Alright...

...so we've seen some good examples of artists who are using antiquated technologies to create some really unique and wonderful work. But why are they using these technologies, and what does it mean?

It should be noted that all of these artists are clearly contemporary and they're creating work that is distinctly Postmodern. [While modern artists gave credence to their forebearers, they rarely re-appropriated images in their work. According to Robert Atkins, "appropriation artists challenge the cherished modern notion of avant-garde originality by borrowing images from the media or history of art and re-presenting them in new juxtapositions or arrangements that paradoxically function in the art world as celebrated examples of innovation or a new avant-garde" (Atkins 153).] By reappropriating these "outdated" technologies in their work, contemporary artists can re-align our ideas about said technologies, and hopefully use them to reach new conclusions with their art.

The impact of these artists' works are intensified by their place in the shifting landscape of technology as we now know it. For all the artists discussed, a digital version of their technology is making the medium faster, more streamlined and easier to standardize. What these artists are looking for, however, is something that is truly unique and less standardized. With advancements in technology, we might say, greater standardization has become a major goal. For artists, however, the opposite is often the case. Using "outdated" technologies, then, is a logical way for artists to create work that rebels against the growing standardization of contemporary society.

Most antiquated technologies are anything but standardized, and often lend themselves to greater idiosyncrasies and inimitability. In the letterpress video, for example, we’re told “it merely takes looking at it to see that there is a difference.” Indeed, each piece created on an antique letterpress is “one-of-a-kind” in a way that many contemporary, especially digital printing methods never can be. Digital printing methods, instead, focus on making each piece as perfectly consistent and standardized as possible. Sally Mann has said that she often prays for her plates to be “screwed up just a little bit,” thus lending a greater sense of individuality and serendipity to her art. It may be ventured, then, that a large part of what makes art Art is “one-of-a-kind-ness,” or a degree of serendipity and that using antique technologies helps artists reach a level of individuality in their work that new technologies cannot provide.

Ironically, the appreciation antique technologies have garnered in the art world would not be possible without technological growth and paradigm shifts. When these technologies were first introduced they were not valued for their art making capabilities. Instead, these technologies were the standards of their own time, and they were created as part of a quest for greater consistency in the organization, storage and sharing of knowledge.

As technology advances and evolves, however, new understandings of the tools of a past age can be created by manner of distance from the time period. This new understanding also seems to coincide with cessation of that technology’s role as a prevailing force of standardization. Because of this, it seems, there would not be the same appreciation for letterpress, wet photography, woodblock printing, silent film, or otherwise without a technological shift away from these processes toward a more digitized medium. It seems that in the end, it’s only by understanding the shift from analogue to digital that we can truly appreciate the capacities of analogue technology. Furthermore, if the purpose of art is to make us reconsider our current models of reality, then for artists, reappropriating “outdated” technologies to create contemporary objects seems completely appropriate and necessary.