Forums → WEPR → The Dark Side of Technology

@Doombreed well advanced military technology is dangerous and could end up being used on innocent civilians, however it could also be used to stop terrorism. on the topic of internet crime, people can steal your stuff kinda easily if they know what theyre doing. no protocol could really stop that, it would mostly just take time to hack a account.

Now my question is who is more dangerous? is it the advanced military technology or the hackers who can steal your entire identity?

@231terminator . Not sure. Both are extremely dangerous (the hackers because they can hack military technology as well).

To take a different look into it, do you think that technology has a detrimental effect on art? Let me elaborate:

Art is a hard term to define. Most definitions of art are either way too literal, or intentionally vague. I prefer to describe it as a creative expression of one's emotions or thoughts. Of course there are many other possible definitions but, I believe this is the one that comes closest.

You see there are major classifications of art. Beethoven, the famous deaf composer has composed musical pieces that have lasted almost 300 years. His music can and is internationally acknowledged as art and is some of the greatest artwork of all time. The same can be said about Salvador Dali, or Piccasso.

However, can it be said about a movie? In your opinion, does a movie exist (or will ever exist) that can be considered such a great masterpiece from an artistic point of view?

Photography is also considered an art form. But is it? Sure it requires a lot of skill and talent to take an amazing picture, but can that picture be considered art?

In my opinion, the answer to both of the questions above is a negative one. Movies, which were made available through technological advancements, are an art form, but still, far weaker at producing the emotions a painting or a musical piece can produce.

Photography is not even an art form because it is not compatible with the definition above. Sure photographs can bring out powerful emotions, but, they do not bear the photographer's feelings. They depict something, not someone's thought, or emotion.

Of course, as defining art is a controversial matter of much discussion, I may be wrong, both in my definition of the term, and in my thesis that photography is not an art form. However, I still think that art forms aided by technology are far weaker than other, more pure art forms.

Even the people's desire for art has suffered with the advent of technology. How many modern artists can you name? And even if you can name plenty, are they real artists? Do they come close to older names in their respective fields of art?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Now my question is who is more dangerous? is it the advanced military technology or the hackers who can steal your entire identity?

To take a different look into it, do you think that technology has a detrimental effect on art? Let me elaborate:

Your definition is not so bad, but I disagree with your reasons to exclude movies and photographies, because they can be compatible with your definition. Movies are often regarded as simple entertainment, but a film director can express a whole lot of concepts and emotions through a good movie. Same with photographies: wherein lies the difference between a painting or a professional photography of the exact same beautiful landscape? The subject is the same, both can demand skills and imagination, only the medium is different.
.
To answer directly to your original question, I don't think that technology has a detrimental effect on art. Technology was always needed in order to perform art, for example the production of paint, tools, instruments. Modern technology has simply added more instruments with which you could perform art (in your definition, express your emotions creatively). You could say that modern technology has popularized art far more than anything; instead of having only a few great masters of art, everyone nowadays has the possibility to make drawings, photographies, videos, graffitis, and so on.

but I disagree with your reasons to exclude movies and photographies, because they can be compatible with your definition.

wherein lies the difference between a painting or a professional photography of the exact same beautiful landscape? The subject is the same, both can demand skills and imagination, only the medium is different.
.

@HahiHa I didn't exclude the movies. Movies are an art form, just weaker than other art forms like painting and music. I only excluded the photography. And that because taking a picture means depicting something that exists. Not, creating it. A photographer captures a beautiful scenery, or a powerful moment, which, may be able to bring out strong emotions to those viewing the picture. But a powerful picture still doesn't bear the photographer's own feelings (at least most of the times). Photography requires skill, not the ability to creatively express yourself.

Of course that is, when the photographs are about landscapes, or generally natural moments. Setting the scenery yourself to creatively express your feelings as a photographer is different altogether (I am not even sure if it can be classified as photography).

Technology was always needed in order to perform art, for example the production of paint, tools, instruments. Modern technology has simply added more instruments with which you could perform art (in your definition, express your emotions creatively).

That's a very interesting way to look at it. But I disagree with the "always" part. Humans have played music and painted since the very beginning of their existence. I wouldn't say that developing the musical instruments or tools to paint/sculpt counts as technology. They were among the very first things mankind invented and that was, because of man's instinctive desire.

