At The Edge of Art

-->
The New Life Blood. 
 

The invention of the internet had opened art to a whole new audience, and the creation of which offers new tools for a wide range of artists to use, producing new emerging forms of art.

“The stars of this extraordinary new constellation tend to be biologists, engineers, designers and hackers… and the internet is in a strongly metaphorical way the lifeblood of this new creativity.” – (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006, page 8)

Art as an antibody

The world today is ever present with new technologies, with technology sometimes replacing traditional art.  So art, being the antibody, must defend from its new threat, or invader. The kind of art needed is one which will both last and intrigue society. Allowing its place to be kept in our society, as “society needs art to survive”. -  Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. (2006) page 8.  Extraordinary similarities also lie between Art and Virus’ as Olivero Toscani said, “A virus doesn’t have to defend itself, art doesn’t have to defend itself, It attacks, and if necessary it kills..” However, art dose not try to destroy society (that which it aims at), so this statement is ‘misleading’.

Technology is a Virus

A better comparison, would be to offer that technology is a virus, in that ;

“the earliest human technology may have been the arrow head, and some of the most recent ones require only the pressing of a few buttons to pound the world’s cities into radioactive rubble.” -   (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006,  page 9).

 Clearly, technology can be more harmful to humanity than art, and like a virus, digital technologies are always evolving.

But Art is Accountable

As art functions as an antibody, and technology functions as a virus. It is, although, a fact that all these function similarly to each other, as the best defence is a good offence. It is natural for a defence system to counteract a threat by acting similar to it.

“The only way antibodies can keep up with the incredibly creative power of viruses is to act like them.” – (Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. 2006, page 10).  

This is shown in the form that art has taken many digital forms, and although the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Technology’ is still unclear, what is art, is something that challenges, is thought provoking, and displays meaning through obscure forms.

Conclusion

To say art and technology mirrors biology, personally I feel is a poor comparison. Viewing the points made in the text I feel art is not like an antibody, it doesn’t protect anything, and is not essential to societies survival. It is a luxury, an interest, and a form of entertainment. To compare a virus to technology is a better comparison, as both can be lethal, life threatening, and sometimes just an annoyance, depending on the advancement of the attacker. However, technology is controlled, it can be aimed, a virus is contagious, and much harder to contain. On the threat of technology against art, and the differences between them, the answer is simple, they can overlap. Technology, must be made by man, an invention designed for purpose, and art is something that demands attention, asks questions, and expresses an opinion or statement, it matters not what media it is made from. These two elements, will inevitably collide and combine, to create new interesting  hybrids, fit for both purposes.

Bibliography

-       Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. (2006) At the Edge of Art, London, Thames and Hudson, introduction, Pages 7 - 13