Is computer art cheating?
Mark Lauzon
Greenberg) writes:
>
>I am crossposting this to groups that might be interested in this
>discussion. Please don't respond to me, but rather to Mr. Pearson.
>
>Craig Pearson (UGU...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>: Hello,
>
>: My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter with Express magazine, the
>: weekly arts and entertainment publication of the Windsr Star, in
Windsor,
>: Ontario, Canada.
>
>: I'm writing a cover story on the advent of computer art. I'd like to
know
>: what people think of it. Is using a computer for art somehow
cheating? If
>: a human hand doesn't actually draw the line, does that then render
the
>: medium just a modern type of commercial illustration? Or is it a
>: legitimate new form of art that uses technology to do what was
previously
>: almost impossible?
>
Mr. Pearson,
Walt Disney was always on the cutting edge of animation throughout
his lifetime. It was for that reason that Disney animation is superior
to other animation. He wanted to excel animation into an entertaining
art form and not just slap stick humor. He never wanted to keep
animation 'pure' to it's form, as it were. He just wanted the best
animation he could get, and would use what ever technology he had at
the time, including things like a photocopy machine/camera, to make the
spots in 101 Dalmations. If Walt Dinsey would have lived another 25
years he would have been the pioneer of computer animation, and we
would have been watching entire animated films made entirly of computer
graphics 10 years ago.
That's my opinion.
Steph Greenberg
discussion. Please don't respond to me, but rather to Mr. Pearson.
Craig Pearson (UGU...@prodigy.com) wrote:
: Hello,
: My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter with Express magazine, the
: weekly arts and entertainment publication of the Windsr Star, in Windsor,
: Ontario, Canada.
: I'm writing a cover story on the advent of computer art. I'd like to know
: what people think of it. Is using a computer for art somehow cheating? If
: a human hand doesn't actually draw the line, does that then render the
: medium just a modern type of commercial illustration? Or is it a
: legitimate new form of art that uses technology to do what was previously
: almost impossible?
: I intend to use the most thought-provoking responses in my article. If
: you'd like, include your snailmail address and I will send you a copy of
: the magazine if your contribution is used.
: Also, I would be interested in any reference material people could point
: me to on the topic, or if they have any examples of spectacular computer
: art.
: Thanks,
: Craig
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg "Ideas are the Tinker Toys (tm) of the Devil"
st...@primenet.com From *Dream On*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter J. Turberville (III)
>From: lau...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Lauzon )
>Subject: Re: Is computer art cheating?
>Date: 23 Sep 1995 17:31:48 GMT
{snip}
>If Walt Dinsey would have lived another 25
>years he would have been the pioneer of computer animation, and we
>would have been watching entire animated films made entirly of computer
>graphics 10 years ago.
>
>That's my opinion.
I doubt Disney would have been enough of a force to accelerate computer
technology that much. Maybe he would have sped things up, but 10 years is a
bit of a stretch considering how tied this stuff is to computer speed.
_________________________________________________________________
Walter (Jay) Turberville |wtu...@primenet.com wtu...@aol.com
Phoenix, AZ |http://www.getnet.com/studio522/
Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
...........................|ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
fred@666
>I am crossposting this to groups that might be interested in this
>discussion. Please don't respond to me, but rather to Mr. Pearson.
>
>Craig Pearson (UGU...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>: Hello,
>
>: My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter with Express magazine, the
>: weekly arts and entertainment publication of the Windsr Star, in Windsor,
>: Ontario, Canada.
>
>: I'm writing a cover story on the advent of computer art. I'd like to know
>: what people think of it. Is using a computer for art somehow cheating? If
>: a human hand doesn't actually draw the line, does that then render the
>: medium just a modern type of commercial illustration? Or is it a
>: legitimate new form of art that uses technology to do what was previously
>: almost impossible?
>
>: I intend to use the most thought-provoking responses in my article. If
>: you'd like, include your snailmail address and I will send you a copy of
>: the magazine if your contribution is used.
>
>: Also, I would be interested in any reference material people could point
>: me to on the topic, or if they have any examples of spectacular computer
>: art.
i think you need to maybe rethink what you think art is. hey maybe even try it
yourself! clue.
try http://www.phoenix.net/~fred/
show me the button and i'll push it
Jay Lloyd Neal
>In article <441ga4$o...@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> lau...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Lauzon ) writes:
>{snip}
>>If Walt Dinsey would have lived another 25
>>years he would have been the pioneer of computer animation, and we
>>would have been watching entire animated films made entirly of computer
>>graphics 10 years ago.
>I doubt Disney would have been enough of a force to accelerate computer
>technology that much. Maybe he would have sped things up, but 10 years is a
>bit of a stretch considering how tied this stuff is to computer speed.
Gee whiz. Everyone has already forgotten TRON? You'll hurt the Cray
designers' feelings. Actually, there could have been some 3D features
coming out in 1985, but they would have been on the order of Lasseter's
"Andre' and Wally B.", which probably wouldn't have made much money.
We came close to seeing a 3D animated "Brave Little Toaster", but prior
to "Little Mermaid", animated features had to be made under $30m in
order to score a profit margin. You have to remember that Roy Disney
was fighting tooth and nail just to keep the Disney Feature Animation
Studio from the chopping block during the early '80s. Big budget "TRON"
type experiments were definitely backburner material. However, if TRON
had made the big bucks the studio hoped for, there would have been an
accelerated pace for rendering and modeling software on the Crays. A
lot of PIXAR's 90s innovations were being conceived in the 70s while
TRON's technologies were created from scratch overnight via huge sums of
Disney $$$.
Hey Craig Goode, want to jump in here? You know this lore better....
-- Jay Lloyd Neal, jay...@vt.edu (540) 231-7213
Derring, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406
http://soilmicro-lab.biol.vt.edu/jln.html
"...a computer is just a stupid pencil with lots of
colors. The artist makes the difference." -Steve Williams
sco...@dave-world.net
>
> I doubt Disney would have been enough of a force to accelerate computer
> technology that much. Maybe he would have sped things up, but 10 years is
a
> bit of a stretch considering how tied this stuff is to computer speed.
