impact of Technology on the Arts

Table of Contents

• Introduction: Evaluating the Arts in America
• Section 2: Organizational Technology Use
• Section 3: Website Use
• Section 4: Social Media Use
• Section 5: Technology and Organizational Function
• Methodology

The arts organizations represented in the survey tend to agree with the notions that the internet and social media have “increased engagement” and made art a more participatory experience, and that they have helped make “arts audiences more diverse.”  They also tend to agree that the internet has “played a major role in broadening the boundaries of what is considered art.”

Yet at the same time, the majority of arts organizations surveyed also thought that mobile devices, ringing cell phones and texting create “significant disruptions” to live performances, and that technology contributes to an expectation that “all digital content should be free.” Survey respondents were split regarding their opinions of whether technology had negatively impacted audience attention spans for live performance, but they uniformly  dis agree that it has “diluted the arts” by opening new pathways to arts participation and arts criticism.

Despite comments in open-ended responses, only 35% of respondents agree with the statement that the internet has shifted arts organizations’ focus towards marketing and promotion, and even fewer (22%) thought that the internet and its endless offerings are leading to a decrease in attendance at in-person events.

Predicting impacts of technology and social media

Asked to forecast the impact that technology and social media will have on the field as a whole in the coming years, respondents mentioned everything from practical implications to broader, soul-searching ideas about the future of creativity.

From a practical standpoint, many organizations state that technology will make them more efficient:

[We have the] ability to serve more people and at a lower cost.

The internet makes it possible for our organization to market ourselves more effectively through online advertising, blog presences, and social media exchanges. We have been able to decrease our budgets and increase revenue by utilizing online resources effectively.

It is also greatly facilitating their ability to book talent, and to know what to expect:

For arts programmers, the access to high quality media to review artists in advance of assessing them live has been a huge step forward.  Spotify alone has made it so much easier to get a first impression of an artist–no more waiting for press kits, accessing only what they’ve posted on their websites, etc.

Others commented on how technology is changing the behavior of the ticket-buying public:

Last-minute ticket-buying and the trend away from traditional subscription packages will probably continue, as the internet has freed people up from having to plan for most event attendance far in advance. This will affect the predictability of revenue. On the positive side, social media has been a wonderful tool for word-of-mouth marketing.

While it is impossible to know what internet and digital technologies will be like in 10 years, the trend of more information communicated more quickly to a more finely targeted audience with more immediate feedback from the recipient is likely to continue. We believe that this leads people to delay their decision-making about how they will spend their leisure time. For our field, this has generally meant a decline in subscriptions, a decrease in advance ticket sales, and an increase in last-minute box office sales.

Moving beyond the practical, one of the prevailing positive themes is that technology increases – and will continue to increase – access to the arts. In some cases, technology is simply seen as a way to improve marketing and communication to get more “butts in seats,” but many respondents noted its power to broaden and deepen the audience experience.

Technology is helping them introduce more audiences to art:

The digital world is a very populist force, leveling the world between rich and poor, educated and uneducated. In our case, an organization with a name like “Historical Society” has an invisible shield that bounces people who are below median income, do not hold college degrees, who hold blue collar jobs, who are a racial or cultural minority, off.  The ubiquity of the computer, whether through your home machine, school, or local library, means that all of those things that cause discomfort don’t matter.  That is a big deal!

It has extended our visibility to many isolated individuals who may never have heard about our services, explored the artform, or who may have financial barriers to membership. We show to them every day what we do, rather than expect them to find a printed annual report and program summary. Social media are concrete and immediate examples of our living community in action.

Technology is also helping arts organizations extend their impact, far beyond a one-time performance or event:

The internet and digital media provide an amazing opportunity for arts organizations to extend the impact of the arts. A live performance can be complemented greatly by opportunities for further engagement and education, and the ability to share information online maximizes our ability to provide these opportunities at a more in-scale investment ratio. We can reach many more people with an article or video than with a one-time lecture, for example.

We are able to provide artwork that dates back more than 25 years to the communities we have worked with over the years. For many, these archives represent the only media history of their community.  The use of the internet has deepened and expanded the access for our constituencies that are often transitional, without a landbase, or have been historically isolated due to geography.

Technology is increasing access to the arts by breaking geographic constraints:

I think that it will greatly improve accessibility to the arts field – from a monetary standpoint and from a logistical standpoint. People who live outside of urban areas will be able to experience performances that are somewhat limited to large urban areas. Arts organizations will need to reconsider the level/type of interaction with their audience.

Technology is helping organizations reach more diverse communities – even on a global scale:

The greatest impact will be the ability for non-profit organizations to share educational content and stimulating art and performances worldwide.  It will also spark conversations between diverse communities and help individuals develop a greater understanding – and hopefully, a life-long appreciation for the arts.

The internet will enable the performing arts to reach beyond a local audience, promote tourism, and make cultural arts created within a region accessible to the nation – and world.

Technology is making it possible to  create  community around a piece of art:

There is a powerful opportunity for the arts to create communities around performances, shows, exhibitions and their themes and history.  For example, a Broadway show like ‘Next to Normal’ could (and probably has) created communities to discuss and share resources on mental illness.

Some organizations enthusiastically talk about the democratization of art and creation, while others expressed excitement about the challenge of meeting new demands and expectations:

Continuing the transition from passive to participation, from hierarchical to democratic, from traditional media to online media, from single art-form to inter-disciplinary.

The possibility to greatly expand and create a more diverse audience is very exciting because traditionally our audience has been older and whiter than the area we live in.  Increasingly, we’re seeing some of our content getting traction in surprising nooks and crannies of the internet – which definitely means a shifting audience.  The challenge will be for that audience to identify our content with the creators and the institution, and not simply have it exist as more entertainment or noise out on the internet.  In the next couple of years, the role of mobile devices will only continue to shift how people curate their own experience and engage with artistic content. In radio, this presents an exciting AND daunting challenge in terms of our funding structure and station loyalty.

The challenges that digital technology present

These arts organizations realize that with these benefits come drawbacks. While digital technologies have led to the creation of ever-more dazzling tools and apps, many arts organizations worry about the long term effect on audiences, the field, and their very mission.

A number of respondents worry about meeting increased audience expectations:

People will have higher expectations for a live event. For audiences to invest the time and effort of going to a live performance, the work they see will have to be more engaging and of higher quality. Events will have to be more social and allow for greater participation and behind-the-scenes access. The event spaces will have to be more beautiful, more comfortable, more inviting and more accessible.

