Digital divide

While reading it, I stumbled about the author’s question of “while many artists use digital technology, how many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital?”. I came with the bottom question of “does she really mean it?”. Many think, and re-think the medium they want to portray. artist would know the limitation and choose the best. Sometimes, the subject matter is more important than the medium itself. I will agree that medium matters, but somehow, the way she says it, seems… clueless. It started to worry me more when she said that “on one hand” seems to matter this theme. It worries me that she says that “K-Corea Inc.K, section a” is a good example of mattering media. I will argue that is common sense that as this “technological revolution that we are undergoing”, will bring new consequences/results. She seems angry/dislike toward the experimentation. It starts very apparent when she comments about the email account. Sadly for her, I do not recall any “pervasive sense”. I am too young to recall it.

 

Surprisingly, she touches almost every stereotype of an artist: foggy, indirect, lazy, unsure, doesn’t-care, it-is-what-it-is, empty concept. I am not surprised that she got bad criticism from people of the art world. Knowing toward where she was shooting, I took patience. She has a valid point that she wants to make, but her examples and adjectives seem not to be helping her. she also argues how we, humans of this time, are separating the medium from social interaction; that digital is replacing performances. She seems to be going to a theme, that many people of the art world, does not care. It is not in the priority list. If you don’t get the art world, do not become part of it: you will get nowhere if you don’t get it. However, she touched many interesting points such as “can communication between users become the subject of an aesthetic?” and actually… I will let you think about it.