Technology is a funny thing. It speeds things up, makes life easier, and provides many benefits. But, when it goes wrong? Well, you might as well have been doing it the old fashioned way to start with. Moreover, technology itself can easily demand your attention and become the focus of a project instead of the content. Simply put, unchecked use of technology can usurp the creative process. Where you would have had a great idea or great solution, you have a computer generated cop-out… such as a movie that is loaded with effects but lacks in plot, character development, or good acting. Other great examples are cookie cutter pop songs, copy and paste fiction works, or even "news articles" that are either just linked or rehashed versions of pre-existing work.
This really hit home a couple of years ago when a composer friend of mine and I were chatting during a soundcheck for a concert. We had been talking about challenges of notation and getting through to young composers how to properly write for certain instruments, and our conversation turned to the overwhelming presence of technology in creative pursuits. He said, "When composition students bring me pieces they are working on, I can tell from what they've written if they've only been working on a computer." The ability to spot the difference between someone sitting with pen, paper, and instrument and someone sitting with a computer alone is evidence that technology needs to be reconsidered in the creative process. When working with pen and paper (or in any traditional analog way) you are forced to interact and engage both yourself and your material. In a creative process, the usage of tech can interrupt and seduce your focus away from the difficult (but crucial) formative work.
With music an an example, think about the challenge the music community faces if young composers/songwriters are subconsciously limiting their ideas to what they find in their computer (as opposed to what comes out of themselves). Instead of creating, the author is compromising with their technology to receive a result they would not have necessarily sought. That lack of control and authority over a tool has made that hardware or software an unwitting participant in the development of new work. In other words, it could be argued that the computer should receive credit for its work.
For another art form, consider this example in film: color correction (color correction is a process that alters the colors in frames of film for effect). Numerous articles and videos have been made to highlight the rampant use of digital color correction in Hollywood. At one point in cinema history, color correction was only used in specific situations to achieve the goals of the director. It was a very expensive and time consuming process that was used sparingly to achieve certain effects. Directors had to pay careful attention to on set lighting, camera angles, etc., to ensure they would get the look they wanted with as little extra work as possible. Now, digital technology not only makes color correction easy on individual frames, but makes altering the colors of the entire film only a few clicks away, too. Instead of a supplement tool that requires a time and cost decision, it has become a button press. The joke about "just fixing it in post-production" is becoming more real. I believe this is the reason that certain films and filmmakers are getting the accolades and attention for their work. Christopher Nolan's dedication to using VFX sparingly is well known, and it shows up the unbelievable look and feel of films like Inception and Interstellar. Just in the last few weeks, George Miller has garnered a large amount of attention for his dedication to making everything real in the newest installment to the Mad Max franchise. Star Wars fans look forward to seeing JJ Abrams create The Force Awakens with a reduced usage of computer effects and blue screen.
Now, my big disclaimer is this: I think technology is a huge asset for creative people because it helps us realize things that were once unable to be realized. But technology itself is not the answer, and the creator and user of the tech must bring the artistic vision and dedication to their work. Moreover, the artist using technology must be well versed in its usage just like any other tool; the greatest guitar ever made can sound bad in the hands of a non-guitarist. Technology may help you realize, but it doesn't help create. Even in sound and media pieces where a computer or interface is largely determining the sound and visual content for the audience, the artist or composer must still create the piece -- even if technology is the performer.
Within the past couple years, I've returned to scoring music on paper first and keeping creative ideas outlined on paper. With it has come a volley of ideas that were lost to me while using software. Several completed pieces, story ideas, brainstorming… its all more effective with paper and pen. More importantly, when I do begin to use technology in working it is far more productive and is more informed. I encourage everyone to pay close attention to how they're using their tech and to find the process that lets them find a balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment