Speaker 1: Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome to Forward Thinking, the
Speaker 1: podcast that looks at the future and says order, design, composition, tone, form,
Speaker 1: symmetry balance. I'm Jonathan Strickland, I'm Lauren voc Obama, and
Speaker 1: I'm Joe McCormick. So in our last podcast we talked
Speaker 1: about three D printing and art, and I thought in
Speaker 1: this podcast we should back out a little bit and
Speaker 1: look more generally at the relationship between technology and art,
Speaker 1: because that's something that isn't always totally intuitive to people,
Speaker 1: and in fact, I think some people kind of don't
Speaker 1: like it, right they have this low tech view of
Speaker 1: what art should be. Oh sure, In fact, I think
Speaker 1: we could probably posit that angry Joe might say that
Speaker 1: technology shouldn't be involved in art at all, but it
Speaker 1: should be the way that it has always been, that
Speaker 1: it should never be produced any differently, right, sure, well,
Speaker 1: Lauren's talking about the angry Joe from the last podcast,
Speaker 1: the guy who wants things to be how they've always been. Right.
Speaker 1: There would resist anything beyond say, painting and sculpture. That
Speaker 1: is art, that is all art is, and only if
Speaker 1: it is done in the traditional way, whatever school of
Speaker 1: art you happen to follow, that is all that can
Speaker 1: be allowed into art with a capital A. Well, I
Speaker 1: want to tell y'all story please. Kind of interesting to
Speaker 1: me about an event in the history of art. Have
Speaker 1: you ever seen a painting called Nude descending a Staircase
Speaker 1: Number two by Duchamp? Okay, so it was Marcel Duchamp's painting,
Speaker 1: and it's how would you describe it? Um? I would
Speaker 1: describe it as being kind of this, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's if you don't know what the title of the
Speaker 1: painting is, you don't know what you're looking at. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think. But once you know the title, if you're
Speaker 1: standing at the right distance, you can totally see what
Speaker 1: was trying to be captured, which is this idea of movement. Right,
Speaker 1: You've got these shapes and colors and lines that are
Speaker 1: they're evocative of someone walking across the frame. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's vaguely earth toned throughout in varying shades, and then
Speaker 1: it's got these intersecting lines and strange shapes. It's it's
Speaker 1: very abstract. Um. But when you attached the title to it, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you can definitely see the blur of motion in it, right,
Speaker 1: something that looks like someone passing through the darkness. So
Speaker 1: that's got universal acclaim, right, No, actually it didn't. It
Speaker 1: was very divisive when it came out, so yeah, sorry, guys.
Speaker 1: In nineteen thirteen, there was an art show in New
Speaker 1: York called the Armory Show. And this is kind of
Speaker 1: a famous event in in Transatlantic art history because what
Speaker 1: was going on at the Armory Show is a lot
Speaker 1: of the European paintings were being showed off to an
Speaker 1: American audience, and so there were offering views about a
Speaker 1: lot of the different things at the show, but Nude
Speaker 1: Descending a Staircase Number two by Duchamp was one of
Speaker 1: the most divisive. It got some very negative reactions from people.
Speaker 1: One critic said that it looked like, quote, an explosion
Speaker 1: in a shingle factory. Um. Teddy Roosevelt actually, like the
Speaker 1: former president, Teddy Roosevelt panned it. He compared the painting
Speaker 1: to a rug that he had hanging up in his bathroom. Unfavorably, Yeah, unfavorably.
Speaker 1: He said that the rug was a better piece of art,
Speaker 1: better representation of an as he called it, I think
Speaker 1: a nude man going down the stairs, going descending a
Speaker 1: ladder or something like that. He also talked about going
Speaker 1: up a ladder a clothed man going oh yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: okay yeah. Um. So a lot of people were just like,
Speaker 1: what is this. I don't like it. I don't like
Speaker 1: the way it looks. It doesn't look like a nude
Speaker 1: descending a staircase. It's no good. Yeah. Um. Now it
Speaker 1: is widely considered a very important and meaningful work of
Speaker 1: art that's highly respected by a lot of people. What happened, Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, one thing is it has sort of faded
Speaker 1: to the background now and it's sort of part of
Speaker 1: it's the old school now, and there's plenty of new
Speaker 1: things for people to say that's not art, right. Sure,
Speaker 1: And also we can kind of see in a perspective
Speaker 1: of time where it fits. It's easier once we get
Speaker 1: a little bit removed from the current moment, I think. Sure.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just that people were rejecting abstract art
Speaker 1: in general. They weren't necessarily like there were abstract art
Speaker 1: schools that didn't like this painting because it didn't fit
Speaker 1: what they thought that, you know, the school should be. Uh.
Speaker 1: But in any case, I wanted to talk about something
Speaker 1: that I found interesting about this painting, which is that
Speaker 1: it was actually inspired by something that came before it,
Speaker 1: not necessarily something artistic, but something technological. And what would
Speaker 1: that be the advent of early film chrono photography, Uh,
Speaker 1: the move pictures. So the early films people made, and
Speaker 1: like the decades that came before this, we're not narratives
Speaker 1: yet usually all right, there were just short little scenes
Speaker 1: like a horse running, or like a naked person coming
Speaker 1: down a flight of stairs. And still that Tuesday morning
Speaker 1: at my house, yess new Jonathan descending a staircase number
Speaker 1: two was not quite as big a hit as regular
Speaker 1: nude descending a staircase. But yeah, so what was going
Speaker 1: on in this painting was that Duchamp was trying to
Speaker 1: capture the motion that was available in this new form
Speaker 1: of art that you know, the technological form, the moving film,
Speaker 1: how the motion appeared on the screen. There could he
Speaker 1: put it in a frame And that's sort of what
Speaker 1: he did, kind of did. Yeah, and again once you
Speaker 1: you know, we being more familiar with film as a medium,
Speaker 1: can sort of see what he was trying to capture
Speaker 1: a little more easily, I think than the audience that
Speaker 1: saw it way back when. I think this is a
Speaker 1: great example of the positive relationship between technology and art
Speaker 1: and sort of a rebuke to those people who say, no,
Speaker 1: art is old school, it should be low tech. It's
Speaker 1: you know, chisel or paint brush, and and that's it there.
Speaker 1: I think that is wrong. I think that there is
Speaker 1: a positive feedback loop of inspiration between technology and art.
