Art & Technology #9: Technological Intervention

Technology is efficiently put to use by producers and distributors who make elaborately calculated interventions to raise consumer spending. To that extent, technological intervention is quite virtually a guaranteed tool for marketing and producing images. As a result, it is also no surprise to find so much focus and effort around creating lucrative images through the latest technology.
People have an inherent need for external input, which is a vulnerability in some ways: the desire to experience. Behind this pathos lies the loss of creativity, to actually imagine and think on one’s own. Because of this, some have voiced concerns that provocative computer-generated spectacles detract people from independent, first-hand experiences. Such perspectives on the role of technological intervention in regards to potential virtuality and empirical actuality have diverse implications for the arts. What is important is that the level of technological advancement, its application, and the manifested effects of the artistic vernacular, are far secondary to the attitude of those using that technology.

Supported by technology, contemporary art is blessed by the mythology of innovation, and many perceive art today as new urban attractions. To see people gathering around an artwork incites a certain fluttering of anticipation that technology can open a new era for art. Yet at the same time, there remains concern that the tail is wagging the dog. At this crossroads of opinions regarding technology, a discussion of possible outcomes and their issues is merited.
First is the alienation of the artist’s role caused by the specificity of technology. Introducing new technology to art requires a great deal of effort, such as learning new fields of study and gaining firsthand experience. An artist may not need to become fluent in the language of coding and programming, but it goes without saying that using computer programs like a magical wand without a fundamental understanding is not a viable option. The role of the artist in creating art is gradually decreasing in terms of the diverse proficiencies once required in the past, and some artists consider technological intervention a compromise to the essence of art, rejecting its use.
Second is the means by which technology is consumed. Rapid change is a key aspect of modern technology. Not only is development rapid, but its dissemination rate also. Technology seeps in, intervening into visual culture across many fields. Art will be distributed like apps, and will increasingly require diverse applications of technology to produce ever more fantastic images. Once a new art vernacular associated with a particular technology is applied to a large-scale project, it is more likely to be repeatedly associated with other similar artworks, making the older art vernacular appear uninteresting. This is where art is liable to become an experimental subject for testing the application of new technology.

Yet we have no choice but to face reality as it is. Before contemporary art recovers from the trauma of new technology or develops any form of immunity, the unfamiliarity of ongoing changes might cause gradual unease. Ultimately, technology may even be ostracized or denied. Nonetheless, technology is already deeply rooted in our lives. Our lifestyles have changed as technology intervenes in our day-to-day lives. Art must be a looking glass for the rapidly changing lives of the contemporary age, because the essence of art is in encapsulating the zeitgeist.
In fact, this is relevant to the three issues mentioned earlier in relation to the relationship between technology and art. We need to distinguish and consider whether the marginalization is due to the language of technology, or the spectacle of image borne of technological intervention. Rather than bemoan the image-oriented art consumption of today’s world, we ought to reflect on the changing lifestyles of the contemporary age in order to seek the means to expand the spatial experience of art.
Art stands before the ruthless race of modern technology. Physicist Armand Trousseau once said, “The worst scientist is he who is not an artist; the worst artist is he who is no scientist.” While the way we enjoy art, and even our sentiments surrounding art, are all changing, art is also undergoing constant experimentation across various fields and disciplines. It is also time to seriously consider the fundamentals of those experiments, to confirm whether or not they contribute to human existence. Of course, this should be accompanied by a thorough understanding of humanity. Is that not the approach technology ought to have toward contemporary art? ■ Han Eun-ju, Director of Soft Architecture LAB, with ARTINPOST