>
My guess is we would have. From what I've read about Walt Disney, his drive
and relentless ambition, I think you would have seen a fully animated cpu
generated computer film. If would have no way been the quality of what you
could do today, but I think he would have produced such a beast. I don't
believe he would have sped up the technology, but would definatly have
produced at least one film to verify it could be done, and it potentional use
as a film making tool.
regards, v v
(. .)
Rob K. Williams 8
LIGHTWAVE RULES! @_|
ri...@interaccess.com
If the aesthetic experience is aroused by a computer generated image then it
too is also art. As much art as a fantastic view of the Grand canyon at
sunset yet certainly not painted by human hands. That definition of art would
leave photographers pretty much pissed I would say.
Theres more to art than just a stroke of the brush
Ric
Bill Newkirk
>Gee whiz. Everyone has already forgotten TRON? You'll hurt the Cray
>designers' feelings. Actually, there could have been some 3D features
it's too bad that TRON didn't have a better ending and if they hadn't had the
misfortune to release on a week with a major political upheaval (one story
had 'em on the cover of "Time" - think Haig retired or something and they
got booted back...) they probably would have done better. of course they were
punching away -- one of the radio stations had a bunch of TRON promos
going at the time...somewhat unusual for a movie at the time.
everyone still wants a desk like Dillinger (ick, what kinda name IS that?
let's don't write "bad guy" on him too heavily..) had...even today.
Bill Newkirk WB9IVR The Space Coast Amateur Technical Group
Melbourne, FL duty now for the future of amateur radio
Lombardi's 1st Law of Business:
Companies succeed in spite of their best effort. If they succeed at all.
Prem Subrahmanyam
animated, it's ~20 minutes of animation came pretty close (especially
considering the resolution -- 8000 x something and the state of the
technology). So...been there, done that, 'nuff said.
---Prem
Brian Rosen
> designers' feelings. Actually, there could have been some 3D features
> "Andre' and Wally B.", which probably wouldn't have made much money.
>
> -- Jay Lloyd Neal, jay...@vt.edu (540) 231-7213
> Derring, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406
> http://soilmicro-lab.biol.vt.edu/jln.html
> "...a computer is just a stupid pencil with lots of
> colors. The artist makes the difference." -Steve Williams
Unfortunately for us (although I'm sure he's thrilled), Craig
is taking a much deserved vacation in Italy for the next few weeks and
doesn't have any internet access. I'm sure he'd have a lot to say
about this particular topic too.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining a watchable CG feature
length film being made in 1985.
Marshall Hance
--------------------
MЧH
--------------------
Dong Kim
Same way the photographers pissed off the traditional artists in the early 20th
century. :)
However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a higher asthetic
since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as computer art
does, and I am the one who does it all, not the computer. I can make art with some
ink, paper and a sharp stick, while an old Mac128k w/ Macpaint is pointless. But it
is the intention that makes art, seperates commercial from fine art, computer, hand or
otherwise. All IMHO of course.
Dong Kim
digital camerastand, compositing, 3d animation guy
_____________________________________________________
I'm thinking, but nothing's happening...
_____________________________________________________
dk...@pacificnet.net
dki...@aol.com
http://www.pacificnet.net/~dkim
213-555-yah right!!!
Walter (Jay) Turberville
>From: Dong Kim <dk...@pacificnet.net>
>Subject: Re: Is computer art cheating?
>ri...@interaccess.com wrote:
>>Cheating.????
>>If the aesthetic experience is aroused by a computer generated image then it
>>too is also art. As much art as a fantastic view of the Grand canyon at
>>sunset yet certainly not painted by human hands. That definition of art would
>>leave photographers pretty much pissed I would say.
>>
>>Theres more to art than just a stroke of the brush
>>
>>Ric
>Same way the photographers pissed off the traditional artists in the early 20th
>century. :)
>However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a higher
>asthetic
>since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as
>computer art
>does, and I am the one who does it all, not the computer. I can make art with
>some
>ink, paper and a sharp stick, while an old Mac128k w/ Macpaint is pointless.
>But it
>is the intention that makes art, seperates commercial from fine art, computer,
>hand or
>otherwise. All IMHO of course.
>Dong Kim
I think you are trying to sit on both sides of the fence. What does
resolution independence have to do with anything. Traditional art is
resolution dependant anyway. Additionally, a lot of what we consider fine
classical art was commercial art in its time. Churches hired artists and
painting portraits was very commercial.
The fact that a paper towel makes a poor canvas does not mean that ink and
paper is somehow inferior to some other art form. That is analogous to your
Mac128k example. Some computers make poor art tools. Some paper isn't good
to draw on either. So what?
It is not the intention, but the result. There are some well intended pieces
of crap out there (subjective of course). I think the message or emotion
conveyed is what counts. Actually, what these new modern tools bring out is
just these things. Computers and photography took a lot of the need for craft
out of art (or redefined it at least). But the vision is still necessary.
And it is the vision and the ability to convey it that really counts in the
end anyway. IMHO.
I think that film is one of the highest art forms and it uses the most modern
tools available. Nope. Its not the tools. Its the result.
ken schmitt
well... Monet's work wasnt resolution independent.... thanks to his dots,
we have dithering.
Brian Ross
: However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a
: higher asthetic
: since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as
: computer art
: does, and I am the one who does it all, not the computer. I can make art
: with some
: ink, paper and a sharp stick, while an old Mac128k w/ Macpaint is pointless.
Ink, paper, and stick? REAL traditionalists back a few millenia would
consider anything other than chalk, fingers and cave walls to be
non-traditional. Ink and paper were high tech luxuries unheard of for
thousands of years, and never mind tempera, oils, and sable brushes.
--
Brian Ross
Brock University ph: (905) 688-5550 ext. 4284
Dept of Computer Science fax: (905) 688-3255
St. Catharines, ON email: br...@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca
Canada L2S 3A1 http://sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca/~bross
candyman
quotes...
"No writer on art deservers to be listened to, since all their theorizing
comes out of the dregs of an empty bottom. There was no epoch in the history
of the world as impovershed, as totally sterile, as suicidally thrashing as a
fish out of water, as ours, We are the victims of "Modernism" that was
encrusted on this pooped-out, ancient volcano by total absence of talents, the
chief carriers of this plauge being the "critics of art". They destroy our
culture,what remains of it."