You could say that modern technology has popularized art far more than anything; instead of having only a few great masters of art, everyone nowadays has the possibility to make drawings, photographies, videos, graffitis, and so on.

Yes but you have to wonder: Is everyone now truly an artist? And if so, does he rival other reputable artists in his/her field? I am not saying that every composer should be compared to Mozart, but a line should be drawn somewhere.

To sum up, in my opinion, very few creations we see everyday can be considered "art". Whether they be drawings, graffitis or musical pieces, no matter how good they are, they have to meet certain requirements. Art is not always beautiful. In fact, art can sometimes be horrifying, twisted or disgusting like Picasso's Guernica or some of Salvador Dali's painings. And I think it can (at least partially) be attributed to the massive technological development our world experienced in the past few decades. Technology by itself doesn't play a major part in it. It is its lightning-fast progress, that caused this detrimental effect.

@Doombreed some movies can evoke heavy emotions, as well as some photographs and some drawings. for instance, say someone took 1 picture of 9/11, that would by far evoke emotions as well as thought. They made the movie american sniper, and though i havent seen it many people say that it is definitely a movie with emotion. thats not a direct quote about the movie but you see the point,

i agree that technology is not always needed to create art or tools. They have assisted many artist, but i agree with the statement that it takes away from many pure artist, and by pure i assume we both mean like a paintbrush and canvas type of artist. Pure artist in my opinion were always more respectable, ive always thought photography had no business being in an art show.

For example, there was an art show at my high school last semester. Several of the photographs won prizes where as many of the hand drawn creative pieces of art won few. The first place prize went to a photo of a bowl of fruit, which lacks a lot of creativity in my opinion.

Photographs can evoke emotion, but to me many people seem to use it just because they don't want to get better at painting. don't get me wrong, many artist are probably good photographers, but the example is what i mean by some photographers lack creativity

since we are on the topic of art and the such, how do you guys feel technology has effected TV? I personally believe that we are falling into a hole filled with bad reality shows and incorrect news, both of which could easily trick people into bad situations. Im definitely not saying it should be moderated by the gov. or something, but something actually real about reality tv would be nice

@231terminator read the definition of art closely in my previous 2 posts. Art is not anything full of emotion, but rather, a creative expression of The Artist's feelings or thoughts.

As for the tv topic, tv channels here are overly unattractive, full of bad shows and TV series. It's the reason I've completely stopped watching TV 6 and a half years so far.

I will start with your conclusion, as it is more related to the thread, and will then proceed with the technical details.

To sum up, in my opinion, very few creations we see everyday can be considered "art". Whether they be drawings, graffitis or musical pieces, no matter how good they are, they have to meet certain requirements. Art is not always beautiful. In fact, art can sometimes be horrifying, twisted or disgusting like Picasso's Guernica or some of Salvador Dali's painings. And I think it can (at least partially) be attributed to the massive technological development our world experienced in the past few decades. Technology by itself doesn't play a major part in it. It is its lightning-fast progress, that caused this detrimental effect.

I only excluded the photography. And that because taking a picture means depicting something that exists. Not, creating it. A photographer captures a beautiful scenery, or a powerful moment, which, may be able to bring out strong emotions to those viewing the picture. But a powerful picture still doesn't bear the photographer's own feelings (at least most of the times). Photography requires skill, not the ability to creatively express yourself.

Of course that is, when the photographs are about landscapes, or generally natural moments. Setting the scenery yourself to creatively express your feelings as a photographer is different altogether (I am not even sure if it can be classified as photography).

That's a very interesting way to look at it. But I disagree with the "always" part. Humans have played music and painted since the very beginning of their existence. I wouldn't say that developing the musical instruments or tools to paint/sculpt counts as technology. They were among the very first things mankind invented and that was, because of man's instinctive desire.

Yes but you have to wonder: Is everyone now truly an artist? And if so, does he rival other reputable artists in his/her field? I am not saying that every composer should be compared to Mozart, but a line should be drawn somewhere.

i agree that technology is not always needed to create art or tools. They have assisted many artist, but i agree with the statement that it takes away from many pure artist, and by pure i assume we both mean like a paintbrush and canvas type of artist. Pure artist in my opinion were always more respectable, ive always thought photography had no business being in an art show.