Well, we got quite a bit into this, but I felt there was more to explore. An example that I thought of, which I believe shows Squarepusher’s point without being anthropocentric is as follows: Consider a symphony orchestra. Ultimately, it is the conductors interpretation and version of the symphony that gets performed. The instrumentalists merely play what the conductor wants to hear (also consider that this is an orchestra in which this holds completely true). Then, one could say that the final work is solely the conductor’s accomplishment. It was he who controlled the whole thing, after all.
However, I don’t think there is a single person that would argue that the conductor is the only one who deserves credit for the work, even though the instrumentalists were just ‘tools’ that the conductor used to realize his vision of the song. So why would we credit these musicians who are doing the brunt of the work, when we wouldn’t consider any of the work an instrument is doing? The music would not be possible without the instrument. Furthermore, the song might sound different with a different instrument.
So it is this that leads to the bigger idea. It is my opinion that we should no consider the whole group, artist(s) and tool(s), as a team. There may be one coach, or controller of the project, but his role is just to set the process in motion. A paint brush won’t hang out with some paint and make a masterpiece on their own. They need the coach to set the project in motion. Then, as a team, the work is completed.
In the end, the finished piece is, for the most part, what we admire. No one goes to a Van Gogh exhibit expecting to see cat scans of Van Gogh’s brain during the process, or pictures of him painting. So if the end result, which includes the brushstroke textures, paints, and canvas are what everyone wants to see, then how can all of that credit go solely to Van Gogh. Surely without all of these other contributors the work would not have been completed. Furthermore, abstract pieces where the canvas is left absolutely blank is a perfect extension of Squarepusher’s idea. When humans try to control the tools, instead of working with them, the result is an artifact of human stupidity. The blank canvas is just the artist’s refusal to collaborate with the paintbrush and paint, in my opinion.
Even though class is basically done, I would love to get this dialog going so we can get a good conversation out of this.
Cristina Del Real | 05-Dec-06 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
I disagree in giving credit to the paint or paintbrushes for the masterpieces of artists such as Van Gogh. It is true that they took part in creating the paintings, but it was the talent of the artist that created them. I could take those same brushes and paint and nothing as wonderful would ever come out of me. It is all due to the talent of the human. In the case of the orchestra, the work could not be attributed to the conductor, for while he keeps everything in line, it is the instrument players that are creating the music, without them, no matter the talent of the conductor, there would be no music.
Nkone Adu Dapaah | 05-Dec-06 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
I do agree that that sometools should be given credits for how wonderful they work but as Christina stated earlier, i might use the same tool and i might come out with a horrible painting or music.
i think one of the reasons why tools are not given credits is that humans made these tools and they didn’t evolve on their own.
Greg Frazier | 05-Dec-06 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
Cristina- without a paint brush and paint, a painter would be nothing. The brush and the paint are the things acting directly on the canvas. Talent is a non-extended object, therefore the paint was not created out of talent alone. With the orchestra, the idea is that the conductor is the sole controller of the symphony. Every note that comes out of the instruments is planned and interpretted by him. If you are to give credit to the instrumentalists, then you must give credit to drum machines, synthesizers, computers, etc. because they are the objects actually creating the music. Certainly the person operating the machines cannot be given credit for the sounds coming out of the machines if he is only the one keeping the machines in line.
Sure, you could take the same brushes and paint, but that wouldn’t be the same team. If you don’t know how to be the leader of the tools, and utilize them properly, then you shouldn’t expect the outcome to be the same.
Nkone- There are certain things made out of very specific types of wood. Say, if a violin is made out of very old wood that has been underwater for decades. If the sound produced by this violin is superior to other violins, especially ones made by the same violin maker but out of different wood, then there must be some level of quality attributed to the wood itself. The wood was a tool in the process, and no human made the wood.
Danielle Bracken | 05-Dec-06 at 10:58 pm | Permalink
I agree with Nkone that some tools should be given credit and others it is ok to focus the credit on the artist or conductor. I don’t agree that without a paint brush and paint a painter would be nothing. I think that the paint and paintbrush just make it easier for the painter to express their talent. Without them, they still have that talent inside of them and can find other ways to express it. It may not result in the same kind of painting, but the painter can still find a different way to express their talent.
Victoria Trieu | 05-Dec-06 at 11:01 pm | Permalink
I think you picked a good example to help explain this concept, Greg. I don’t know if I agree or if I don’t, but I think I understand this philosophy. It’s really hard to just start saying that instruments are writing music with us and they deserve their own recognition. I see it more of an understanding of what is going on when something like the composition of music is happening. I think it is hard to understand because we have huge debates on whether machines can be intelligent and think and feel, and now we are trying to give credit to objects that are even further from being robots for doing something on their own like composing music. I kind of think of it like this. You sit down with a guitar. You have this tune in mind. You say to the guitar, “Hey, I’m thinking a riff like this. Think you can do that?” Then you sit down and play what the guitar thinks you want. You may think, “Oh, well I think it would sound more like what I had in mind if we moved it up an octave.” And then you and the guitar just work it out until you as close to what you had in mind.