"Create Art..Love and Fight for it"
Stanislav Szukalski 1894-1987
Glenn Saunders
: Is techno not music?
In my opinion, no.
Contradictory? Perhaps. I don't care.
Stuart Smith
>>If Walt Dinsey would have lived another 25
>>years he would have been the pioneer of computer animation, and we
>>would have been watching entire animated films made entirly of computer
>>graphics 10 years ago.
>>
>
>I doubt Disney would have been enough of a force to accelerate computer
>technology that much. Maybe he would have sped things up, but 10 years is a
>bit of a stretch considering how tied this stuff is to computer speed.
>
Emmm. If it wasn't for Walt, you wouldn't have got to the moon! (his animated film changed public
perceptions).. I think he'd have had MORE than enough force!
Stu
>
>
--
____
\_/ \____
(")______(")>
Hartley's First Law:
You can lead a horse to water, but if you can get him to float
on his back, you've got something.
http://www.aeolians.bt.co.uk:8080/theoutcasts/stuart.html <BT ONLY>
http://www.homeless.com/homepages/stu...@aeolians.bt.co.uk.html
Alan Boucek
stu...@aeolians.bt.co.uk wrote:
> >{snip}
> >>If Walt Dinsey would have lived another 25
> >>years he would have been the pioneer of computer animation, and we
> >>would have been watching entire animated films made entirly of computer
> >>graphics 10 years ago.
> >>
> >>That's my opinion.
> >
> >I doubt Disney would have been enough of a force to accelerate computer
> >technology that much. Maybe he would have sped things up, but 10 years is a
> >bit of a stretch considering how tied this stuff is to computer speed.
> >
>
> Emmm. If it wasn't for Walt, you wouldn't have got to the moon! (his
animated film changed public
> perceptions).. I think he'd have had MORE than enough force!
While there may have been enough 'force' to get some of the conceptual
issues resolved, the hardware needed to actually produce such a film
wasn't available or economical 10-15 years ago. Additionally, the software
required to produce such a film has advanced considerably in that time- it
was only a gleam in researchers' eyes at places like the University of
Utah. 15 years ago the only computer system with power comparable to a
contemporary desktop SGI machine was a Cray Supercomputer. The interactive
graphics capabilities needed for doing the creative work did not exist.
--
Alan Boucek abo...@panix.com
New York, New York
The Cookie Monster
>>: Hello,
>>
>>: My name is Craig Pearson. I'm a reporter with Express magazine, the
>>: weekly arts and entertainment publication of the Windsr Star, in Windsor,
>>: Ontario, Canada.
Art comes from the person, computers are just a better window to your
imagination/mind than a pencil is. Esp. with the advent of 3D modeling.
(is a ball-point pen and paper cheating when we could be chipping away at stone
tablets or drawing in the sand with a stick?)
--
The Cookie Monster (TCM)
- All Gods children are lost... but only a few can program.
Dong Kim
>>since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as computer art
>
>we have dithering.
>
>
It's still resolution independant since each dot is not the same exact size/shape dot in only another hue/value. Even stippling is =
resolution independant for the same reason. I think you're thinking about Seurat as well, not Monet.
Dong Kim
>Dong Kim (dk...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
>
>: However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a
>: higher asthetic
>: computer art
>: with some
>: ink, paper and a sharp stick, while an old Mac128k w/ Macpaint is pointless.
>
>Ink, paper, and stick? REAL traditionalists back a few millenia would
>consider anything other than chalk, fingers and cave walls to be
>non-traditional. Ink and paper were high tech luxuries unheard of for
>thousands of years, and never mind tempera, oils, and sable brushes.
>
>--
>Brian Ross
>Brock University ph: (905) 688-5550 ext. 4284
>Dept of Computer Science fax: (905) 688-3255
>St. Catharines, ON email: br...@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca
>Canada L2S 3A1 http://sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca/~bross
You got me. :) Ink and paper are a luxury in comparison to a cave wall and some mud.
Dwight Gruber
kenw...@onramp.net (ken schmitt) writes:
> >since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as computer art
>
> well... Monet's work wasnt resolution independent.... thanks to his dots,
> we have dithering.
>
Wasn't that Seurat?
--DwightG (apologising for the nitpick)
Warren Trezevant
meant by cheating. Cheating what? Time - because computers can do things
faster? The environment - because there are no chemicals or paper involved?
One thought is that they meant that computers make art editable. But is this
really a cheat? And if so, what is it cheating. Would Michalangelo not have
still explored the use of light and shadow if he worked with a computer? Could
he have produced more work? Would he have explored other dimensions of what he
already knew?
What computers do, IMHO, is make another tool for the artist to create with.
Fortunately for us, it affords a phenomenal range of uses and the added bonus
of giving us a tool that is editable.
There *was* a time when the advent of the typewriter challenged *it's* day with
the same question, because now, the masses would produce a plethera of
"non-art." But did that really limit or compromise the "art" of writing. In
the future, there will probably be something that outshines the computer in the
way art is produced. And these same questions will be asked again.
I think the key difference between the computer as a tool and the computer as
creativity is that you can learn how to use a computer but the computer cannot
teach you to be creative.
Age old question though, move on.
Warren
ba...@sirius.com
San Francisco
Cam Wilson
>
>However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a higher asthetic
>is the intention that makes art, seperates commercial from fine art, computer, hand or
>otherwise. All IMHO of course.
i consider art to be more than just the end product or result. Art, to me,
is also the creation process. art would not be art if it weren't created.
and that creation process, no matter how or with what tools, is still a
creative process - and it results in what you call art. i believe the "art
form" to include the process involved. IMHO.
Cam Wilson
>It is not the intention, but the result. There are some well intended pieces
>of crap out there (subjective of course). I think the message or emotion
>conveyed is what counts. Actually, what these new modern tools bring out is
>just these things. Computers and photography took a lot of the need for craft
>out of art (or redefined it at least). But the vision is still necessary.
