Art has moved to the labs and on the Internet. Davis’s experiment is an example of this. He had to do his work in the lab and go to scientist for help. This is because there wouldn’t be anything left behind, like when a painter or writer create something. Because of the development of technology art has been forced to evolve to survive.
2-According to the authors, is "art" still an important term? Do we still want or need to distinguish it from "non-art"? If so, why or why not?
Yes we need art because it acts like the antibodies of our societies culture. As art evolves, it fights the virus of technology and keeps our culture alive
3-How is technology a virus, and if technology acts like a virus, how does "art" function like an antibody? Does this mean that art is opposed to technology? Is the immune system opposed to all foreign bodies (consider mitochondria in every one of our cells, or intestinal friendly flora). What then, is the relation between art and technology as portrayed in The Edge of Art?
Technology acts like a virus against our culture giving us a very bland culture without a lot of depth to it. Art acts like a antibody forcing our culture to evolve and keep up with the rate that technology is advancing. This doesn’t mean that art is opposed to technology because with the same way antibodies and virus interact. Since a virus mutates so quickly the antibodies have to act the same way a virus does and evolve quickly as well. So the reason why art needs technology is because without it art would never advance.
return