Great stuff. On the meanings of “art”, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries I find it’s often much more like the modern word “artifice” - so something that can apply to anything manmade (vs Nature, being God-made). Hence the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, founded in 1754, certainly thought of arts as encompassing anything other than what the Royal Society studied (the RS having originally encompassed arts too, but which quickly found there was plenty of nature to be getting on with discovering!)
Thank you Anton. Was thinking about you and your work while I wrote it! On a related note, I've been looking around for early uses of "technology" in 17th century writings - am I right in thinking that it's quite a rare word? (Etymonline.com says it first surfaces in the 1610s and originally meant "a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," but I've had trouble finding actual uses that early).
Maybe a question for a future Age of Invention post?
Should have known this was bait! I don't think I've ever seen the word "technology" used in any piece of writing before the 20thC. Had a quick check through my notes and it's certainly in none of the quotations I've transcribed, and I think I'd certainly have noted it down as unusual. The closest to it, which I think the etymology website must be referencing, is Simon Sturtevant's 1612 use of "Technick", a term seemingly of his own invention. Under Sturtevant's schema - and by the way it is an absolutely fascinating and shockingly ahead-of-its-time work - "Heuretica is the art of inventions, teaching how to find out new, and to judge of the old", which is itself divided into the "Reall" and "Technick". The Technick "treats of the dexterous habit and faculty wherewith all the artisans are to be qualified and endowed, who are appointed to make the emporeutick works of inventions" (emporeuticks being "the commodities, wares, and things of every invention, for general use", or in other words products). Sturtevant's "Technick" is thus pretty much the modern word "technique" rather than "technology".
I think under Sturtevant's schema, our "technology" would be what he calls "Organick", which "sets down the means and instruments, whereby the work of art, intended, is brought forth, made and effected." (In terms of where that sits in his schema, heuretica is divided into real and technick, and real is subdivided into organick and emporeuticall)
ALSO: this will be of interest to you given our previous correspondence, but for Sturtevant one of the alternative ways by which to divide Heuretica is into the "Scientiffick and Mechanick", with the scientific being "precepts general to all liberal arts, the end of which arts, is chiefly science or knowledge and not any real visible work, or sensible thing", whereas the mechanics are "precepts general to all illiberal arts, the end of which arts is chiefly a real visible work or sensible thing".
You've prompted me to look even further into this. Did a quick search of EEBO for "technology" and there are indeed some uses, though not always the modern usage:
1) 1612: The ansvvere of Master Isaac Casaubon to the epistle of the most reuerend Cardinall Peron:
"men, void of God's spirit, commonly and promiscuously did dispute of spiritual things, and convert theology into technology, that is, make no other use of divinity but as a matter of learned, or artificial discourse, as they talk of other arts and sciences out of human reason."
2) 1661, Glossographia by Thomas Blount:
Technical (technicus) artificial, cunning, done like a workman
Technology (gr.) a treating or description of crafts, arts or workmanship
Tectonick (tectonicus) of or belonging to a builder.
2) 1677: An English dictionary, by Elisha Coles:
Technical, g. artificial
Technology, g. a treating of arts or workmanship.
Tectonick, g. of building.
3) 1683: Grammatica reformata
"John Fox, in 1551, set forth tables of grammar ... And though after him there were not any further essays made in technology, for above fourscore years; but all men acquiesced in the common grammar"
Super interesting, thank you Anton. The Sturtevant material is fascinating and was new to me. It's striking to me that such an important term/concept of technology is so difficult to pin down. (Compare with all the work and discussion about the meaning/use of "science" in the same period.) Sounds like the meaning was in flux throughout the seventeenth century.
Interesting too that the earliest uses of it overlap with what I think of as the Cornelis Drebbel era, when the artisan-style technological tinkerer ethos overlapped significantly with natural philosophy. I wonder if Pamela Smith's artisans saw themselves as having something to do with "technology" or "technologie," for instance.
Great article. Disagree about the role of the camera obscura, though - medieval artists don't seem to have had the option of going for realism, because none of them did so. The sudden jump from medieval art to the crisp photorealism of Van Eyck is suspicious, to say the least. Objects and faces go from stylised representations to crystal clarity. There's no in between.
