Could technology eventually devalue art? Supply and demand plays a large role in the value of a product. The smaller the quantity of a product the higher the value increases, the larger quantity the lower the value of the product in most cases. The program Photoshop as well as other computer programs can easily generate multiple copies of artwork with ease for mass distribution. Is computer-generated artwork less valuable because of this? Is it less valuable because it lacks the artist hand or originality?
Paintings, sculptures, and drawings that are created with raw materials and created directly by the artist hand capturing the moment the brush/chisel/pencil/etc. touches the material being used. When the artist completes the artwork it is considered a one of a kind/an original. For example the painting “Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh has textural brush strokes, thick layers of paint, and may also contain traces of other materials that may have been stuck in the paint.(Starry Night is currently insured for 100 million dollars, and owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art) This painting has great significance because of the time period, history, and the fact that even if Vincent was to paint a copy it could never be an exact duplicate making the painting a one of a kind. Does this physical interaction and skill of the artist add to the value? Does the artwork have to have the history to increase the value? Does the value increase because it is a one of a kind? Is a work of art more valuable based on who physically created it?
The real questions are, who decides the value of art? What is the value based on?
An article I currently read introduced a new technology that can create 3D replicas of master works of art down to the brush strokes, frames, and the artist signature. The only thing that can separate the copies from the original is the carbon date and by testing the materials microscopically. These copies go for about 29,000 dollars where the originals that get bid on go for millions. They say as of now the technology is not a threat, but will this devalue the artwork? They say they are just high quality knock offs and not the end of the high art market.
But with technologies such as this arising, what other technologies will be created that might begin to devalue art or create diminish the need to develop skills in this discipline? How as an art educator can I continue to defend and advocate for the arts with technologies that take away from the physical aspects of the materials and creating?
Could This New Technology Destroy the Value of All Famous Art?
Could This New Technology Destroy the Value of All Famous Art?
Hey, interesting topic. I've never thought about it, but after reading it I guess, it is in some point. But I think drawing on paper is so much better than drawing online. Having artifact from a famous artist are all original painting that is not used technology. But think about that first, they didn't have technology back then. I don't think using technology isn't going to hurt, it can create new things. I guess technology can destroy the value of fine arts, if drawing, marking something what you love is more meaningful.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a lot of good questions in this post. As a music teacher I am faced with a lot of similar difficulties where technology threatens the value of classic music and acoustic instruments. In today's world people can even compose or copy musical scores in a matter of minutes where it used to take hours, days, weeks or months to do the same task. I hope the value of fine art will not be destroyed by the developing technologies but the way we interact with our discipline is undeniably changing. The best things we can do are be mindful of how we got to this point in history, investigate how modern technology can be used to assist us, and be an extension of our creativity, not a crutch. Everyone uses technology differently, but your concern about fine art will appear in your lessons and I bet your students will leave your class with a new found understanding of what it takes to create masterpieces and true works of art.
ReplyDelete"These copies go for about 29,000 dollars where the originals that get bid on go for millions." Its sad to know that copies are worth so much money. The value of originals has changed because people barely go to the museum. They rather "google it" then go and see it in person.
ReplyDeleteThis is a scary thought for all artists. As technology changes, other things like value of art will have a butterfly effect. I think one way to advocate the arts in your teaching is to talk about the time and effort put in to artwork. By talking about how artists made the piece, and how long will help students see the value in it. Another way to personalize that feeling in the students is for them to reflect on their efforts. Ask them to reflect on how they would value their artwork based on the time, materials, and effort put into it. This kind of thinking would definitely be helpful to the high school students taking advanced art classes planning to pursue a career in the arts. Great blog!
ReplyDelete