One evening, perhaps a month or so ago, I was on the subway on my way home. Almost immediately upon entering the subway car, I noticed a young man – presumably a student engrossed with his digital camera.
For awhile, I watched him – curious as I’m not only interested in technology but also in photography. I noticed him reviewing one particular photograph on the LCD screen and he applied digital filter after filter (sepia, B&W, distortions, etc...) and I became quite fascinated with how he was able to quickly change the whole tone of the picture.
My gut reaction as I watched him apply these filters was that this was way cool. To a large extent, I think it opens up new worlds to the photographer. One could instantly see the myriad of alternatives for the photograph. Now...before I proceed with my concerns, I will be quite honest that when I can afford it, I will be right in line for a Digital 35mm SLR and I’ll likely be doing the exact same thing with my photographs.
As I travelled on the subway, I started thinking a little bit more about this. I came to the realization that as with just about everything else in our life, technology has forever changed yet another aspect of our life – the arts. Where this is sometimes (and quite often is) a good thing, it still comes with a price.
What is art?
As a person who is not terribly artistic, my definition of art would be the sharing of one person’s thoughts and views – a way to express our inner emotions and ideas. Any form of art could be expressed with this very general and high level definition, be it graphics arts, performance arts, literature or art in any other form. I understand that art is so much more than this and I have probably over-simplified, but bare with me.
As demonstrated by watching this young man manipulate his photographs, it became apparent to me that one of the greatest strengths of technology and art is that it gives the artist the freedom and the flexibility to try different things, to find that “version” of their product that best expresses their views. What this article is about is that this is actually a double-edged sword.
The problem lies in that this ease of use allows the artist to continually refine their piece of art. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing but what this mean is that the artist can continually edit their photograph (or manuscript), fine tuning it and editing some more, looking for that “perfect” piece of art.
My concern is that the more that the artist manipulates their product, the less it becomes their view or thoughts at that point in time. Further, given the ease of use of being able to edit their work – is it every truly finished?
I enjoy writing – and I’ve done a bit of it. One of my frustrations is that my writing is never really finished. I continually go back to it, tweak it, clean it up or add some thoughts. With each edit, my writings no longer represent the original idea. I wonder how “A Christmas Carol” would have turned out if Charles Dickens had written it on a word processor as opposed to pen and paper. I expect that writing with on paper and writing on a word processor is a totally different thing.
Another case in point – I love to paint – especially abstracts. This is a case where my art is created using traditional methods. All I need is my paper, brushes, my acrylics and a dose of hyperactivity in conjunction with something that I needed to express.
When I paint, I paint. Once I am finished with a piece, there is no going back – ever. Although probably very primitive and amateurish, there can be no doubt that my artwork is reflective of my mood and thoughts as per that hour of frenzy – of that you can be sure.
Technology is a great thing, but I think that it’s important to keep technology in its own context and never forget about the importance of keeping some humanity as well.