Though there is a role for cutting edge chemistry as well as cutting edge optics. In fact, Van Eyck is so extraordinary that it would be strange if his work wasn't the result of bringing together breakthroughs in a number of different areas. And as I think Tyler Cowen has said (though I can't remember who he's quoting) for hundreds of years it was vital for artists to be at the forefront of chemistry - if you weren't, it could cost you your career.
Well, of course, one big EM pulse from a solar storm and all of our digital art is gonna be corrupted to the point where future (art) historians will probably consider this era a dark ages.
"What was art and music like in the early 21st century? Nobody knows! We think possibly they didn't have any interest in it as no examples remain, we have only examples of machinery designed for war or resource extraction..."
What an eye-opening article! It's fascinating how art and technology have this dynamic, almost symbiotic relationship. The way the article connects the dots between artistic pursuits and technological innovations, from the Renaissance period to the current era of AI, truly underscores the profound influence artists have had on shaping technological advancements.
It's incredible to think that something as innovative as Nvidia's GPUs, crucial for today's AI developments like ChatGPT, stemmed from an artistic demand for better graphics chips in the gaming industry. The historical journey, from the adaptation of optical aids by Renaissance artists to the experiments with light-sensitive materials by the Lunar Society, demonstrates a consistent pattern of artists pioneering technological progress.
The connections drawn here, especially regarding how Wright's artistic exploration of artificial light mirrored the experiments in chemistry by the Lunar Society, showcase a compelling interplay between creativity and scientific advancement. Moreover, the parallels between past artistic innovations and the emergence of new technologies, like AI-generated art reminiscent of earlier artistic styles, hint at how art might prefigure technological trends.
This article beautifully highlights the reciprocity between art and technology, revealing that rather than one merely influencing the other, they engage in a continual, intricate dance of inspiration and evolution. Kudos to the author for weaving together such an engaging narrative that uncovers these hidden connections. Thanks for shedding light on this captivating relationship between art and technology!
Great stuff. On the meanings of “art”, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries I find it’s often much more like the modern word “artifice” - so something that can apply to anything manmade (vs Nature, being God-made). Hence the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, founded in 1754, certainly thought of arts as encompassing anything other than what the Royal Society studied (the RS having originally encompassed arts too, but which quickly found there was plenty of nature to be getting on with discovering!)
Thank you Anton. Was thinking about you and your work while I wrote it! On a related note, I've been looking around for early uses of "technology" in 17th century writings - am I right in thinking that it's quite a rare word? (Etymonline.com says it first surfaces in the 1610s and originally meant "a discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," but I've had trouble finding actual uses that early).
Maybe a question for a future Age of Invention post?
Should have known this was bait! I don't think I've ever seen the word "technology" used in any piece of writing before the 20thC. Had a quick check through my notes and it's certainly in none of the quotations I've transcribed, and I think I'd certainly have noted it down as unusual. The closest to it, which I think the etymology website must be referencing, is Simon Sturtevant's 1612 use of "Technick", a term seemingly of his own invention. Under Sturtevant's schema - and by the way it is an absolutely fascinating and shockingly ahead-of-its-time work - "Heuretica is the art of inventions, teaching how to find out new, and to judge of the old", which is itself divided into the "Reall" and "Technick". The Technick "treats of the dexterous habit and faculty wherewith all the artisans are to be qualified and endowed, who are appointed to make the emporeutick works of inventions" (emporeuticks being "the commodities, wares, and things of every invention, for general use", or in other words products). Sturtevant's "Technick" is thus pretty much the modern word "technique" rather than "technology".
I think under Sturtevant's schema, our "technology" would be what he calls "Organick", which "sets down the means and instruments, whereby the work of art, intended, is brought forth, made and effected." (In terms of where that sits in his schema, heuretica is divided into real and technick, and real is subdivided into organick and emporeuticall)
ALSO: this will be of interest to you given our previous correspondence, but for Sturtevant one of the alternative ways by which to divide Heuretica is into the "Scientiffick and Mechanick", with the scientific being "precepts general to all liberal arts, the end of which arts, is chiefly science or knowledge and not any real visible work, or sensible thing", whereas the mechanics are "precepts general to all illiberal arts, the end of which arts is chiefly a real visible work or sensible thing".
