Re: Too mach balanced too mach control
I don't think the dynamic will change. Some of the things you speak of exist, already. One of the more (in)famous examples are owned by Bill Gates, who has digital wall paintings that change color/shape based on exothermic feedback provided by anyone walking by. You did mention that our way of thinking will change, which I completely glossed over while initially adding my thoughts to the thread. You are absolutely correct, here. I do think, however, that any significant evidence of change within digital art will stem from the role of the spectator. To borrow from digital artist, David Rokeby, "Interactivty as content." Digital art deviates from the classical relationship between spectator and art by allowing for certain real-time choices to be made that alter immediate content thereby allowing for equally immediate synthesis of information. Classically, we experience content in 2-D time, synthesize a momentary perspective, and likely move on, possibly reflecting away from the piece. The bridge between digital and classical art rests in the moment in which a spectator looks at a static painting or sculpture, and projects certain inclinations onto a given piece. S/he could imagine that a decidely horizontal landscape in a painting extends in that direction, beyond the frame, or that a decidedly vertical neck on one of Fritchie's sculptures continues towards the gallery ceiling,tapering off to a fine point--All a sort of mental intertia. Rigid point-and-click constructs do not constitute for interavity nor any subseqeuent synthesis of content.
It is interesting that you mention today's youth. It's even more interesting to wonder that an economically polarizing technology like the computer will produce more artists than a lump of clay, or some paint. These kids like your nephew are clearly bright. I am just more taken by what they do with traditional materials.
"dymamically, art consists of mark making in space". It does now, but who's to say what the future will bring? It may only appear on a computer screen in the future, sculpture that appears 3d on the screen & rotates, paintings that change colors as you look at them! I don't think that Rodin could ever imagine a deSuvero sculpture even existing let alone being considered great art, so although they both did "mark making in space", that too may change.
You said something about having a problem with a new messianic widget that will usher in a new movement in art only because it exists. Yes, of course, it's the person behind the widget who will change things, by his or her creative ability to see & explore new possibilities. Just as the invention of oil paint changed painting, the invention of photography changed art, (I don't think it's just a coincidence that once photography gained in popularity, that impressionism, post impressionism, etc. appeared on the horizon). Commercially available tube colors (1877) had something to do with it also. This box we've been communicating on will change art. It's already changed it and architecture as well. Frank Gehry said that he couldn't design & build those buildings of his without one!
One of the reasons that I keep harping redundantly on this "computer is the future of art" subject, is that I have a very bright & creative 10 yr. old nephew who does ALL his creative work on a computer, writes music, draws & illustrates stories & cartoons, etc., and I don't think he's all that different from any other bright, creative 10 yr. old. Young kids take to this stuff (computer) like a duck to water and they're the future of art.