I say it’s commoditization. If it’s easier to be make, distribute and consume art stuffs, then there there will be more of said art stuffs that will be made, distributed and consumed, which means that all past, present and future art stuffs will inherently have less value.
Advertisement
Tags: culture, technology
The faster culture changes, the more opportunities for art to evolve, too.
But how do you take away any one person’s ability to make, distribute, and consume art stuffs?
Accumulation of online obligations. Too much time spent in the Matrix, not enough time spent engaging with real people.
I understand where you are coming from Lars, but my time spent in the Matrix IS spent engaging with real people. At least I’m pretty sure they’re real.
I don’t want to diminish the people-making-connections power of the Internet, but it is not the same as actual face-time. Online activities involve real people, but they lean on the imagination. You are imagining (creating) the other person’s tone of voice, mood, posture, presentation, etc. There are filters of anonymity and persona to deal with. Meaningful art depends on meaningful engagement with the world, and while social networking sites, email, blogs, twitter and everything else are convenient, helpful and addictive, I hope they do not replace live-in-person interaction.
I agree that face-to-face time is important in the development of social interaction. However, I do not believe that they are mutually exclusive. As you’ve said, “the other person’s tone of voice, mood, posture, presentation, etc.” are important as they are avenues of communication, often more powerful than than what is spoken. (I’ll use the statement “Bush was a great president” as an example of something in which my tone of voice or presentation leads the listener to the conclusion that I am trying to infer. )
We all interact with people face-to-face on a daily basis and that is something that will not change in the foreseeable future. The internet provides us with the ability to continue the exchange of ideas without the necessity of local proximity. It is just another tool through which we utilize our processes of communication, albeit sans the physical aspects you just mentioned. I would like to add that I prefer interacting with people face-to-face and “real-time” conversation often results in ideas that one would not have had if said discussion is relegated solely to message boards or blogs.
That said, when I meet someone through the internet, I want to meet them in person. I want to capture the magic of conversation that happens when having a discussion in person, those ah-ha moments when, mid-sentence, one finds their thesis (or traction).
Completely agree. You can do both.
My fear is that there are so many ways to interact online that people (and artists) may be unintentionally sacrificing face-time for online time (said the guy writing a blog comment). If we used to spend X hours online per week… then Youtube=X+1, Facebook=X+2, Twitter=X+3… pretty soon you’re strung out on SecondLife and WoW… and then guys in hazmat suits are cleaning out your garbage house while the neighbors stand around gawking.
Haha. Right on. I agree with that too. I went back and re-read your original post and I kinda went off on a tangent (do your research, kids!). Accumulation of online obligations.
I’m responding to comments here in order to avoid finishing an assignment for school tonight. So there you go.