Is technology the new “institution”? Is a facility with technology now assumed as a basic prerequisite for “legitimacy?“ Do we now consider the aesthetics and functionality of an artist's (or any body's) website to be an indication of their validity/viability? Do these elements factor into our assessment/reception of a persons work? Is any attempt to proceed with out , or stumble around, technology perceived as (assumed to be) either an intentional statement, or indication of a more fundamental and general ineptitude? Do we exist now in a "culture" that assumes technology to be an "unspoken", or implicit partner in our dialogs? Is this a new ethos?
nothing more to read right now, check back later
Thursday, October 25, 2007
An open question
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I would like to be convinced that this isn't true but for the most part I think that it is a prerequisite for legitimacy. I recently got a call from a perspective client who wanted to see my porfolio on the color side of my business and when I told him that i didn't have a web site it felt like an admission of incompetence and in fact after sending him some a few stray jpegs i never heard back from him.
Now in regards to most perspectus applications you can't even play unless you have a healthy handle on the techy side of things.
LD
ps. this is really cool!
Post a Comment