Speaker 1: They feed off of each other, they inspire each other,
Speaker 1: and that this is a great example that they make
Speaker 1: each other possible in certain ways. I mean, we should
Speaker 1: all also keep in mind that without materials science throughout
Speaker 1: the ages, we would certainly not have the colors of
Speaker 1: paints that we do today, oh totally. For for for example, chemistry,
Speaker 1: or by the time that we started getting into the
Speaker 1: actual manufacture of man made solvents or basses or fillers
Speaker 1: or additives or pigments, the creation of plastics hugely drove
Speaker 1: new directions in the painting artistic industry. And and also
Speaker 1: just pure mechanical or industrial mean of grinding and mixing.
Speaker 1: All of these components together lead to colors and types
Speaker 1: and affordability that we would not have gotten without those
Speaker 1: materials technologies. Um of course you also have some safety
Speaker 1: issues here, and they're related to this. Uh. Many paint
Speaker 1: pigments are and always have been made from ground metals
Speaker 1: or metallic salts. We just talked a little bit about
Speaker 1: that in a tex Stuff episode about fireworks. Actually. Um
Speaker 1: but uh, for example, lead used to be used to
Speaker 1: create white pigments until oh, I mean basically until everyone
Speaker 1: figured out how terrible of an idea lead is, um
Speaker 1: and and also began caring enough about their paint manufacturers
Speaker 1: to present alternatives like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide to
Speaker 1: create white paints. Yeah, that's a great point. Or what
Speaker 1: about something that I think is widely accepted in the
Speaker 1: art world today, which is just photography. Yes, I mean
Speaker 1: one time this was brand new technology and it wasn't
Speaker 1: widely accepted at all all when it when it first
Speaker 1: came about it and became more popular than just a
Speaker 1: couple of people experimenting with chemical process to transfer light
Speaker 1: onto a physical film, which is you know, that's the
Speaker 1: process of photography, right, Sure, but it was considered kind
Speaker 1: of too real to be artistic, right, Yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was considered that and the fact that it wasn't
Speaker 1: it was a mechanical and chemical process, not something that
Speaker 1: was hand crafted to create the image. So for anyone
Speaker 1: who has developed photos, you get your hands in that,
Speaker 1: that's true, but you you only move something from one
Speaker 1: chemical to another chemical until you're done. Uh. Now, the
Speaker 1: way that this all comes about is that you had
Speaker 1: this this drive during the Renaissance to create ever more
Speaker 1: realistic art so that you are representing what the human
Speaker 1: eye can see as faithfully as you possibly can. Uh.
Speaker 1: This was something that kind of consumed a lot of artists.
Speaker 1: They all wanted to be the best at the representation
Speaker 1: of what is real, and we got into detail and
Speaker 1: perspective and all kinds of very intricate little line work
Speaker 1: and stuff like making sure proportions are accurate at the
Speaker 1: distance that you are at and that you are really
Speaker 1: capturing something as it is and not just some sort
Speaker 1: of idealistic version of it. Well, photography, of course is
Speaker 1: kind of the the the ultimate approach to that, at
Speaker 1: least in a two dimensional format. And we talked plenty
Speaker 1: about three dimensional in our last episode, but in a
Speaker 1: two dimensional format, you know, capturing something by the light
Speaker 1: that is reflected off of the scene is about as
Speaker 1: close to what we the human Uh, the humans who
Speaker 1: are looking at it are going to get right. So
Speaker 1: in that sense, it very much appealed to people. In fact,
Speaker 1: it started to become once the process became affordable, it
Speaker 1: became something that would replace other means of creating illustrations,
Speaker 1: wood cuttings, that kind of stuff, because that's expensive and
Speaker 1: time consuming to produce. Whereas if you are able to
Speaker 1: take a photograph, even if it takes an hour or
Speaker 1: two hours for you to be able to take a photograph,
Speaker 1: that's still way faster than the artistic approach. So I
Speaker 1: can see how it would easily replace something like kind
Speaker 1: of the low rent portraiture you might get in or
Speaker 1: or even illustrations and say a publication. Sure, okay, but
Speaker 1: what about fine art? I mean, did it rival the
Speaker 1: kind of art that would be produced by a great painters?
Speaker 1: There there was a great resistance to it early on,
Speaker 1: and you had essentially three camps of thought. You had
Speaker 1: one that said it has no place in art whatsoever.
Speaker 1: You had people who said, um, it could be really
Speaker 1: useful for artists because the artists could actually use the
Speaker 1: photograph as a reference point when making their own art.
Speaker 1: So in other words, it's just a step between a
Speaker 1: tool for creating real art. Yeah. So, so instead of
Speaker 1: having to have the painters stand out in the field
Speaker 1: in order to get the field just right, you just
Speaker 1: send a photographer out there to take a portrait picture
Speaker 1: of the field, and then the portraiture art sty just
Speaker 1: or whatever the actually landscape I guess. Instead the landscape
Speaker 1: artist can just take a look at the picture as
Speaker 1: the reference point and make the painting that way. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then there was a third, very small group of
Speaker 1: people who said, you know, I I think photographs could
Speaker 1: be art all on their own. Um. And they were.
Speaker 1: They were shouted down pretty much early early on. It
Speaker 1: didn't take too long for people to really start making
Speaker 1: a serious push for proclaiming that art, that that photographs
Speaker 1: can actually be considered art. Um. For example, there was
Speaker 1: Louis Figuier who said, back in eighteen fifty nine, until now,
Speaker 1: the artist has had the brush, the pencil, and the bureau,
Speaker 1: and now, in an addition, he has the photographic lens.
Speaker 1: The lens is an instrument like the pencil and die brush,
Speaker 1: and photography is a process like engraving and drawing. For
Speaker 1: what makes an artist is not the process, but the
Speaker 1: feeling which I think sums up kind of my philosophy,
Speaker 1: the idea that if someone is using uh any kind
Speaker 1: of particular process to express some sort of thought or emotion,
Speaker 1: that is more what I think of as art than
Speaker 1: whatever the actual process was. Well, yeah, I don't even
Speaker 1: know exactly which one he meant in the original quote,
Speaker 1: But there's another way of looking that at that, which
Speaker 1: is that it's about the feeling it creates in the
Speaker 1: audience or the viewer more than how it was created.
