The Art vs. Computer debate.
Lasker
art vs computer art. Here, for what it's worth, is my contribution.....
One fellow wrote in to say that modern-day graphics software allows the
untrained user to stand "eyeball-to-eyeball" with qualified graphic artists.
Well yes, it really depends on what sort of image one is trying to create.
If, for instance, the image is to contain a substantial number of lineart
illustrations, the untrained user will probably have to resort to using
clipart. With the image thus composed, the user will be able to stand
"eyeball-to-eyeball" with a graphic designer, but he will be standing on the
shoulders of others (the clipart designers) in order to do so.
Then there's the whole question of whether or not computer art is comparable
to "traditional" art, the latter being mostly represented by sculpture and
by paint on canvas. In judging the merits of "computer art", one needs to
ask oneself this essential question: "To what extent was the computer used
to generate the image?" If a computer artist has used Photoshop brushes and
a digital palette to create a 2D image "from scratch", then it is surely no
less a work of art than a paint-on-canvas piece. Similarly, if one has used
a 3D design application to create one's own wireframe model, the resulting
digital "sculpture" is surely not inferior to one that has been crafted in
clay or wood. The creative process is the same -- it is merely the tools
that are different. If, on the other hand, one has simply used somebody
else's pre-designed wireframe model (such as a human figure from 'Poser') to
create an image, then the process is no more artistic than the act of
photographing Barbie Doll dioramas.
The art exhibition recently held in New York's Brooklyn Museum has done much
to stir up the old debate on the nature of art. If we are to accept that a
bed with soiled linen is a "work of art" simply because someone (typically
the "artist") says that it is, then we must acknowledge that there are
degrees of artistic aptitude. The following letter, taken from Time Magazine
(Nov 15, European edition), says it rather well.....
"Cross-sections of animal carcasses in glass cases and phallic fruit
arrangements on a mattress may well grab the attention and provoke
discussion, but can these monstrosities seriously be regarded as works of
art? The item "Shock for Shock's Sake?" (Time, 11 October) reminds us that
there is no easy answer to the question, "What is art?" Perhaps it is a
question that is entirely without a satisfactory answer. That said, it often
seems to me that the artistic talent showcased in the comic-strip section of
my daily newspaper dwarfs many of the efforts presented by contemporary
"artists" in the world's leading galleries."
Comments? Arguments? Flames?
Lasker.
da
A creative act is a creative act whether executed with a voice, or a
violine, or a pencil, or a state-of-the-art computer graphics set-up.
What a masterful, creative person can accomplish by pushing the
limits any media is infinite. There are infinite possibilities with a
stick dipped in ink in the hand of picasso, and it probably would be
the same if he lived to play with a computer
. It shouldn't matter whether I am painting or drawing, with a
tactile media or digitally.
It's of course always easy to impress with prepackaged tricks that
your audience hasn't seen before. But it's always been that way in
all of the arts.
As for the issue of whether this is a collaboration with the
programmers and artists, (and art/programmers) who created the
software - well sure it is! Just as it was a collaboration between
Picasso and his printers that printed his prints and the ceramicist
who made the pots he painted and the glazes he painted with. And just
as it is with any painter and the makers of the fine tube of oil paint
she is using.
Art certainly can't be deliniated by the form it takes or the media
used.
dave adelman
ana...@sky.net
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:42:56 +0200, "Lasker" <alup...@mweb.co.za>
wrote:
John Ferrell
even recognize) all of of those forms. The computer is yet another tool. When
placed with an artist, we sometimes get real Art. There are others of us who
possess the tools but lack the skills. We are not even close to being on the
same level.
We are toolmakers and we are fascinated by what others can do with our tools!
When the artist is teamed with the tools the results are greater than the sum of
the parts.
Lasker wrote:
--
John Ferrell in Julian NC, de W8CCW
Dixie Competition Products
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606 Fax: (336)685-9771
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"
Lasker
developers) whose blend of ingenuity and hard work has given us these
fabulous tools to play with.
Lasker.
John Ferrell wrote in message <384AB336...@sprintmail.com>...
Ron Leigh
Lasker wrote in message <38498...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
Ron Leigh
Ron Leigh
Will it migrate to the status of "Traditional" in time?
nargus wrote in message <384a8f8a...@news.tcac.net>...
>Art for art's sake is just that - the argument about why an artist
>creates is moot, be they dancer, sculptor, painter, sidewalk chalk
>artist, composer or musician.
>
>Computer art versus traditional forms is not a matter of art, but
>rather of longevity. In some areas longevity is easier to attain than
>others, depending upon the current taste of the art consuming public.
>
>Addressing only the painterly arts, writeable cds come as close to oil
>on canvas as anything now, but even a cd will not last as long as a
>properly executed canvass. And cd's are on the way out. How many of
>you still have 5-1/4" disk drive? How many have great art stored on
>5-1/4 disks? The changing nature of technology makes longevity
>problematical.
