Monday, July 31, 2006
The Digital Divide
Since the coin was termed in the mid-90s, most rhetoric on the "digital divide" conducted by policymakers and non-profit organizations across the United States focuses on the low penetration rate of digital services and equipment in low-income communities. In other words, the term "digital divide" has been used primarily as a political issue as a highlight of the more widely regarded socioeconomic gap. However, as this American life increasingly becomes this digital life it is important to note the numerous divides which this transition is causing. Pippa Norris's The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet Worldwide (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press 2001) suggests that there are at least three major divides:
One of the hardest things an artist-musician must confront is their own perception of relevance. And that is doubly troubling for a digital artist when very few people around them are even aware of the digital tools used to create that art. How can I explain to someone a complex Max/MSP patch or other digital audio process or synthesis when they haven't even heard of wireless networking or on-line banking. Even more, how can a digital artist create content (art) which someone who is not so digitally inclined relate to? How can a digital artist transcend novelty and create a timeless work?
Sure, there will always be discourse in academic circles on the gyrations of certain artists who work in this field. Someone somewhere cares. But if that "someone somewhere" lacks the wherewithal to support such an artist, then the medium stagnates. Novelty is accepted as genius. And genius is too poor to continue. But I digress, this is essentially the state of all art these days, digital, analog, or traditional materials.
- a global divide between the developed and undeveloped worlds
- a social divide between the information rich and the information poor
- a democratic divide between those who do and those who do not use the new technologies to further political participation
One of the hardest things an artist-musician must confront is their own perception of relevance. And that is doubly troubling for a digital artist when very few people around them are even aware of the digital tools used to create that art. How can I explain to someone a complex Max/MSP patch or other digital audio process or synthesis when they haven't even heard of wireless networking or on-line banking. Even more, how can a digital artist create content (art) which someone who is not so digitally inclined relate to? How can a digital artist transcend novelty and create a timeless work?
Sure, there will always be discourse in academic circles on the gyrations of certain artists who work in this field. Someone somewhere cares. But if that "someone somewhere" lacks the wherewithal to support such an artist, then the medium stagnates. Novelty is accepted as genius. And genius is too poor to continue. But I digress, this is essentially the state of all art these days, digital, analog, or traditional materials.