>And it is the vision and the ability to convey it that really counts in the
>end anyway. IMHO.
art is not just a drawing or painting created by hand. you SORT OF acknowledge
this but then very quickly shoot down the notion. photography is an art - don't
even try to tell a photographer that it isn't. i took a photography class
while studying illustration and design. it is JUST as demanding of your
creative skills - if it is to be good photography. photography is simply
a different visual art form from traditional painting, drawing, etc...
as for computers, they are not the art form, just the tools to create art.
they are the latest in brushes, pencils, pastels, inks, and so on. to create
good art on the computer, you must possess good creative skills - period.
not just computer skills. the computer has redefined the craft (for those
who want it) and has NOT taken the need for craft out of art. if some
clerk or receptionist happens to try to draw or use some laimo clipart to
create a presentation overhead - just because they have a computer graphics
package at their disposal, and no real artistic skills - then i would call
the outcome CRAP, not art. therefore, the computer has not taken the need
for craft out of art, because the end result is NOT art. or at least very
bad art - and we can dispute that til the cows come home...
Samuel P. Uselton
In order for there to be "cheating," first there have to be rules.
And these rules must be required, not just guidelines ("rules of thumb").
But it seems to me that much of the best art is intimately tied to
breaking rules (guidelines) to achieve intended effects.
So I think the question is nonsense. It assumes a context which is
not present. Can we go on now?
Sam Uselton use...@nas.nasa.gov
Cynthia Sellers
|> >> well... Monet's work wasnt resolution independent.... thanks to his dots,
|> >> we have dithering.
|>
|> >Wasn't that Seurat?
|>
|> I cant think of the artist.
|>
'SUNDAY in the park w/ George' is by Serrat (SP?)
Stephen Gifford
infringing upon copyrights. What ever gets the job done is my
philosophy. However I don't really know if this works for fine
art. Actually cheating is not a word I would use in regards to
art period.
s.g.
Brion Sohn
sell, If they don't it won't.
Thanks,
Brion
ao...@lafn.org
bs...@artcenter.com
Andy Makely
that looks just like the real thing...
Some gallery owners downplay photography...they won't show it. One i
know of simply said that this was for economic reasons. The average Joe
sees a nice painting...and sees the $$$ price tag. He then sees a
photograph that seels for half as much, and buys it instead.
I wrote a paper in college that i wish i still had, about the views of
three different philosophers applied to computer graphics. I believe it
was DeCartes who i said would have loved CGI because of it's
mathematical ability to recreate the imagery of the real world. I tend
to think the same way. It's not cheating. It's MAGIC. I keep a
figurine of a Genie on top of my computer to remind myself that you can
really pull ANYTHING out of thin air with CGI if you put your mind to
it.
..my $.02 .
andy makely
Joe Skeesick
In article <44frrf$l...@news.onramp.net>, kenw...@onramp.net says...
>
>>> well... Monet's work wasnt resolution independent.... thanks to his dots,
>>> we have dithering.
>
>>Wasn't that Seurat?
>
>'Saturday in the park with George' is what I remember..
>I cant think of the artist.
>Yes that was Seurat.......
Bill Newkirk
>Some gallery owners downplay photography...they won't show it. One i
>know of simply said that this was for economic reasons. The average Joe
>sees a nice painting...and sees the $$$ price tag. He then sees a
>photograph that seels for half as much, and buys it instead.
as if the prospective customer would have bought the painting if the
photo wasn't there. the smart shop would have things available in a
variety of styles and subjects and media - you never know what's going to
make the sale.
if the customer only has $$, the painting at $$$ will never sell. on the other
hand if the customer has $$$ or $$$$ he might still buy the photograph
because he likes it.
definitely a gallery owner with his head in a warm dark stinky place.
Harry Benjamin Gibson
Some people can do perspective drawing from the get-go, others never
could master foreshortening to save their lives. Some of us want to
show what some real life object looks like, (like say the moons of Mars)
but couldn't do a realistic drawing to save their lives. Some things
just can't be freehanded with any speed or detail to satisfy some artist.
Is a blind person "cheating" when they have a seeing eye dog? Did Tex Avery
"cheat" when he animated a lizzard doing a striptease simply because he
rotoscoped a real dancer?
The rules in CGI are very simple, Make a good shot. If it looks good,
that is all that matters. There is no cheating in CGI.
Ben Gibson
Jeffrey Kurland
tech-heads and kids. It's the aesthetics of digital art which are under-developed.
There's a wide spread tendency to rely on popular pyrotechnics and fallbacks like
surrealism and comix.
Harry Benjamin Gibson
: The problem is not the tools. The problem is that the tools are in the hands of
: There's a wide spread tendency to rely on popular pyrotechnics and fallbacks like
: surrealism and comix.
Okay you have something there. CGI is in the hands of people who haven't
had any other formal art training or time/talent to develope an "aestetic"
Hell some of us don't even know what that means. :) But give it time.
The tools are just now getting cheap enough to allow starving artist to
use them.
Ben Gibson
candyman
>: The problem is not the tools. The problem is that the tools are in the hand
>Okay you have something there. CGI is in the hands of people who haven't
>had any other formal art training or time/talent to develope an "aestetic"
>Hell some of us don't even know what that means. :) But give it time.
>The tools are just now getting cheap enough to allow starving artist to
>use them.
>Ben Gibson
Speak for yourself...I know a lot of "traditional medium" artists as well as
numerous ex Video/Film people who know a whole lot about traditional methods as
well as how to translate the real life aspects of a sound stage and the methodss
used to cheat effects..."smoke and mirrors...all we do is smoke and mirrors"
as far as the new graphics crowd..well its like the new html wave..some are
truly fromage and others are gems...lots of traditional lighting and camera as
well as scriptwriting etc...
Steph Greenberg
: The problem is not the tools. The problem is that the tools are in the hands of
: tech-heads and kids. It's the aesthetics of digital art which are under-developed.
: There's a wide spread tendency to rely on popular pyrotechnics and fallbacks like
: surrealism and comix.
I think the problem may very well be the tools. While the 2D tools are
fairly well developed, the 3D tools need alot more work. Unfortunately
the people developing most 3D tools for the most powerful machines are
extremely unresponsive to artists, what few have access to their systems.
Once you pay for a program, the chances of an SGI 3D developer listening
to you and responding in a matter of weeks, is really slim. Basically,
and I've yet to experience anything different, once you spend 10s of
thousands of dollars for SGI software, the developers on the 3D side
cease to care about you. So the artistic tools are really slow to develop
because the feedback cycle is so damned slow.
