Is technology destroying art?
Reality-Shifting Comments: By Rebecca Smith
We hear stories all the time about how technology is destroying the minds of young people, making people anti-social, creating conflict as a result of miscommunication, and so on. But how is technology impacting art? 
According to an article by Sarah Howell entitled, “Are smartphones ruining art?”, video technology in particular is allowing people to create “dumbed-down replicas” of real videography. The insinuation here is that technology is cheapening the quality of audio-visual arts such as motion picture films, documentaries, television shows, etc. Furthermore, the internet allows for a widespread replication of photographs, paintings, music, and all other forms of art. Originality becomes obsolete in the face of this mass replication… or does it?
While it is certainly true that the replication of art online and through the use of technology has made it more difficult for artists to remain “unique” as a result of potential copy-cat artists, this does not necessarily mean that originality no longer exists. Even in cases of replication an artist will most often add something different to their creation in order to differentiate their work from that of other artists. 
In fact, one might argue that the mass replication of art work via technology is actually building up the art industry by making it more accessible to the general public and encouraging more people to become involved in the creation of art by increasing the spread of creative ideas. 
What do you think about this? Is technology helping or hindering originality when it comes to art?

Is technology destroying art?

Reality-Shifting Comments: By Rebecca Smith

We hear stories all the time about how technology is destroying the minds of young people, making people anti-social, creating conflict as a result of miscommunication, and so on. But how is technology impacting art? 

According to an article by Sarah Howell entitled, “Are smartphones ruining art?”, video technology in particular is allowing people to create “dumbed-down replicas” of real videography. The insinuation here is that technology is cheapening the quality of audio-visual arts such as motion picture films, documentaries, television shows, etc. Furthermore, the internet allows for a widespread replication of photographs, paintings, music, and all other forms of art. Originality becomes obsolete in the face of this mass replication… or does it?

While it is certainly true that the replication of art online and through the use of technology has made it more difficult for artists to remain “unique” as a result of potential copy-cat artists, this does not necessarily mean that originality no longer exists. Even in cases of replication an artist will most often add something different to their creation in order to differentiate their work from that of other artists. 

In fact, one might argue that the mass replication of art work via technology is actually building up the art industry by making it more accessible to the general public and encouraging more people to become involved in the creation of art by increasing the spread of creative ideas. 

What do you think about this? Is technology helping or hindering originality when it comes to art?

Reality-Shifting Comments:

Smartphones have long been the subject of debate in terms of the impact that the devices may have on individuals, so Jason Perlow’s claim that smartphones may in fact be making civilization stupid in the article,Smartphones: Transforming society into a sea of stupid, is not altogether surprising. One aspect of the article in particular which holds quite a bit of merit is the fact that smartphones are making people socially detached. While this is of course true in many cases, it is important to recognize that this cannot, and should not be generalized to all of society. The overuse of technology will undoubtedly lead to social detachment in individuals; however, if technology is used within reasonable limits, it is entirely possible for an individual to benefit from the tools available on smartphones without losing social interaction in “real life”.

Any technological advancement will have revenge effects; however it is ultimately the use of the technology by the individual that will determine whether these revenge effects will be extensive or minimal. To say that technology is turning society into a sea of stupid would be an over-generalization. While it is true that technology may in fact be making many individuals socially detached, this is not true for all of society. It could even be argued that devices such as smartphones enable people to be even more social than ever before. With 24/7 access to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter people are always connected and interacting with one another. On the other hand, is this type of interaction truly considered socialization, or is it simply allowing individuals to disguise their social detachment? So the question remains, is society doomed to become a sea of stupid as Perlow suggests? Only time will tell!

Glove Is A Wearable Mobile Phone

Glove One - Demonstration (by bryanjcera)

    
NY Times article heralds the era of wearable computing, evolving from smartphones –“Disruptions: Wearing Your Computer on Your Sleeve”
By NICK BILTON
 | December 18, 2011, 9:54 PM 
Instead of going through life staring into a mobile device, people one day may be able to wear a computer….

NY Times article heralds the era of wearable computing, evolving from smartphones –“Disruptions: Wearing Your Computer on Your Sleeve”

By NICK BILTON

 | December 18, 2011, 9:54 PM 

Instead of going through life staring into a mobile device, people one day may be able to wear a computer….

Great example of transhumanist rhetoric in the Tricorder X PRIZE - “What if the doctor was your cellphone?” Tricorder X PRIZE ”will award $10 million to the team that develops a mobile solution that can inexpensively diagnose patients by combining expert systems and medical point-of-care data—such as lab-on-a-chip or wireless sensors, provide a recommended course of treatment, and upload all relevant data to the cloud. The prize aims to incentivize consumer empowerment in healthcare by extending the reach of health information and services to more people. As a result, seven billion people around the world can have access to low-cost, reliable, medical diagnostics, which will ultimately prevent pandemics and save lives.”

(Source: xprize.org)