But he got a point. The artistic expression has a lot to do about its society behaviours and thoughts. We can say that art is the expression, and therefore the reflection, of its society. Isn't it?
But it is not what I want talk about. What I find interesting is the influence technology has on communication, and therefore in artistic expression. Not only in communication but in everything, even on the way we behave as well on the way we think and express ourselves.
Let me explain. Long time ago we humans didn't have any tool to hunt and defend ourselves from predators. We were a bunch of chickens running afraid of everything. But one day some fellas created tools and from that time on we became the badass in the animal kingdom. We can say that the tools changed the way we looked at reality (probably because we changed it) and even at ourselves.
How about the artistic media, our communication tools, they are also piece of technologies. Like any tool or technology it can influence our behaviour, the way we think and therefore our expression. How much differential in communication and expression is in between wood sculptures ans marble sculptures? Oil paint and watercolour? How about Silver gelatin print and digital print? Acoustic Instruments and digital sounds? Electric guitar and acoustic guitar? Written text and typed text? TV and Theatre? etc?
I would say a lot.
Recently somebody was talking about the good rock in roll bands in the 60's, 70's and 80's saying that now a days it is hard to find band with the same quality as in those decades. And the reason looks to be about creation and copies. At that time rock in roll was fine art, it was about innovation exploration, creation and recreation while today it is about repetition. Why?
I believe it is because the rock in roll language is more masculine than the kind of language is in vogue today. In the past the rock in roll language was the expression of their time. Today, rock in roll language doesn't match with contemporary expression, language.
I will explain it better. The classic music is a effeminate expression and it represented the effeminate time it was in vogue. Not only in music but in literature, sculptures, paintings, etc.
Then, from classic music the expression followed the changes of society, technology and expression itself becoming more masculine, with folk music, jazz and then rock in roll.
Then, with pop music and electronic sounds slowly it become effeminate again. Not only in the music but in visual arts, literature and all kind of expression (even street art). And you might be asking what influenced it.
Well, it is very clear to me that the digital medium accommodates better the effeminate expression than the masculine one. This is the reason it looks to be.
Just compare digital tools and traditional. We live in a digital world. We see the world influenced by the digital language. We express ourselves through the digital tools and its language which is better expressed in a effeminate way.
So we can say rock in roll doesn't matches with contemporary vision of the world and expression. So, if it wants to be like in the past it will be old fashion, copy of the past, etc. The only solution is to adapt it to today's language like Radiohead, Coldplay and Belle and Sebastian have being done. Otherwise, if bands try to do both, like in the past with today's expression, the result will be a weird hermaphrodite child, like Metallica, Link Park and some other bands have being done. They sound as something out of place. Not there neither here.
Before you call me with ugly names, I want tell you that I don't think this constant transition is good or bad. It just is. And I think both masculine and feminine expression tendency, and medias potentialities of expression, have their positive aspects as well as their limitation.
It is just the reflection of our time. Or to be more precise, the influence of today's tools.
As Neil Postman used to say, technologies are the biggest ideologies of all.