Does Technology Inhibit One’s Ability to Appreciate Art? October 4, 2009
Posted by atharkhan in : Personal , trackbackThis weekend I finally made it to the Art Institute of Chicago. At one point, I found myself “skimming” the artwork, barely stopping to really soak it in. Meanwhile there were plenty of other people ooh-ing and aah-ing over them.
I stopped to wonder why these paintings – which were almost as detailed as photographs – weren’t affecting me as deeply as they did some other people. Then it hit me. Photographs are an inherently flawed standard for judging art. Photography is more geared towards to accurate reproduction, and paintings on the other hand are more thought of as personal expression and interpretation. Still, it was interesting that I was making these comparisons without any deliberate thought.
This leads to the question: have the advances in imaging technology (high resolution cameras, fast shutter speeds, high definition displays, etc.) affected our ability to appreciate art?
What do you think?
Comments»
Maroof Syedat 3:45pm on October 7th
Other folks ooh-ing aah-ing are pretentious …does that make you feel better about yourself??
I definitely think it's harder just to get lost in a work of art like a painting, or even a movie, with the technology over-load that exists today. Just plugging friends high-res photos in 5 seconds onto facebook using an Iphone, or transmitting videos, is more easier, and more gratifying than it is to sit through a two hour film. Just my experience. . .
Akash Mulchandaniat 3:10pm on October 7th
Athar Khanat 4:00pm on October 7th
No, I wouldn't feel better by ooh-ing and aah-ing or reciting some arcane facts about the artist's suffering. However, I did wonder whether I was missing out on some type of profound experience. To make a comparison: some people may find a particular musician's work enthralling but to others, it may just be unimpressive noise. What I am talking about isn't so dramatic a contrast (music vs. noise) but what struck me was that I had to consciously *force* myself to think that the paintings were made by hand, and a long time ago at that. It was interesting to me how I was automatically judging their quality against what would have been a photograph of the same subject or scenery.
Maroof Syedat 4:29pm on October 7th
That is a good obnservation. Now you have got me wondering too!
Terrence Charlesat 10:15am on October 8th
Those of us who can't paint buy camera's
. Well either you are into something or you are not, cannot force yourself to appreciate something. Photography is an advance imaging technology, but there is also an art for capturing that perfect moment with a click. I think art and science both inspire each other. I guess you just found out painting is not your thing. 
Athar Khanat 10:32am on October 8th
@Terrence: You know, once I stopped thinking of the paintings as photographs, I did enjoy it a lot. I don't want to give up on paintings just yet.
Terrence Charlesat 10:50am on October 8th
Did you visit the Getty's Museum in LA. I was there a few years ago, I think they have categorized it by Era's. I was amazed by some of them, but there were too many painting to appreciate…. My brain could only process so many hahahahaha. Capturing a moment in time with a stroke of a brush or a pencil is awe-inspiring. I think most of us these days think in terms of technology IPhones, IPODS, 3G speed, Youtube, Mega Pixels, High Definition, Blue Ray… Our brains are just not tuned to appreciate art. I surely am not that talented, that is why I keep my camera close to me
Athar Khanat 11:10am on October 8th
Oh man. The Getty. I almost didn't go there. Luckily a friend dragged me there on in January 2006 and I went back a couple of times.
I definitely think it's harder just to get lost in a work of art like a painting, or even a movie, with the technology over-load that exists today. Just plugging friends high-res photos in 5 seconds onto facebook using an Iphone, or transmitting videos, is more easier, and more gratifying than it is to sit through a two hour film. Just my experience. . .
Other folks ooh-ing aah-ing are pretentious …does that make you feel better about yourself??
No, I wouldn't feel better by ooh-ing and aah-ing or reciting some arcane facts about the artist's suffering. However, I did wonder whether I was missing out on some type of profound experience. To make a comparison: some people may find a particular musician's work enthralling but to others, it may just be unimpressive noise. What I am talking about isn't so dramatic a contrast (music vs. noise) but what struck me was that I had to consciously *force* myself to think that the paintings were made by hand, and a long time ago at that. It was interesting to me how I was automatically judging their quality against what would have been a photograph of the same subject or scenery.
That is a good obnservation. Now you have got me wondering too!
@Terrence: You know, once I stopped thinking of the paintings as photographs, I did enjoy it a lot. I don't want to give up on paintings just yet.
Did you visit the Getty's Museum in LA. I was there a few years ago, I think they have categorized it by Era's. I was amazed by some of them, but there were too many painting to appreciate…. My brain could only process so many hahahahaha. Capturing a moment in time with a stroke of a brush or a pencil is awe-inspiring. I think most of us these days think in terms of technology IPhones, IPODS, 3G speed, Youtube, Mega Pixels, High Definition, Blue Ray… Our brains are just not tuned to appreciate art. I surely am not that talented, that is why I keep my camera close to me
Those of us who can't paint buy camera's
. Well either you are into something or you are not, cannot force yourself to appreciate something. Photography is an advance imaging technology, but there is also an art for capturing that perfect moment with a click. I think art and science both inspire each other. I guess you just found out painting is not your thing. 
Oh man. The Getty. I almost didn't go there. Luckily a friend dragged me there on in January 2006 and I went back a couple of times.
One thing to consider is what are you defining as “appreciation for art”. One one hand, before there were other means of making a visual reproduction, it would be very impressive to see the quality of visual reproduction made by hand. In that regard, you could really appreciate the craftsman’s (artisit’s) skill in reproducing a scene or a portrait. However, we are now able to do this easily through technology (take a picture), so this aspect is not very impressive.
So now now we come to the difference between merely representative art (like a portrait) and what I will call emotive artwork – art that makes you feel somthing. For example, “The Scream” makes you feel somthing. Many other artworks also cause you to feel something. The artist may cause you to feel something in any of several different ways: by inventing a scene that does not exist in real life, by starting with a real scene and altering it, or by photographing something extraordinary, like the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima, or the little girl running from napalm in vietnam.
I would submit that you don’t go to an art museum to look, but to feel. Also, if you don’t feel anything, then it is no fault of yours – different art works impact people differently. Look at the light in the pictures, how the subjects relate, the colors – what was the artist trying to say? It’s not about “absorbing the data” of what the picture looks like – try to feel. If you feel nothing, try another type of art.
I would submit that it is not the advances in technology that have impacted our ability to appreciate art, but changes in our society. For example, people nowadays “think” less, they reflect less, our always-on, instant message society creates people who merely respond reflexively to stimulii rather than thinking deliberately. As the ADHD-ness of society increases, the ability to focus, think, and feel is diminished. When people go to an art museum thinking “OK, I have to get through the first gallery in 5 minutes and the rest in an hour. Ready… go!” then they are approaching the experience wrong.
Here’s a suggestion. Leave the cell phones at home. Go with your wife. Get to the museum and have some tea beforehand and relax – take your time. Pick a gallery at random and go in and sit down (pick one with seats). Clear your mind. Don’t worry about what she is thinking or what you think you should be thinking. Ignore the other people there. Don’t start looking at the art right away. Look at the floor or the ceiling. When you feel like you are ready, calm and centered, look at a painting – only one – forget about the rest.. Start with a corner or some point in the picture and gradually take in the rest by following the lines or curves or light in the picture and letting your eyes go where they want to. There’s no need to even feel like you have to look at the whole picture – just let your eyes go where they want. In the quietness of your calm center, think about whether or not you feel anything – it’s OK if not, but I bet the first few times you do this you rushed through it and your center is not calm. Respeat the claming steps above until your mind is clear and try again.
Also, in addition to the cell phone, leave your watch or anything else that distracts you ar home. Clearing your mind and trying to feel things is hard work – leave when you feel tired or are no longer having good success clearing your mind.
Finally, once you have tried this, please post again and let us know if it worked! Good luck!