After reading Michael Naimark’s claim on art’s evolution, I wonder myself how technology, specifically computational arts first into all of this. Computational arts shape artists, at least from my understanding, by getting them to think more mathematically and logically about their craft. When communicating, people pass around numbers, not words. Functionality of a works becomes a bigger concern then its overall meaning, since what meaning is there if a work suddenly stops functioning? Unlike traditional mediums, technological arts are bound to the computers and systems they run on: a lack of rendering quality or hindering of speed performance could affect the viewing of the work in a negative way. This does not allow computational arts to age well because of this binding. As systems increase in power, as languages are able to perform more tasks, older computational works will be looked past as being to “simple & weak” because they were built on a slower platform with weaker tools. As viewers’ attention spans decrease with the coming age of new media, older works of computational works will be left in the past, being seen as artifacts.