Evolution of ARt

I’ve really only recently leaned into my love for art. Pilgrimages to galleries or museums are not uncommon in my travels; in fact they are usually a driver. As I encountered others at these holy sites, they too shared a love for the arts, many being artists themselves. Agreed among all is the importance of visiting museums and experiencing great art in its house. More often than not, the Muse speaks to visiting artists and grants vision and inspiration as reward for the pilgrimage.

Which brings us here, to the second half of 2020 and nearly all great art houses are closed. This crucial revitalization of the creative drivers behind an artist have been stolen away by a worldwide pandemic. With this in mind, I made a meme to engage the community:

#memetrends

I’ve thought a lot about that kind of project. A good 2 months of crunch work and database building in a topic I love sounds like fun. But there was a hang up:

A significant part of the art community abhors digitalization. What intrigue is there in the crisp canvas or engraved ridges whose full beauty really can’t be experienced through a digital platform, no matter how advanced. The obstinance to integrating these two is well-grounded.

How much of a nightmare would it be to sink months of work into building this platform, only to have the art community reject it as their beloved pieces are digitalized. Though a small sample size, it seems like people agree with that thought process.

Undertaking the conversion of galleries and pieces into a digital platform would likely result in being ostracized from the artistic community to a certain extent, and with understandable reason. However, as a student of an evolutionary school of thought with regard to human tendencies, I was driven to gather more opinion.

This question appeals to the futurist in all of us. The side of us that likes the statement “the only constant is change”. Is not pushing boundaries creatively the definition of art? It may still be abhorrent to see a Jackson Pollock piece absorbed into “the machine” but at the same time there’s a little tip of the hat to acknowledge of the progress of the arts alongside technology.

What the second poll shows is that this thought may not occurred to the people in the first poll. A significant 80% believed that this was wrong and art would be hurt. I believe that the reason we see more switch over to agree that it’s the next version of art is because the questions are framed differently.

The first asks the sample if they’re ok with something being “taken away”, implying the end result will be deficient compared to the original.

The second poll frames the change as progress; the end result is greater than the original.

The last thing to mention is the reality that to the artist, none of this ultimately matters, the opinion of the community. It should be respected and integrated, but the call to create doesn’t originate from the community; it originates from the Muse. The artist is bound to serve the Muse first, and should the call to create arise, begin straightaway.

If you liked this bit about art and technology, check out my piece on recursive design in the CubeUp project!