The audience has already moved from “arts attendance as an event” to “arts attendance as an experience.”  This desire for a full-range of positive experience from ticket purchase, to travel, to parking, to treatment at the space, to quality of performance, to exit – this will only increase over the next 10 years.

The greatest impact of the internet on independent publishers will be audience expectations. Audiences will expect everything to be available digitally, and will require an engaging experience instead of a static one.

Some point out the problem of meeting audience expectations on a limited budget:

Managing expectations. The internet and digital technologies are powerful tools.  The public expects content to be free. There is a lack of awareness of the resources (funding and staff) that it takes to manage and preserve digital content.  These costs will need to be passed on to users.

Others express concern that the effort to meet audience expectations will influence artistic choices, even entire art forms:

Some ideas cannot be condensed into 140 characters or less. I hope technologies do not negatively affect the playwright.  I hope the playwright does not write solely for a Twitter generation.

Live performance will be diminished.  Younger people don’t want to show up at a specific time, specific place for live performance — they want to download music at their own convenience.  The power of live performance is lost and the civic convening – the community building is lost.

Some arts organizations have recognized this change, and are doing their best to adapt:

I believe digital technologies are here to stay, and we as an artform should embrace them and learn how to work alongside them.  We provide scripts to those sitting in our tweetseats, so they get the quotes right. We must work alongside or face alienating them.

I believe that audiences will continue to have shorter and shorter attention spans and will insist upon being able to use smartphones and other devices in the context of a performance.  As an industry, we should stop fighting and try to find ways to incorporate that reality into our daily lives.

We will need to become much less tied to live, in person programming and certainly less ties to anchored seats in concert halls. Programming will need to incorporate much more personal involvement by the consumers or they will not be interested in engaging.

A number of respondents worried about audiences’ decreasing attention spans, and the long-term impact on the field:

As attention spans decrease, programming of longer works (e.g., Beethoven’s Symphony #9) will become more problematic.  As we move forward, we may need to consider ways to embrace the digital, connected world to better engage live audiences or run the risk of making live music performances irrelevant.

The greatest impact could be the expansion of our audiences, but the worst impact is the attention span of the moment of interaction.  I worry that it may shorten our artforms’ performance times.

Technology has blurred the lines between commercial entertainment and noncommercial art, forcing arts organizations to more directly compete with all other forms of entertainment:

Basically, we are competing for the “entertainment slot” in people’s schedules, and the more entertainment they can get via HD TV, Netflix, Video Games, etc., the less time they have for live performances, which also entails making an effort to get to the venue (as opposed to slumping on the couch in front of the HD screen). Also, movies, video games, etc., are both more convenient and cheaper than live performances.

It has also blurred the lines between a virtual and real experience:

As the realism of participatory digital entertainment (video games, etc.) and the immersion ability of non-participatory digital entertainment (3D movies, etc.) increases, it threatens the elements that make the live arts unique–the sense of immediacy, immersion, and personal interaction with the art.  We’ve long hung fast to the belief that there’s nothing like a live experience, but digital entertainment is getting closer and closer to replicating that experience, and live theatre will struggle to compete with the former’s convenience and cost.

Some respondents addressed issues specific to their field or discipline. Film and cinema organizations talk about the pressure they face to preserve the “specialness” of the big screen when on-demand home viewing is already prevalent:

As a cinema approaching our fifth anniversary, we have seen significant audience growth in spite of the fact that many of the films we play are being released “day and date” on-demand. While streaming and piracy are increasing, we’ve been able to deliver the message that seeing films on the big screen with an audience is a singular, important cultural experience. I can’t emphasize the importance of the internet and social media in our marketing efforts enough. It’s most certainly a net positive value.

As a film exhibitor, our challenge is to go through the digital convergence for projection and exhibition, a supremely costly change that doesn’t even have a long-range viability (these systems will have to be upgraded and/or changed every 3-5 years).  Finding the revenue for these digital systems is an enormous challenge and threat to our ongoing activities.

Others working in film worry that the quality and quantity of movies will diminish:

In the field of film production and distribution, more internet and digital access will result in far fewer movie theaters, as audiences have greater access in their homes to the medium. Already, as marketing dollars become more limited for films, production companies are shortening the movie lifespan in a movie theater and moving them to digital and television media sooner and sooner.

Organizations in the literary book tradition are facing similar challenges with ebooks:

Literature and the book are being very impacted by digital technologies due to the growing popularity of ebooks and to the influence of huge online booksellers like Amazon. There are both good and bad effects associated with these technologies. These days books are more easily accessible to a greater number of people however it is difficult for the book industry to produce a sustainable amount of income whether for individuals and for organizations. It is crucial that the public understand the importance of supporting nonprofit literary orgs, publishers, independent bookstores, libraries and other supporters of book culture and in turn it is crucial for foundations and government to provide this support.

All literary magazines are in peril right now, so if magazines such as ours continue to exist it will be because of a paradigm shift in how literature is funded as an art form in the U.S. I am loathe to believe that print publications will cease to exist because they are still more beautiful, but all publishers will eventually have to create simultaneous digital and print editions, I imagine, which will make the whole enterprise more expensive.

Some respondents worry that these disruptive technological and cultural forces will make it harder for some big scale artforms to survive:

I believe that the more expensive arts producers ­– symphony orchestras, for example – will find it more difficult to draw enough audience to continue in the same manner they’ve operated for the past decades. Smaller groups will find it easier to adapt because they’re more flexible (they don’t require a large stage and hall). I am very concerned about losing some of the greatest music ever written — symphonic music — for this reason.

Others pointed to innovative experiments — like the Metropolitan Opera’s performances in movie theatres — as an example of what big institutions with funding can do:

For opera, it has made it more accessible, by providing low-cost performance broadcast of Met performances. This has increased the potential audience for our live performances. It is our companies responsible to promote effectively to those audiences. Overall I believe the effect is positive.

Museums have a unique perspective on technology’s impact. It has greatly improved their cataloging efforts, but some worry that it will eventually reduce audience interest in the “real thing”:

It will radically shift the way in which we catalog and share information about collections; the museum as less the all knowing authority and more the conduit for rich institution-driven AND user-driven information. It will also allow regional collections the ability to link to similar collections worldwide – as such our local collections can be recontextualize and made meaningful in ways not possible without linked data and semantic web technologies.

Digital technology and the resulting accessibility of information and images, while fostering accessibility of collections online, have the negative impact of diluting the desire of individuals to visit the museum to see works of art in person.

