Is Technology Killing Your Creativity? (Star Wars + Martin Heideigger)
Is technology killing your creativity?
Watch Video
Is technology killing your creativity?
Watch Video
That's because philosophy often goes a lot deeper/touches a lot more fundamental things than that. And putting that in a title is pretty tough, especially if you want to make it palatable to non-philosophy students.RatGouf said:What? .... I was expecting an actual discussion about "Is Technology Killing Your Creativity?" & this seems more like something to do with how one spends their free time or better tools.
Here I was about to talk about how unoriginal my "original" creative ideas are. Or how my creative ideas that double as criticism end up being my favorites.... And this.... This seems like a different topic being discussed.
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, but the concept of 'efficiency' does at times conflict with other sensibilities.NinjaDeathSlap said:Why do art and technology have to be mutually exclusive? As far as I'm concerned, some of the most artistically breathtaking creations in the world are tools designed for a specific and mundane purpose. The Golden Gate Bridge employs suspension technology to connect two land masses in order to allow passage over a body of water. Does this fact make it artistically worthless?
I agree insofar as efficiency is the primary concern for most man-made technology. However, if we take art back to it's original, literal meaning (aka, back to Ancient Greece) any practitioner of anything man-made was called an 'artist'. As far as they were concerned, the guy who designed the bridges was just as worthy of the name as the guy who designed the statues. I go along with that way of thinking quite a bit, and as I result I often tend to see design in artistic terms, regardless of whether or not that was the primary purpose.CrystalShadow said:snip
I can see your point, but I would hesitate to call a spitfire efficient... It has a huge engine, and is certainly faster, but that comes at a cost in terms of fuel usage and such.NinjaDeathSlap said:I agree insofar as efficiency is the primary concern for most man-made technology. However, if we take art back to it's original, literal meaning (aka, back to Ancient Greece) any practitioner of anything man-made was called an 'artist'. As far as they were concerned, the guy who designed the bridges was just as worthy of the name as the guy who designed the statues. I go along with that way of thinking quite a bit, and as I result I often tend to see design in artistic terms, regardless of whether or not that was the primary purpose.CrystalShadow said:snip
This is not to say that I find everything man-made pretty (60/70's architecture in the UK is nothing less than a crime against humanity). However, I don't find efficiency to be the cause of ugliness. I think it is cheapness, especially in the age of mass production. More often than not, I find a machine that has been designed to be the most efficient, high-performance tool of its class to be inherently beautiful, because there's a pride and pursuit of excellence there in the craft that isn't so different to that of the painter and sculptor.
Take your prop-driven aircraft example: Within that class we have the Cessna, an abominable plastic white-good that just happens to also be able to fly; and the Spitfire, one of the most beautiful things ever created by man (needless to say, this is subjective, but I dare you to disagree with me ). The Spitfire is both the more attractive and the more efficient machine, for largely the same reasons each way. Both machines, however, are art, though neither was made to be.
I can see the appeal, though what about getting sick, injured, or getting cancer? Being a slave to the land for a survival, all the mystical superstition surrounding creation, painful rites of passage, and the constant inter-tribal blood feuds? Live among the natives wasn't exactly like the Na'vi. It's been heavily romanticized.Leon Royce said:I would give up every single advantage of comfortable modern society to go back 1000 years in time and live in North America among Amerindians. Without hesitation.
Native American shamanic healing arts are thousands of years more advanced than anything we have today, and nobody knows this.Nurb said:I can see the appeal, though what about getting sick, injured, or getting cancer? Being a slave to the land for a survival, all the mystical superstition surrounding creation, painful rites of passage, and the constant inter-tribal blood feuds? Live among the natives wasn't exactly like the Na'vi. It's been heavily romanticized.Leon Royce said:I would give up every single advantage of comfortable modern society to go back 1000 years in time and live in North America among Amerindians. Without hesitation.
As someone who got cancer in their 20's and having a desire to know how the universe works, I'm loving technology in most of its forms and put its value on par with art and natural world. A balance can be had and history has too many negatives for me to want to go back to more primitive times permanently.