Has Technology Ruined Art?

Since the invention of the printing press, technology has changed the world of art in many explicit and implicit ways. In today’s world, technology offers many of us the ability to produce works of art and distribute them to the masses. Then the question, has technology ruined art and the role of the artist in modern society? Currently there are two opposing sides vigorously presenting their arguments on the subject resulting in an intellectual stale mate.

In 1995 William Gaddis published his novel Agapé, Agape which touched on the subject of technology and its role in the evolution of art. Gaddis, a modernist novelist, had an interesting history, which led him to the conclusions he offers in his last novel that was written on his death bed. While working as a fact checker for many New York magazines, Gaddis was given an assignment to research the player piano. In the years that followed, Gaddis became obsessed with this piece of technology and was completely raptured by the subject. This may lead one to ask, “why would anyone be so obsessed with such a novelty object.? Well, the answer to that leads to the debate mentioned before. In his studies, Gaddis became a key figure on the this art vs. technology debate that raged before his time.

German born author, Walter Benjamin, was another key figure in this debate. His work, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, proposed, for the first time, many key questions about the destructive nature of technology and art. Benjamin’s major thesis was centered on what he called art’s “aura.” The aura, according to Benjamin, was what made art special and unique. The aura surrounding an original Da Vinci painting, for example, could not be found in reproductions. This aura only existed around the original works of the artists, and it was also this aura that truly inspired new artists.

These two men, Gaddis and Benjamin, each argue for an elitist view of art. Proponents of this elitist view make a strong case against technology in our modern world in regards to art. For example, this side argues that the ability of an artist to reproduce thier works creates a propensity for the artists to become lazy. Not only is their origional work going to sell well, but the subsequent reproductions will also provide them with royalty payments; therefore, instead of a vast portfolio of works needed to financially cover the artist’s needs, less paintings need to be made because their reprints will sell to cover the gap. This is not the only argument from the elitist point of view.

The elitist side also argues that technology allows people to be passive towards art and not become artists themselves. If one can listen to a CD at any time, they will be less likely to create music themselves. Once upon a time music was a great way to be entertained in the drowning hours of the day. People once learned to play music in order to fulfill their needs for entertainment and the entertainment of others. Now, since the onset of technology, people can simply watch television, listen to a CD, or browse YouTube, instead of becoming artists and offering substantial “new” art to the world.

Finally, the elitist side argues that technology takes all of the originality out of art. This concept goes back to the notion of the “aura” as illustrated by Benjamin. We see printings of original work, listen to copies of original music, or read 7th and 8th edition novels. However, there is something about original work that begs not to be duplicated. Our society covets first edition novels, flocks en masse to concerts, and travels the world to view original paintings. Why do we do these things? Are original works surrounded by some type of aura that makes them magical or special? The elitists would say yes.

On the other hand, there is another side to the coin. Many argue that the elitist simply refuse to see the true virtues of art’s exposure to the masses. This side dances to the same tune of the sophists. The sophists were a sect of early Greek philosophers who were widely criticized by Plato and Isocrates mainly for charging for their services. This criticism caused their works to be banished to the archives of history. However, recently many who have studied the sophists have found lost pearls of wisdom overlooked since ancient times. One such pearl was the argument that knowledge should be available to the masses, an opinion held widely in today’s society.

Proponents against art elitists use sophistical rhetoric in order to further their arguments. They suggest that people should be able to see or hear art especially when they do not have the means of procuring the original. Shouldn’t everyone be able to enjoy great works of art in their homes, even if it is not the original? Also, this same side argues that art is empowered by technology. Artists receive a larger audience through technology and their art can be spread easily to the masses. Furthermore, technology allows the artist to become unhindered by the chains that bound many artists only a few, short years ago. Today, if you want to make a documentary, then you can purchase some software and a video camera from Best Buy. Most of the opportunities once only provided by a studio, are now at the fingertips of the artist. Bands also have the ability to produce their own CD’s for mass distribution with out having to incur the costs of paying a record studio.