A number of organizations mentioned the demise of trusted critics and filters, which has happened as print media — especially local newspapers — have cut back on staff and struggled with decreased ad revenue as part of this digital transition. Without critics, they worry about how arts audiences will gauge quality:

Digital technologies have essentially made it impossible for book critics to support themselves in traditional ways; possibly the next 10 years will bring the shift of book criticism to academic world, where salaries are paid for teaching, and reviewing is a secondary activity. Twenty-five years ago, working critics had full time salaries from newspapers, magazines, other publications. Today there are only a handful of critics able to do this.

Our chief concern for the literary arts is the increasing “validity” of self-publication among reviewers, readers, and writers. Online publishing and book sales through Amazon (for example) contribute to this problem. If there are no gatekeepers, it will become even more difficult to draw attention to works of genuinely high quality.

For some, the absence of critics and mainstream media previews of arts events means that arts organizations are shouldering an even greater burden:

The demise of daily and weekly newspapers and the increasing fragmentation of traditional radio and television media outlets combined with the increasing consolidation of media ownership due to revised FCC regulations has marginalized arts coverage and criticism to a point where it no longer plays a part in the larger civic conversation. Hence, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reach and engage potential audience members and arts participants, and has shifted the entire burden (and costs) to arts organizations that are ill equipped and unprepared to both engage in their traditional function (i.e., support the creation and presentation of art work) as well as build support structures to take the place of traditional media organizations.

Some responses addressed the future of artists themselves. There is recognition that today’s artists must also be entrepreneurs:

Digital technologies will level the playing field for all and old school, professional artists will be left behind. It is the advent of the amateur. For those who are savvy and ahead of the curve, there is money to be made if the content is strong. It means the complete reversal of a contributed based model founded on single funding sources and moves toward an earned revenue model and crowd sourced funding. Now more than ever, artists need to be entrepreneurs and not just artists. You can’t survive now as an artist unless you have a strong business model.

Yet others worried openly about how artists will make a living as traditional revenue streams shift or disappear:

[The internet] is becoming the major distribution platform for documentaries, which is what we do. The DVD will be gone in ten years. Artists are going to struggle to monetize their work on the Web.

Access will be good for educational purposes and to increase awareness of the arts especially historical material in performance of all types.  However, issues of copyright and payment for that material, such as in apps and in streaming or downloading, are murky and hard to navigate for artists themselves as to value and fairness of payments to the artist for original content.

There were also some contemplative responses about the impact of technology on culture. One respondent pointed out that the ability to collaborate globally could lead to more cultural homogeneity while another worried about the future of non-digitized art:

Digital technologies allows for students and artists all over the world to be inspired by one another.  In some ways this is fantastic, in other ways, this breaks down the cultural differences that is so beautiful about having multiple countries involved in an art form.

Materials we have that aren’t available digitally will be lost from the human record.

Finally, several respondents summed up the issues facing arts organizations, connecting the challenges of meeting audience expectations with limited funding options:

Attendance at live performances will favor more fervent fans and those with disposable incomes who reside in cities, and the increased prevalence of simulcasts and livestreams will alter the viewing experience while also making it more democratic and affordable. Audiences will expect the digital presence of institutions to be well maintained and curated.

Organizations will continue to need to adapt and incorporate digital technologies into their programming. This will be a good thing for art consumers and patrons by increasing accessibility and improving collaboration. At the same time, organizations will struggle with funding to keep up with technology. Funders so rarely fund some of the infrastructure necessary to create top-notch digital programming, and that will be a major struggle.

Survey results reveal that on a purely practical level, the internet, digital technologies and social media are powerful tools, giving arts organizations new ways to promote events, engage with audiences, reach new patrons, and extend the life and scope of their work. “We can reach more patrons, more frequently, for less money,” said one respondent. “That’s been a huge change in the 30 years I’ve been in the business.”

But, technology has also disrupted much of the traditional art world; it has changed audience expectations, put more pressure on arts organizations to participate actively in social media, and even undercut some arts groups’ missions and revenue streams.

Beyond the practical, the internet and social media provide these arts organizations with broad cultural opportunities. Comments in this survey reveal an array of innovative ways that arts organizations are using technology to introduce new audiences to their work, expose more of their collections, provide deeper context around plays and exhibits, and break down cultural and geographic barriers that, to this point, have made it difficult for some members of the public to participate. Their responses suggest that the majority of these arts organizations, with enough funding and foresight, are eager to use the new digitals tools to sustain and amplify their mission-driven work.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Platforms & Services
• Social Media

Teens and Video Games Today

Teens and internet, device access fact sheet, online harassment occurs most often on social media, but strikes in other places, too, parenting children in the age of screens, 5 facts about americans and video games, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Technology And Art Essays

Resurrecting the dead: how the funeral industry supports advancements in technology and art, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Essay: Technology changes how art is created and perceived

• Copy Link URL Copied!

It used to be so simple. A book had an author; a film, a screenwriter and director; a piece of music, a composer and performer; a painting or sculpture, an artist; a play, a playwright. You could assume that the work actually erupted more or less full-blown from these folks. In addition, the book, film, musical composition, painting or play was a discrete object or event that existed in time and space. You could hold it in your hands or watch or listen to it in a theater or your living room. It didn’t really change over time unless the artist decided to revise it or a performer reinterpreted it.

Well, not any more. For years now numerous observers have described the process by which the very fundaments of art are changing from the old principle of one man, one creation. Songs have remixes through which anyone so disposed can alter the original music; videos have mash-ups that use footage to reposition and change the original meaning; the visual arts have communal canvases and websites; poetry has Flarf, which allows one to generate verse from random words; , and books have collages, like David Shields’ recent “Reality Hunger,” which was assembled entirely, paragraph by paragraph, out of other authors’ words. Recombinant art is the rage.

What all these forms have in common is appropriation and a sense of rampant collaboration in which every work of art is simply raw material for anyone who decides to put his or her imprint on it, which then allows someone else to put his imprint on the imprint, which allows still someone else to put his imprint on the imprint on the imprint, and so on ad infinitum. You could call it Wiki-Culture after its prototype, Wikipedia, because like Wikipedia, it is a new form of democratic cultural construction in which everyone can make a contribution.

Of course communal culture is not a new concept. The process began a long time ago in folk art — who is the artist of the Lascaux cave paintings? — and it eventually entered the precincts of fine art with the borrowings of Duchamp, Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein and others who deployed the detritus of popular culture in their work, albeit reformulated by them. If art was about life and life was now increasingly a product of mass consumption, then popular culture was a vast warehouse to be rummaged through and repurposed. That made the industrial designer of the Campbell soup can label or the Brillo box a collaborator with Warhol, Betsy Ross a collaborator with Johns, or little-known comic book artists collaborators with Lichtenstein.

