Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? I find creative solutions very rarely occur when I am actually using a computer rather than sitting back and thinking or going for a walk etc. Computers seem to be awesome tools for refining ideas yet really bad at facilitating their creation.
There is no shortage of limitations in real life or on a massively powerful desktop computer. People on desktop are not gods. Nor are they unlimited. I don't know what creative solutions you're talking about but unless we're talking about things making art with limited colors and resolutions which is only necessary because that's what the customer has, there is not much point in limiting oneself artificially unless y…
There’s also an analogous situation in hip-hop with the very limited SP-1200 and MPC 60 samplers. They don’t do much but what they do, they do well, so it’s up to producers to work to that and try to transcend it. Having an unlimited workspace in the computer to replicate the same doesn’t lead to better hip hop.
So you’re right to invoke metaphysics, because the machines have a kind of ontology, same as the mode of life of the artists using them. It doesn’t have to be a metaphysical quest, but there can be better and more interesting ways of creating on limited tools, particularly if you’ve used them for a long time. Some writers such as Jean Baudrillard stuck with typewriters as a writing tool long after the introduction of the desktop computer (he died in 2007) because he found it was simpler and better, less distracting, more focussed on the word and him. You could invoke the same “omfg you could be pasting in hyperlinks and doing referencing and surfing at the same time you’re just doing it for your own sake!” toward someone like that, but actually it’s not for its own sake, he only needs to think and produce text and it’s the perfect tool for that, the computer is only ever pretending to be a typewriter and comes with a load of noise and headache alongside.