what if art took the place of technology and viceversa?
Art overlaps technology in more than one way: research, the "i was there
first" attitude, the evolution patterns.
As technology, art is fueled by research.
Artists constantly experiement on materials, on techniques, on the approaches
to technical practices, on the social and political issues that fill our
everyday life. On war, peace, communication, economy... Something "happens"
in technology and art will probabily use it in a way or another. And a new
idea applied by art will probabily be recycled right afterwards in technology
as well, and so on.
"I was there first!"
Technology and science live for their patents. But isn't art, in its possibly
more conceptual and spiritual way, characterized by the same attitude? Where
does video art start from? Where does netart start from? Was Nam June Paik
the first to make videoart? etecetera.
Art and technology evolve in patterns that are truly similar.
New tools, new social environments, new political situations, new desires,
new beliefs, new cultural setups. New minds.
Both art and technology live on humans; and humans conform to mental shapes
determined by the socio-political environmental reality in which they live
and by the sensibility through which they interpret it.
Art is in-context exactly as technology is.
New tools become available for art and technology each day. Ideas and approaches
merge, morph and switch context, naturally.
It all continuously happened in the past: in painting, sculpture, photography,
music, video, dance, theater, performance.
So where is the difference? Is it in the people? In the objectives? In the
absence of objectives?
In the desires?
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 00:57:04 -0700
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: said it before, 'll say it again
>"Art is technology."