Week 4

THE SELF AND IDENTITY

LECTURE MATERIAL:

Martin Hosken:

“Do you think we are rooted and determined more by our biological inheritance? Or are we more of a blank slate where experience and environment determine our sense of value? It is a personal observation that if you asked most under-40s they would predominantly say nurture, while most over-40s tend to sway more towards nature. Why might this be? And is the implication that age has an influence upon our sense of self and
identity?” – The Self: 01. Common Ground

I have found this particularly interesting. Hosken suggesting that the older generation are less likely to believe that you can learn creativity, whereas the younger generation are more inclined to believe you can learn anything you choose. There is naturally an inclination for humans to want what they can’t have… Will we ever be satisfied?

Hosken dives into the topic of the digital world and self in section 05:
“This lack of attention to ourselves in the physical environment is the price we pay for investing in ourselves in the digital one – we can all recognise this image – where our technological self seems to have over-ridden our immediate self and our surroundings. Have social media companies become so adept in manipulating our desire for acknowledgement, our response to reward, our System 1 mechanisms, our archetypal selves, or are these devices just tools for us to use and simply empower our own sense of self?”

I find this topic particularly interesting as we discussed briefly in week one, with Simon Manchipp’s data/design discussion. However Hosken is looking at the bigger picture here, not just in terms of design. I have found an interesting article written by Jim Taylor who mentions that the digital world is slowly changing the way people portray themselves, and even their lives. This is scary; to think that the digital world has this much power to alter our perception of ourselves. Technology has the ability to adjust our paths in life, just through communicating to us subconsciously. What we see, who we see, what we hear online – everything digital has the power to influence our brains.

I have explored how technology is changing the art industry, and below are two great examples of how technology is efficient, accurate and can be programmed to create precise work:

However, as amazing as the work is above, I feel like the work has been created mostly by the machine and not by the artist. I am fully understanding that machines and technology are able to improve artist projects massively in terms of speed, accuracy etc. as I have used software to enhance my work i.e. Photoshop to improve contrast in photography. But there’s something a little different to having to manually move each letter around on InDesign, than having a machine cut out everything for you. It’s certainly an interesting evolution in the creative industries and I think it’s all down to personal preference. I know I would always prefer to purchase and create work that has been done by hand, as opposed to a machine creating the whole thing. There is a huge sense of satisfaction when creating something yourself and I think people who purchase creative work appreciate that, too.

Below, is an artist I have followed on instagram myself and I find the labour and attention to detail absolutely incredible: