I start my answer here because 10-15 years ago there were wild claims being made about the potential impact of the digital on the visual arts. At that time many felt that all other forms would wither away before the onslaught of this new democratic art form. Seemingly, the art apocalypse
spearheaded by the digital has not been realized in part because there are two digital technologies-- which requires that we differentiate between
medium and media-- that is between making and distributing. People were worried about nothing.
Consequently, I understand digital technologies as a mode of simulation-- it's a copycat as a medium-- it reproduces the effects identified with other mediums. For example, photography becomes the photographic- with each iteration something is gained and lost. Subsequently, the digital has fallen victim to the conventions of the mediums that it seeks to simulate. In other words, where in the 70s we found all types of experimental
video-- today video in the mainstream is a cheap way to make movies. Rapid prototyping has become little more than 3D printing-- while robotics, programming, interactivity are subsequently best developed in gaming.
-Saul Ostrow
|
Consequently, I understand digital technologies as a mode of simulation-- it's a copycat as a medium-- it reproduces the effects identified with other mediums. For example, photography becomes the photographic- with each iteration something is gained and lost. Subsequently, the digital has fallen victim to the conventions of the mediums that it seeks to simulate. In other words, where in the 70s we found all types of experimental video-- today video in the mainstream is a cheap way to make movies. Rapid prototyping has become little more than 3D printing-- while robotics, programming, interactivity are subsequently best developed in gaming.
-Saul Ostrow
- bill 1-19-2015 12:21 pm