Speaker 1: Although there was some argument at the time that since
Speaker 1: it was a mechanical process that it was almost like
Speaker 1: if a like if a textile mill was creating a
Speaker 1: very beautiful weaving that was still somehow cold and mechanical
Speaker 1: in nature because it was created by a machine and
Speaker 1: not a person. Right. It was it was manufactured as
Speaker 1: opposed to create it artistically. And I would put in
Speaker 1: at this point that, um, one of my angry Lauren
Speaker 1: moments was when the switchover from film to digital photography occurred,
Speaker 1: and I was like, well, a digital photograph is never
Speaker 1: going to look as warm and beautiful as a film
Speaker 1: photo aograph because it's just it's missing that quality. Oh
Speaker 1: you know, I was actually with you there. I I
Speaker 1: have a soft spot for film. I like film. I
Speaker 1: like film in films too. So in other words, yeah,
Speaker 1: and we see this, like even from just a consumer perspective,
Speaker 1: we see consumers who might resist a digital movie as
Speaker 1: opposed to a movie that was shot and projected on film.
Speaker 1: Although you're really going to have to struggle to find
Speaker 1: real film projectors of this day though I do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, like we all in this room, you know,
Speaker 1: having been born into a time when Stanley Kubrick or
Speaker 1: Ansel Adams or any of the other kind of visionaries
Speaker 1: of filming mediums have have already been doing work. George Lucas.
Speaker 1: We of course, we all accept this as being art
Speaker 1: and perhaps I mean most definitely even fine art. But
Speaker 1: I can I can see where previous generations would have
Speaker 1: been resistant to it. Yeah, so we accept photography now.
Speaker 1: But what's the next thing, I mean, what's going on now?
Speaker 1: We we talked in another podcast about three D printing
Speaker 1: in the art world, but I think we should talk
Speaker 1: more about this world we're creating where art, science, technology
Speaker 1: and design are very much merging. There the lines between
Speaker 1: them are blurring in a lot of instances, and I
Speaker 1: think this is actually a really cool thing. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's art being deluded. I mean, obviously there's still
Speaker 1: people who make sculptures and paintings in a traditional way.
Speaker 1: Today I really like the way that technology and art
Speaker 1: and science and design are becoming this strange other category
Speaker 1: of creation. I don't even know what you call it,
Speaker 1: but well, I mean they're there. I think of it
Speaker 1: in some ways that you can think of you know, art, design, technology, science,
Speaker 1: you can think of that all of these things are
Speaker 1: part of what is humanity, right, These are all aspects
Speaker 1: of humanity, and there's overlap in different categories. There's some
Speaker 1: art that overlaps with technology or science, components of a
Speaker 1: larger call chair. Yeah, so you can't. I mean, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say that any one piece was necessarily uh an
Speaker 1: example of pure art or pure technology. There are always
Speaker 1: going to be some other elements of these other parts
Speaker 1: of what it is to be human that spill over
Speaker 1: into that. You see that at some really big events
Speaker 1: like the Burning Man Festival or maker fares, where you
Speaker 1: have these examples of things. Some of them are practical,
Speaker 1: some of them are not practical, Some of them are
Speaker 1: meant for entertainments. Some of them are meant for performance,
Speaker 1: some of them are just meant to make you think
Speaker 1: or feel something. And you might look at any two
Speaker 1: exhibits or or examples of stuff that people have created
Speaker 1: at one of these events and have very different reactions.
Speaker 1: And one you might have just a purely intellectual reaction
Speaker 1: of that is really interesting and I wonder how they
Speaker 1: did it. Another one might affect you emotionally, And they're
Speaker 1: going to fall on different scales for each person about
Speaker 1: whether or not it feels like it's art or maybe
Speaker 1: just art informed the creation of that piece. But I
Speaker 1: think that to say one is art and one is
Speaker 1: not art in some sort of weird um you know,
Speaker 1: subjective definition is not terribly helpful. Well yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: there's there's very little about art that is absolutely objective.
Speaker 1: So this also reminds me of a particular byproduct of
Speaker 1: technology that can be a form of art. Some artists
Speaker 1: create these very beautiful stones, stones kind of in quotation marks.
Speaker 1: They're called Fordite or Detroit agget and there I know,
Speaker 1: right like Texas gold. Um, they're they're they're they're created
Speaker 1: from from layers upon layers of automotive paint that have
Speaker 1: been reclaimed from factories. It also reminds me of I
Speaker 1: used to have here at the office a little piece
Speaker 1: of um what looked like obsidian glass, and it was
Speaker 1: actually a piece of of waste from a plasma waste converter.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, because their plasma waste converters can create two
Speaker 1: different types of waste. One of them is a gas
Speaker 1: which can be used to create sin gas, which you
Speaker 1: can then use as a fuel. And the other is
Speaker 1: this this uh, non organic molten mass that when it cools,
Speaker 1: looks like volcanic rock. And I could easily imagine using
Speaker 1: that to create an artistic uh you know, expression of
Speaker 1: some sort some kind of sculpture or whatever. If you
Speaker 1: wanted to, you could actually use that, and that would
Speaker 1: be an interesting artistic expression. To say. Ultimately, the material
Speaker 1: that I used to create this came from a landfill,
Speaker 1: Like literally, the landfill provided the raw material that I
Speaker 1: used to make this sculpture. And it doesn't it doesn't
Speaker 1: look necessarily like that. And of course there are artists
Speaker 1: who use Yeah, I mean that's a there's a grand
Speaker 1: tradition of using reclaimed objects to to make into pieces
Speaker 1: of art. Sure, I want to talk about something that Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I think you actually have written a good deal about
Speaker 1: the path, which is a really interesting project. In my mind,
Speaker 1: it's called the Avatar Machine. This is a fun one.
Speaker 1: So the Avatar Machine was this project that the goal
Speaker 1: of the project was to find out what it would
Speaker 1: be like to view yourself from the third person perspective,
Speaker 1: as if you were playing a h an MMO like
Speaker 1: World of Warcraft, but you were the character and everything
Speaker 1: you did was translated in real time to the view
Speaker 1: you had, but you had to have a view of
Speaker 1: yourself as a third person character. Now, typically in those MMOs,
Speaker 1: your view is a third person view where you're behind
Speaker 1: and slightly above the character. So it's like you're about,
Speaker 1: you know, two or three feet over the character's head
Speaker 1: and behind the character, so that you get a good
Speaker 1: view of what is in front of and a little
Speaker 1: bit to either side of that character. So how do
Speaker 1: you manage that if you wanted to make a you know,
Speaker 1: a real life version. Well, if you're Mark Owens, what
Speaker 1: you do is you build a harn and the harness
Speaker 1: holds a camera that is mounted about two ft above
Speaker 1: and behind the person who's wearing the suit, and then
Speaker 1: the feed from the camera goes directly into a monitor
Speaker 1: that's inside a helmet, and when you wear the helmet,
Speaker 1: your vision is blocked except for what is on the monitor,
Speaker 1: so you can only see the view from the monitor.