Certainly, technology has become a wonderful tool and done many great things for us all. We would like to think that technology has only done good but this might not always be the case. Surely, technology will span beyond the lengths of our imagination. However, when man’s reach spans farther than his grasp, will we still have the same outlook as we do today? In any case, the debate between art and technology is interesting to say the least. As the two sides struggle in this debate, one should take a moment to consider the two points made and decide what they believe on their own merit.

Do Companies Make Eating Healthy Harder?

Soon Christmas will have come and gone and people will try to remain steadfast in their resolve to hit the gym and lose those extra holiday pounds. We have all seen and heard the statistics about health and how our nation is over abundant with an obese and diabetic population. This research has increased the amount of (probably underutilized) gym memberships. I have noticed also in the past few years the marketing trend where restaurants offer healthy menu options.

In the wake of all this, how is the junk food market striking back to regain lost profits? Well, in typical Wal-Mart fashion, they are slashing their prices rolling America back down a slippery, grease-lined slope.

Many perceive health food companies as being beacons of light for our overweight country. However, just beneath the surface of that façade lies a different story; the issues involving the health food industry are two-fold. The first concern deals with the price of organic food. Health food companies have caught on to the organic trend, and their prices have skyrocketed in the past 15 years. According to this report from the USDA the price of fruits and vegetables has risen to an all-time high.

The story titled,Minnesota Tops List in Heath Rankings, uncovers many startling results. First, according to the report, northern states which have higher per-capita disposable incomes, are among the healthiest in the United States. On the other hand, southern states, where the general population is less financially sound, rank on the low end of the list. Anyone who has browsed the aisles of an organic food store can clearly see the price differential between organic foods and their corner grocery counterparts. That is capitalism at its best. The demand is higher, so the price can also be high. It is also important to not that organic food cost more to produce so its price will be above the typical cost of inorganic foods. Although this does not fully justify the exponentially increasing cost of organic foods when, in reality, could be sold for less. Subsequently, unethical in a country where heart disease is the number one cause of death for its citizens?

Secondly, the other factor involving health foods concerns the availability of their product. To illustrate this point, I recall an anecdote a close friend told me. While residing in Nashville, Tenn., the organic food store, Wild Oats, was readily available to him to fulfill his grocery needs. During his stint in Nashville, my friend lost weight because of amount of good, healthy food that he could easily purchase. However, when he moved back to West Tennessee he gained back much of what he lost, though much of his routine had not changed.

Many areas do not accommodate citizens with more healthy food options. Instead we are left to fend for ourselves through the vast aisles of big box retailers. Unfortunately, this leaves many with few options.

One option would be to obtain their health food online. However, seeing that heath food is already more expensive (as noted above), the price only rises when one considers the Internet option. The other option would be to simply buy an inorganic counterpart. However, these products are not as healthy as the high-end organic foods found at places like Wild Oats. Even as people make attempts to eat healthy, their efforts are stymied by high costs and unavailability. Moreover, even though some grocery stores now carry organic foods they are still overly expensive. There is always the temptation to settle for junk food instead and these days that temptation is higher than ever through new schemes by the junk food industry.

Fortunately, for people on a tight budget, the junk food industry has come to the rescue. No, not really. In the same USDA report, the data shows that as the price of heath food increases, the price of junk food decreases. Soft drinks are selling at all-time lows. Economically, that is a smart move by the junk food industry which has lost profits because of the health food craze. Declining junk food costs in spite of rising health food costs. As the cost of fast food lowers, the temptation for people to justify their purchase increases. Now, people can buy junk food and disguise their lack of willpower with the thought that they have made a smart, low-priced buy.

Additionally, the junk food industry has jumped on the heath food bandwagon. For many years soft drinks have allowed for the “diet” option, just a drop in the bucket for junk food companies. Chips are now sold with a “baked” option. Candy is fortified with vitamins. While this is a step in the right direction, it is a far cry from healthy; It is better for people to choose these options, but it is much better in general for people not to eat them at all. While consumers may think that they are overcoming bad habits, many never cut back on quantity, and American, like Texans, like things big. Sadly enough, American consumers are being duped like this every day.

