For tech people, status is achieved more by what you've done or can do, than what you own or have. If the high art world wants to cater to the richer tech people, they should focus on exclusive participatory experiences rather than objects.
Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a museum technologist and someone who works daily harnessing technology to help make collection objects and exhibitions more accessible and open, I found this article to be a bit skewed. Granted, the thrust was on personal collecting habits of those in the tech sector, but I find the arts/tech community to be vibrant, passionate and invested. Just my 2 cents from the inside.
I absolutely agree - for those that are in the realm it's a great time to be involved. I'd also argue that the intersection of art + tech is still, very much, a hyper-niche in the larger tech world (which is largely what this article is portraying, for better or worse). It's unfortunate that so much of "art" is conflated with "high-net-worth individuals being told what art to buy from dealers" which is a minute aspec…
As a video game developer in NYC (I also participated in Art Hack Day: God Mode that you mentioned above, I dug your project!), I agree with you that "art" is being conflated with "high-net-worth individuals being told what art to buy from dealers."
I also agree with everyone that there are many technologists very interested in art, and maybe even a good percentage who understand this specific art world that the article talks about and how it works. The problem, however, is that the ones who are most likely to understand and perhaps even appreciate this art world are also the least likely to have any money--they are more akin to fellow "starving artists" running around Bushwick.
Though most programmers I know say they aren't in it for the money, and mostly I think this is true, in the Art-Tech intersection specifically there are many who can hack who don't actually make that much money from it.
Re: Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
#43It's odd, I seem to recall that in the early to mid 90's there was between the art scene and the hacker scene. Most of the tech, especially the internet, was so new that nobody had a clear idea of how to do anything profitable with it, so curiosity and creativity were a shared motivation.
The money and greed around the first internet bubble killed off most of that.
Re: Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
#44I'm a programmer in NYC and I also do art on the side (I've shown in galleries in the city here as well as London and Berlin).
Honestly, most of the art scene here (with some very exceptional exceptions) is boring, incestuous, and more interested in chasing trends and trying to seem cool than showing interesting work. It's way more about who you know and whether you're doing the kind of thing that happens to be the buzz today. I don't blame tech people for not wanting to be part of that. I much prefer the scene on the west coast and Europe.
The HN crowd might be interested in Devotion Gallery in Williamsburg: http://areyoudevoted.squarespace.com/ which is small, but specifically deals with the intersection of art, science, and technology. The last show dealt with augmented reality, and other shows I've seen there have involved generative algorithmic art, glitch, video games, and 3d printing. (disclosure: my girlfriend is the gallery director).
Re: Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
#45But why should tech people collect art? If I have few millions dollars to spare I will throw them at Tim Schaffer to make Psychonauts 2 ... games can use maecenates as well. And they are much closer to the heart and mind of the tech community. The only thing I can read in this article is "Moooom, flow of money bypassing my pockets".
Why should tech people play video games? Video games rely on computers to work, but other than that, how are they closer to the soul of communities like hackernews than traditional art? Does being interested in programming mean people can't have interests outside of "nerdy" things?
where exactly does he allude to "nerds" mandatorily being interested in "nerdy things"?
his point was that the article had a very old world elitist attitude where "art" = "culture" and if one is to be considered cultured and is rich, there is somehow some obligation to purchase art.
it smelled more of, "give me some of that hi-tech money" than any serious exposition about the rift between the tech rich and the art world.
Re: Does Anyone Here Speak Art and Tech?
#46I couldn't help but detect a certain level of bourgeois elitism in the article, which in some part is why the rift is large as they claim, but in a larger sense, is why the rift is as large as they claim.
That may seem a bit confusing to read, but when you look at the typical tech-rich set, there is no inherent need to fit in with the crowd, simply for the sake of fitting-in. "The art scene" for the most part is exactly just that. Speaking as someone quite interested in art history, I can attest to the fact that the "high art" world is very much a relic from old times - when children were raised to watch their status and life was a giant popularity contest. Now that's not to say that the tech-set are impervious to elitist behavior, but tech elitism is based more heavily on talent, intelligence, and creativity. So in a way, it's a kind of elitism that is forced on the culture itself, in a pursuit for the most "innovative" way to do something. Where the art crowd admires "witty" quasi-intellectual banter, the tech-set are more likely to be interested in something, more demonstrably cool or unique to their interests. This obviously poses a dilemma for art dealers from that standpoint - how do you interest someone in something they have no interest in. It is a dilemma that art dealers face, not just with "nerds" but with anyone, really. But convincing the average Joe to be interested in your activity because "it's what the cool kids do" is a lot easier than convincing someone who may not necessarily care much for sitting at the cool kids' table.
So in a sense, the tech crowd doesn't buy into high art because it's a group that generally doesn't have any particular need to fit-in for fitting in sake, but in a larger sense, the elitism in the high art world is reliant more on popularity and everyone reading the same books and speaking the same language, which is complete anathema to a group whose principles are based more on "cool shit" than club membership.
But then again, these are just my generalizations :)