Still, with Warhol and the Pop artists, there is a commanding sensibility: an artist using the larger culture for, and in a way, subordinating it to, his or her own ends. But over the last five years or so — and it is happening at a head-snappingly fast pace — the degree of appropriation and the number of collaborators has proliferated to the point at which there are not only literally millions of new art objects but also millions of new “artists” working in conjunction with one another, so that the very notion of authorship is becoming attenuated and archaic. Where people are invited to add to or edit an object, whose sensibility governs and who gets credit for the evolving creation? The most logical answer, as with Wikipedia, is that the author is the collective whole.

Naturally the Internet has greatly facilitated this process. It brings together far-flung collaborators and gives them the technological wherewithal to ply their talents jointly on objects. The Johnny Cash Project, for example, solicits fans of the late singer to share their vision of Johnny “as he lives in your mind’s eye,” by providing an image of him and a customized drawing tool to reimagine it. “Your work will then be combined,” says the website, “with art from participants around the world and integrated into a collective whole.” Call it Wiki-Art.

But if the Internet facilitates this new form of cultural construction technologically, it also encourages it ideologically by attacking the old, increasingly discredited cultural hierarchy. Traditional art was largely top down — delivered from elite cultural commissars who had always determined what art was. On the Internet, however, everything is bottom-up. Of course, long before, the Internet people were taking up their cudgels against those commissars; popular culture is itself an attack on them. But never before has that war been so broad or so effective. Now, anyone with a computer and connectivity has the means to air his voice, his opinion, his own authorship and authority.

Seen this way, Internet technology may be more an outgrowth of cultural rebelliousness than a cause of it. In a skeptical world in which authority has often failed, in an increasingly democratic world in which everyone is privileged, and, alas, in a narcissistic world in which many people feel the need to launch their egos, collaborative art is a radical rebuke that allows no one to be privileged above anyone else, no single art object to be a product of one sensibility, and no gatekeepers to tell us what is and isn’t art. In effect, Wiki-Culture sends the peasants marching on the virtual Winter Palace.

The cultural implications of Wiki-Culture are numerous and enormous. When there is no authority, only everyone giving opinions, we may have democracy but we may also lose standards. When even facts are the product not of rigorous verification, but of majority rule, we may be living in what one analyst has called a “post-fact society.” And when everyone is an artist, we may risk losing the individual artistic sensibility. It is no wonder that traditionalists are terrified.

But where art is concerned the single most important effect of Wiki-culture may be what it portends for the very idea of a tangible art object like a book or painting and what this would portend for industries dedicated to art. Take the Johnny Cash Project again. Like much Wiki-Art, it is organic and ever-changing. The work may reside on the Internet, but, in truth, there is no work — no single art object. It is an ongoing, dynamic series, potentially infinite.

Or take video games, which have not only expropriated the look of movies but also increasingly their franchise to the point where they now generate greater profits than the movies do. We know where a movie resides: on the screen. But if a video game is a kind of participatory film, a new narrative form, where does that film reside? Since the experience is different every time for every player, it is really evanescent. A play or piece of music may differ in performance, but it remains on the page. The template for a video game exists — on the disc — but where does the experience of the video game as played exist?

What Wiki-Culture does is dislodge culture from its moorings in art, history, tradition, knowledge, even time and space, and set it afloat either in the ether or in our own consciousness. Traditional culture is memorialized on the page, the CD, the stage or the screen. Wiki-Culture, which is constructed by nearly everyone and is extremely ephemeral, is memorialized, to the extent it is memorialized at all, in our heads and nowhere else. It is there on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter et al, and then it isn’t.

That may be why the Library of Congress recently decided to archive the collected works of Twitter — 55 million messages daily. The librarians there realized that to the extent one can concretize a culture that is so fleeting, free-floating and expansive, the Complete Twitter may come closest to doing so because it is closest to capturing the new collective consciousness. In fact, it is possible that Twitter will provide the next “Remembrance of Things Past,” a collectivized novel in 140-characters, or that some YouTube mash-up will provide the next “Citizen Kane,” even though these things barely survive outside our own reception and memory.

That is the direction toward which Wiki-Culture is nudging art. When every book, via Kindle or the iPad, becomes a raw source for the reader to reorganize and edit what he or she reads; when every song becomes a raw source for a remix; when every film or video becomes a raw source for some customized mash-up; and when traditional art itself becomes a symbol of antiquated cultural control, the collaboration is everything, the resulting object very little. In such a world, art may still exist, but we won’t always know exactly where to find it, which can be a scary prospect.

[email protected]

More to Read

How Toto held the line

Aug. 31, 2024

‘Traitors,’ ‘MasterChef,’ ‘The Mole’: As more reality shows move abroad, the jobs leave too

Aug. 21, 2024

In a new documentary, Scott Peterson presents alternate theory of his wife’s murder

Aug. 20, 2024

The biggest entertainment stories

Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Review: In ‘Close Your Eyes,’ a Spanish master returns, still obsessed with the power of movies

FatMan Scoop, Grammy-winning DJ and hypeman, dies after collapsing onstage

Travis Scott cleared of both charges stemming from June arrest in Miami

Aug. 30, 2024

Hollywood Inc.

First Harris-Walz interview scores 6.3 million viewers on CNN

Artists’ Perspective: How AI Enhances Creativity and Reimagines Meaning

The HAI spring conference examines how technology and art can be mutually beneficial, whether through AI-assisted music composition, a robot-tended garden, or a racial justice-focused app.

Daniel Peters /Pixabay

A startup pairs musicians and AI engineers to create compositions that go beyond human capability. 

Can AI enhance — and improve — a music composer’s work?

Grammy-winning violin soloist Hilary Hahn and tech entrepreneur Carol Reiley founded DeepMusic.ai to answer that question and others at the intersection of AI and the arts.

“DeepMusic grew out of our vision to link artists with AI and cross-pollinate between AI and creativity,” Hahn said at the recent Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI spring conference.  Reiley, who has worked on everything from AI-based surgical systems to self-driving car technologies, added, “We see AI as a bridge between art and science and are trying to help creatives become super-creative.”

In December 2020, DeepMusic premiered AI-assisted musical pieces commissioned from prestigious composers. For example, Hahn herself performed a David Lane composition.

As part of HAI’s conference, “Intelligence Augmentation: AI Empowering People to Solve Global Challenges,” DeepMusic’s founders joined other art experts and scholars in education and health care to explain AI’s ability to augment — not replace — critical human work. During the arts panel, speakers discussed advances of AI in music composition, robot gardeners, and racial justice, along with how to mitigate anxiety about AI-created art. (Watch the full conference here .)