Speaker 1: You can't see the world around you otherwise. So with
Speaker 1: a live video feed coming from the camera, you see
Speaker 1: yourself from the third person. You see as if your
Speaker 1: view is hovering above and behind yourself. And then you
Speaker 1: try and wander around and this artistic uh experiment, you
Speaker 1: might say, yeah, it's see it's hard to know even
Speaker 1: what to call it. It was it was definitely uh.
Speaker 1: You know. Mark Owens is pretty well known for experimenting
Speaker 1: with different kinds of technology and art, but this particular one,
Speaker 1: he was exploring how people behave when they are viewing
Speaker 1: themselves from the third person. Do their sense of ethics change?
Speaker 1: Do they do they feel still? Do they still feel
Speaker 1: as connected to their actions? Have responsibility for your behavior? Right?
Speaker 1: If you walked up to, say, a small child, and
Speaker 1: pushed over the small child, uh, wearing this avatar machine,
Speaker 1: would you actually feel like you know, well, from experience,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying from what i've the videos I view,
Speaker 1: not that I saw a video of Marco once pushing
Speaker 1: over a small child. But that's just what Jonathan would
Speaker 1: do if you were away. He specifically said that it
Speaker 1: kind of creates a sense of detachment. And also, he
Speaker 1: said the other thing was that because the the the
Speaker 1: costume he made, because he didn't just do a simple,
Speaker 1: you know, boring helmet and a harness. He made a
Speaker 1: full costume for this thing. And the costume included, uh,
Speaker 1: these these spikes on the helmet that looks like a
Speaker 1: spiky hair, and the costume included like these kind of
Speaker 1: big shoulder pads and stuff, so that made you look
Speaker 1: like a big, old, brawny character from World of Warcraft.
Speaker 1: He said that people who would wear it would invariably
Speaker 1: start swinging their arms wide and kind of adding swagger
Speaker 1: to their their walks, so that they're essentially adopting the
Speaker 1: kind of walk you would see in one of these games.
Speaker 1: It's like they became, uh, a different different entity than
Speaker 1: that they would if they were just walking around as themselves.
Speaker 1: If I put that on, what I tried to do
Speaker 1: is like keep glitching until I'm a hundred feet in
Speaker 1: the air and I'm stuck there right or you like
Speaker 1: you take take one wrong step on a on a
Speaker 1: staircase and suddenly fly five feet straight up in the sky. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that fortunately did not happen. If you want to
Speaker 1: see what this looks like, there's a video of it
Speaker 1: on the on the moment side actually eas even modern arts,
Speaker 1: So if you just google like MoMA avatar machine, you
Speaker 1: can find this video. Yeah, it's pretty cool. But the
Speaker 1: thing that I was really interested in in the video
Speaker 1: it was it was actually kind of weird to talk about,
Speaker 1: but it was this idea of devices that were designed
Speaker 1: to harm themselves, the suicide machines. I found these things
Speaker 1: very strangely sad and beautiful. Actually they're very dynamic, but
Speaker 1: very upsetting. Yeah, so I don't know what to call them. Again,
Speaker 1: it's obviously a work of art. It's their machines. They're
Speaker 1: working machines with motors um and what the machines do
Speaker 1: is kill themselves. So there is it's referred to as
Speaker 1: sort of a kind of industrial art. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: I'm pronouncing this right, but I think it's tious. Riker
Speaker 1: and this artist created these machines. So there's one of
Speaker 1: them that has an arm that is operated by a
Speaker 1: motor and The arm is attached to five saw blades
Speaker 1: which slowly worked back and forth on the outside of
Speaker 1: the gearbox, working their way down into the gearbox that
Speaker 1: eventually would end up sawing into itself to the point
Speaker 1: where right there's another one that went and turned on,
Speaker 1: begins to pour sand into its own gearbox, and as
Speaker 1: the sand builds up, that provides resistance against the gears
Speaker 1: until the machine finally stops working. Uh. They literally are
Speaker 1: suicide machines. They perform no function except self destruction. And
Speaker 1: there is something really profound I found about watching these videos. Again,
Speaker 1: you can go look them up if you just google them.
Speaker 1: They they had an effect on me like a like
Speaker 1: a good piece of artwood. But what do you call them? There?
Speaker 1: Their machines there there you view them through video because
Speaker 1: I guess eventually they wouldn't work anymore. It's really only
Speaker 1: a one time sort of installation. It's a great trick,
Speaker 1: but you can only do it once. Well. It actually
Speaker 1: reminds me a little bit of a device that the
Speaker 1: founder of information theory, Claude Shannon built called the ultimate machine.
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen the Ultimate machine? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Here's what the ultimate machine is imagine that you have
Speaker 1: a little box, and the box has a little trap
Speaker 1: door in it, and it also has a little switch,
Speaker 1: and whenever you flip the switch, the trap door opens
Speaker 1: and a hand comes out and pushes the switch to
Speaker 1: the off position and then retreats back into the box
Speaker 1: and the trap door closes, and that is all the
Speaker 1: machine does. So if you try to turn the machine on,
Speaker 1: it turns itself back off, over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: Now Claude Shannon brilliant man, founder of information theory, he's
Speaker 1: the reason why we have the computers working the way
Speaker 1: they do from a theoretical perspective, and he also just
Speaker 1: really loved to build weird stuff. People have gone on
Speaker 1: to make other versions of the Ultimate Machine that do
Speaker 1: other things that one of my favorites has it where
Speaker 1: if you if you hit the switch enough times, the
Speaker 1: trap door comes up and a little white flag comes
Speaker 1: up out of the trap door and it surrenders and
Speaker 1: then it finally turns the switchback off again. So it's
Speaker 1: it's one of those things where again it's in that
Speaker 1: case the purposes for amusement, right, The only thing there
Speaker 1: is for you to really get a laugh out of
Speaker 1: this experience, but it is that that you do have
Speaker 1: that emotional response. You might not call that fine art,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly is technology that evokes an emotional reaction.
Speaker 1: Oh well, I wouldn't want to necessarily write something off
Speaker 1: and say it's not art just because the emotion it
Speaker 1: produces is humor and absurdity. Like we were talking about
Speaker 1: Duchamp earlier. How about a mona Lisa with mustache. I
Speaker 1: mean some people would look at that and say this
Speaker 1: actually meant something at the time it was produced. Or
Speaker 1: a telephone in the shape of a lobster. Yeah, um,
Speaker 1: I mean there is something joyful and absurd about it.
Speaker 1: Maybe some people might say, oh, you know, that's just
Speaker 1: kind of a goof, but I don't know, I like
Speaker 1: a good goof. I can see that as art. So
Speaker 1: how about this next one then on the list, because
Speaker 1: I think that fits right in. I want you to
Speaker 1: imagine yourself in a scenario. Okay, so you're you're yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I'm going to describe it. Wandering around in a lonely
Speaker 1: bus station late at night. I just your regular Wednesday night,
Speaker 1: and you come around a corner and suddenly you're staring
Speaker 1: at a large black ball hovering in front of your
Speaker 1: face and making noises at you. Okay, every other Wednesday night.
Speaker 1: The noises might be the sound of echoing footsteps, little
Speaker 1: voices talking far away in the distance. You're specifically describing
Speaker 1: a nightmare, um like this is. This could easily be
Speaker 1: in any ghost movie you know. This is actually also
Speaker 1: a work of technology, art and design blurring together. It's
Speaker 1: called space Replay. You can google this also to see
Speaker 1: videos of it. It was a project created by Francesco Tacchini,
Speaker 1: jew linka Ebhard, and will Yates Johnson. It is a
Speaker 1: three foot wide black balloon and the balloon material is
Speaker 1: a nylon and it floats. It's filled with a mixture
Speaker 1: of oxygen helium to the point where it achieves neutral buoyancy,
Speaker 1: so it doesn't go up or down really, it just
Speaker 1: kind of hovers, uh. And of course, like obviously if
Speaker 1: there's wind gusts or something, it'll just follow them around
Speaker 1: and inside or electronic components that record ambient noise and
Speaker 1: then play it back on a delay, So the effect
Speaker 1: you get is a hovering black ball that plays a
Speaker 1: delayed tape loop of the ambient sounds of existence. So
Speaker 1: essentially what you could end up hearing is walking through
Speaker 1: say subway tunnel or like a tunnel that leads to
Speaker 1: the subway station. Um, and this black orb is floating
Speaker 1: in there, and you're the only person there, and meanwhile
Speaker 1: you're hearing little children laughing, and then you never go
Speaker 1: to sleep again exactly because there were some kids in
Speaker 1: there just a minute ago and it recorded them. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think this is this is great. I love it.
Speaker 1: It's not emotionally affecting necessarily, but I think it's just
Speaker 1: brilliantly absurd and really interesting. I I would call that
Speaker 1: very emotionally affecting. If I ran into that thing, I
Speaker 1: would be emotionally affect well. To see the terry yourself.
Speaker 1: Look up the videos. It's called space replay. Yeah. I
Speaker 1: actually did watch one of the videos. Now, the videos
Speaker 1: mostly show people being you know, very nonchalant as they
Speaker 1: walked by this thing. Uh, as opposed to me would
Speaker 1: be like what the hell is that? So uh yeah,
Speaker 1: but it is a really interesting example. Another one that
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about. It is actually a full exhibition.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just one piece of art. All the different
Speaker 1: pieces of art in this I found really interesting. The
Speaker 1: exhibition was called trace recordings, surveillance and identity in the
Speaker 1: twenty first century. And it was an exhibit at UTS
Speaker 1: Gallery in Australia, and it was all about surveillance and
Speaker 1: incorporating elements of surveillance into the art itself. Now, some
Speaker 1: of the more traditional pieces of art, like there was
Speaker 1: a photograph of an n s A listening station in
Speaker 1: the middle of this area that in the United States
Speaker 1: is off limits for radio broadcast because it's meant to
Speaker 1: allow radio telescopes to operate without interference, and the n
Speaker 1: s A is there to listen to stuff that bounces
Speaker 1: off the moon, and so it's just a photograph of
Speaker 1: that place and just kind of a reminder of you know,
Speaker 1: this is interesting that they're listening to signals. But beyond
Speaker 1: that were some really cool examples, like a Paolo Cirios
Speaker 1: street Ghosts, which took pictures of people that that showed
Speaker 1: up on Google street View, printed out the pictures in
Speaker 1: real life size, and then posted them in the physical
Speaker 1: locations where they had appeared on street View. So you'll
Speaker 1: see like these tunnels where people had been walking by
Speaker 1: on a tunnel and and their pictures have been pasted
Speaker 1: up and uh, exactly where they had been in the
Speaker 1: in the Google street View photo. There's another one, Benjamin
Speaker 1: Gallon's two point four Gig Hurts, which was an art
Speaker 1: exhibit that consisted of a portable monitor and antenna. You
Speaker 1: could walk around with this thing through the streets of
Speaker 1: Australia and pick up unsecured CCTV cameras, so you could
Speaker 1: actually see live video feeds from cameras that had not
Speaker 1: been placed under any kind of of lockdown of security.
Speaker 1: And again it was just to kind of give you this,
Speaker 1: this whole idea of surveillance and what it means. You know,
Speaker 1: I can't really say what the artist intended, obviously that
Speaker 1: that belongs to the artist, but it certainly certainly raised
Speaker 1: awareness of how much surveillance there is and how little
Speaker 1: of it is controlled. There was another one called Stranger
Speaker 1: Visions by Heather Dewey Hagborg, and it featured three D
Speaker 1: printed portraits quote based on genetic material taken from public
Speaker 1: places into quote like a bench, you know, or something.
Speaker 1: You take some genetic material, you figure out what the
Speaker 1: person would probably look like, and then you print out
Speaker 1: a three dimensional face and mounted on the wall. And
Speaker 1: it's not at all creepy. I I for the record
Speaker 1: to think that that one was um more art than science.
Speaker 1: I I don't think that you can actually get create
Speaker 1: what someone's faces just based on care or I don't
Speaker 1: know you can. You might be able to, you might
Speaker 1: be able to guess, you might be able to guess
Speaker 1: certain things like certain general demographics, but beyond that, I
Speaker 1: doubt that you could get to You wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to get any any specifics um but it would be
Speaker 1: really general. And so there are a lot of artistic
Speaker 1: license there. But then then there was also a memory,
Speaker 1: which was a digital frame that included a camera inside
Speaker 1: of it. The camera would take images of the people
Speaker 1: looking at the portrait and then incorporate their faces into
Speaker 1: an amalgamation of all the faces that had ever seen,
Speaker 1: so so the more people who saw it, the more
Speaker 1: generic the face would become. There was also one called
Speaker 1: descriptive camera, which might be my favorite one, which was
Speaker 1: by Matt Richardson. So this is a camera that when
Speaker 1: you took a picture of something, it would give you
Speaker 1: a little print out receipt that described what it was
Speaker 1: that you took a picture of rather than a picture.
Speaker 1: So like let's say I've got a camera and I
Speaker 1: pointed at you, Joe, right now, and I take a picture.
Speaker 1: After a couple of minutes, I would get a printed
Speaker 1: receipt that would say there's a man sitting in front
Speaker 1: of a microphone with headphones on, and maybe may might
Speaker 1: go into more detail, like tell me what color shirt
Speaker 1: you're wearing or what color eyes you have. The way
Speaker 1: this actually worked was that it did capture an image,
Speaker 1: but it would upload that to a web service that
Speaker 1: used humans to analyze stuff. And the fun because then
Speaker 1: the humans have to describe what they see and then
Speaker 1: send it back and then you get a print out
Speaker 1: of what was seen. So imagine what what the the
Speaker 1: picture you would get would be through the eye of
Speaker 1: the analyst. So it wouldn't necessarily be a perfect representation
Speaker 1: of what you point the camera at. It would be
Speaker 1: the way someone would communicate that the best way they
Speaker 1: knew how, and the most accurate way they knew how.
Speaker 1: So it could be really interesting to see in a way,
Speaker 1: you can kind of see how this other person views
Speaker 1: the world based on the pictures you took. And of
Speaker 1: course you can't guarantee that's always going to the same analysts,
Speaker 1: so you can't even really get a full grip that
Speaker 1: this one person sees the world in a very specific
Speaker 1: way based upon the descriptions that come back. But I
Speaker 1: thought that was a really cool idea. Uh. Some of
Speaker 1: my favorite things that I've seen are interactive art installations
Speaker 1: that have played with the concept of the cloud. Um
Speaker 1: there there's one that's just really kitchy. That's a that's
Speaker 1: a motion based fun or cloud. It takes any motion
Speaker 1: from inside the room and and and integrates that that
Speaker 1: data into what it's how it's flashing and making noise.
Speaker 1: But but but a but a bigger one. There is
Speaker 1: a sculptural piece with these lighting and motor elements called
Speaker 1: the Capacitor by one John Grade that that moves and
Speaker 1: brightens and dims I mean, and this is a huge thing,
Speaker 1: like like giant room size that you can walk around inside. Um.
Speaker 1: But but all of its movement and lights are based
Speaker 1: on a mix of historical weather data and live input
Speaker 1: from sensors on the roof of the Color Art Center
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin where it's installed. And the more that the
Speaker 1: current data differs from the historical data, the greater the
Speaker 1: shifts in movement and light as you're walking through the
Speaker 1: installation that's pretty awesome. And then you know, you again
Speaker 1: with the maker fair stuff where I said that art
Speaker 1: informs design, which informs technology, and all of these things
Speaker 1: have this kind of uh symbiotic relationship with each other
Speaker 1: that's also in in all display for things like like products.
Speaker 1: You know, the design of products incorporate aesthetics. And you
Speaker 1: might argue, all right, so like sir Johnny I've who
Speaker 1: who does design at Apple? You know, you would say
Speaker 1: that Apple is one of those companies that really has
Speaker 1: a great grasp on the concept of design. You might
Speaker 1: say that sir Johnny I've is an artist. Uh. Now,
Speaker 1: you might argue that the art that he creates are
Speaker 1: the the actual designs that all the products are based
Speaker 1: off of, and not the products themselves. I don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with that necessarily, but you definitely have to
Speaker 1: say that art at least informs the decisions. That's part
Speaker 1: of the reason why Apple products have such a strong appeal. UH.
Speaker 1: And design in the Apple sense incorporates more than just
Speaker 1: the physical appearance of one of their products. It also
Speaker 1: incorporates how it works. So the actual the actual uh
Speaker 1: interface and how that interacts with the user is all
Speaker 1: part of that design, and again it all comes back
Speaker 1: to certain con steps that are very fundamental in creating art.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you could certainly say the same for the
Speaker 1: teams that design, especially high end cars. They're I mean,
Speaker 1: they're gorgeous, but they're very functional. And then there's the
Speaker 1: video game debate, like video games they are. We don't
Speaker 1: have time to get into that today. We got a
Speaker 1: whole separate episode, certainly, although I do want to put
Speaker 1: in that the Museum of Modern Art has been collecting
Speaker 1: video game pieces um and displaying them over the past
Speaker 1: few years, so that I'd say that makes it a
Speaker 1: little bit official. I think we all agree that Frankenstein
Speaker 1: through the Guys the Monster is fine art and Tim
Speaker 1: Curry's performance needs to be preserved forever. I would say
Speaker 1: all of the cut scenes in the whole Command and
Speaker 1: Conquer series are fine, fine art that also involves Tim Curry. Curry,
Speaker 1: I think, I think is what we're saying. Tim Curry
Speaker 1: himself is fine art. Yes he is. Uh, Mr Curry,
Speaker 1: we salute you. Okay, So I have another place I
Speaker 1: want to go with this. Robots, not Tim Curry. I
Speaker 1: was going to say, and more rob Okay, Well, let's
Speaker 1: talk about robots. Um. So, first of all, they've been
Speaker 1: used in an artistic installations. Uh. There's one made by
Speaker 1: a shaung Juan who opened an art installation in Shanghai
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and twelve that had a couple
Speaker 1: of robotic or animatronic figures. Robotic might be a little
Speaker 1: might be a little generous. I would consider more animatronic
Speaker 1: than robotic. But they were both uh, mechanical versions of Confucius.
