Are "old-fashioned" forms of art really inadequate for capturing the elements of contemporary life?

Before the boom of technology in the 20th century, this "old-fashioned" art was all that people had. In the 20th century, technology gave a new light to art allowing people to interact with this new-age art. Since "old-fashioned" art was the only form of art around, it was adequate enough to capture the speed, energy and contradictions of contemporary life. However, advances in technology allowed art to move from music from an instrument or a picture on a canvas to a interactive piece on a computer. "Old-fashioned" art can be executed in a way to look like speed and energy. However, because the advance of technology in art this art will not look or feel as sufficient in portraying energy and speed.

Situational Tour

View Larger Map

I chose the national mall, in particular the March for Life. Each year thousands of people come together and protest the court rulings of Roe v. WadeDoe on January 22, 1974. Words that best describe this event are spiritual, passion and unity.

Why did scientists believe the personal computer would improve a persons ability to work efficiently?

I think the scientists reasoning for the efficiency of the personal computer would be that all the resources needed would be on the computer for the person and there wouldn't be trouble having to find an article or a book if you have to site something you're writing for a paper. I feel that the computer is just one big inconvenience because there is so much that it has to offer. There's internet, instant messaging, music and so forth. These are just a few of the distractions that come packaged inside a personal computer. In the 50's and 60's, students and most professionals used typewriters and had to check out books from the library for papers and had physical documents in a file cabinet right next to their desk. I think this allowed room for less distraction because students and professionals weren't able to go on the internet or go IM their latest crush of the week. I feel that the advancement of the personal computer has just made it easier for someone to work less efficiently and have more distractions.

Is it real art?

Before I came to college, I never really considered the computer as a tool or medium to create art. I've used programs like paint for silly drawings, but never really considered its abilities. When I started taking graphic design classes I was proved wrong. I feel that the computer actually helps in creating art. It makes it a lot easier to create digital images and to manipulate art into a completely different form. The computer in some way enhances art that is painted, drawn or photographed. Also, the computer allows an artist to dive into this electronic world that allows them to create a digital masterpiece that can't be done without a computer. Art that is done on the computer is, in fact, real art. It may not give the whole effect of it being a physical piece but it still gives off the same emotion and creativeness of that type of artist.

http://multimedia.american.edu/courses/gned220_sp08/