Then again, it is a lot easier to just say that the guitar is a tool. It is there to be used by humans. I think this philosophy is really out there and it is trying really hard. I mean I am trying really hard. For just a few seconds at a time I can grasp the idea pretty well, and then it just goes away.
Kristina Hughes | 06-Dec-06 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
This dialogue is interesting, I’d say I agree mostly with Greg. Rather than repeat what he said, however, I thought of another idea pertaining to this argument. Remember our discussion on originality? Can I painter paint a sunset without having ever seen one before? When a painter paints a portrait, is the figure of the model a tool to the painter? Is the model technology? Should the model be given credit in the final product; and if so, should the creator of the model be given credit as well? I think the concept of technology, as a tool to humans, can extend further than an instrument, paint, a brush–non-corporeal objects. The musicians in the symphony are technology to the conductor; the instruments the musicians play are technology to the muscian. The point is, we, humans and our technologies, are all interconnected and depend on one another. In end, it is the product of the team that deserves credit.
Lindsey Schwartz | 06-Dec-06 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
I think I agree with Kristina and Greg. A person may have all the talent in the world at painting, or playing the piano, but if there were no paint brush and canvas, and no piano, they would have never become a talented painter or pianist. I don’t necessarily think that these tools are responsible for the end product but I do think they deserve some recognition. I think this definitely goes along with Clark’s ideas about our dependency on technology - even if it’s just a paintbrush.
Nicholas Marino | 06-Dec-06 at 11:46 pm | Permalink
I agree with the whole “team” idea. While an artist might know they are looking to use some sort of blue, having the right paint could make a painting look even better. Same with the brush, anyone who’s painted before would know that the difference between a bad brush and a good one is huge. The paint, the brush, the canvass, all make a painting great.
stephanie hernandez | 06-Dec-06 at 11:57 pm | Permalink
It’s a good point you brought up but you must consider that the paintbrush on its own would have done nothing (unless its one of those advancements in technology where it paints on its own). Thus, even though the paintbrush is a vital tool for an artists work, without the artist there would be no masterpiece. That is why the credit is given to the artist. It is the imagination within the artist that contributes to the magnifisance of the work.
Greg Frazier | 07-Dec-06 at 12:25 am | Permalink
But Stephanie, would the artist have made the painting without a paint brush, paint, and canvas? Can you view an artists imagination? Imagination is not an object, it is an idea. It resides in our mind and cannot be viewed unless it is made into something tangible, like a painting. There wouldn’t even be evidence of the idea unless the artist had made it into something tangible.
Using your same argument, one can equally say that the artists intangible imagination and mind would have done nothing on their own. They need objects to represent the ideas they have.
I think Nicholas brings up a good point. The tool can be critical to the quality of the work. Sure, an artist’s talent can compensate for some of this deficiency, but what if the poor quality of the tool forces the artist to be more creative and approach the work from a different viewpoint. Then, wouldn’t the tool have inspired and challenged the artist to use it in a more fitting way?
Also, to the argument that any of us using Van Gogh’s paint brushes and paint couldn’t paint as well as Van Gogh. Could you say that Van Gogh could have made all the paintings he did exactly (and I stress exactly) the same if he had used mud and a stick?
Erin Hogan | 07-Dec-06 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
In response to Greg’s question to Stephanie “would the artist have made the painting without a paint brush, paint, and canvas?” I would have to say yes. The tools don’t matter. If the painter did not have those tools that he/she used to make their original painting, they would have found another way. And yes, they probably would have used different tools. The point is however, that while the painter may need some sort of tool(s) to paint, it is not the tools that matter because they are interchangeable. You can’t give power to an object if it is completely replaceable. Van Gogh could have used sticks and mud instead of fine paint brushes. He would have created something amazing no matter what. It is the artist that is important, not the tool. As Cristina said, it is the talent of the painter that created something, not the tools. The tools are completely arbitrary.
Greg Frazier | 07-Dec-06 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
Erin- you missed the point of the stick and mud. Had Van Gogh used a stick and mud instead of a paint brush and paint, the result would not be EXACTLY the same. Therefore, the tool is not arbitrary. Likewise, had he used water colors instead of oil based paint, it would not be EXACTLY the same. The talent can only go as far to manipulate extended objects to create something. The talent alone will not be able to create anything. It is similar to saying that my hunger ate a sandwhich. My hunger can’t actually eat something, but it can make my body eat a sandwhich.