To participate in the development of the tools you need as an artist
takes years of patience.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg "Ideas are the Tinker Toys (tm) of the Devil"
st...@primenet.com From *Dream On*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
je...@accessone.com
> The problem is not the tools. The problem is that the tools are in the hands of
> tech-heads and kids. It's the aesthetics of digital art which are under-developed.
> There's a wide spread tendency to rely on popular pyrotechnics and fallbacks like
> surrealism and comix.
<Friendly tone engaged>
What's wrong with surrealism? What's wrong with comix? Do we have to toe the line of the freekin' art establishment
to be "legitimate"?
And when they change their soi-disant minds in ten years?
***********************************************
** je...@accessone.com | Synergy Graphix & Animation
** Welcome to Seattle, have a latte'!
** Don't make me force it down your throat.....
** (obnoxious sig.file nearing completion.)
************************************************
je...@accessone.com
> To participate in the development of the tools you need as an artist
> takes years of patience.
So, what exactly are we lacking?
This argument seems specious (sp?) to me. In "cinema" tools are constantly being developed, for instance the Steadicam.
Lacking those tools previously, were film makers not making art?
So, lacking particle systems, or metaballs, or IK, or <insert latest buzzword here>, are we enjoined from creating art?
> st...@primenet.com From *Dream On*
Dong Kim
>Jeffrey Kurland (jkur...@dorsai.org) wrote:
>: The problem is not the tools. The problem is that the tools are in the hands of
>: There's a wide spread tendency to rely on popular pyrotechnics and fallbacks like
>: surrealism and comix.
>
>fairly well developed, the 3D tools need alot more work. Unfortunately
>the people developing most 3D tools for the most powerful machines are
>extremely unresponsive to artists, what few have access to their systems.
>Once you pay for a program, the chances of an SGI 3D developer listening
>to you and responding in a matter of weeks, is really slim. Basically,
>and I've yet to experience anything different, once you spend 10s of
>thousands of dollars for SGI software, the developers on the 3D side
>cease to care about you. So the artistic tools are really slow to develop
>because the feedback cycle is so damned slow.
>
>takes years of patience.
My brushes and pencils are multipurpose tools that can be used in a variety of ways
while my CGI tools are fairly specialized and rely heavily on someone else. The
computer artist who can make his/her own tool is a rare bread. I can make my own
varnishes and paints that are perfect for my needs, but I have no way in hell I can
make any CGI tools that come close to what I need. Computer art is a collective form
of art, unlike almost any other artform that has ever existed before. The old masters
may have used assistants, but in the end, they could have done it all themselves. I,
and most others, have no hope of writing a better program than one that exists, as
well as being 100% proficient on it and finding new used for the tools.
Ernest Gusella (FA)
use the latest technology- clay, mosaic, fescoe, oil paint, photography,
fiberglass, and now computers. Anyone who doesn't recognize this is a
Luddite, an elitist, and an anachronism. History chews up people and
spits them out every day for not keeping up. The future is our only goal
On Tue, 26 Sep 1995, Brian Ross wrote:
> Dong Kim (dk...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
>
> : However, I have to say that I still regard my traditional artwork as a
> : higher asthetic
> : since it is resolution independent, doesn't rely so much on the tools as
> : computer art
> : does, and I am the one who does it all, not the computer. I can make art
> : with some
> : ink, paper and a sharp stick, while an old Mac128k w/ Macpaint is pointless.
>
Sonya M. Chappelear
is art and what isn't and then you start to judge what is an
artist and what isn't. Art is a VERY personal thing. Just because
you may not think what another person does is art, it doesn't
make you right. What is this big hangup with needing to judge
other people anyway. If an artist wants their work to have mass
appeal he/she will work for that goal, if they don't, that's
their business. Another couple of things. Age has nothing to do
with being an artist. Also, EVERY artist is an amature, until
they are paid for their artwork, they then become a professional,
such is the nature of the word. You don't have to like their
work, you don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't mean that
it isn't art. Some of these people so worried about what everyone
else is doing should stop and take a serious look at themselves
and ask themselves in all honesty why do they feel the need to be
so critical of others.
Sonya M. Chappelear
je...@accessone.com
> >My brushes and pencils are multipurpose tools that can be used in a variety of ways
> >while my CGI tools are fairly specialized and rely heavily on someone else. The
> >computer artist who can make his/her own tool is a rare bread.
Rare "bread" ?
Anyway, I think this point is misquided. While I couldn't indeed write my
own renderer, I am capable of writing my own macros & plugins. You can make a brush?
You can make a pencil? You can make paper or canvas? A true renaissance (sp?) man
indeed.
Also, for what they do, my CGI tools are flexible. (You really lose me there--your
paint program can't do multiple things?) As a chisel is not generally useful in painting, so
my 3d stuff is .....well actually it IS useful in almost all aspects of CGI. Paint, 3d, morphing,
they all work together at my shop.
I can make my own
> >varnishes and paints that are perfect for my needs, but I have no way in hell I can
> >make any CGI tools that come close to what I need. Computer art is a collective form
> >of art, unlike almost any other artform that has ever existed before.
Ever hear of "cinema"?
The old masters
> >may have used assistants, but in the end, they could have done it all themselves. I,
> >and most others, have no hope of writing a better program than one that exists, as
> >well as being 100% proficient on it and finding new used for the tools.
Again, this is very similar to cinema.
***********************************************
** je...@accessone.com | Synergy Graphix & Animation
** Welcome to Seattle, have a latte'!
** Don't make me force it down your throat.....
************************************************
Dong Kim
>
>100 Years ago, painters thought photography was "cheating"
>
>It's not cheating, it's just a different medium that will
>never replace paint.
>
>It's not the medium, but the creativity behind it.
>
>George.
>
>
Exactly, just that a lot of "artists" may con people into thinking that some thought
was put behind what they do. Thus, my arguement for the "make art" filters on the
market and their misuse. No such thing as cheating in art, just cheating yourself.
Dong Kim
Seems though I've tugged on some of your emotions. What does it matter what I say?