Anyone who has worked in the food service industry can attest to the problems Americans have with self-discipline. I have heard countless stories from friends who work in fast food restaurants which prove just how bad people can get, and remember I am from the South. For example, I have heard of many people ordering an “up-sized” meal, adding an extra item, loading up on condiments, throwing in a dessert, only to top off purchase with a large DIET soft drink. Is that soft drink really going to make a difference when combined with an already trans-fat-laden meal? Of course not. Yet every day people justify their lack of free will by incorporating useless few heath options. It seems as if Americans, left to their own will, only succumb to their unhealthy vices.

New York, N.Y., has realized this and according to this story by the Associated Press has taken a bold step toward helping citizens become healthier. Now, I am not a huge fan of government stepping in to adversely affect citizen’s rights. However, this has worked well in the past. California took a bold step a few years ago to ban smoking in all public places to save citizens from themselves. New York has certainly taken cues from their west-coast counterpart, and is now the first city in the country to ban trans-fat from restaurants. Obviously, a majority of our citizens are unable to choose a healthy diet, and realizing this, New York has set the bar higher in heath. Hopefully, other municipalities will fall in line behind the new plans coming out of New York and the United States will be able to pull out of our unhealthy lifestyle.

A country’s health plays a huge role in almost every facet of society. Globally, others look at the United States as being a fat and lazy culture. However, as obesity and diabetes increases throughout our cities and states, health food and junk food companies sit idly by, trying to determine how they can capitalize on our faults. While heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in America we the people must demand companies and governments do something do more. Health food should be sold at a fair price, and governments should take more action on this topic.

Smoking, the constant battle

So when was the last time a perfect stranger came up to you on the street and asked you not to exercise your constitutional rights? Well if you smoke this probably happens all the time. It never fails, every couple of weeks as I walk through the quad on my college campus someone I barely know utters the phrases that gets me steaming, “You shouldn’t smoke.”

Okay, now hear me out please. By this time many of you might want to write me off right here and spew out a few million statistics as to why smoking is harmful to anyone’s health. Save it. I know. Actually, contrary to popular opinion most smokers do actually know much of the health risks that they are dealing with when they make the choice to smoke.

What I find most interesting about this subject is the reason behind people’s statements. First, I would not like to leave anyone with the impression that I am trying to combat my freedom to smoke by challenging other people’s right to free speech. I would just like to caution people in their exercise of this constitutional right.

When people make statements like, “You shouldn’t smoke,” what exactly do they expect the reaction to be? Do people really believe that I will completely relent, cast down my cigarette, and say, “Ya know I’ve never really heard it put like that before.”

If not, then I am assuming people are simply trying to annoy smokers to quit smoking. However, I am really not sure that is going to work. People are not going to stop smoking because others tell them to. They know the health risks, they are probably trying to quit anyway, leave them alone. Furthermore, I would like to state that I am a polite smoker. I try to be aware of the people around me so that when I am indulging in my personal choices that I, in turn, do not harm or displease others in any way.

Also, and in conclusion, I would like to state that cigarettes maybe kill thousands of people each year. On the other hand, heart disease due to poor eating habits is the number one cause of death in this country (source) killing nearly 700,000 people a year, but I have never told anyone to put down their cheese burger.

So basically time and time again I am assaulted by people and generally don’t know why. Perhaps the Newsvine community can shine some light on this subject. Why do people act this way? Is it the right solution here? Why is it that people passionately defend some civil liberties and constitutional rights, but reject this one?

(Also, I don’t generally use my column to rant and rave, but I thought this would open up some good discussion and answer some questions that I have.)