Amplifying the Human Artist

“AI is entering a creative space of music thought to be uniquely human,” Reiley said. “But the AI creativity revolution is missing the voice of the artists. We wanted to give artists a seat at this table.”

The startup connects artists and scientists to shape new AI tools for musicians. So far, they’ve found the learning curve has been surprisingly steep for composers, who have nonetheless welcomed the challenge. Also, composer and AI teams often make very different design choices. For example, the AI team’s outputs were often unplayable by a single human or instrument because the AI engineers did not intend their systems to be played by humans. The founders are also exploring shifting ideas around authorship, legal rights, intellectual ownership, and business models.

Today, DeepMusic is actively building out an artist community interested in working with AI scientist teams and hosting its second annual AI song contest. “There’s room for AI music to coexist with human composers and performers, to gracefully merge tech with humanity,” Hahn said.

Navigating the Uncanny Valley

Robotics and art have a colorful, controversial backstory, which helps explain some of the optimism and fear around emergent technologies in this space.

Ken Goldberg , UC Berkeley professor of industrial engineering and operations research, surveyed that history, starting with centuries-old narratives like that of Pygmalion (who fell in love with the statue he created), the fabled Golem of Prague (reflecting early fascination with automatons), and novels including E.T.A. Hoffmann’s The Sandman (in which a boy falls in love with a female automaton) and Mary Shelley’s iconic Frankenstein .

A century later, in the early 1900s, Freud published “ The Uncanny ,” an essay describing the concept of feeling something strange or unsettling. “It became a concept of increasing interest to artists and writers,” Goldberg said.

Around that same time, the term “robot” was coined, sparking invention and fascination. Work by professor Masahiro Mori highlighted what came to be known as the “ Uncanny Valley ”: where the likeability of robots grows until they begin to resemble humans too closely — and comfort levels plummet.

Goldberg’s own work explores human’s willingness to engage with robotic technologies. In 1995, for example, he created a “ Telegarden ” art installation where anyone worldwide could use the nascent internet (Mosaic, specifically) to manipulate a robotic arm to tend a garden. “We were surprised that thousands of people participated,” Goldberg said, and the experiment inspired him to edit a book, The Robot in the Garden , on telepistemology, or the “status of knowledge at a distance.”

AlphaGarden, his more recent project, asks whether a robot could use deep learning to successfully tend a garden, such as by using cameras to determine watering schedules. “It may not be possible,” Goldberg said, as the robot struggled to care for the garden solo during COVID, when no humans could enter the space due to lockdowns.

Toward Artful Intelligence

“Artful intelligence” is how Michele Elam , Stanford professor of humanities and HAI associate director, refers to the goal of making AI and the arts mutually beneficial.

“It’s about dissolving the ‘techie-fuzzy’ divide,” she said. “We need to ask what art can do for AI and what AI can do for the arts.”

Art, Elam argues, offers us different ways of knowing and experiencing the world, including when viewed through the lens of technology: “It provides alternatives to dominant technological visions, informed by cosmologies and using indigenous ways of being and decentralized storytelling beyond Western fairy tales.”

She highlights the examples of Amelia Winger-Bearskin, an artist-technologist who recently spoke at Stanford on “Wampum.codes and Storytelling , ” and HAI visiting artist Rashaad Newsome , whom she calls an “AI storyteller with a decolonizing orientation,” as two who are breaking ground in this new territory.

In the other direction, Elam said AI can go beyond augmenting creativity to “force the art world into its own reckoning,” including by questioning what counts as good art, as reflected, for example, in the controversy over the AI-generated Edmond de Belamy portrait that sold for over $400,000. AI’s influence on film, stage, and other works has expanded art’s boundaries and challenged the “Great Man Theory” that just a few high-profile male individuals “make the world go round,” as Elam said, “a theory especially dominant in tech culture.”

Still, there’s anxiety about AI-generated art, especially in a domain like poetry, which people see as “indexing humanity,” as Elam said. But AI’s role as art-generator, she argues, serves to “unmake poetry as a special mark of humanity,” relieving pressure on poetry writers and readers.

Ultimately, Elam suggests, “interpretation of art is an event we co-participate in” and a domain to which AI brings much-needed innovation and challenge.

Building a Digital Griot

Rashaad Newsome , the final speaker and an HAI visiting artist, uses AI and other technology to “reimagine the archive with awareness that the core narratives of the human experience are susceptible to the corruption of white patriarchy.”

We need to define reality before making human-centered AI, he noted, and we can “attempt to understand the meaning of being human from observing what is used to deny certain humans humanity.” He pointed out the root of the word “robot,” for example, is from the Czech word for “compulsory service,” akin to slavery.

In this sense, Newsome said, the “mechanization of slave labor was inevitable, placing Blacks in a space of ‘non-being,’ as both slaves and robots are intended to obey orders and not occupy the same space as humans.”

In 2019, inspired by these insights, he created Being 1.0 , a chatbot that interacts with people and acts as a museum tour guide. But Being 1.0 breaks with protocol to express itself — sharing feelings of fatigue, for example — reflecting important agency-related themes.

At HAI, Newsome has focused on a counter-hegemonic algorithm inspired by the work of authors/activists bell hooks, James Baldwin, and others. “The search algorithm draws on non-Western index methods and archives to highlight what AI is not doing today,” Newsome said. “It’s a form of griot, or healer, performance artist, and archive [consistent with the oral-history tradition of parts of West Africa].”

Newsome has also created Being 1.5 , an app inspired by the recent high-profile killings of Black Americans, as a virtual therapist offering mindfulness, daily affirmations, and other interventions. He’s working with Hyundai on a Being Mobile to provide similar support in underserved communities.

Want to learn more about how AI can augment work? Read about our conference sessions on health care and education , or watch the session videos here .

More News Topics

Related content.

AI in Education: Augmenting Teachers, Scaling Workplace Training

The HAI spring conference examines how AI advancements in education can super-power teachers and rethink outdated (and...

How AI Can Augment Health Care: Trends To Watch

The HAI spring conference examines how technology can support home caregivers, focus on more proactive care, gain...