Anything anyone says is strictly an opinion, even the most scientific theory is still
just an opinion, convincing maybe, but still an opinion. Yes, I can be an artsnob
elitist at times, but I just get more pleasure out of my painting than I do with
compuer art, perhaps its due to earning a living with the latter that causes me to
feel that way, perhaps it's the fact that so many computer artists don't know anything
about where art is coming from with the "make art" filters on the market, perhaps it's
due to the fact that some forms of art are a solitary artifact, perhaps I just have
problems with considering any reproducable art lower than the single work. Don't get
me wrong, I have seen imagery created on the computer that I consider art, as well as
photographs, but if I take a blank image and do a filter on it to get a pretty fractal
pattern that was the result of another's work (programmer), am I the artist or is the
programmer? If I tell someone over the phone to start Photoshop, and apply the
fractal filter to a 400x400 pixel image, am I an artist? Many artists now, especially
Jeff Koons, does just that, here's an idea, make it for me. Whoopie, now I'm an
artist. I guess in that case Spaulding is an art supply company as well with Koons
as their artist. I have a strong suspicion that all this is mearly a matter of
personal opinions, just as it was in history.
Bill Newkirk
>Many artists now, especially Jeff Koons, does just that, here's an idea, make it
>for me. Whoopie, now I'm an artist.
i suppose he's really a patron or contractor since others are doing the work...
and if he ends up owning it, it's "his art"..i guess..
master spawn spawn
>Anything anyone says is strictly an opinion, even the most scientific theory is still
>just an opinion, convincing maybe, but still an opinion. Yes, I can be an artsnob
>elitist at times, but I just get more pleasure out of my painting than I do with
>compuer art, perhaps its due to earning a living with the latter that causes me to
>feel that way, perhaps it's the fact that so many computer artists don't know anything
>about where art is coming from with the "make art" filters on the market, perhaps it's
>due to the fact that some forms of art are a solitary artifact, perhaps I just have
>problems with considering any reproducable art lower than the single work. Don't get
>me wrong, I have seen imagery created on the computer that I consider art, as well as
>photographs, but if I take a blank image and do a filter on it to get a pretty fractal
>pattern that was the result of another's work (programmer), am I the artist or is the
>programmer?
> If I tell someone over the phone to start Photoshop, and apply the
>fractal filter to a 400x400 pixel image, am I an artist? Many artists now, especially
>Jeff Koons, does just that, here's an idea, make it for me.
remember all those marble statues you learned about in art school? sorry
to burst your bubble and dislike for post-modern art but those statues were not done
by the guy in the caption but by thier students.
> Whoopie, now I'm an
>artist. I guess in that case Spaulding is an art supply company as well with Koons
>as their artist. I have a strong suspicion that all this is mearly a matter of
>personal opinions, just as it was in history.
you need to redefine what you think art is. it seems yoy have put it in a little box.
>
>
>Dong Kim
666
Dong Kim
Yes, but the masters who had the apprentices underneath him were able to draw exactly what they
wanted. They could paint, they could sculpt, they could design architecture, etc. Are you saying
that the modern artists could do all that? Some, perhaps, but not many, those are the ones that
get my respect whether I like their art or not. Sure, anything can be art in it's proper context,
but I feel many modern artists take that for granted and fool the audience, eventually fooling
themselves. Which could lead to, who defines what art is? The artist, or the audience? Say I
take a piece of wood, put a nail in it, and slap some paint on it, while using it basically as a
tarp. Someone comes to my studio, thinks it's a painting I'm working on, now is it art, even
though I don't think so? Context in relation to whom?
The sculptures you refer to, I remember them, and I also remember seeing absolutely beautiful
drawings and plans for them, not to say some modern artists don't draw well, but these artists
seemed to be well versed enough to have been able to make the final product themselves. Besides,
these were commisioned jobs which would have to be done, somewhat a business. I've always prefered
the intimate work that artists produce, since they were done for one reason, for themselves, not
for money. Which the computer heavily relies on, since it relies so heavily on the expensive tools
of technology.
Would you prefer that I don;t try to define art in my own terms and take your definition as gospel?
I like having this conflict, makes art a bit more interesting to me actually. Hmmm, Art in a
Little Black Box, interesting title for a piece...
John A Davis
John A Davis
DNA
John Olsen
>Art IS cheating. That's what makes it so much fun!
I recall hearing a quote about computer art, but it applies to the whole field:
"If it looks good, it is good."
You may assume whatever point of view (artist, consumer, etc.) as to who is
evaluating the art.
John M. Olsen Allen Communication voice (801) 537-7800
jol...@allencomm.com 5225 Wiley Post Way fax (801) 537-7805
http://www.allencomm.com/ SLC, UT 84116
Erik Wiese
writes:
>John A Davis <dnah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Art IS cheating. That's what makes it so much fun!
>
>I recall hearing a quote about computer art, but it applies to the
whole field: "If it looks good, it is good."
>
>You may assume whatever point of view (artist, consumer, etc.) as to
who is evaluating the art.
>
>
Many visual artist who have studied traditionally, as well as
subversives, would probably conclude that you are not cheating, but
rather designing.
I know several designers who can't "draw", however they can
manipulate space, line, shape, texture, and color to create an
appealing image.
The computer is simply a tool, your imagination is what creates and
appealing subject matter to execute. An imagination is talent -- do you
have any talent?
So, no. I don't belive that computer art is cheating. Also, I do
not use a computer to create my art or animation, I find it rather
lifeless and without personality. I have very rairly found "good"
computer art.
See ya later.
--Erik
Walter (Jay) Turberville
>]I think most people agree that art requires a certain
>]level of beauty and evocativeness, but how much originality is required?
>]Does a novel arrangement of existing elements, or a slight alteration,
>]constitute a piece of art? [etc...]
>Of course a novel arrangement gets credit for being original, but was it created
>because the digital "artist" had some cool software or because she needed to
>express a vision? Can't we all tell the difference between digital images
>created
>by "computer artists" versus those created by "artists who use computers"?
>Jeff Saltzman
>Technical Director
>Chimera Digital Imaging
>New Orleans
Probably not. You can surely notice styles. And you can probably generalize
that certain styles are likely to arise from artists adept in "traditional"
media. But you would probably distinguish incorrectly at times.
My background is photography and that is how I approach 3D work. I don't
generally approach a project like it was a canvas. I approach it like a world
that I am going to create and then photograph. Its more like a photo studio
in a box to me. I think in terms of light and lens when I'm in LightWave.
I'm not sure if that makes me a "computer artist" or an "artist who uses a
computer" (assuming I am an artist of any sort).
