Technology and Art: Engineering the Future

Portland, Oregon December 2015
The Discreet Paradise of Networks (2006) New York City







Eyal Gever’s article “Technology and Art: Engineering the Future” (2012) asserts that technological advances in today’s society has become a fundamental force in the development and evolution of art. Gever supports this claim by providing various examples of how art is becoming less static and taking up new and different forms; with these developments the boundaries are limitless and there will always be new artists pushing the envelope of what has never been done before. Gever’s purpose was to point out that the goal of art today is about the experience the art delivers to the public in order to prove that it actually has nothing to do with the techniques that the artist chooses to use, but to use it as a new base or medium for moving in new directions. The specific works of art mentioned and the technical language throughout this piece lead me to believe that Gever is writing to a well-educated audience with some knowledge of art and modern creativity with a willingness to consider new and varying forms.

I agree with Eyal Gever’s assessment of how technology has provided artists with new tools of expression. These two seemingly distinct disciplines are interlinked more than ever, with technology being a fundamental force in the development and evolution of art. All of these various forms and techniques; internet, digital fabrication, nanotech, biotech, self-modification, augmented reality, virtual reality- these are all altering our lives, our view of the world and ourselves. These are all creating new experiences and opportunities than ever imagined, scientists, software developers, inventors, entrepreneurs – but also musicians, visual artists, film-makers and designers are all participating and contributing to this new world of art. Technology has also served as a place for all of these different arts to exhibit their work and to sell it too. This use of social media is a powerful tool to change the relationship between collectors and the public, effectively spotting people looking for specific artworks.A huge concern that Gever was wise to bring to attention was the argument that as a result of so many new tools and techniques, we may lose our sense and ability to evaluate what is great art. Gever refutes this by stating  “In art, what becomes popular is not necessarily great, and vice-versa. Many new art ideas and artworks were hard to digest when they first came out” (2012). I think that this challenges artists in a positive way by motivating them to push their boundaries and limits as truly great art surprises and takes us where we least expect it.


Gever, Eyal. “Technology and Art: Engineering the Future.” BBC News. 4 Oct. 2012. Web.


3 thoughts on “Technology and Art: Engineering the Future

  1. I agree with the quote from the article stating that all popular art isn’t quality art. It said that digital art work has introduced new ways to create art, but to what extent? Almost everything that is done on the computer is a display of what could be made in the real world. Digital programs have tools that resemble paint stokes, textures and other compositions that artists have been making for centuries. We can now just enhance it, make it more malleable, and have special effects that can bring the art to life. In some way I think this has changed art to be more cheap. It’s easier to obtain and quicker to make, but I think one of the reasons art was so valuable to begin with was because it took time, skills, effort, and thinking outside the box. Does technology take this away in some cases?


  2. The variety of different mediums and uses for art may actually decrease the competitive world of the artist. A website designer needs different skill sets and tools than a painter. Both are artists, but their work is valued in different areas. So, instead of destroying the value of traditional art (which is still somewhat valued), technology may just be expanding the possible options and jobs for the field.


  3. Gever brings up a very interesting point about the critics of digital art who disapprove because it would be difficult to evaluate great art. Well, many of the great artists like Rembrandt, El Greco, and Van Gogh died penniless because their work was different, now we realize it’s value and it is worth thousands or even millions. In a sense, we could be repeating our past mistakes and ruin lives if we devalue art because of a new medium.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s