Speaker 1: One of them was a full figure of Confucius that
Speaker 1: was inside a cage that would thrash around wildly. Uh,
Speaker 1: and live monkeys were also in the cage. So I'm
Speaker 1: sure that was an interesting experience. Yeah, I mean it's
Speaker 1: if you watch video of this, it's very like it's
Speaker 1: pretty violent kind of thrashing, and it was supposed to
Speaker 1: sort of, at least from what the interpretations I've heard,
Speaker 1: it's supposed to kind of give an indication of the
Speaker 1: state of China and uh, and especially how it pertained
Speaker 1: a spirituality. But then there was also an incredibly huge
Speaker 1: Confucius that was sitting in a a large pool that
Speaker 1: was essentially like a bathtub. So just think of a
Speaker 1: Confucius that's maybe I don't know, two and a half
Speaker 1: stories tall, but you only see him from the chest up,
Speaker 1: sitting in this pool as if it's a bath, and
Speaker 1: he was snoring. That was the other robotic. Then there's
Speaker 1: Jordan Wilson's robotic female dancer might be the creepiest thing
Speaker 1: in the world. I I still can't they my my
Speaker 1: best description. If you have not seen this video, I
Speaker 1: cannot necessarily recommend watching it because it will haunt your
Speaker 1: waking dreams forever. Um. But but it sort of reminds
Speaker 1: me of like a like a broken model of a
Speaker 1: BioShock character. If it was dancing really hard. I like
Speaker 1: that you're trying to do the dance while you're talking microphone.
Speaker 1: That's a that's for the benefit of everyone who's watching
Speaker 1: us right now. To be fair, I get the sense
Speaker 1: that it wasn't It's not like it was supposed to
Speaker 1: be real cute and friendly. I think that there is
Speaker 1: something sinister being communicated. So in order to describe this,
Speaker 1: let's let's let's explain what this is. So you've got
Speaker 1: a female figure, life sized female figure dressed in a
Speaker 1: white outfit that you would normally consider to be a
Speaker 1: kind of a sexy oltfit sex lady outfit. Yeah. She,
Speaker 1: the the robotic figure has has a realistic looking skin
Speaker 1: that is smudged in quite a few places. Um, and
Speaker 1: is wearing a long gloves as well as this this
Speaker 1: sexy little outfit. Uh. She's also wearing a mask that
Speaker 1: covers the upper half of her face, has a long,
Speaker 1: deformed nose and is kind of green and bumpy slash
Speaker 1: scaly looking, so very very very monstrous. Yeah, deformed looking
Speaker 1: and uh. And the she dances two songs that have
Speaker 1: been purposefully distorted like blurred lines was one of the songs.
Speaker 1: In fact, that was the one that was playing in
Speaker 1: the video, which is already disturbing enough. And it was
Speaker 1: hard to tell what the song was at first. It
Speaker 1: takes a while before the lyrics start kicking in you
Speaker 1: start realizing what song this is, and you know, again,
Speaker 1: I don't wish to project my own, uh, my own
Speaker 1: opinions upon the artist's intention, but the feeling I got
Speaker 1: was that this was kind of a commentary on sexualization
Speaker 1: in general, and it was. I mean, it's really disturbing
Speaker 1: you start looking at because the motions are very they
Speaker 1: look very lifelike, but the appearance is grotesque, and the
Speaker 1: the distorted music adds to it, as well as the
Speaker 1: fact that the robot is lips singing along with some
Speaker 1: of the songs and also appears to look at people
Speaker 1: as they get closer and there, and the gaze from
Speaker 1: the robot will remain on that person a person around
Speaker 1: it around. So if you start moving, the robot is
Speaker 1: dancing facing a mirror and actually is being supported by
Speaker 1: a pole. Come through the mirror into the robots torso.
Speaker 1: But if you were to pass back and forth within
Speaker 1: the view of the robot, it would track you if
Speaker 1: you were close enough. Very very unnerving. Um effective piece
Speaker 1: of art. I think, well, now that we've discussed some
Speaker 1: horrifying things, um well, let's talk about something delightful, like
Speaker 1: robots that make art. Yeah, I think some of these
Speaker 1: things are really neat. A lot of them are robots
Speaker 1: that can follow specific rules to recreate something. For example,
Speaker 1: there are robots that can use cameras to look at
Speaker 1: a person and then sketch that person because the cameras
Speaker 1: can define where the edges of that person are, and
Speaker 1: then the robot arm kind of traces through that. But uh,
Speaker 1: you know again, it's following specific rules that a human
Speaker 1: has set up an algorithm. Right. Uh. There are other
Speaker 1: robots that can do things like carve using chainsaws, carve
Speaker 1: into wood, and make a sculpture, but again following a
Speaker 1: specific pattern set by um an artist. This is kind
Speaker 1: of like our three D printer discussion, except of course
Speaker 1: this would be subtractive rather than additive, right, you know,
Speaker 1: but it is following a specific program to make contours
Speaker 1: and cuts in such a way that you get the
Speaker 1: shape you want at the end of it. Although I
Speaker 1: would put in that just because you're creating a program
Speaker 1: that creates a piece of art, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the outcome is not a piece of art, or or
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe you would want to call the
Speaker 1: program the art rather than the end results. I just
Speaker 1: think my point is not so much whether or not
Speaker 1: the final product is art, but whether or not you
Speaker 1: call the robot an artist. I would say you don't,
Speaker 1: because the robot is following the directions of the actual
Speaker 1: artist whoever set it up. It's a it's a tool ship.
Speaker 1: So but but what if you create a robot that
Speaker 1: creates robots that make art, then is the robot that
Speaker 1: created the robot the artist. The person who created the
Speaker 1: robot that created the robot artist is still the artist.
Speaker 1: I would say, until you get to a point where
Speaker 1: the the I think you're a bio chauvinist. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: When you get to a point where a robot can
Speaker 1: create something undirected by a person, uh, you know, in
Speaker 1: order for it to be whatever it might be, Uh,
Speaker 1: then I would say that would be the robot would
Speaker 1: be an artist. But if the robot ultimately is directed
Speaker 1: by a person to do whatever it is it's needing
Speaker 1: to do, then I don't know that you can call
Speaker 1: it an artist. Well okay, but I would just say
Speaker 1: that's sort of an issue of degrees really rather than
Speaker 1: a clear break, right, because you're just talking about increasing
Speaker 1: levels of complexity and abstraction between the original programming and
Speaker 1: the final result. Right. Like, you can have robots today,
Speaker 1: probably that create or not. Probably, I've seen it happen.
Speaker 1: There are robots today that create works of art algorithmically,
Speaker 1: like that they're not told exactly what to create, except
Speaker 1: that the algorithm creates the set of rules that the
Speaker 1: robot has to behave in order to create the art
Speaker 1: exactly right, the butt cannot here. Here's how I would
Speaker 1: define it. Because the robot is incapable of breaking those rules,
Speaker 1: the robot cannot be an artist. An artist can break
Speaker 1: the rules, doesn't necessarily have to break the rules, but
Speaker 1: an artist has to be able to break the rules.
