3 ms·

Construction technology is not the same thing as architecture. Architecture as an art doesn't progress. Music is the same, painting is the same. A piece of med

by theoh 7y ago

Construction technology is not the same thing as architecture. Architecture as an art doesn't progress. Music is the same, painting is the same. A piece of medieval music can be perfect on its own terms. It wouldn't make sense to say that electronic music is better because the tech is more advanced. Artistic value and technology are totally separate issues.

ionised 7y ago
Technology has allowed people to create music in different and original ways, as well as proving entirely new instruments. Painting materials have evolved and become cheaper, making art more accessible to the average person, expanding the artistic landscape. These things have not stayed the same. It's odd that you think they have.
- theoh 7y ago
  I didn't say that they stayed the same. The point is that you can't say objectively that these arts have progressed any more that you can say that human nature has changed for the better. What I'm saying is not an unusual opinion. I mentioned electronic music, so it should have been obvious that I'm aware that "things have not stayed the same". But the point I'm trying to allude to is the fact that art is an expression of the human spirit, and because of that, it doesn't advance like science or technology. Here's an example of someone writing in the Guardian: "It was a year of revelations. The oldest portrait in the world – carved out of mammoth tusk 26,000 years ago in Moravia – had a long slender face, almond eyes and a rueful half-smile: just like a Modigliani. She came to the British Museum along with Ice Age drawings and sculptures so superb they have never been surpassed, proving once again that there is no progress – only change – in art." From https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/dec/22/art-review-2013-cumming-klee https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/dec/22/art-review-2... Or, on a slightly different point: "It is obvious that art cannot teach anyone anything, since in four thousand years humanity has learnt nothing at all." (Tarkovsky) Tarkovsky obviously isn't denying the growth of scientific knowledge. He just thinks there are aspects of human nature that only change slowly, if at all, and that those aspects are more significant than the accumulation of scientific knowledge and all the changes that brings about.
  - gbear605 7y ago
    I guess it depends on the definition of progress. I see people able to do things previously impossible, which I say is progress, and you say that is not progress because the new things are not objectively better.
    - theoh 7y ago
      Acquiring the ability to wipe ourselves out with nuclear weapons is the classic example of this problem. The physicists weren't expecting that pushing the boundaries of what was technically possible would result in a very bad escalation of destructive capability, nuclear arsenals and the rest. Progress in nuclear physics hasn't got a lot to do with progress in human politics and (dare I say it) justice/peace. Construction technology is similar vis a vis architecture. Revit, 3D printing and advanced materials aren't an automatic ticket to making architectural work that's as good as or better than Angkor Wat. I mean, just what materials you build something out of, and what technologies you use, both obviously contribute to the particular artistic problem that the architect solves. But someone working with very limited technology can produce a fully developed artistic masterwork under those constraints. That's just something we know empirically from looking at the art of the past. So this is more about never being complacent that what's being made today will match or surpass the artistic high points of the past. That's what the "no progress" concept means to me. There's a level playing field—none of us has any kind of technology that means we can unthinkingly produce work that compares well with renaissance masterpieces. The real picture is quite a bit more depressing that that...

by theoh 7y ago

ionised 7y ago

Technology has allowed people to create music in different and original ways, as well as proving entirely new instruments. Painting materials have evolved and become cheaper, making art more accessible to the average person, expanding the artistic landscape. These things have not stayed the same. It's odd that you think they have.

theoh 7y ago
I didn't say that they stayed the same. The point is that you can't say objectively that these arts have progressed any more that you can say that human nature has changed for the better. What I'm saying is not an unusual opinion. I mentioned electronic music, so it should have been obvious that I'm aware that "things have not stayed the same". But the point I'm trying to allude to is the fact that art is an expression of the human spirit, and because of that, it doesn't advance like science or technology. Here's an example of someone writing in the Guardian: "It was a year of revelations. The oldest portrait in the world – carved out of mammoth tusk 26,000 years ago in Moravia – had a long slender face, almond eyes and a rueful half-smile: just like a Modigliani. She came to the British Museum along with Ice Age drawings and sculptures so superb they have never been surpassed, proving once again that there is no progress – only change – in art." From https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/dec/22/art-review-2013-cumming-klee https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/dec/22/art-review-2... Or, on a slightly different point: "It is obvious that art cannot teach anyone anything, since in four thousand years humanity has learnt nothing at all." (Tarkovsky) Tarkovsky obviously isn't denying the growth of scientific knowledge. He just thinks there are aspects of human nature that only change slowly, if at all, and that those aspects are more significant than the accumulation of scientific knowledge and all the changes that brings about.
- gbear605 7y ago
  I guess it depends on the definition of progress. I see people able to do things previously impossible, which I say is progress, and you say that is not progress because the new things are not objectively better.
  - theoh 7y ago
    Acquiring the ability to wipe ourselves out with nuclear weapons is the classic example of this problem. The physicists weren't expecting that pushing the boundaries of what was technically possible would result in a very bad escalation of destructive capability, nuclear arsenals and the rest. Progress in nuclear physics hasn't got a lot to do with progress in human politics and (dare I say it) justice/peace. Construction technology is similar vis a vis architecture. Revit, 3D printing and advanced materials aren't an automatic ticket to making architectural work that's as good as or better than Angkor Wat. I mean, just what materials you build something out of, and what technologies you use, both obviously contribute to the particular artistic problem that the architect solves. But someone working with very limited technology can produce a fully developed artistic masterwork under those constraints. That's just something we know empirically from looking at the art of the past. So this is more about never being complacent that what's being made today will match or surpass the artistic high points of the past. That's what the "no progress" concept means to me. There's a level playing field—none of us has any kind of technology that means we can unthinkingly produce work that compares well with renaissance masterpieces. The real picture is quite a bit more depressing that that...