>
>It's a somewhat meaningless argument, nevertheless. My art is
>different than yours, not necessarily better regardless of the media I
>chose.
>
>Everyone is creative. Fame is fleeting.
BA
Ron Leigh wrote in message <9445068...@news.tir.com>...
>........ But, when does computer art BECOME traditional?
>Will it migrate to the status of "Traditional" in time?
-------------------------------------
Answers are: Pretty soon, and Yes. Seems that nargus already gave a good
answer (below). In another generation, if not before, digital art will
become a traditional art, because so many will have learned it from a young
age. If it continues, it is a tradition, as nargus said.
If there's any argument; it's whether a computer is an artist's tool, or
not. It is. Artists can make computers do things that ordinary mortals
can't. Anyone here disagree with that? Gonna go back to un-plugged?
BA
---------------------------------
>nargus wrote in message <384a8f8a...@news.tcac.net>...
>>
Ron Leigh
in Music? No.
BA wrote in message <82hfku$tg8$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...>>........ But, when does computer art BECOME traditional?
>>Will it migrate to the status of "Traditional" in time?
> Answers are: Pretty soon, and Yes. Seems that nargus already gave a
good
>answer (below). In another generation, if not before, digital art will
>become a traditional art, because so many will have learned it from a young
>age. If it continues, it is a tradition, as nargus said.
>
> If there's any argument; it's whether a computer is an artist's tool,
or
>not. It is. Artists can make computers do things that ordinary mortals
>can't. Anyone here disagree with that? Gonna go back to un-plugged?
>
>BA
> ---------------------------------
BA
Ron Leigh wrote in message <94458037...@news.tir.com>...
>Traditional in time? I also agree with you on that. However, "Classical" as
>in Music? No.
We'll have to see about that. You're aware, are you not, that the
classical-music repertoire now include Scott Joplin, Duke Ellington and
Leonard Bernstein, among other erstwhile moderns.
In JS Bach's time, the piano was not part of classical music. In
Praetorius' time, neither was the guitar. And I hope the drum-machine never
is.
BA
Jef Peace
eye-to-eye with a graphic artist, then either the untrained person is an
artist, or the person they are eye-to-eye with is not.
Now for the not-so-succinct editorial:
I get rather sick of people thinking they're artists simply because they
took courses in how artists do their thing. Art is an outpouring of an
internal talent and it cannot be "trained" into a person lacking in the
talent. The computer makes it possible to put pretty things together, and
apply marvelous effect to those pretty things, but it's still not the work
of an artist unless the person is an artist before they sit down at the
computer. I took several courses in graphic and commercial art in college
and I am one third of a graphics art firm. We do exceptional work. I'm the
computer nerd and idea man, there is little I don't know about Draw! and
PhotoPaint, and I even help sometimes with the layouts and am getting a feel
for color, balance, etc., but you will never hear me say I'm an artist, even
a graphic one.
It's been my experience that folks who gripe about the work (or expressions
of art) by another person as not being valid for this reason or that reason
are simply refusing to face the reality that maybe they, themselves, are
lacking in their abilities.
For what it's worth,
Jef
Ron Leigh
Ron Leigh
BA wrote in message <82jc2u$kei$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
DLFrost
"Jef Peace" <jefp...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> I get rather sick of people thinking they're artists simply because
they
> took courses in how artists do their thing. Art is an outpouring of
an
> internal talent and it cannot be "trained" into a person lacking in
the
> talent. The computer makes it possible to put pretty things together,
and
> apply marvelous effect to those pretty things, but it's still not the
work
> of an artist unless the person is an artist before they sit down at
the
> computer.
Clear as mud. Perhaps you would care to clearly define "talent" in the
context of being an artist? (Exactly what is it that's "outpouring"
here?) Also, I would like to know how you determined that artistic
talent is inherent to a person and therefore untrainable.
Doug Frost
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Miljanov
brush, the pencil, markers, etc. Art is an expression of ones-self, and digital
art is just another way of expressing that feeling. Labeling it and or trying
to fit it nicely into a particular category is irrelevant. Just enjoy it...
BA wrote:
> Ron Leigh wrote in message <9445068...@news.tir.com>...
>
> >........ But, when does computer art BECOME traditional?
> >Will it migrate to the status of "Traditional" in time?
> -------------------------------------
> Answers are: Pretty soon, and Yes. Seems that nargus already gave a good
> answer (below). In another generation, if not before, digital art will
> become a traditional art, because so many will have learned it from a young
> age. If it continues, it is a tradition, as nargus said.
>
> If there's any argument; it's whether a computer is an artist's tool, or
> not. It is. Artists can make computers do things that ordinary mortals
> can't. Anyone here disagree with that? Gonna go back to un-plugged?
>
> BA
> ---------------------------------
> >nargus wrote in message <384a8f8a...@news.tcac.net>...
> >>
Ron Leigh
DLFrost wrote in message <82o0ac$pvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...