This week’s reading examined the ever-evolving relationship between people, technology, and art. The chapter discusses how technology changes the subject matter of paintings; how the framing became more cynical and cautious, but I also noticed the paintings became more abstract.(Fig 5.1, 5.2) The space is less defined, the details are blurred, almost like a visual representation of the changing perspectives.

During the paragraphs on moving visual technologies, I kept thinking about the cave paintings that appear to move with shifting light. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ice-age-artists-may-have-used-firelight-to-animate-carvings-180979943/ This section states that the development of technology follows the societal and political environment. Not just in a ‘development follows need’ way, but also in a ‘development follows values and culture’ way.

Copies and duplicates are easier than ever to make, which can be a problem with art becoming more digitized every day. Copies lose value the more are made, and when made by someone other than the original artist. What does that mean for art that can be shared and saved on every adult’s device? Another hazard of technological advancement in art spaces is the ease of editing. As wonderful as newer digital styles of art can be, it’s become easier to alter, or appear to alter, an original artwork. This chapter claims that photography has always been held as the art form of ‘realness’. The “camera needs to share the same space, time, and light with the object it photographs… [what] Charles Pierce calls the image’s indexical quality, its ability to serve as empirical evidence of the real.” However photography is also the most reproducible, and with tech advancements(including A.I), the easiest to misrepresent.

The authors state that political art “often stands in opposition to the idea that images should be unique, sacred, valuable, and copyrighted or owned by an individual.”(197) But I think images instead stand for a group of individuals: a raised fist for BLM. The quality of this kind of image is determined by how recognizable and dispersible it is.

As common as copies are now, copy law is fairly complex. Intent and meaning define a piece as an artwork or a copy. Since art so often builds on or pulls inspiration from other works this seems like it could quickly become a battle of perspectives. This indecision isn’t recent, or a side effect of technological advancements. The text references a sketch, often assumed to be a lesser or unimportant piece of art.