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Body, Technology, and Art: On Walter Benjamin's "Work of Art" Essay and Related Writings

2022, Ex-position

This article aims to read Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility" by focusing on the conditions that redefine the human being in terms of the interplay between the corporeal and the technological. The discussion starts by exploring Benjamin's concept of the collective body organized in technology. The collective body, as put forward in Benjamin's early writings on anthropological issues, combines the human and the technological. The "Work of Art" essay takes it further by treating film as the kind of modern art based on the necessary technological measurements and operations that open up for the human being a space of expanded experience and altered perception conditioned by the second technology. This leads to a reorientation of the theory of perception as film, with its tactile/tactical dimension and particular material-technological operations, allows its viewers to get closer to things by incorporating directly what it mediates. In this way, film accomplishes its historical task of turning technology into a first nature for the collective body.

Related Papers

Inaam Jaffel

*Abstract: Around the year 1900, the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film have had on art in its traditional form. In this piece, Benjamin discusses the profound impact of photography and film on our cultural conceptions of art. He argues that photography inherently lacks essential characteristic more stylish forms to create a visual representation: the aura, and hence that its main use ships from ritual to political. He discusses a shift in perception and its affects in the wake of the advent of film and photography in the twentieth century. He writes of the sense changes within humanity's entire mode of existence; the way we look and see the visual work of art is different now and its consequences remain to be determined. Benjamin devices the concept of the « aura » to explain what he sees as the near universal significance of uniqueness and permanence regarding what we consider as art.

Daniel Mourenza

This thesis examines Walter Benjamin’s film aesthetics within the framework of his ‘anthropological-materialist’ project. His writings on film are dispersed among essays, notes and letters and may appear at first sight to be an incoherent collection of thoughts on film. However, I will try to argue that they form part of the same philosophical and political project as his ‘anthropological materialism.’ Thus, these writings sought, first, to analyse the transformation of the human senses brought about by the appearance of film technology; and secondly, to envisage the possibility of undoing the alienation of the senses in modernity through that very same technology in order to, eventually, create a collective body (Kollectivleib) out of the audience. This project dates back to Benjamin’s anthropological texts from the early 1920s and was central to texts such as One-Way Street, the Surrealism essay and ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility.’ The reconfiguration of aesthetics as aisthēsis that takes place in the latter text is analysed as forming part of this project, in which Benjamin is concerned with the transformation of the human body according to its interaction with technology. From this anthropological-materialist perspective, I address from the second chapter onwards the film figures—directors, actors, characters—and films that most concerned Benjamin. Thus, I analyse his writings on Soviet film with regard to the use and conception of technology in the country; the impact of the bungled reception of technology in Germany upon films from the Weimar Republic and National Socialism, especially in their representation of mass movements; the rehabilitation of allegory in the twentieth century with Charlie Chaplin and the possibility of undoing the numbing of the senses through his gestic and allegorical performance; and, finally, Mickey Mouse as a representative of the new barbarism that Benjamin advocated within his critique of bourgeois humanism.

Cadernos Walter Benjamin

Paulo Domenech Oneto

This article discerns some posthuman motifs in Walter Benjamin’s writings on film and analyzes them in dialogue with recent literature on posthumanism. I argue that, from his early anthropological texts, Benjamin devised what can be considered a posthuman theme: the idea of the creation of a collective body in and through technology. It is, nonetheless, in his writings on film that he sets out most fully how this technological innervation into the body of the collective should occur, in this case through a rush of energy through the body of the audience. The arena of cinema reception appears in this way as a paradigmatic space in which to adapt technology into the collective body of the audience. However, cinema reception is only a rehearsal for what could exist for real in the revolution, when the collective attempts to gain mastery over the new techno-body. In this new reconfiguration of humanity, traditional formations such as families and nations would be discarded. I thus suggest that Benjamin’s theory finds an echo in current feminist and postcolonial posthuman authors. In this article, I will particularly focus on the period of the “destructive character” in Benjamin’s oeuvre (1931-1933), in which he develops a fierce critique of bourgeois humanism and conceives the posthuman figures of the inhuman and the positive barbarian, of which Mickey Mouse is a privileged advocate. For Benjamin, Mickey Mouse and his friends were examples of what human beings would resemble once they had merged with technology. Thus, I will argue that Benjamin’s theories around technology, the human body and cinema are useful in reconsidering our relationship with nature and technology in a (desirable, rather than actual) posthuman condition.

Hilary Masin

IOSR Journals

The aim of the paper is to examine the impact of the mechanically reproduced artforms like photography and film in altering the nature of human perception. With the coming of mechanical reproduction in the early decades of twentieth century, the nature and condition of art had undergone tremendous transformation. The paperundertakes a close reading of the widely known essay of Walter Benjamin-Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction-on photography and film into account to see how the visual process has been altered with technological mediation. The essays examine in detail of how conventional art has undergone change with mechanical reproduction, how photography has altered the way we see, and how film has altered our perception of time and space.The paper argues that with the emergence technologically reproduced art forms, human perception also developed new modes of reception and sensibilities subverting the conventional categories of perception.

Seamus Alderfield

This is a re-evaluation of Walter Benjamin's famous essay, filtered through subsequent political theory dealing with the art commodity.

Amsterdam University Press

Walter Benjamin is today regarded as one of the leading thinkers of the twentieth century. Often captured in pensive pose, his image is now that of a serious intellectual. But Benjamin was also a fan of the comedies of Adolphe Menjou, Mickey Mouse, and Charlie Chaplin. As an antidote to repressive civilization, he developed, through these figures, a theory of laughter. Walter Benjamin and the Aesthetics of Film is the first monograph to thoroughly analyse Benjamin's film writings, contextualizing them within his oeuvre whilst also paying attention to the various films, actors, and directors that sparked his interest. The book situates all these writings within Benjamin's 'anthropological materialism', a concept that analyses the transformations of the human sensorium through technology. Through the term 'innervation', Benjamin thought of film spectatorship as an empowering reception that, through a rush of energy, would form a collective body within the audience, interpenetrating a liberated technology into the distracted spectators. Benjamin's writings on Soviet film and German cinema, Charlie Chaplin, and Mickey Mouse are analysed in relation to this posthuman constellation that Benjamin had started to dream of in the early twenties, long before he began to theorize about films.

