Page 83 - Genesis

in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the cost? As
the camera continued to evolve it became cheaper

and more accessible while portrait artists were thrust
deeper and deeper into the shadows and there was

much less money to be made. One could argue that
painted portraits still have relevance, I mean the aes-

thetic of the brush strokes is a huge draw, but with filters
and even robots that can recreate those strokes who

even cares for realism artists except for the rich who
have money to toss around? What’s even the point of

their existence? Now you may ask ‘what if they create
something that was more stylized, an aesthetic much

harder to recreate?’ Then you would be on the right
track, the abstraction of art is what keeps artists rele-

vant, because to create *most* abstract work artists
have to tap into something that most say is uniquely hu-

man, creativity.
Now many artists have taken the invention of new

technology and used it to their advantage, I mean we
can point to photographers and digital artists, there are

so many cool things that can be done with a comput-
er and a lense, but I wonder what the downsides of this

could be. One could suggest looking to the past to de-
termine exactly what innovation in art could cause. As

we saw in the “Art and the Future” article looking to the
past is a great indicator where the future is going and

how to keep up with it. If one could have looked at
how creativity became a much bigger part of art after

the camera they could have deduced the rise of ab-
stract and surrealist artwork.

83