Does Technology Ruin Creativity?

[smeet]

Creativity has not been compromised. Patience and work ethic have. This is why kids (and now adults) expect to hit a button or two and have music come out, where you used to have to work for years on your technique to make decent sounds. So many people can't go 10 seconds without needing the distraction of their iPhones. Deep musical thought doesn't happen in an environment like that.

So basically, we have lots of creativity but fewer people have the attention span to learn to play an instrument, let alone composition. Many musicians now have the attitude that it's a waste of time to learn anything that is too hard or time-consuming.

 

[()smoke()]

Working in a school, hell yes.
We have middle schoolers that have never used scissors before.

Oh and hip hop and pop should be the main example of such.
Turn on the radio for the rap and R&B station for a few minutes, I'll wait.

Back? ******** isn't it?

my local r&b station has some of the most creative music on the air...technology is a product of innovation, which IS creativity

 

[ADbassman]

No?

Having more tools to create with can only help creativity.

Did electrifying the guitar ruin music? Wow, what about all those cool pedals that are suddenly able to work?

 

[fingerbun]

Creativity has not been compromised. Patience and work ethic have. This is why kids (and now adults) expect to hit a button or two and have music come out, where you used to have to work for years on your technique to make decent sounds. So many people can't go 10 seconds without needing the distraction of their iPhones. Deep musical thought doesn't happen in an environment like that.

So basically, we have lots of creativity but fewer people have the attention span to learn to play an instrument, let alone composition. Many musicians now have the attitude that it's a waste of time to learn anything that is too hard or time-consuming.

+1

 

[fingerbun]

My point here is to more acknowledge your comments about analog vs. digital photography. This is one realm where your example REALLY speaks out. Those, like yourself, that could truly master analog through manipulation of f-stop, shutter speed, film speed, and even creative use of chemicals were genius. That took time, patience, creativity, knowledge, and adventure. Slapping effects together through digital enhancement (like music) doesn't come NEAR the expertise and skill it takes to manipulate an analog "tool".

Coming full circle, the joy of music creativity comes from it BEING analog!! Our ancestors were genius to discover and employ rudimentary tools to fashion parts together, resulting in a wide myriad of instruments that remain timeless - and analog!!

The electric bass overcame the limitations of the double bass. The double bass extended the range beyond the cello, and improved on the violone. And so on back to the first caveman who thumped a hollow log.

Technological advancement is a constant.

 

[hrodbert696]

My wife is reading an ad to me for a program called DramaticaPro, which will prompt writers to develop characters, plot lines, genre themes, etc. It boasts that the program will know your story better than you do!

 

[fingerbun]

My wife is reading an ad to me for a program called DramaticaPro, which will prompt writers to develop characters, plot lines, genre themes, etc. It boasts that the program will know your story better than you do!

Ah, IT nerds. Gotta love us. Tell the guys who wrote that program to read "The Monkey's Finger" by Asimov.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

My point here is to more acknowledge your comments about analog vs. digital photography. This is one realm where your example REALLY speaks out. Those, like yourself, that could truly master analog through manipulation of f-stop, shutter speed, film speed, and even creative use of chemicals were genius. That took time, patience, creativity, knowledge, and adventure. Slapping effects together through digital enhancement (like music) doesn't come NEAR the expertise and skill it takes to manipulate an analog "tool".

I don't know if I agree with this.

With the very early forms of photography maybe, but that's a case where something is highly specialised and non-comercial. Comparable to many of the things researchers and developers work with when trying to make something suitable for the general population.

Film vs Digital photography, you get point and click film and digital cameras. But if you take it a step further, and work on higher grade stuff, you still have all that extra control to worry about. Using D-SLRs you need to take into consideration your aperture size, exposure time, ISO (digital gain, digital equivilant to film speed) etc. Granted, no chemicals to deal with, but good quality digital post-processing is an artform in itself aswell.

 

[tZer]

Creativity has not been compromised. Patience and work ethic have. This is why kids (and now adults) expect to hit a button or two and have music come out, where you used to have to work for years on your technique to make decent sounds. So many people can't go 10 seconds without needing the distraction of their iPhones. Deep musical thought doesn't happen in an environment like that.

So basically, we have lots of creativity but fewer people have the attention span to learn to play an instrument, let alone composition. Many musicians now have the attitude that it's a waste of time to learn anything that is too hard or time-consuming.

-1 just to be argumentative...

Just like creativity, blaming anything other than the individual for their lack of a) creativity b) work ethic c) attention span - is putting the blame in the wrong place.

Technology like the Internet has make instantaneous communication possible which imparts the illusion that people are more this, less that - we're just that much more aware of that much more stuff. The stuff hasn't really changed in nature - we all just think it has because we're all suddenly able to know about it.

Creativity is creativity. A work ethic is a work ethic. The ability to stick with a project and not be distracted and all the rest is totally subjective. If you have it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Technology is not going to suddenly make you something something that you are not. It may help you do something more efficiently but don't confuse that with it "doing" anything. You are doing something with it. It existing - you using it = nothing.

 

[ShredderMaximus]

Is creativity compromised? No.

Is it easier than ever for brainless dinguses to pump out mediocre crap? Yes.

 

[smeet]

-1 just to be argumentative...

Just like creativity, blaming anything other than the individual for their lack of a) creativity b) work ethic c) attention span - is putting the blame in the wrong place.

I can understand the viewpoint, but a high percentage of the people I see these days are have less patience, are less present and less involved in the real world than they used to be say 20 or 30 years ago. Can we blame millions of individuals for being less mature and lazier people than their ancestors? I don't think so. The times are different, socially and technologically.

My kids have good attention spans and are present in the world, unlike many of their friends. The difference is that we don't allow TV or computer use during the week, and no hand-held gaming devices or browsing ever. So you could argue that use of the technology is to blame rather than the tech itself.

Nevertheless, if you make it too easy to do things, people will get lazy. That's just the way humans are, with no challenges they stagnate.

 

[DwaynieAD]

Damn right it was an art & that one reason why I am not about to get rid of my "film" bodies. I had a darkroom when I was ten and had recently found out something pretty interesting. The FBI still uses film! They can't enhance digital to the degree that film could be enhanced, thus they are keeping it. They still use digital but they aren't dumping the classic. It would be like abandoning anything acoustic.

There may be all sorts of neat new things for our new digital-age but the basic skills are something that those who "pay their dues" will always have while the point & shoot crowd will only get lucky finding.


NOTE: do a search on "digital vs film photography": film will be with us for a few more years anyway.

my pentak with a macro lens will still take better pictures than an equivalently priced digital camera that's for sure, selecting film for its grain content, or how warm or cool it is when developed. solarizing, multiple exposures, manipulating fstops for depth of field; hand coloring, hand toning. and about a million other things, sure you can do them digitally but it really is not the same. like i said, sterile and bland... i see no art in digital photography

 

[tZer]

I can understand the viewpoint, but a high percentage of the people I see these days are have less patience, are less present and less involved in the real world than they used to be say 20 or 30 years ago. Can we blame millions of individuals for being less mature and lazier people than their ancestors? I don't think so. The times are different, socially and technologically.

My kids have good attention spans and are present in the world, unlike many of their friends. The difference is that we don't allow TV or computer use during the week, and no hand-held gaming devices or browsing ever. So you could argue that use of the technology is to blame rather than the tech itself.

Nevertheless, if you make it too easy to do things, people will get lazy. That's just the way humans are, with no challenges they stagnate.

More access to technology may prove to be a siren's song for those who are easily distracted. By your logic, fast food makes people fat by simply existing not because people abuse it. Same is true for tech

 

[john grey]

My kids have good attention spans and are present in the world, unlike many of their friends. The difference is that we don't allow TV or computer use during the week, and no hand-held gaming devices or browsing ever. So you could argue that use of the technology is to blame rather than the tech itself.

From another father's perspective I'm not sure if it's the technology per se' - as it can be very productive when harnessed.
Rather (IMO) it's the constant influx of visual, audio, and intellectual stimulation in a developing brain that does not allow for the concentration on a singular subject or element. It maybe that the concept of "multi-tasking" in (especially)a young person that might be an unproductive issue.

Decades ago we had the "day dreamer" who did not pay attention in class, today that person is often labeled with attention deficit. Did the disorder suddenly become SO wide spread or did we not notice it previously?
I'm not certain obviously but the mechanisms that can pull someone away from a regime of concentration is greater now than in the past.
I think that it's an excellent thing that you limit mulit-stimuli from overwhelming a child. The self-discipline toward concentration is not inherent; I believe it is learned, just as the opposite may be true.....just an opinion.

 

[SJLee]

Creative people are still creative with technology. I do however, see how some people are trapped by the entertainment value of some technologies.

 

[smeet]

From another father's perspective I'm not sure if it's the technology per se' - as it can be very productive when harnessed.
Rather (IMO) it's the constant influx of visual, audio, and intellectual stimulation in a developing brain that does not allow for the concentration on a singular subject or element.

Of course. No technology is inherently good or bad. But I believe the intent behind the OP was about the use of tech affecting creativity.

 

[mcblahflooper94]

Ask Jack White.

 

[Phil Smith]

I don't think technology ruins creativity but I do think it causes people to use their brains less, in particular their memory.

For example:

When you had to dial a number to call someone, eventually that number to be memorized but now you just select the name of the person and you no longer memorize the number. This is good when you have your phone but bad when you don't.