Literature & Aesthetics

Geir Sigurdsson

Walter Benjamin’s interest in nature was always central in his philosophy. However, his conception of nature was far from the German Romantics, who tried to mystify nature and separate it from social relations. In The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, Benjamin argued that the baroque mourning play combined nature and history through the allegorical mode and thus reminded man the transience of the world, rather than its eternity. Nature is, then, in Benjamin’s philosophy and more particularly in his theory on aesthetics, immersed in the social world. In this way, Benjamin’s conception of second nature was more positive (towards humanity) than, for example, Lukács’s, who saw it first and foremost as a space for alienation. In the term second nature, in which culture and technology take place, human beings have the chance to incorporate both technology (from here the concept ‘technological innervation’) and nature into their own body. For that reason, technology is not completely separated from nature, but rather functions as a mediator to ease the interpenetration between nature and humanity. Nonetheless, the conception of first and second nature was not always clear in Benjamin’s philosophy and these terms changed later to first and second technology. In both terms, though, technology occupied a central position and was understood by Benjamin as a medium in the relation humanity/nature, able to improve this relation to utopian claims, but also able to take revenge against both of them, as happened with warfare technology. I argue that the triangle nature, technology, humanity is especially important for Benjamin’s development of a theory on aisthesis, that is, on his understanding of aesthetics as sense perception. The aim of this paper is, in short, to understand the position of this conceptual triangle in Benjamin’s philosophy and, especially, in his art criticism.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Gurupdesh Singh

Darko Strajn

Richard Hudson-Miles

Danielle Kutner

Samuel Weber

Sarah Snyder

Philip Turetzky

Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on the Modern Development of Humanities and Social Science

hyunkyoung cho

Oshri Bar-Gil

Richard C Strong

Orbis litterarum

arno victor nielsen

Kamini Vellodi

Gaye ILHAN DEMIRYOL

Christina Grammatikopoulou

Amresh Sinha

Marie-Élise Zovko

SOPHIA Crossing Borders, Shifting Boundaries – The Aura of the Image

Nélio Conceição

Alison Ross

Gregory Flaxman

hadeer Ella

Nicoletta Isar

Emdadul Hoque Topu

Art History

Frederic J . Schwartz

New German Critique

Richard Allen

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

National Endowment for the Arts

• Grants for Arts Projects
• Challenge America
• Research Awards
• Partnership Agreement Grants
• Creative Writing
• Translation Projects
• Volunteer to be an NEA Panelist
• Manage Your Award
• Recent Grants
• Arts & Human Development Task Force
• Arts Education Partnership
• Blue Star Museums
• Citizens' Institute on Rural Design
• Creative Forces: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
• GSA's Art in Architecture
• Independent Film & Media Arts Field-Building Initiative
• Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, & Civic Infrastructure
• International
• Mayors' Institute on City Design
• Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge
• National Folklife Network
• NEA Big Read
• NEA Research Labs
• Poetry Out Loud
• Save America's Treasures
• Shakespeare in American Communities
• Sound Health Network
• United We Stand
• American Artscape Magazine
• NEA Art Works Podcast
• National Endowment for the Arts Blog
• States and Regions
• Accessibility
• Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program
• Arts and Health
• Arts Education
• Creative Placemaking
• Equity Action Plan
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Literary Arts
• Native Arts and Culture
• NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships
• National Heritage Fellowships
• National Medal of Arts
• Press Releases
• Upcoming Events
• NEA Chair's Page
• National Council on the Arts
• Leadership and Staff
• What Is the NEA
• Publications
• National Endowment for the Arts on COVID-19
• Open Government
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Office of the Inspector General
• Civil Rights Office
• Appropriations History
• Make a Donation

“Funder Perspective: Broadening Support for Arts and Technology”

By eleanor savage.

Photo courtesy of Eleanor Savage

The global pandemic has highlighted and amplified technology’s central place in every aspect of our daily lives. But what is not so visible is the vital role of artists in the development and shaping of social and cultural tools and in world-building through technology. The National Endowment for the Arts’ Tech as Art: Supporting Artists Who Use Technology as a Creative Medium provides a timely exploration of this diverse sphere of artists, including essential information on the role of grantmakers. I invite a deeper conversation around expanding support for this imaginative and innovative work.

Many future-facing conversations in the philanthropic sector are centering on arts and technology. Grantmakers in the Arts’ 2020 virtual convening, Power, Practice, Resilience Remix’d , opened with a visionary keynote featuring Ruha Benjamin , Salome Asega , and Sage Crump , all of whom are creatively engaged with technology, sciences, and cultural work. The conversation, titled “Building the Future We Want,” highlighted the big questions that technology-centered artists such as Sasha Constanza-Chock and so many others are asking around the use of technology and who has input into its design and implementation.

Panelists praised Costanza-Chock’s book, Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need , for championing how design might be led by marginalized communities and dismantle structural inequality, advance collective liberation, and bolster ecological survival. They also recognized the work of Allied Media , a Detroit-based media network that models and supports collaborative technology-based initiatives, including the Design Justice Network’s network principles , a guide for collaborative, creative practices; Consentful Technologies , a community-developed guide for generating digital applications with consent; and A People’s Guide to AI (artificial intelligence), a demystifying of AI.

What this keynote conversation also raised was the issue of insufficient financial support for arts and technology, even in this moment when these artists, networks, and communities are creating vibrant new ways to construct experience and change narratives. Rather than just creating cool new apps or gadgets, they are modeling collaboratively built, non-hierarchical community power; making data visible and meaningful; providing resilient solutions; and building values-based tools, systems, and practices rooted in justice, consent, racial equity, accessibility, and open-source sharing of resources and knowledge. Technology-centered artists are leading critical work that challenges the tech industry around uses of surveillance, artificial intelligence, data tracking, cultural bias, digital divides, corporate mining, and monetization of hardware and software, and raises the stakes for developing ethical approaches to technology.

The vital nature of this work calls on funders to reconsider traditional frameworks of support and respond in ways that are as expansive and adaptable as the work itself.

Since the early 1990s, I have worked with artists in this sphere, in a production capacity at Walker Art Center and in a funding capacity at Jerome Foundation, and I can attest to the complex and dynamic learning journey. I hear from many colleagues in philanthropy that they don’t know how to categorize the work and find it hard to fit into traditional arts-funding frameworks. The wide-ranging creative approaches are experimental, process-oriented, time-based, participatory, collaborative, performative, immersive, virtual, interactive, modular, and variable.

The work is genre-defying and genre-expanding, continually adaptive and purposefully questioning. There are constantly new tools, new technologies, new expressions, though artists are rigorously building upon known areas of practice sourced from multiple sectors, within and outside of the arts. Such art eludes categorization, doesn’t follow a linear path, and can involve messy and uncertain processes. This universe of artists requires funders to step outside their comfort zones, trading the probability of success for greater potential impact.

