Technology vs Art
I had often thought that the advancement in technology is counter-productive for the interests of art and aesthetics. The reason is simple. Machines are only second grade brains, it can never match the capabilities of the original one. To whatever extent artificial intelligence grow up, it would remain substandard a commodity to the human brain.
Let us analyse things in detail.
Artists are born, never made. Whatever amount of theories we could inculcate into the aspirants, there would always be a missing ingredient. We cannot create a Shakespeare, Michelangelo or Van Gog. Before the arrival of computers it was impossible for the non-artists try their hand at arts. Computers empowered them to conjure up mediocre stuff they themselves call art, but others won't.
No, I was wrong when I said 'but others won't'.
The chemistry, or mechanism, or whatever it is of aesthetics is so complicate it cannot even be defined in clear terms. Then, how did people recognize it? In the pre-computer era it was comparatively easy. Outstanding writings, paintings and other art forms used to nudge the brain cells of people in such a way it silently said, 'yes, this is a superb work of art'. There were only difference in degrees of expertise between any two writers, any two painters, any other artisans. There were no non-writers flaunting as writers, there were no non-artists flaunting as artists. Now the 'non' subsection exceeds in number. People get overwhelmed by the sheer number and tend to ignore the auto-chemistry of their brain. They recognize counterfeit ones as the real one.
Let us analyse things in detail.
Artists are born, never made. Whatever amount of theories we could inculcate into the aspirants, there would always be a missing ingredient. We cannot create a Shakespeare, Michelangelo or Van Gog. Before the arrival of computers it was impossible for the non-artists try their hand at arts. Computers empowered them to conjure up mediocre stuff they themselves call art, but others won't.
No, I was wrong when I said 'but others won't'.
The chemistry, or mechanism, or whatever it is of aesthetics is so complicate it cannot even be defined in clear terms. Then, how did people recognize it? In the pre-computer era it was comparatively easy. Outstanding writings, paintings and other art forms used to nudge the brain cells of people in such a way it silently said, 'yes, this is a superb work of art'. There were only difference in degrees of expertise between any two writers, any two painters, any other artisans. There were no non-writers flaunting as writers, there were no non-artists flaunting as artists. Now the 'non' subsection exceeds in number. People get overwhelmed by the sheer number and tend to ignore the auto-chemistry of their brain. They recognize counterfeit ones as the real one.
Comments
Post a Comment