3 ms·

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 progres

• theoh 8y 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...