Is technology becoming art?
5th Feb 2010
A cunning guise to trick foolish consumers…
At first glance I thought this a silly question. To me art and technology are so different that the two should never meet. However, taking a closer look at the (arguable) beauty of the iPhone, the outlandishness of Alienware’s Aurora desktop and the choice to add a Mike Ming cover to a new Studio 15, it’s easy to see where the line has become blurred, especially with technological advancements in day-to-day objects on a rapid increase.
But there is a crucial difference to make between art and technology, rendering them fundamentally distinct. Art is a largely subjective concept. It encapsulates the ideas, beliefs and motives of the creator. In many respects art has the purpose to evoke feelings or emotions but in just as many instances it has no purpose at all but to be created for the sake of creativeness. Someone can hate a piece of art but appreciate the intrinsic ‘artistic’ qualities about it. Technology, on the other hand, is the offspring of design. Design cannot be appreciated for simply existing; the purpose is to be functional. All technological gadgetry is developed for the purpose of being sold and used, be it a set of headphones, a laptop or a mobile phone. The ultimate goal is to design a product that is accessible and liked by as many people as possible.
Product design revolves purely around pleasure for the end user. The iPhone is smooth so you enjoy holding it and has a touch screen so you enjoy the ease of its use. Regardless of how artistic it may appear it exists only for comfort and enjoyment of use, not to be appreciated in a subjectively conceptual manner.
Alienware caters to the niche market of gamers who like having a desktop that looks like it came from Star Trek and get a thrill from the social status they gain from owning a high-end system. ‘Artwork’ by Mike Ming isn’t for the beauty; end-users get pleasure from the ideology it represents. Technology isn’t art; it has simply embraced the illusion of art to maximize use of the end product.
Written by Jonathan Hundson
What would Da Vinci be thinking…
Today, roads are littered with cars of all shapes and sizes, pockets are littered with the smallest, sleekest mobile phones and kitchens are decked out with the slimmest, shiniest appliances. The Bakelite days of the 1950s are distant memories and now, when car salesmen attempt to make a sale, the aesthetic aspects of the design will always play a prominent part in the pitch. But surely a car is a car, to get to places in? A teapot is a teapot, to pour tea? This is no longer the case.
When antiques are sold, function is in fact a bonus. In mainstream store chains like Laura Ashley, furniture seems made to be seen and not sat on. We can wake up in the morning and drink coffee made in a delicately pretty espresso machine. Even buildings that we inhabit are designed with aesthetics in mind and some, like The Eden Project attribute some of their fame to this idea of dual appearance and functionality. Bridges we cross and stairs we climb are now analysed based on whether they are, and this is the crucial point, ‘stylish’.
The ‘style roots’ of technology itself lie in art. Without Leonardo Da Vinci, we would not have half our means of transport, without Clarice Cliff, china would be dull and without the likes of Tiffany and Cartier, lamp shades would be, well, just lampshades. The Art Deco and Bauhaus movements provided us with the S-shaped chairs now seen in most living rooms and even contemporary art uses technology in exhibits, in installations and even artistic urinals, made in the shape of open mouths.
The minimum expected from technology is function. It’s hard to believe that the artistic merits of a toaster can make or break it but there you go, it’s often the selling point of today’s objects. How many times are we students told not to be fussy about what an appliance looks like, when secretly we would prefer something, ‘a bit nicer’? And why not have something pretty that also works? It certainly makes sense and undoubtedly ‘adds something’. When watches contain gold hands and clocks have jade faces, it isn’t difficult to see the temptation in technology that not only carries out its function but also matches the curtains and carpet.
Written by Rosie Price









Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment - Login/Register