_________________________________________________________________
Walter (Jay) Turberville |wtu...@primenet.com wtu...@aol.com
Phoenix, AZ |http://www.getnet.com/studio522/
Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
...........................|ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
James Hastings-Trew
computers is "cheating" are doomed to run this discussion around in circles
until you define what "art" is. Since philosophers have been trying to do
this without success for decades, I suggest that you will also find it
difficult to define. Without an adequate definition of your terms, it will
be impossible to definitively discuss anything meaningful about them.
None of the proposed definitions of art that I have heard mention the tools
required to produce that art as part of the criteria. The tool is
irrelevant. A photographic camera is just as capable of reproducing "neat
surfaces and textures" as is a piece of computer software. The tool does
not define what it produces... the artist does.
Put in another way, simply smearing oil paints on canvas can either produce
"art", "illustration", or "garbage." The outcome is controlled not by the
technical skill of the artist, nor by the tools the artist uses. The
outcome is controlled purely by the esthetic choices the artist makes
during the creation of the piece. The same holds true for art created using
the computer as a tool.
Esthetic choice is something fundamental to humanity. When you buy a tie,
you are making esthetic choices. When you select a font to use in your web
browser you are making an esthetic choice. Which cool texture to use, on
what objects, at what level of detail, with what colour, with what lighting
setup, from what camera angle, in what composition, etc. etc. embody a
multitude of esthetic choices, which, when their sum is greater than their
parts, transform from garbage, to illustration, to pure art. This is not
controlled by software... but by the esthetic sensibilities of the artist
using that software.
Those of you who are producing art on computer (at whatever level on the
scale from garbage to art) who have not been exposed to the history of the
visual arts may be in for a shock. Concepts such as "abstract
expressionism" which eliminated the requirement of technical skill (i.e.
the ability to draw a straight line or any recognizable shape), or "found
art" which eliminated even the need to create the artifact at all, all
point to the inevitable conclusion that art is simply about esthetic
choices, nothing more. Exposure to different forms of art is fundamental to
your own growth... to your own ability to make these esthetic choices... to
where on the continuum from garbage to art your particular output can
aspire.
James Hastings-Trew
System Administrator
Mister Print Productions Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada
je...@accessone.com
> Those of you who are producing art on computer (at whatever level on the
> scale from garbage to art) who have not been exposed to the history of the
> visual arts may be in for a shock. Concepts such as "abstract
> expressionism" which eliminated the requirement of technical skill (i.e.
> the ability to draw a straight line or any recognizable shape), or "found
> art" which eliminated even the need to create the artifact at all, all
> point to the inevitable conclusion that art is simply about esthetic
> choices, nothing more.
The concept of "found art" is what makes fractal rendering programs a
valid source of art: after all, it is the >>selection<< of which
fractal to print and display that makes it "art".
If somebody disaggrees with me here, please tell me how this differs
from going to a junkyard and finding and interestingly textured rusty
old gear (a true example of "found art").
> Exposure to different forms of art is fundamental to
> your own growth... to your own ability to make these esthetic choices... to
> where on the continuum from garbage to art your particular output can
> aspire.
There's "art", "garbage", and "poison" -- the trouble is, many
eastheticians don't see that the first and the last can be the
same thing, nor do they see any problem with purveying poison.
>
>
>
> James Hastings-Trew
****************************************************************************
** je...@accessone.com | Synergy Graphix & Animation
** Welcome to Seattle, have a latte'! | Technical Subjects a Specialty!
** Don't make me force it down your throat.....
****************************************************************************
Arijan Siska
: computers is "cheating" are doomed to run this discussion around in circles
: controlled by software... but by the esthetic sensibilities of the artist
: using that software.
So what you are saying is:
- we cannot define art
- art is sum of ones esthetic choices
How can you tell if my choices (I'm bound to make some) are so esthetic?
Who can judge my moves? Democtatic majority? Elite minority? God?
In fact that's why I second statement the other buy wrote: Art is cheating!
Arijan
P.S. I like this discusion.
Keith Alan Shepard
> Arijan
Cheating is Art. Lying is Art. Deception is Art. What can't be called
art? Is Art objective or are the tools that create Art objective? The
tools (e.g. a paint brush, a computer) are tangible...is the result?
Is artistic discrimination voluminous in objective reality?
Obviously, one can touch a finished piece of sculpture, but is that
what makes it Art or is it the opinion in the hand?
-------------------------------->
Keith Alan Shepard
kei...@rust.net
All spelling errors are artistically designed.
James Hastings-Trew
ari...@news.fer.uni-lj.si (Arijan Siska) wrote:
>James Hastings-Trew (jhas...@eagle.wbm.ca) wrote:
>: computers is "cheating" are doomed to run this discussion around in circles...
>: [the result is not] controlled by software... but by the esthetic sensibilities
>: of the artist using that software.
>
>So what you are saying is:
>- we cannot define art
I am saying that it is exceedingly difficult to define what "art" is. Come
up with a good definition that distiguishes between what you see at your
local art gallery, and what you see on black velvet on the corner lot, and
I'll be willing to listen.
>- art is sum of ones esthetic choices
>How can you tell if my choices (I'm bound to make some) are so esthetic?
Esthetics are easier to define. There are sciences to colour combinations,
composition, and other "artistic" matters that can be taught. These are
much like the rules of grammar as they pertain to language -- knowing the
rules of grammar does not necessarily make you a good writer, but it gives
you the ability to be one. Same for esthetics -- alone they will not make
you a good artist, but you won't be a good artist without them.
Good and bad literature use the same tools (rules of grammar and words) the
difference lies in the choices made by the writer -- which words to use and
where, and to what effect, and in what structure, to what end. Good and bad
art also use the same tools (colour, form, composition) and again the
difference lies in the choices made by the artist. Art is therefore the sum
of these esthetic choices. Whether it is good or bad art depends on how
well the artist has chosen, and how well the rules have been applied.
>Who can judge my moves? Democtatic majority? Elite minority? God?
Your audience, who is always the final arbiter of all of your efforts.
Whether all of the "great" art of the world is great by virtue of some
intrinsic value, or whether it is great because some elite "said so" is not
the question. It is great because people value it as great -- things in and
of themselves have no instrinsic value, but only have what value people
give them... but that is a philosophical discussion for another day.
