Digital Divide Response- Jess

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?

Raymond's Digital Divide Response

Claire Bishop's  article, "Digital Divide" on contemporary art and new media was an interesting read.  There is a part of me that will always appreciate authentic art like painting and sculpting, writing music etc.  Things done with the bare minimum.

In a new world of digital art, such as photo shop, 3D printing, using computers to make music.. I do feel like the art is a bit less compelling when the art is created using less physicality and more technology.

I guess I can best express my opinion by using an example of what I consider art:

I've expressed time and time again my love of horror movies - so my example is that of special effects.  In the early days of horror there was an art in the special effects. A scene could not be done, or a monster could not be created without the actual blood (pun intended), sweat and tears of making a mold, or actually building the creature. Nowadays the use of CGI and computer technology has taken away from the realistic, authentic art that was special effects. When I watch old horror movies today, there are times when the effects look so realistic and then of course times when it looks silly.
But that is the beauty of it! Art isn't perfection, the beauty is in the uniqueness. I feel like technology is looking to perfect art.

Zach Biehl's Digital Divide Response

Something that really bothered me was how the author compares digital art to linguistics in contrast to photography/film being compared to an image-based art form, and how that somehow discounts digital art and makes it more alien to the viewer. Just because there is code beneath an image in digital art doesn't mean that the image is any less tangible or real. It's real because you brain is interpreting light your eyes catch, not because it's an actual material thing. If we put art into some kind of tangible/physical box we're doing ourselves a great disservice. Bishop really just needs to take a deep breath and realize that it's all going to be okay and art isn't going to come crashing to the ground. Optimism is much more helpful in the pioneering in the formative years of a medium rather than dwelling over it seeming obsolete in comparison to other mediums.

VR

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYh6PQTbbo&feature=youtu.be

Ken Phaxay Response to Claire Bishop

Claire needs to chill out. I am confused if she hates new media or not. I understand where she's coming from when she speaks of the fascination of analog media. As someone who has the technology for VR, a upcoming new media. I also invest in analog media and vintage technology. I have two polaroid cameras that I use to capture moments. I have a record player and numerous vinyls. These are things that I appreciate and things that I am fascinated with. They show a photo with emotion and tangible material that can not be reproduced with today's technology. The vinyls give a sound and that could be replicable but the tangible feel of the vinyl and the sight of it, is something that is fascinating.
I have no idea what she's talking about. I get it, but I have no idea what the point is. She does say her point on page 3 but I have no answer to her question. I have no idea why contemporary art hates the digital revolution. I am nor an artist or someone who has studied art. (I don't even know if I know what contemporary art is)

Candi's Digital Divide Response

I find it interesting how digital art isn’t as big of a trend in contemporary are and is instead a specialized field of its own. Its kind of weird because new media is a constant in people’s lives. We are constantly using new digital technology and if art doesn’t use the same technology it ignores part of the human condition. In a quasi-hipster way, I do feel the same nostalgia for media that fell out of use years before I was born. Therefore, I can understand how artists are drawn to create with old media. At the same time, it’s weird that there isn’t a huge drive to use new media as well.

Madison Boniface Project

https://vimeo.com/186521964