The Technological Destruction of Art

When confronted with our technological past, the future seems to blur into a stream of endless possibilities. Consequently, such availability and advances can lead society to a faster and more troublesome end. As Vannevar Bush stated, “[Humankind] may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good.” Technology not only limits the use of knowledge and functionality of our own brain processes; it can create a greater sense of power over another and allow individuals to readily overpower larger masses. This ability can easily be misleading and even fall out of hand of its wielder. In regard to art, the ability for individuals to mass-produce their ideas or art strips the power once obtained through its sacred position or “cult” tradition. On the other hand, the availability of this mass produced work can target larger audiences and create a wider array of control through a commercialized spectrum. The power of spreading these selected ideas through the advancements and availability of this ever-changing and adapting technology creates a new power and tradition in societies. Ultimately, through it all, will art lose its significance as technology bleeds its originality?

The function of technology depends on “logical processes.” Unlike technology, “ the repetitive processes of thought are not confined however, to matters of arithmetic and statistics” (Bush). The human brain works on two different fields of thought that I’ll define as “logic” and “creativity.” Depending upon “logical processes,” technology has the capability to work more efficiently and faster through theses processes than one individual alone and cause a dependency and admiration of this one process. In the end, the creativity is left in an unequal position when compared to the function of “logic.” In regard to art, the affect of art’s presence diminishes when creativity is overpowered by the logic. An individual’s viewpoint is shifted away from the artwork itself as technology regulates its power. In contrast, technology, having a substantial ability to control creativity, can also support the outreach of creative ideas to larger audiences and give individuals greater access to discovering intuitive and creative ideas outside of their localized region. Regardless, technology’s “prime action of use is selection, and here we are halting indeed” (Bush).

During the times of both Walter Benjamin (1936) and Vannevar Bush (1945), they began to see the rise of technological advancement and its influence upon art. Bush’s description of the “memex” explains what we experience today as the computer and databases. Technology has truly aided our time, breaking barriers between nations and empowering the effectiveness of security and ideas, but in the end, it creates a sense of control and power that “self-[alienates our experience to]… such a degree that [we accept our]… own destruction” (Benjamin). To the same degree, art reflects that destruction and becomes our “aesthetic pleasure” toward ourselves. This internal conflict created within us by technology will thus encourage and push the death of ideas and creativity. Leaving art to be subject to that device, the original portrait of art and "cult" tradition will become the shadow behind the logic of technology.