There are some who would argue that technology ruins the experience of the artist and prevents the artist from being connected to his/her craft. Some will even go as far to say, that an artist that uses technology is no longer an artist but practices in the technical fields (information tech, drafting etc.). How would you respond to someone who says this? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I think it's solely up to the photographer and their opinion on what they think technology is. Older photographers are the only people that will argue that the new technology we have today is ruining photography as we know it. In my opinion, that's definitely false. What we have today, is only helping us achieve a greater level of photography, not lessening it. Today, we have opportunities to capture pictures in such quality that inventors could only dream of hundreds of years ago. Older photographers are using cameras of technology as well, so where is their leeway to comment on how we shouldn't? A bit hypocritical if you ask me. Out of all this, i conjured up the conclusion that, technology only brings the artist closer to their roots of photography, and connects them more. Having choices of different styles of photography leads to individuality between everyone's style of work. That is something we all strive for as artists.
ReplyDeletethe ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships of the like, create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, originality, progressiveness, and/or use of imagination is what it takes to be an artist. everyone is different in the way that one may edit or photograph to taste. technology to our generation is different to previous ones, so to sum it up in a sense it's all the different generations that prove to have different guidelines by what that said technology is. but all in all it stands to what their own taste and efforts/thoughts put into their work is by their means.
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective I think that a person who would come up and say this to me, I would totally disagree with them, for the fact that when I think of a artist it is your own style of showing a expression or a emotion through anything you want. For example you can throw some gunk together and it would still be considered art, so why not have a camera take pictures of stuff you like that from different angles. Technology is just a updated work that can be used for anything, using a camera rather than a paint brush, doesn’t have much of a difference because you are making something into your own mind state through something, not everyone could use a camera and make a picture look good , and not many people can take a paint brush, so they have there difference, but are still in essence are called art in either fourm.
ReplyDeletei think i would punch in the face anyone who tells me that just because a picture is edited it is no longer art, the idea is not even logical because if you put it in the music side more than half of the existing music would not be considered art. art is art because it is an expansion of a persons ideas and feelings, the materials and proceses they use are merely raw materials and the final product is the real art, art is not defined by how you did it but by why you did it, so like i said i would punch him in the face
ReplyDeleteIf you give a group of 5 artists one digital image and tell them to edit it as they wish, you will get back 5 completely different styles of art. The digital aspect of photography has completely changed the field. There are so many ways to change a picture using software like Photoshop or a web-based program like Picnik, that editing pictures is the only way to progress in photography. I've said in the last message board topic that the whole world has already been photographed. But imagine the whole world in cyanotype, black and white, or HDR, cross-processed, or looking like a comic book. Artists don't need a new media when there is so much potential in editing digital images. Technology is always a positive thing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree ENTIRELY. =D
ReplyDeleteI think that the technology we have today is an incredible tool to help us grow as artists. Before, the tools available to artists were the limitation - now, that limitation no longer exists, and as such our imaginations become the limitations. If we can think of it, we can do it. If we use this newfound power wisely, we can create art that we never before thought possible.
With this in mind, how can we honestly separate art and technology? As the technology grows, so does the art. Some may argue that modern technology limits our creativity, but in reality, modern technology allows us to be even more creative. :)
I disagree. Using technology only helps us create better photos. For example using photo shop is the same as editing photos back in the day, its just now on the computer. It is just more effecient. Sure there are more options and more ways to edit pictures but the expasion in technology and options and such happens with everything now a days. It is up to the photographer whether they decide to rely on technology alot or not.
ReplyDeletephotographers have linked their work ethic to technology more and more as time goes on. if you look back to what photography used to be you can see how many things have changed from then on. now photographers rely mostly on the basics of technology itself instead of their own standards. different photographers obviously have different views on all of their own work but it can all be backed up by technology.
ReplyDeleteWell I do agree that to much usage of tech in art can ruin the experiance. A good example of usage of tech in art is how much we use the computer for PHOTOGRAPHY it's photography not computer class come on. we should just go back to using the dark room. At my old school we actually had a black room it was so cool to do the photography in the original way. I am not saying that we should stop the use of tech all together just tone it down a bit.
ReplyDeleteI disagree I think that technology almost always advances art. Like with photography the more technologic advances made for cameras the better quality shots we get meaning depending on the photographer you get good art. But let’s say if we make a mechanical paint brush that works on its own then we take away the artist and it would just be a design nothing special, not man made with mistakes it would be to perfect art can’t be perfect. It also wont disconnect the artist from his/her work an artist will always have to go out and get their subject matter you will always put some part of you in your art work some fragment of your personality will be in that picture your taste is also what creates what it is not the people or things around you.
ReplyDelete