Topics Art

Question Why do we consider songs by singers who use Auto-Tune (a program that corrects the pitch in their voice) for their music to be of lesser quality than songs by singers who merely use their natural voices? I can see why we might consider the artist to be less talented or worthy of admiration, but isn't a song a song, regardless of how it was made? What about visual artists who produce their art with computer graphics programs, rather than using pencils, pens or brushes? I've heard people say that some of the splendid images on sites like DeviantArt aren't art because the artists "cheated" (i.e. created the images digitally, rather than by hand). Again, what does it matter how the work was produced?

Accepted:
April 20, 2011

Comments

You raise an interesting nest of issues here, regarding the use of technology to assist in the production of art. The starting point for the question is the judgment that (recordings of) songs that employ technology to correct the pitch in a singer's voice are of lesser quality than those that do not, and the similar judgment about visual artists who use technology to create images. Although I'm not aware of having encountered instances of visual art produced by graphics programs, and am far more familiar with music that has been modified by technology, if not by the use of Auto-Tune in particular, since it seems to me that most recorded music--unless it is the recording of a live performance--has been technologically enhanced in some way, I believe nevertheless that one can address the general issue without delving into the particulars of the technology.

Perhaps one reason that it may be claimed that works created or enhanced through technology are not as good as those that have not been enhanced or created in this way is because it is assumed by those advancing such criticisms that art must reflect the talent or even genius of its creator, and so an artist who uses or needs to use technology to aid in the creation of her art is not as talented as one who does not. This may be the case, but one could, I think, distinguish between a judgment about a work of art and a judgment about its creator. For it seems to me that one might well judge that a particular song or work is a good instance of the particular art of which it is an instance, and nevertheless--without irrationality--judge that the creator of that work is not as skilled as the creator of another work once one learns how the first work has been produced.

It isn't clear to me, however, that the use of technology to modify or alter works should, however, be taken to diminish the aesthetic value of the work in question. Some recorded rock music, for example, may not even be capable of being produced without the aid of technology; certain kinds of architecture, like some of the recent work of Frank Gehry, may not have even been possible to produce without the aid of computers. Moreover, since it seems to me that the manipulation of media has always been a part of the creation of art, and now that art may even be produced with the assistance of technology, the manipulation of that technology, it seems to me, should rightly be considered as part of the work of the artist, and can therefore redound to his or her credit, just as the manipulation of the more 'traditional' media of art has been taken to reflect the skill of the artist.