When you introduce something new too a culture, there is typically a surge of novelty and then it settles. During that time of novelty, the new item (like technology) can appear to be taking over everything. According to the article, the 1990s was that time but now technology seems to have disappeared from the main stream of art culture. That's not necessarily true. it's just been assimilated. an equilibrium has been found in art culture that utilizes technology but doesn't give up the mediums it already has. This equilibrium can seem like a huge shift to those who had there eyes on technology in the 90s.
On another note. those of us who were growing up in the 90s had a unique childhood that changing around us at a lighting pace. we entered the world firmly settled in analog. tech was there but still very much kinetic and tactile. Then, before we could reach the age to fully experiment with the medium, digital swooped in and took over. we found ourselves having to speedily adapt to the new technology coming at us. Once the transition was complete we were left with a completely new world but our memories still reminded us of the old one. we missed what we were never given enough time to play with. this could explain why there is a surge of the archaic in art and culture. we're giving ourselves time to enjoy what was prematurely taken away from us. Overall, this poses the question of can knowledge and technology advance too quickly?
No comments:
Post a Comment