You've prompted me to look even further into this. Did a quick search of EEBO for "technology" and there are indeed some uses, though not always the modern usage:
1) 1612: The ansvvere of Master Isaac Casaubon to the epistle of the most reuerend Cardinall Peron:
"men, void of God's spirit, commonly and promiscuously did dispute of spiritual things, and convert theology into technology, that is, make no other use of divinity but as a matter of learned, or artificial discourse, as they talk of other arts and sciences out of human reason."
2) 1661, Glossographia by Thomas Blount:
Technical (technicus) artificial, cunning, done like a workman
Technology (gr.) a treating or description of crafts, arts or workmanship
Tectonick (tectonicus) of or belonging to a builder.
2) 1677: An English dictionary, by Elisha Coles:
Technical, g. artificial
Technology, g. a treating of arts or workmanship.
Tectonick, g. of building.
3) 1683: Grammatica reformata
"John Fox, in 1551, set forth tables of grammar ... And though after him there were not any further essays made in technology, for above fourscore years; but all men acquiesced in the common grammar"
Super interesting, thank you Anton. The Sturtevant material is fascinating and was new to me. It's striking to me that such an important term/concept of technology is so difficult to pin down. (Compare with all the work and discussion about the meaning/use of "science" in the same period.) Sounds like the meaning was in flux throughout the seventeenth century.
Interesting too that the earliest uses of it overlap with what I think of as the Cornelis Drebbel era, when the artisan-style technological tinkerer ethos overlapped significantly with natural philosophy. I wonder if Pamela Smith's artisans saw themselves as having something to do with "technology" or "technologie," for instance.
You should write something on this!
Great article. Disagree about the role of the camera obscura, though - medieval artists don't seem to have had the option of going for realism, because none of them did so. The sudden jump from medieval art to the crisp photorealism of Van Eyck is suspicious, to say the least. Objects and faces go from stylised representations to crystal clarity. There's no in between.
Though there is a role for cutting edge chemistry as well as cutting edge optics. In fact, Van Eyck is so extraordinary that it would be strange if his work wasn't the result of bringing together breakthroughs in a number of different areas. And as I think Tyler Cowen has said (though I can't remember who he's quoting) for hundreds of years it was vital for artists to be at the forefront of chemistry - if you weren't, it could cost you your career.
Well, of course, one big EM pulse from a solar storm and all of our digital art is gonna be corrupted to the point where future (art) historians will probably consider this era a dark ages.
"What was art and music like in the early 21st century? Nobody knows! We think possibly they didn't have any interest in it as no examples remain, we have only examples of machinery designed for war or resource extraction..."
What an eye-opening article! It's fascinating how art and technology have this dynamic, almost symbiotic relationship. The way the article connects the dots between artistic pursuits and technological innovations, from the Renaissance period to the current era of AI, truly underscores the profound influence artists have had on shaping technological advancements.
It's incredible to think that something as innovative as Nvidia's GPUs, crucial for today's AI developments like ChatGPT, stemmed from an artistic demand for better graphics chips in the gaming industry. The historical journey, from the adaptation of optical aids by Renaissance artists to the experiments with light-sensitive materials by the Lunar Society, demonstrates a consistent pattern of artists pioneering technological progress.
The connections drawn here, especially regarding how Wright's artistic exploration of artificial light mirrored the experiments in chemistry by the Lunar Society, showcase a compelling interplay between creativity and scientific advancement. Moreover, the parallels between past artistic innovations and the emergence of new technologies, like AI-generated art reminiscent of earlier artistic styles, hint at how art might prefigure technological trends.
This article beautifully highlights the reciprocity between art and technology, revealing that rather than one merely influencing the other, they engage in a continual, intricate dance of inspiration and evolution. Kudos to the author for weaving together such an engaging narrative that uncovers these hidden connections. Thanks for shedding light on this captivating relationship between art and technology!
For similar topics, read :
https://www.techtopia5.com/2023/08/future-of-art.html
As someone working in the space, thanks for sharing the thoughts. Great article.