OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
How has technology impacted the visual arts, artists and audiences? The rapid speed at which new technologies are being made and the increase of technological developments, today as a society, we are now more exposed and dependent on technology than ever before. Technology has greatly influenced the way we live and is now integrated within our daily lifestyles. From keeping in contact with acquaintances, to washing our clothes, to even creating and viewing art. Technology has become the very core of our every day routines. As with any other manmade inventions, modern day technology carries with it advantages as well as its disadvantages. In this essay we will discuss the impact that technology has on the visual arts, primarily focusing around the subject of digital art, the artists and audiences. Technological innovation has always had an impact in the world of art and in the words of Paul (2003), “Artists have always been among the first to reflect on the culture and technology of their time,” (Paul, 2003, p.7). Technology’s influence on artists can been seen when looking back at the works of renowned artists established in past art movements. There are connections that are visible between the technological developments and the choices that they made creating their styles. The futurists for example were engrossed by new visual technology, chronophotography being one in particular. This is an antique photographic technique that allowed the movement of a subject to be shown across a sequence of frames. The rhythmic and energetic qualities of the abstract art, such as Giacomo Balla’s ‘Abstract Speed + Sound’ (fig.1.) and ‘Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash’, created during this time were the futurist’s approach to representing movement in a painting, which was significantly influenced by this technology. Art Deco is another art movement that contains many references to the developments in technologies of the early twentieth century; the increased idolization of technology and machines in the society of this time elucidates why articles of machinery such as planes, cars, trains, skyscrapers, stainless steel and other metals were a trademark of Art Deco. As portrayed in Tamara de Lempicka’s ‘Young Lady with Gloves’ (fig. 2.), when people were the subject of an artwork and when actual metals could not be used in the artwork, bold colors, strong geometric patterns and gradients were often used to substitute and mimic the appearance of metals, which emphasized their inspiration and adoration for the machines and technology of this time. The drawn image, as Zeegen (2010) described, “played a crucial role in aiding communication between people; helping us to make sense of our world – to allow us to record, describe, and communicate the intricacies of life.” (Zeegen, 2010) which is what the artworks created during the different art movements reflected. Zeegen (2010) then further stated, “And in some ways, little has changed – today’s illustrators reflect and comment upon, interpret and reinterpret our world, and their own worlds too, of course.” (Zeegen, 2010) with the added advantage, that technology has brought, which has allowed the communication between artists and audiences to be carried out much easily. This is one of the many advantages of the relationship of technology and art. People are more connected to each other through digital means, making the dissemination of information and artwork in this case much easier. With this however, there is also a lot of accompanying anxiety about whether technology will somehow supplant art.
OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
People have always associated art with traditionally produced, laborious, hand painted artworks on canvases that bear the artists ‘mark’ – their brushstrokes – the physical evidence that validates its originality and authenticity. However today, as technology is constantly being improved and developed, the usage of technological devices are also increasing. People are adapting and learning to use technology and the younger generations of our society are being brought up with it. Technology is being used in all sorts of different areas and the increased usage of technology in the art department means that digitally produced art are also on the upsurge. The nature of digital art eliminates the physical evidence of the artist or their ‘mark’, which naturally raised some to question about the very notion of art. When thinking about highly regarded works of art, the first thing that would come to mind would no doubt be the works of the classical masters like Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo. As well as being highly crafted, one would concur that the work’s spatial context and its historical context is another thing that gives it its exclusivity and authority. Art was seen as a status symbol, one that could only be afforded by the wealthy and elite, and out of reach of the lower working class. We can put this into perspective with Michelangelo’s ‘The Creation of Adam’. To physically see the painting in its physical form, one would have to travel to the Vatican City and enter the Sistine Chapel. Only those who have enough time and money would be able to reach it, again, making the work exclusive only to those audiences who can afford it. The painting in its spatial context, a chapel that serves as a place for holy and religious activities, overlooking its spectators from high above also gives the work a mystical significance and authoritativeness. In Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, he discusses the effects that mechanical reproduction has on works of art. The overall feeling of Benjamin’s essay is how the ability to reproduce art could lead to the democratization of art; the idea that it can be within anyone’s reach, where every person has the right to engage in the arts. Benjamin (1986) did not fail to mention that art has always been reproducible, that “Manmade artefacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters diffusing their works, and, finally by third parties in the pursuit of gain.” (Benjamin, 1986, p.218). However, the foremost significance of his essay was how mechanical reproduction presents us with something new, something that is less based on ‘ritual’ but based on another practice – politics. Benjamin (1986) believed that the reproduction of art and thus making art accessible to everyone would “lead to a tremendous shattering of tradition” (Benjamin, 1986, p.221); this tradition being the idea that only the elite can view and enjoy art. The digital age, with the growing availability of technological devices such as cameras, computers and printers, enhances the access to artistic resource. Everyone now has the same opportunity to view, contemplate and create art – ‘shattering’ the barrier of conventional trends in which involvement in the arts was predominantly the domain of the higher social classes, implying that digital technologies can democratize the arts. This notion is reinforced in Benjamin’s essay when he identified that, “The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” (Benjamin, 1986, p.221). Correspondingly, Paul (2003) asserted that it (art) can now “be seen by anyone, anywhere, anytime (provided one has access to the Net)
OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
