Technology and Art —— Dual Values of Works of Art

In Chinese, the word "art" refers to all kinds of arts, including painting, music, poetry and movies. In the general usage of English, it mainly refers to visual art, which refers to visual art of pure artistic style, such as painting and sculpture. The word "art" used in this paper mainly refers to visual art, and also refers to all other art forms included in the category of "pure art", such as poetry and music. )

1。 Dual values of works of art: technology and art

Any work of art contains two values: technical value and artistic value. Technical value refers to the method (technical proficiency) used by the artist in a work, and artistic value refers to the subjective factors injected and transmitted by the artist in the work, such as emotions, ideas and thoughts (although ideas and thoughts hardly occupy any important position in my personal understanding of pure art, they are indeed subordinate to the category of subjective factors completely separated from technical value).

In visual arts, technical value includes the following two aspects: 1. Realistic reproduction skills, that is, realistic skills in painting; 2。 Mastery of materials. For example, the materials of oil painting and watercolor painting are very different, and their application skills are also different. European painting from Renaissance to Impressionism has very high technical value, because all works in this period have very realistic realistic effects because of the perfection of perspective, light and shadow, human anatomy and other disciplines. In the use of materials, oil painting has gradually matured since the Renaissance, creating conditions for realistic expression. Therefore, as far as realistic skills are concerned, European works of art from Renaissance to Impressionism are undoubtedly of great value.

The artistic value of works of art is a very vague and subjective concept, and its standards are also varied, with different opinions and changes with the times. Once, art was completely arbitrary and had no standards; At one time, technical value almost completely became the only standard; Once, the ideological nature of works of art was regarded as above all else; At one time, the value of technology was reduced to a worthless position. Therefore, the debate on artistic value seems to be the least efficient, and the definition of artistic value is the most subjective and arbitrary in history. Basically, 100% varies from person to person. It is no exaggeration to say that the artistry of works of art actually reflects the nonstandard nature of art.

However, no matter how the artistic value of a work of art depends on people, one thing is indisputable: the originality of art, the word contains two meanings: creativity and uniqueness. The reason why artistic creation is different from factory production is that artistic works are "works" rather than "products" is that artistic works have the same "creativity" as products (the process from scratch) and their unrepeatable "uniqueness" (relative to mass production of products). So it is called "original". Any artist who plagiarizes others, any work of art without a unique style, will never get the final value recognition. Therefore, this "originality" is the most important value standard in art history (especially modern art).

In addition, the above values of technology and art can also be compared with the form and content of art: technology can be basically (only basically) equivalent to form, and art can be basically equivalent to content. But in the more subjective and abstract art, the former ("technology" and "form") is closer to the latter ("art" and "content"), so that it is completely equivalent.

2。 The relationship between technical value and artistic value

A. the influence of "technology" on "art"

Although these two values of works of art are not completely separated and unrelated, they do not necessarily increase in direct proportion as many people understand, that is, the better the technology, the higher the artistic value. Many artists have the skill of depicting nature very truly, but their works have no subjective connotation except copying nature like photographs, while some works of art with less skill (such as Van Gogh's works) have strong unique language and become irreplaceable masterpieces in history.

However, from another perspective, if "technology" is not simply regarded as a realistic technology, but as a unique "language" for artists to express themselves, then it is true that the more mature the technology, the higher the artistry. Taking modern European art as an example, many painters' early techniques are mostly realistic and their self-style is not obvious, so although they are proficient in traditional techniques, they are not comfortable in expression. However, with the growth of personality, this "skill" (style) of self-expression is becoming more and more mature, so the artistry of their works is becoming stronger and stronger. Except for a few artists without traditional training, almost all artists' artistic life experiences have proved this point.

According to the western traditional craft, China ancient scholar-officials were "poor" in art, but they were mature in art (personally). Chinese painting is not as good as western modern art only in the aspect of "personality expression", but in the aspect of "purity" of art, that is, art is not a vassal of thought but an independent perceptual language (which is also one of the main pursuits of western modern art), China art has always been at the height of "pure art" and has never fallen into a rational "misunderstanding" (which is related to China people's irrational thinking). Although "irrationality" makes China lag behind in thought, he is right.

