The importance of the arts, especially in a world that will be increasingly digital, has been a recurring theme of this blog. (See previous posts on literature specifically and art more broadly.) A recent conversation* (incongruously convened at a swanky cocktail party) brought up an important corollary – that technology might change our experience of art – from two different angles: our internal understanding and our external involvement.
As the smog of New Delhi created an ethereal glow in the lights illuminating the outdoor patio of our hosts, the estimable Prem Chandavarkar channeled some of the best minds of early modern philosophy and posited a separation of mind and body. He extended the point to the modern world, though, concerned that our interactions with technology are inhibiting our ability to appreciate art. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time to explore whether he meant that technology is attenuating the connection between our soul and our body or that the attention deficit disorder that seems to inevitably accompany technology is dimming our perception of art in the first place. (Or both.)
Many futurists would dismiss either claim: after all, to them, our experience of anything is simply a particular pattern of brain activity, electrical impulses stimulating the circulation of chemicals inside our skulls. Technology might alter that pattern, but such a change need not necessarily be negative or irreversible. Psychologists point to the success of cognitive behavioral therapy, a treatment program based on remodeling behavior without the use of pharmaceuticals, as proof of that. From this point of view, the 17th-century thinkers like Descartes and Malebranche who argued for an immaterial soul separate from the body just did not have enough scientific knowledge to understand how the brain works, and art, just like everything else, is a purely material experience.
Many people will balk at this idea, even if they are not religious, which introduces the possibility that, even if there is not an immaterial soul – a question beyond the scope of this blog – our relationship with art is unique. Consequently, anything that might refashion it is worth examining. That technology has transformed the way we consume various types of art is indisputable. (Just ask Kodak, which benefitted from the technological shift from painting to photography but missed the move to digital.) Whether that transformation has diminished our visceral awareness of art is harder to establish, but a case can be made based on economic ideas of value in scarcity. Not only has the digital world made art more accessible, it also has introduced competition for our attention. Accordingly, we might perceive less relative value in art.
There is also a darker possibility: technology is rewiring the bundles of neurons in our brains in such a way that we are slowly losing the part of us that responds to art as more than a way of storing memories (or, if you are one of the world’s elites, of storing wealth). Since a lot of scientific research supports neuroplasticity and the effects of our digital world (see Sharon Bowman’s post about it for a list of resources), it isn’t a stretch to believe that the same forces that are abbreviating our attention spans also are curtailing our ability to interact as meaningfully with art.
In case all of this sounds terribly depressing, don’t despair: another cocktail party raconteur Naren Chandavarkar (Prem’s son) presented a more optimistic viewpoint on technology mediating our relationship with art. As a musician, he described the rapturous feeling of performing with a group. His vision is to use AI to help non-musicians share that experience without needing the Gladwellian 10,000 hours of practice. People of varying abilities could gather in a virtual studio or performance space, with an algorithm acting as both conductor and sound engineer to blend each individual stream and provide unified feedback simulating an in-person, group collaboration. By acknowledging that technology alters perception and taking that a step further to deliberate manipulation, this application of AI fully embraces the future in a way that also incorporates the best parts of physical human interaction.
The recent focus by Facebook executives on “time well spent,” indicates that even the purveyors of the attention economy are starting to question their business model. Although it is likely they are only doing so as a result of external pressure, perhaps ideas such as those of the younger Chandavarkar are the answer. Instead of offering for free a space for sharing cat videos and fake news, maybe social media can evolve into a place for people to meet and digitally share in the creation of music and other types of art. That’s something I would be willing to pay for. I don’t think I’m alone.
* I apologize to Prem Chandavarkar and Naren Chandavarkar if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted anything from what was a far-ranging and fascinating discussion. Many thanks as well to Madhav Chandavarkar for his insightful comments. Obviously this is a family of perspicacity and talent.
That’s a wonderful essay on a wonderful subject. I take the optimistic side – that technology increases our exposure potential to all forms of art. At the same time time it makes it possible to spend shorter and shorter spans of time at each work of art. The future will change our media but it won’t change the basics of creativity.