Retrotech or The Simple Things in Life

In today’s world where the computer dominates every day life slowly but surely “retro” ideas are springing back up into the mainstream. Even though our society will never regress into the days of the Ford Model-T or use Stone Age dial-up internet plenty of people are finding that sometimes simple ideas are not only cost effective, but easier to use than their Web 2.0 successors.

The PDA:

Personal date assistants drive the fast paced multitasking world of business, however as of late many are finding that the index card is a better solution to close the information gap. The guys over at 43Folders have developed what they are calling a “Hipster PDA” which is said to be “a fully extensible system for coordinating incoming and outgoing data for any aspect of your life and work.”

The Hipster PDA is simply a stack of note cards bound together by a clip which allows one to quickly and easily jot down ideas, lists, dates, or any other relevant information which assaults us every day. The advantage of the Hipster PDA is that it is a vastly inexpensive alternative to the traditional PDA, and takes less time to maintain. If you are like me and find yourself under utilizing that pricey PDA, then I recommend trying the Hipster version. Also, if you are wondering what kind of stylist to use for your new gadget the folks over at Scotland have just the solution.

The Stylist:

In a recent story which landed in the tech section of Newsvine, teachers at a private school in Scotland are forcing the use of the fountain pen on their students. For those of you who work in a digital world and believe that the pen is going the way of the cassette tape or the floppy disk, then I highly recommend that you take a look at the Scots. Fountain pens are a sleek, beautiful addition to your daily life. The article mentioned above states that using a pen helps one to better focus on the task at hand. Pens are still as useful in today’s world as the long lost piece of paper, and if you are going to use one why not be classy and get a fountain pen. Additionally, the fountain pen makes a great stylist for the Hipster PDA.

Want to do something more with your pen? Ernest Hemingway has the perfect solution.

The Hemingway Solution:

Even though many of us now have the ability, through recent breakthroughs in the utilization of technology, to have a completely paperless work environment, jotting down ideas and thoughts is still arguably a vital need for individuals who just want to escape through writing. To do that writing (and use that nifty new fountain pen), the Molesskins company offers the best of both worlds with their elegant notebooks. These are the same type of journals that have been used by great minds in the last two centuries. The purchase of one of these retro products will keep you up all night writing away until that five o’clock shadow appears.

The Five o’clock Shadow:

In recent magazines including <a h Esquire and Men’s Heath the big push for men’s shaving equipment is not the razors with 100 blades or the vitamin enriched shaving cream, instead these magazines have been reintroducing the badger hair shaving brush. Long ago men once used these brushes in their shaving arsenal. According to The Art of Shaving these brushes “generate rich and warm lather, soften and lift the beard, open pores, bring sufficient water to the skin, and gently exfoliate.” These things look really great as well. Enjoying the finer things in life has never been better. I have been using these things for about a year now, and I wonder sometimes how I ever got along without them.

Anyway, now that you have shaved its time to get to that digital office of yours, in style.

The Old New Car:

Alright, so I have to admit that this one is not so much what I would like to call “retrotech” as it is a new spin on a great old idea. Ford, the maker of that Model-T I mentioned earlier, has used retro concepts in their design of the 2006 Mustang. This model takes traditional ideas of the 1966 version of the car and adds it to today’s modern ideals. The result of which is a simply stunning product. This goes against the thesis that retro ideas can be more cost effective, but who wouldn’t want one of these babies?

To conclude, it is important to note that technology is an amazing part of the world in which we live. However, I assert that everything has its place and its roll. Also, sometimes buying all these new gadgets can leave one feeling shallow and empty. For example, when is the last time you saved hundreds of dollars to buy the “latest” in MP3 players, only for a newer version to come along and leave you in the dust?

“You’ve got a 2GB iPod nano? HA! Mine’s an 8GB!”

On the other hand, there are sleek, elegant options available which work better and will give you a more substantial feeling that you have curbed your enthusiasm and gone against to flow of society. So, to close, I urge you all to fight the man, set the trend, or rise above the peons and get back in touch with some of the simple things in life.