The reason why China scholar-bureaucrat art is inferior to western art in "individuality" is that, in addition to the characteristic that China culture suppresses individuality, China painting has a strict and standardized technique system, which limits the artist's individuality expression. This technique system of Chinese painting stems from the special material limitation of Chinese painting, which makes it very unlikely for artists to "do whatever they want" in the operation of materials, so the artist's personality is more or less concealed within the effect range stipulated by the technique. For example, when painting bamboo, any painter in China must follow the technique of China's painting materials-ink and wash to make a certain visual effect, so painting has certain style restrictions. Chinese painting, on the other hand, has no individuality (for example, Shi Tao and Badashanren in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties have obvious styles), but this individuality is hidden in the seemingly same style and needs certain "eyesight" to be recognized.

But in any case, the limitations of Chinese painting materials to artists are obvious, which is a huge obstacle to the development of Chinese painting. Western painting materials can create a variety of visual effects, providing a broad space for people's personality expression, and it is indeed the best choice for a person who really loves painting art.

In addition, the "defect" of this material's limitation on style also exists in China's music. The sound quality of ancient musical instruments is very special, and the range is not as wide as that of western musical instruments, so the expressive force is relatively poor. Of course, this feature can also be regarded as the feature or "advantage" of China traditional music, because it can create unique melody and sound quality effects. However, due to the limited expressive force of ancient musical instruments in China, it is difficult to continue to develop and innovate.

B the absolute "authority" of artistic value is secondary to technical value.

Many people easily regard the technical value of a work of art as the full value of a work of art. Taking playing the piano as an example, a pianist who plays very skillfully can easily be understood as a "musician" by ordinary people. However, there is a "qualitative" difference between the two: a skilled pianist may not be able to write any unique music works at all. Therefore, from the perspective of "creativity", the most basic measure of this art, these simple performers are not real musicians. Of course, there are also many performers who can reproduce the original ideas of master works very accurately, even full of new ideas, but in any case, the performers are "reproducing" other people's works, which is essentially different from composers. Take painting as an example. A painter who can paint an object as real as a photo can only be a painter at most. Therefore, technology can never be the primary standard to measure a work of art, let alone the only standard. The most important standard of a work of art, even the "only" standard, should always be its "artistic value".

However, both artistic charm and "problems" appear in this "artistic value" because, as I mentioned earlier, it is almost a concept without standards at all. This "artistry" is actually the "non-standard" of art, and this non-standard has led to many real artists' works not being recognized, and at the same time, many "worthless" works have been hyped into "masterpieces" by the market. This is the helplessness of art. However, although we are helpless, we still have to realize that the irrationality and irregularity of art are the real value (charm) of art. Once upon a time, people sprouted rationality and were used to measuring everything with rational standards, which led to the habit of trying to find a measurable standard in art, which was completely wrong from the beginning (Note: In this sense, western rationalism art is actually But it is precisely because of this "misleading" that westerners return to sensibility again with a firmer attitude than orientals. Reason is never the whole of human nature. Art can never be measured by reason. It is precisely because of the irrationality, immeasurability and artistry of art that we can fill the deficiency of rationality and make human nature complete.

3。 The individuation of art leads to the popularization of art.

If we agree with the definition of artistic value given at the beginning of this paper-"subjective factors injected and transmitted by artists in their works", we can easily see that art is very personal, that is, artistic expression is centered on personal needs from motivation to purpose. Then we also talked about the importance of "uniqueness" of art. Therefore, a true artist always creates for himself. So, why do museums still exist? I think this is human's need and respect for art, but this need and respect happened after the birth of artistic works, not the factors related to artistic creation itself. A person who wants to be famous, or who is bent on putting his paintings into a museum, or who is bent on creating art for mankind, can never create a real work of art (or can only create a false "work of art").

And because art is personal, art is also ordinary. When an ordinary amateur painter draws a work that satisfies or admires him, this work of art has already completed its artistic mission. In this sense, there is no distinction between high and low in art. In fact, we can often see some amateur artists creating very unusual works of art among the people. On the one hand, these folk "artists" have no chance to become famous, on the other hand, they don't care about becoming famous, because they are already very satisfied with the process and results of their creation.