and does not need a museum to be presented or introduced to the public” and that “the physical gallery/museum context does not necessarily work as a signifier or status any longer.” (Paul, 2003, p.23-24). In essence, both of these individuals agree that technology has made art less of aristocratic nature but more public and democratic. The computer brought in its wake new people to become involved in making art. People, who had never thought of putting pencil to paper, brush to canvas, started making images. Hope and Ryan (2014) stated, “The digital revolution has granted users, who would not necessarily consider themselves artists, the tools to explore creativity on an everyday basis through new technologies.” (Hope and Ryan, 2014, p.15). However, this subsequently raises the levels of anxiety about the vulgarization of art that comes as a result of the democratization of art. The increased accessibility of technological innovations such as computers, creative software and the Internet have made it easy for anyone to create, produce, access and circulate a work of art faster than ever before. In the age of digital reproduction, art is less obscure and thus more exploited. Our society is more saturated with visual information that it is suggested that we are becoming easily disinterested. The ability and the growing availability of digital and printed reproduction of an artwork, raises the question of whether technology is undermining the value of the actual art itself. Benjamin (1986) raises the issue of authorship and the uniqueness of a piece of art in his essay when he indicated, “that which withers in the age of the mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.” (Benjamin, 1986, p.221). Benjamin discusses the concept of authenticity of a work of art as it applies to reproduction, implying that art that was not intended to be mechanically reproduced in printed form, immediately loses its transcendent significance or “its unique existence” (Benjamin, 1986, p.220) once it is removed from its physical and spatial context such as a cathedral, museum or gallery etc. Benjamin (1986) points out that, “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (Benjamin, 1986, p.220). He implied that in the age of mechanical and digital reproduction, the ‘original’ art is lost beneath the endless reproductions of itself. In this effect, this statement has brought fourth, to some, the illusion that digital art – whose presence of a physical unique original, does not exist in the three dimensional sphere – is less authentic, valuable, or worthy than that of traditionally created art. Technology gives an artist many advantages for the image making process, making the production of art more affordable and efficient because of its tools. Works of art produced digitally seemed to some people to be disqualified as art because its execution has eliminated the intensive processes that would be necessary for the creation of an oil painting and its method of production lacks of existence in the threedimensional sphere. It has also been suggested that the formation of artworks such as paintings or drawings on a computer implies a loss of relationship with the ‘mark’ of the artist or as Ligon (2010) described, “taking the human element out of the process.” (Ligon, 2010, p.19), which critics may find rudimentary. Does the elimination of the ‘mark’ mean that digitally produced artworks are less valuable than traditional forms of art? Or rather, would traditional forms of art cease to be the dominant form of expressing our creativity? In Benjamin’s study of Baudelaire, written a few years after ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, he touches back on the notions of aura and
OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
discusses in a subtle manner that which describes his extended opinion of the aura. He testified, “Experience of the aura thus rests on the transposition of a response common in human relationships to the relationship between the inanimate or natural object and man. The person we look at, or who feels he is being looked at, looks at us in return. To perceive an aura of an object we look at means to invest it with the ability to look at us in return.” (Benjamin, 1968, p.188). Although he does not make the point explicit as such, here we can identify the aura as a psychological state – the attitude or feeling that the viewer is subjected to when contemplating a work of art. For digital art, rather than the presence of a physical unique original that makes an artwork authentic, Paul (2003) stated that the importance resides in “their emphasis on formal instructions and their focus on concept, event, and audience participation, as opposed to unified material objects.” (Paul, 2003, p.11). She suggests it is no longer limited to the ‘object’, the physicality of an artwork, but rather the work’s concept – the idea behind a piece of art and how it makes the audience feel that makes an artwork original. She believes that this it what carries the voice, the aesthetic signature or the ‘mark’ of the artist. Similarly, in Benjamin’s (1986) essay ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire’, he asserted that, “It is not the object of the story to convey a happening per se, which is the purpose of information; rather, it embeds it in the life of the storyteller in order to pass it on as experience to those listening. It thus bears the marks of a storyteller much as the earthen vessel bears the marks of the potter’s hand. (Benjamin, 1968, p.159). Digital technology, to artists who are not alienated by them but are excited by them, is considered to be another tool – a means to an end, like a paintbrush and canvas that allows an artist to realize their idea. Rush (2005) explains that, “‘Reproduction’ is to the digital world what the hot-air balloon once was to aviation. Using digital technology artists are now able to introduce new forms of ‘production,’ not ‘reproduction’.” (Rush, 2005, p.181). As specified before, art is a way of communicating with people; it is about human beings and their relationships, their emotions, the way that they see the world and how they relate to one another. Thereupon, an artist may refer to technology as a communication vehicle for their ideas and concepts – another enabler for the process of expressing and communicating themselves. Human nature demands that we explore the unknown, similar to the way that artists are inquisitive about their own creativity. Curiosity leads them to constantly experiment and make discoveries. Colson (2007) expressed that “artists are fascinated by technical developments that suddenly give them access to a whole new tract of creative territory. (Colson, 2007, p.20) suggesting that artists tend to explore the possibilities that technology offers before anybody else does. It is no wonder that once the computer became more affordable and accessible in the 1980s, a wide spectrum of artists, including those whose primary work was in other media, started using them to create art – David Hockney and Andy Warhol being a few of them. Andy Warhol was a major part of the Pop Art movement in the early 60’s and was using the technologies of silkscreen printing to replace the need for a paintbrush. One of his most iconic works of art is the ‘Marilyn Diptych’ (fig. 3.), silkscreen paintings of Marilyn Monroe who died from an overdose of sleeping pills. Warhol saw the glamour in celebrity life and recognized the impact that it had on American culture.
OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
He used the technology of mechanical reproduction to realize his idea of the star’s mortality. The alterations in the registration of the different colours and the amount of paint applied through the silkscreen, gave him the blurring and fading effect, which was understood to suggest the star's departure from life. The prints in colour beside the panel of prints printed in black, implies a contrast between Monroe’s life and death. The American public who was fascinated with celebrities, who adored Monroe, was impacted by Warhol's prints, reinforcing Paul’s (2003) point that it depends not on the object or the tool you work with that makes an artwork important, but on what you do with it to express the idea. Similar to Benjamin’s (1986) statement that the importance of an artwork is on its “ability to look at us in return” (Benjamin, 1968, p.188) – the connection and the emotional impact it has on its audiences. In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, Benjamin (1968) also discussed how there is a connection between the aura/value of something to how we feel towards the subject captured in a piece of art. He used film as an example to explain that, “For the first time-and this is the effect of the film- man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it” (Benjamin, 1968, p.229). Benjamin (1968) also mentioned that “exhibition value begins to displace cult value” (Benjamin, 1968, p.225) making it clear that in the age of mechanical reproduction the contemplation of an artwork and the film itself has changed in such a way that the viewer no longer contemplates the film/artwork per say; it contemplates them. – Both of these, we can assume, that the aura and the value of something is connected to what the artwork makes us feel. In the final analysis, technological advancements has always had an impact in the world of art and artists are often the first to exploit new technology and see it as a new way to express something that they couldn’t as easily or couldn’t in that way before. Technology, as discussed, has impacted the visual arts in many different ways and it has brought in its wake more benefits to the world of art than the opposite. Technology and new digital devices and software have played an important role in artistic innovation and the democratization of the arts. It has enhanced the accessibility of artistic resource; consequently making art no longer in the domain of the higher social classes, providing every individual equal opportunity and the right to express their creativity, to experiment and create art. As well as this, digital art and advances in technology has provided artists with a full range of expressive and endless creative possibilities that allows them to push themselves in technique and skill, encouraging artistic innovation – as well as pushing boundaries. The ability to duplicate and reproduce digital art without degradation or a loss of quality means that artists can emphasize the creative process and the idea instead of the preciousness of the original physical product. Advances in technology have allowed artists to share and communicate their work to a wider, broader audience, making their work open to critique by all. Conclusively, as a result of the range of possibilities that technology has allowed, the artist is no longer limited to the canvas and is instead, free to be artistically expressive of their views, ideas and concepts through whatever means possible.
OUIL 501 Context of Practice 2
Aghnia Mardiyah
Bibliography PAUL, C. (2008) Digital Art (World of Art). 2nd Ed. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. ZEEGEN, L. (2010) Computer Arts (Issue 174) [Online] Available at: http://www.zeegen.com/index.php?id=225 [Accessed: 26th January 2015] BENJAMIN, W. (1968) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. HOPE, C., and RYAN, J. (2014) Digital Arts: An Introduction to New Media. New York: Bloomsbury. LIGON, S. (2010) Digital Art Revolution. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications. RUSH, M. (2005) New Media in Art. 2nd Ed. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. BENJAMIN, W. (1968) ‘On Some Motifs in Baudelaire’, in Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books COLSON, R. (2007) The Fundamentals of Digital Art. Switzerland: AVA Publishing. WESCHLER, L. (2013) Why David Hockney Has a Love-Hate Relationship With Technology. [Online] Available from: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/artsculture/why-david-hockney-has-a-love-hate-relationship-with-technology864777/?no-ist [Accessed: 31 January 2015]. Images: Fig. 1. Giacomo Balla, (1913), Abstract Speed + Sound [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/300 [Accessed 30 January 15]. Fig. 2. Tamara de Lempicka, (1930), Young Lady with Gloves [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.tamara-de-lempicka.org/Young-Lady-with-Gloves,-1930-large.html [Accessed 30 January 15]. Fig. 3. Andy Warhol, (1962), Marilyn Diptych [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/warhol-marilyn-diptych-t03093 [Accessed 31 January 15].