Thursday, October 21, 2010

Generation to Generation: Technology and Society

I remember my mother telling me about her childhood.
She grew up in a small fisherman village in the west of Japan.
In her small neighborhood, there was one family, the wealthiest family, who owned a TV.
Every time monotoned "Tom and Jerry" came on, all the children in the neighborhood would rush to this family's house to watch this wonderful entertainment on a screen of a magical box.

Below clip is a short fragment from a Japanese Movie, "Always: Sunset on 3rd Street" (Always 3丁目の夕日) by director Takashi Yamazaki (←This link goes to an interview with this director. The interviewer asks about his view on "technology" as it seems to appear a lot in his movies... very relavent, so read if you'd like!) Why did I put this? It's because this fragment shows how people reacted to TV when it first arrived to homes in Japan in the 50's. I would imagine the scenes of my mother's story being very similar to the scene shown in this clip.

The Versions of Cause and Effect in Technology and Society discussed in Raymond Williams' article, The Technology and the Society, lists varieties of explanations people have when they discuss about how technology (TV) altered our world... whether TV was an acccidental invention, whether it was intended to disrupt, modify, or enhance social communications, etc. He emphasizes that we must not only focus on the technology in focus as the "cause" of the effect on the world, but also to talk about what "led to" the TV. Although this article was written in the 70s, what he wrote about technology as not just cause of change in the society, but also the societal chagne itself is very much applicable today, in the 21st Century. Yes, TV was a big deal in the 50s.  Maybe thsoe who invented did predict each household to have TV eventually, but I doubt they predicted the TV to be so prevalent, for each household to have multiple TVs, for the cars to embed TV, for the cellphoens to embed TV... At least in Japan, most families cannot live without a TV. They wake up in the morning and turn it on right away. Weather forecast, morning news, reality shows, dramas, movies... Everything is up to date, and everyone must be informed to be able to get on the social flow.  It's this progression of technological advancement that we must consider when we talk about the co-existance of technology and society and how they influence each other.

The clips above make one realize that it was such a joy and celebration for the world to achieve a high-technology called television. Now it's a social norm. People take advantage of it.

And how does this technological advancement affect the art world? Many things are so readily available and made possible thanks to technology. From the past weeks, we have discussed about the internet progression and web 2.0 being (in my opinion) a major plus to the art world as it allows the artists to promote and exchange their artworks with the world. Other than internet aspect, we may also discuss art that uses many technology such as CG and other digital effects as opposed to found materials and simple methods. 


Anthony Goicolea
from the book,
"Anthony Goicolea"
 As we have discussed in class, while watching "Amphibians" by Anthony Goicolea, where cameras are placed and the sound effects used are all very important aspects of creating the mood and the storyline in a film. He also tend to have the theme of proliferation in his art works, that he would edit his photographs (often self-portrait) to convey his messages. He took advantage of technology, and experimented with its ability.




William Wegman and his dog
On the other hand, artist like William Wegman went the other way by experimenting with simple objects found around him. He would take, for example, a used can of deodorant, or toilet plunger and TV screen, or crooked wire (and his finger...!) to create series of short video clips... which were all so abstract and exteremely humorous. People can go all direction when considering art. I don't think people can claim one is better than the other, nor could they say one way is the only way and not the other. It really all depends on how the artist utilize what he/she decided to use, and how effectively he/she can use it to create good art. One thing that can be said, is, merely relying on the technology, and only doing so, is probably not the best way to go about.  

5 comments:

  1. It's interesting to think of the excitement and wonders the television first brought when it was "privatized" or "individualized" to homes. Your mother's story of children running to catch a viewing of Tom & Jerry brought recollections of stories my mother told me of her childhood, as I'm sure that story has been told throughout the world for families. I enjoyed how you compared that story of television for entertainment to how the medium is now being used as an experimental art form.

    When you say that television was once a celebration, but now it is being taken advantage of, are you saying that in a negative light? Do you think that artists such as Wegman and Goicolea are taking advantage of that technology in negative ways?

    You also mention that ways of utilizing art can't be compared when determining if one way is better than the other... but I think that things like movies, that can combine not only a visual stimulus, but also an auditory stimulus can many times be a more heightened experience with art, and in various ways it can be better at certain things than other forms of art. For example, a poem on a piece of paper may not bring as many emotions as that poem "brought to life" on a cinematic screen with a soundtrack and moving images. Just food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are right. Relying on technology is not the only route in creating something beautiful. I honestly feel like technology is just a tool that can be used to enhance your artistic vision. As far as claiming that one piece is not better than the other, I am going to have to disagree. Yes we are all artists, and yes we all have different visions and ways of expressing our art, but if one artist can get their idea across to people through their art, and another can not, well I think that makes one better. Or, if one work of art makes people think more, enjoy life more, relate to themselves more, then in that aspect the art work can be better on a personal level.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The story about the only one TV in the village just made me think that it's interesting how apealing TV is to kids. In modern world, not only in Japan, in China nobody can live without a TV. Some of my friends told me without TV, they are basically detached from the society.Thats why I think TV or technology like that is really powerful and manipulative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, you can really see in that film clip how captivated everyone is by the first appearance of a TV in their village, and how it just draws them in. Televisions definitely are powerful tools for communication and entertainment, but I think that it's how you use them that determines how much impact they have on you. For instance, I rarely watch TV nowadays, and prefer to watch movies when I actually have access to a TV. So it has very little effect on what I do and know. But other people who are constantly watching it are drawn more into it, and probably let it influence them all the more. I'm not saying TV is a bad thing - but too much of a good thing can be harmful is overused.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TV and maybe now Facebook are common experiences for many people on earth. Thinking about the mass experience of viewing versus the individual experience of having access to something as esoteric as experimental films or artist-made videos.

    ReplyDelete