And if you have never painted, which I haven’t, then it might be important to note what Nicholas said in comment 8 about the brush being extremely important.
Erin Hogan | 07-Dec-06 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Greg - I am not saying that artists don’t use tools. I am not saying that talent alone will magically create something simply because the artist wills it to be there. What I am saying is that because the tool is replaceable, it is not the important part of the equation. Yes the artist needs a tool…but it could be any tool. And sure, a finer paintbrush may make it more aesthetically pleasing to some people. But a stick would also work…and hey, maybe some people would like that piece of art even more. Some people like the sounds of flutes in an orchestra. But at the same time, I can use a rock and hit it against the side of a trash can and proclaim that it’s music. Some people use hammers to build houses…I can use the heel of a shoe to pound in those nails. My point is that the tools are not what matter. They are completely interchangeable and therefore insignificant. You say that the art would not have been exactly the same. If it had never been created in the first place, then this wouldn’t have mattered. It’s only after the fact that people are giving meaning to those tools that were used in its creation. But those tools don’t matter because Van Gogh could have used anything to make his art…it’s only because he choose to use a paintbrush that makes you think that it is important.
William Lee | 07-Dec-06 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
I think you have to give credit to the artist solely for putting everything together. Sure the tools should get credit for what they can produce, the brush and its strokes, the paint and its colors, but I believe without the artist, they are nothing. Then again, I suppose with that argument, I would have to say that without the brush or paint, the artist would have nothing but thoughts in his mind. I still believe that the artist deserves most of the credit considering he took what are just individual parts and created something amazing by putting them together when they are little themselves.
Daniel Worst | 07-Dec-06 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
I don’t know how much credit tools should receive. I think that all the credit should go to the person who invented the tool. A guy was laying on his garage floor and he couldn’t get under his car to change the oil, so he invented the jack to help him. The tool is just an extention of his body. The inventor should receive all the credit for inventing something that makes life easier. Even to painting. That would not have been possible if a guy didn’t invent the brush and canvis. He gets the credit.
Kenneth Sullivan | 07-Dec-06 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
The paintbrushes merely become an extension of the painter’s arm. Without it he would still express those thoughts with finger painting or another tool. It is in the artist’s mind that we find the masterpiece. When Leonardo da Vinci was carving human sculptures out of a single piece of marble, he envisioned the man inside the block of marble before he had made a single cut. He would then “free the monster inside.” The tools do not deserve credit for the work because they simply become a means to express the artist’s thoughts on a medium.
Rickin Shah | 07-Dec-06 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
I’m inclined to agree with Christina and Nkone here. I think that it is truly the creator of the masterpiece that deserves the credit. I understand what Daniel is saying about giving the credit to the inventor of the paintbrush…but i think the only credit should be given to the brush he made…not the painting that Van Gogh produced…that doesn’t make complete sense to me. Creation lies within the talent of the artist and thats what is most important i think.
Miguel Guzman | 07-Dec-06 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
I don’t think we could compare the tools that Van Gogh uses to make his masterpiece to those that and orchestra instructor uses. The musicians who make the orchestra have a mind of their own and are talented to do what their instructor instructs however paint and a brush only move the way the artist wants it to. I think the credit goes to the artist because without the brush he might still be able to do a masterpiece but the instructor without musicians he has nothing.
Christopher Lauschke | 07-Dec-06 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
SO i am chiming in late here, but i thought about another way to think about it. I would never give real credit to an inanimate object when there is a real person controlling it. But in the case of the paint brush and the canvas, i might say that i do give credit to the person who invented/built this technology. I was thinking more in the way of tv’sand movies. Take watching a movie full of special effects on a high definition tv. The direct credit would go to the director and the special effects team. But it only looks at its best when watching it on the proper television. I dont give the television credit, but the real person who built it might deserve some. FOr the symphony, i know many string and woodwind instruments are much better than others, possibly one-of-a-kind and handmade. I would give credit to the designer for the premium sound that this masterpiece of an instrument puts out.
Teresa Hernandez | 07-Dec-06 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
I think you make an interesting point, and in some way I do agree with you, but the way I view this situation is that the tools are instruments that help humans extend their capacities. I mean it’s true that without the brush and the paint Van Gogh could not have created his masterpeices, but it’s not like the paint and brush could have done it on their own either. Humans are capable of doing such things as making paintings , and maybe the paint, brush, and the canvas deserve credit in their own ways because each made a unique contribution. Without each individual piece, the final product wouldn’t be the same, but without the artist, the painting could have never been created in the first place. That’s why I think the artist deserves credit for making his vision reality, and the tools deserve credit for each contributing in their own ways.