Then, why are there still masterpieces of masters in history that have been passed down through the ages? I think there are many reasons. First, as mentioned above, human beings need and respect art and beauty, so there are art markets and museums; Second, it is opportunity. Some painters are famous because of market needs or market hype, while some artists' works are not recognized by the market and are ignored. Personally, I think that these neglected "great artists" may be countless in history; Thirdly, it is the "commonness" in the works (relative to the "individuality" I mentioned earlier). Among famous artists, those truly valuable works (as opposed to the famous but false "works of art") largely reflect the "commonness" of human beings, so these works can resonate with the audience. Of course, I personally think that the commonness of these artists' works is not the result of their deliberate pursuit ("creating for mankind" as mentioned above), but their rich personality connotation and thorough understanding of artistic language. Therefore, the works created by an artist with rich inner world are naturally rich in connotation and infectious, while a monotonous person, no matter how he pursues "profundity" or expresses his "passion", can't create works that impress others. So real masters, no matter how many people can resonate with their works, the only thing they try to do is to respect their feelings.

4。 The learnability of "technology" and the non-learnability of "art"

People who think that art can be learned generally regard the technical value of art as the only criterion to measure art, but ignore or simply don't know the existence of "artistic value". The technical part of a work of art is teachable, that is, learnable, because it is systematic and reasonable. Anyone with the lowest IQ can learn realistic skills, draw decent realistic works or play the piano fluently without "artistic cells". The higher the IQ, the faster they learn and the more skilled they are. Leonardo da Vinci was a very clever man, so his paintings were very delicate and realistic, which was a very shocking "skill" at that time, but the value of his artistic part was a controversial topic.

However, the artistic part of art cannot be learned, because it has the characteristics of "irrationality". Just as some people are born with extraordinary taste, some people have a better understanding of the color, shape or melody of music than others. These people who are super sensitive to art forms are those who really have artistic talent. Whether these people can master traditional skills quickly or not, they can feel the resonance with their own lives in these artistic forms such as notes, colors and lines, that is, they can enjoy themselves greatly in artistic activities, thus creating works full of individuality.

Compare the works of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Both of them have solid realistic skills, but Leonardo da Vinci's works are rational and indifferent, and Michael's works are enthusiastic and full of vitality. It is said that leonardo da vinci has a strong jealousy towards Michaelis. If this legend is true, I personally think it's because he saw a real artistic talent in Michaelis' works that he didn't have.

Although it is said that artistic talent cannot be learned, people's artistic inspiration may be more or less weakened or even erased in the life experience the day after tomorrow. So some people find their potential very late, re-engage in art, and achieve great things very late. There are countless such examples (Van Gogh and Gauguin are all examples). And a good art educator, in addition to imparting skills, the most important thing is to inspire students to discover their own potential. Of course, if students really have no potential, it is useless to motivate them.

To sum up, among the dual values of works of art-"technical value" and "artistic value", "artistic value" is always the most important. And this most important standard, because of its individuality and uniqueness, leads to nonstandard and ordinary-all works of art are created for the motivation and purpose of the artist's own needs. Therefore, once a person creates his favorite works, whether they are famous artists or unknown ordinary people, these works can be regarded as having completed his "artistic mission" and are all "masterpieces" of art. Therefore, there is no "qualitative" difference between the paintings painted by housewives when they are in a good mood and the works in museums.

After analyzing the value of works of art, the author also thinks that the value of art and human spiritual labor itself, or the essence of art, actually lies not in the works, whether in quantity or quality, but in enjoying life and feeling beauty. Because art is the embodiment of our life, each of our lives is an "artistic masterpiece" that we can never surpass. With this understanding, we can truly understand what is meant by "everyone is an artist" and what is meant by "everyone is equal". We can understand that as long as a person can enjoy everything that life brings us, marvel at the new sunrise and sunset every day, and marvel at the natural changes of the four seasons every year, then he is a real "artist" who does not draw or play the piano, and this person is in the "essence" and "master" of art.

"Doing nothing without doing anything". Laozi's famous words can be described as human wisdom.