Art is a thing of the mind and should not be tied to any particular process but to the original vision/sound/verbalisation. Progress applies to technology which in turn provides new means of expression for the art but it does not supplant it. Photography is photography, no matter what technology is used for capturing the moment in time and it did not replace painting, after all. Those turned to be two different art disciplines. The computer did replace the typewriter, on the other hand, because it was a new technology which provided new, more efficient and more liberating way of expressing the same art.
On the other note, I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but what you are saying sounds like you're denying literature and poetry the status of art because... why? Because they are these days predominatnly created AND presented using a computer?
You know, every time throughout written history there were howls of protest whenever a new technology emerged, including the press AND the photography. Especially photography!
Once upon a time, there was a fellow called Nedd Ludd. He made a name both for himself and others like him by taking this militant anti-technology stance to the extreme.
But guess what, the sky is still far above and will likely remain there even when the next big technology wave sweeps the computers as we know them away. My educated guess is that art will remain alive and well beneath the sky as well when that happens.
Bookmarks