“Technology is the mortal enemy of art.”

I don’t entirely agree with this statement, I feel that technology is a tool of art such as a brush or a canvas. We live in an age where computer generated art and graphic effects can be used so readily to make new and different artworks that it would be foolish to boycott technology. One of the points made in the manifesto was that once someone has an idea it is easily mass produced and reused across the artistic community. However, plagiarism excluded, I think this is more of an argument for technology; it allows for more artists to experiment and push each ‘breakthrough’.

One argument for this notion would be made by John Berger in ‘Ways of Seeing’ that reproductions, whilst they free up art to a bigger audience, reduce the importance of the original. Also, that with reproductions it takes the image away from its intended setting. I can see that from a constructivist standpoint this would remove from the social element of art that they strived for. But, as we can see with the popularity of galleries there is still an interest in going to see art together and seeing the original version of a piece – the Mona Lisa in the Louvre for example is always a packed attraction, yet the view of it is probably better through a computer screen. Furthermore, with reproductions of art the audience can put together their own gallery of their chosen artworks in their own space, so whilst it removes from the artists intent it adds to the audiences viewing pleasure.