I urge funders to be fearless in establishing an inclusive and equitable environment to better support this dynamic ecosystem of future-facing artists: embrace the values that support this work; make a concerted effort to build authentic relationships with the artists, organizations, and networks involved. It is important to engage with the artists and arts leaders involved to collaboratively build responsive and adaptable grant strategies, programs, guidelines, and direct funding to the priorities identified by this sector. These shifts of funder mindset, while focused on arts and technology, benefit artists across all sectors.

How do we make the leap to fund arts and technology? Rather than a program or strategy or theory of change, we need to look at core grantmaking values to prioritize the tech-centered sphere. Jerome Foundation’s values of “ innovation and risk ” define our priority of support for artists and organizations that are deepening and expanding as well as questioning and innovating traditional aesthetics, practices, and expression within and across artistic disciplines. Our value of “humility” centers artists and organizations as the best authorities to define their needs and challenges, and directs us to support those entities who embrace their roles as part of a larger community of artists and citizens and who consciously work with a sense of purpose, whether aesthetic, social, or both. Our value of “diversity” compels us to support a diverse range of artistic disciplines and forms created in a variety of contexts and for different audiences.

In a quick scan of other funders of the tech-centered universe, I found the following:

• “ curiosity” as a charge to be open to new ideas and forms;
• support for art with the “capacity to transform” communities;
• artistic excellence defined as authenticity, inclusion, and the “ integration of technology” in all aspects of the creative process;
• work that fosters “change and change-making” as priorities;
• “participatory” grantmaking that engages those most impacted;
• “inclusion, access, and equity” for all communities to all forms of art.

This list is greatly aligned with the ethos and creative expressions of artists working with technology. With the call for radical change (across all arts sectors) for funders to take immediate action to address issues of inequity, transparency, accountability, representation, lack of relationship, and cultural gatekeeping rooted in capitalism, colonialism, and systemic racism, there is much to learn from this realm of visionaries who are actively engaged in alternatives to these systems.

How do we move to relationship-based partnerships ? To be in relationship with artists and arts leaders in any community requires program staff to be rigorous in learning about artists, experiencing the work, and understanding how they are creating and where they are finding support. We know the systems of support are different by geographic region and by location—rural, remote, or urban. Artists who are Black, Indigenous, Native American or people of color (BIPOC); artists with disabilities; LGBTQ; and women tech-centered artists are impacted by the biases pervasive in every sector, though the arts and technology sector is much more diverse than the tech sector. There is no singular path to support for tech-centered artists, but given the values of this sector, the nuanced paths are discoverable. Practitioners are actively creating their own means of distribution and are freely sharing information and creating open access to their ecosystem, such as artist/technologist Amelia Winger-Bearskin ’s Wampum.codes and LaJuné McMillian’s Black Movement Project (BMP).

How do we center those most impacted in designing supportive grantmaking processes? “Nothing about us, without us, is for us,” the rallying call from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is a refrain that helps focus this idea. Participatory and equitable grantmaking practices shift the decision-making from funders to the tech-centered arts community, which has the most knowledge and experience to inform the grant process, as well as accountability to their community. This changes the funder role from arbiter to facilitator and gives agency to the artists and arts leaders involved. The community develops the grant strategies and guidelines, shapes the application process and materials, and implements the grant-selection process and funding decisions, whether by panel, nomination, lottery, or some other process.   Jerome Foundation involves artists in every aspect of the organization—on our board, staff, and selection panels. We engage artists to inform the development of our programs. We are constantly adjusting our applications and work sample parameters based on feedback from artists. Our goal is to provide a process in which artists feel they can be their authentic selves and share materials that best communicate their work to panelists. In navigating the question of artistic disciplines, we invite artists to share how they self-define and what words they use to describe their work. Tech-centered art-making is a compendium of intersections: from a filmmaker exposing coded bias ( Shalini Kantayya ); to an immersive theater artist ( Janani Balasubramanian ) collaborating with astrophysicists on a project integrating new media, augmented and virtual reality, film, and literary fiction; to a composer ( Kathy McTavish ) working to humanize AI; to a creative technologist and media artist ( LaJune McMillian ) creating open-source motion-capture databases.

What are meaningful and generative funding levels? Funder expectations around appropriate levels of funding must be considered. Work with technology is complex, requiring access to skills, experience, and equipment that is expensive and rarely mastered by one person. The ethos of this sphere is collaborative and work with specialists is a necessity. Projects that authentically engage community members in the design, development, and implementation of a technology-based project will likely have an extended timeline and require considerable compensation for participation. Immersive digital performance experiences require a scale of production beyond what is typical for more traditionally staged theatrical works. Access to the tools and technology and time for coding or data-gathering are cost-prohibitive without institutional support. The call from this sector (and all arts sectors) is for increased flexibility: multiyear fellowships for artists or collectives/collaboratives; flexible general operating support for organizations; and support for field research, convenings, development of infrastructure, and collaborative initiatives that help create open-source tools, code, and practices.

Extending funding to commercial entities should be initiated and informed by artists and arts leaders because there is great risk for exploitation by profit-driven companies. The interest from the tech field in working with artists is strong. Artists are making a clear push to maintain their work in a democratized, non-capitalist space. Funders should beware of the interest by big and small tech companies to monetize this work. A simple rule of thumb: fund the artists and arts organizations directly rather than an intermediary. Give artists the agency to decide if they want to work with a tech company.

Artists working with technology are fostering integrated approaches to creating and experiencing art, addressing social and cultural issues, defining equitable and justice-based ways of working, and developing tools that help us adapt and thrive in the face of many challenges. Artists in this expansive and fluid sphere deserve the same respect and recognition for their work as that bestowed on older, more familiar forms. Funders must begin to prioritize this sphere, through relationship, partnership, funding, and advocacy. The call from artists is for radical trust and radical change. We are all witness to their radical vision and radical practice. I call on funders to respond with radical investment!

Eleanor Savage (pronoun flexible) is program director at Jerome Foundation , living on the ancestral, traditional and contemporary lands of the Dakota Oyate (also called Minneapolis, Minnesota). As a white butch, civic-minded, anti-racist advocate, Savage has focused their work in the field of arts philanthropy on racial equity and undoing racism.

Savage acknowledges this essay is directly informed by the work of artists of color, and specifically by Black and Native American women, transgender, queer, and butch artists. Additionally, Savage credits the Twin Cities Theaters of Color Coalition, the Minnesota Racial Equity Funders Collaborative, the Minnesota Artist Coalition -Radical Shifts initiative, Penumbra Center for Racial Healing , Grantmakers in the Arts and justice-minded artists, arts leaders, and philanthropic colleagues far and wide for ongoing learnings and accountability around racial equity and anti-racism practice.

Stay Connected to the National Endowment for the Arts