Speaker 1: In my mind, to be an artist sounds like you're
Speaker 1: incorporating the idea of free will and a little a
Speaker 1: little bit. Okay, okay, that's interesting. I have I have
Speaker 1: a favorite quote from Ray kurtzwild kind of on this topic.
Speaker 1: He said in his book The Age of Intelligent Machines,
Speaker 1: the role of the computer is not to displace human creativity,
Speaker 1: but rather to amplify it. It is a tool like
Speaker 1: a paintbrush, but one of unique and virtually unlimited potential. Clearly,
Speaker 1: the great artists of old must have had many ideas
Speaker 1: beyond the ones that they had time to actually express.
Speaker 1: By reducing the many chores involved, computers can give artists
Speaker 1: the opportunity to realize more of their artistic visions. See.
Speaker 1: I like this idea because it's the idea that technology
Speaker 1: somehow makes us live lives of leisure. And we've all
Speaker 1: experienced the fact that despite the fact we have the Internet, computers, printers,
Speaker 1: we find ways to fill up those hours with more
Speaker 1: work so that we have it suddenly magically, you know,
Speaker 1: because that was one of those promises, right, the idea
Speaker 1: that when we create this technology, well I'll be able
Speaker 1: to sit around wearing jumpsuits and eating replicators for it,
Speaker 1: do not have to worry about working. Are eight hours
Speaker 1: of work will be compressed into fifteen minutes and then
Speaker 1: you've got the rest of the time to do whatever
Speaker 1: you want. And and that just unfortunately hasn't proven true. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we we have a little thing here about what
Speaker 1: is the future of art? What's it gonna look like?
Speaker 1: And I would argue that art is always a product
Speaker 1: of the time and culture that it comes from, not
Speaker 1: necessarily a product to the point where you can trace
Speaker 1: it directly, but you know, artists come from somewhere. Artists
Speaker 1: come from that time and culture that that was around
Speaker 1: when they started getting the inspiration to create whatever it
Speaker 1: was they were going to create. And because we can't
Speaker 1: really predict what the future culture and times are going
Speaker 1: to be like, we can't even possibly imagine what art
Speaker 1: is going to be like, I would say that technology
Speaker 1: will continue to play an important role in art, and
Speaker 1: we may see an increasing direct involvement of technology inside art,
Speaker 1: not just producing it. Sure right, I'm you know, given
Speaker 1: that that art is a reaction to the culture and
Speaker 1: that it creates reactions within the culture, It's it's a
Speaker 1: cyclical thing. It's definitely not separate. And you know, nor
Speaker 1: would nor would I want to try to separate it,
Speaker 1: so you wouldn't. This is what I have to say
Speaker 1: to that angry Joe from ages ago about how we
Speaker 1: should stick with the tried and true methods. I mean
Speaker 1: that ultimately you can see lots of skill and lots
Speaker 1: of interpretation and lots of expression that way, but you're
Speaker 1: also limiting expression that way. There could be artists out
Speaker 1: there who could thrive with tools that are well beyond
Speaker 1: what the traditional artists might use, that could end up
Speaker 1: affecting us deeply on an emotional level, that that otherwise
Speaker 1: would be unable to express themselves because the tools they
Speaker 1: want to use are considered verboten in the world of arts.
Speaker 1: With the capital A and I have a follow up
Speaker 1: question from our Duch Schamp discussion at the beginning of
Speaker 1: this episode, and this is the question I have for you, guys,
Speaker 1: what do you think do you think now that we're
Speaker 1: in the era of digital digital video and digital photography
Speaker 1: and we're getting further and further away from film and
Speaker 1: film is always, you know, like motion picture, film is
Speaker 1: a series of pictures that, when played together very very quickly,
Speaker 1: produces the illusion of movement. Right. Do you think the
Speaker 1: further we get away from film being that pervasive medium,
Speaker 1: the less people will be able to identify with du
Speaker 1: Schamp's nude descending a staircase number two, because now we
Speaker 1: don't kids today? Yeah, but Teddy Roosevelt never had the
Speaker 1: experience of watching a show on Netflix glitch up and
Speaker 1: freeze in the middle of several consecutive frames. Right, But
Speaker 1: he also probably never saw that many films that I'm
Speaker 1: just saying that if he had seen that, I think
Speaker 1: the kids of tomorrow, unless Netflix gets its act together,
Speaker 1: will be just fine. I'm blaming it all on you, Netflix. No,
Speaker 1: I think digital video is really going to It makes
Speaker 1: me think of how Quentin tarantino um talks about digital
Speaker 1: film he prefers or digital video. He much prefers actual
Speaker 1: physical film to digital video because he thinks of that
Speaker 1: as the series of photographs that create the illusion of movement.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe I don't understand how digital video works.
Speaker 1: I thought that was the same thing. Not at all. No,
Speaker 1: you know what, It's okay, Joe, I'll tell you all
Speaker 1: about it in a great episode of Tech Stuff, another
Speaker 1: podcast series you guys should be listening to if you
Speaker 1: don't already. But since that, because well, beyond the parameters
Speaker 1: of this discussion here, I'm going to open up the
Speaker 1: question to our listeners, what do you guys think? Do
Speaker 1: you think that things like the technological advancement can mean
Speaker 1: that we might be distanced from the original vision of
Speaker 1: artists to the point where a piece of art that
Speaker 1: once had no meaning because the technology was too new,
Speaker 1: then had a meeting meaning because the technology became more familiar.
Speaker 1: Could it in fact lose its meaning over time again
Speaker 1: as we go beyond that technology. That's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: It's a fun question. Another question, Hey, have you guys
Speaker 1: created any art that has been dependent upon technology that
Speaker 1: you would like to share with us? Because if you have,
Speaker 1: I totally want to see it. Yeah, and you should
Speaker 1: definitely share that on our Facebook page. You can also
Speaker 1: contact us on Twitter or Google Plus. That would be
Speaker 1: another great place to share your art. Are handled all
Speaker 1: three of those is FW thinking. So come on be
Speaker 1: part of the audience that lets us know exactly what
Speaker 1: you want and share your work with us because we're
Speaker 1: really interested to see what you've come up with, and uh,
Speaker 1: we'll talk to you again, really sim For more on
Speaker 1: this topic in the future of technology, visit forward thinking
Speaker 1: dot Com, brought to you by Toyota. Let's Go Places,