Jeffrey Kurland
Cheating?" How can I read the entire thread?
don shaw
>it can sustain tragic content. We won't be seeing any Rothko's on the
web.
>
>
phew! i was worried we might.
jr.
Chris Turner
(Arijan Siska) wrote:
>
> One pragmatic definition of art mesaures art with money: if it sells for big
> money, it's almost certanly art.
>
Not always. I would hope you were being sarcastic (As I would be with
such a statement). I recall a painting that was sold to the Ottawa museum
of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
colour theory would be able to think that one up, but they couldn't sell
it for the million that it sold for.
What you sell your stuff for mostly depends on who you are, not how
good it is. (Exceptions to every rule of course)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Black, Blacker, Blackest | Chris Turner
And cold beyond frozen things. | Chris_...@LivingBooks.com
Where is between when there is naught | Acgnowledgments to
to life but fragile Dragon's wings? | Anne McCaffrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
je...@accessone.com
> I agree with James Hastings-Trew but there's an issue here which is not resolved.
> It it the relation of the computer to art. Can something which is first and last
> digital sustain something which is at core metaphorical (art).
You mean, like how can MARKS on PAPER convey EMOTION?
Golly gosh, you're right, that's impossible.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is >such< a gaseous discussion. OK, pixels
cannot be art, but tiles can? Flecks of pigment can be art, but pixels can't?
>Replication is inauthentic, non-original,
> ersatz.
What (the hell) does that mean? Duplicates aren't art? So CD collections
are, ummm , what? Not art? Just sound?
Lar
>> Not always. I would hope you were being sarcastic (As I would be with
>>such a statement). I recall a painting that was sold to the Ottawa museum
>>of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
>>vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
>>colour theory would be able to think that one up, but they couldn't sell
>>it for the million that it sold for.
>Yes, that particular travesty is called "The Voice", I think, but the only
>"voice" I hear concerning the piece is that of Canada's taxpayers
>collectively raised in anger and disgust.
Reflecting on this particular image, did anyone catch it so prominently
displayed in this week's airing of Reboot ("Painted Windows") as one of
Hexadecimal's self portraits? As a Canadian, I laughed myself silly! And as
Reboot is a Canadian production, I applaud them for throwing in a joke like
that for our benefit!
Lar
je...@accessone.com
> Neither democracy nor commerce are very good at judging the value of
a work of art. Look up ''aesthetics''.
More importantly, neither is the "art establishment".
************************************************************************
Cam Wilson
>>>such a statement). I recall a painting that was sold to the Ottawa museum
>>>of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
>>>vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
>>>colour theory would be able to think that one up, but they couldn't sell
>>>it for the million that it sold for.
>
>>Yes, that particular travesty is called "The Voice", I think, but the only
>>"voice" I hear concerning the piece is that of Canada's taxpayers
>>collectively raised in anger and disgust.
just some additional info: the piece is called "the voice of fire".
appropriately titled, considering the public response after its purchase.
i can't be bothered with this kinda stuff. and here i am, slaving away
at my highly detailed technical illustrations... barely earning enough
to feed my family <bitterness mode off>.
--
Cam Wilson * Illustrator * Graphic Designer * Sorta Guitarist
ca...@bnr.ca -- "this message is brought to you by my humble opinion"
Rush * Yes * Dream Theater * Floyd * Ozric Tentacles * Queensryche
candyman
>> Not always. I would hope you were being sarcastic (As I would be with
>>such a statement). I recall a painting that was sold to the Ottawa museum
>>of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
>>vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
>>colour theory would be able to think that one up, but they couldn't sell
>>it for the million that it sold for.
>Yes, that particular travesty is called "The Voice", I think, but the only
>"voice" I hear concerning the piece is that of Canada's taxpayers
>collectively raised in anger and disgust.
>That, and the nth copy of Bill Reid's "Spirit of the Haida Gwaii" being
>purchased for a godawful amount of money to grace the new Terminal at
>Vancouver International.
Hmm ya and yet these are the same "art crowd" who disparage what we do as
cheap commercial schlock...and yell art for art sake , cash has nothing to
do with it....ya hell with them ... to paraphrase from the shining..."All
rendering and no eating makes candyman a dull boy..."
candyman
>>From: cand...@cronus.oanet.com (candyman)
>>Subject: Re: Is computer art cheating?
>>Date: 6 Nov 1995 18:38:36 GMT
>>>Chris_...@LivingBooks.com (Chris Turner) wrote:
>Its kinda funny. A lot (if not most) of what we call classic art was work
>done "for hire". It had a very practical purpose in its day. Painting was
>important as a recording medium as well. A lot of it was was for churches.
>Yep - another sales job. Wonderful murals and music all for the purpose of
>"selling" the church.
>_________________________________________________________________
>Walter (Jay) Turberville |wtu...@primenet.com wtu...@aol.com
>Phoenix, AZ |http://www.getnet.com/studio522/
>Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
>............................|ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
funny you mention that ..out of all my clients the one church animation
I did they never once questioned price and paid promptly...hmm maybe we
should start a lw church..no taxes..:)
Andre-John MAS
: In article <47cqof$8...@ninurta.fer.uni-lj.si>, ari...@news.fer.uni-lj.si
: (Arijan Siska) wrote:
: >
: > One pragmatic definition of art mesaures art with money: if it sells for big
: > money, it's almost certanly art.
: >
: Not always. I would hope you were being sarcastic (As I would be with
: such a statement). I recall a painting that was sold to the Ottawa museum
: of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
: vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
: colour theory would be able to think that one up, but they couldn't sell
: it for the million that it sold for.
: What you sell your stuff for mostly depends on who you are, not how
: good it is. (Exceptions to every rule of course)
: --
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Black, Blacker, Blackest | Chris Turner
: And cold beyond frozen things. | Chris_...@LivingBooks.com
: Where is between when there is naught | Acgnowledgments to
: to life but fragile Dragon's wings? | Anne McCaffrey
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
- Andre-John MAS ----------------------------------------------------------
| Email: A.J...@herts.ac.uk *** Web: http://www.cs.herts.ac.uk/~cs4dr/ |
| Smail: 4 Deans Gardens, Marshalwick, St Albans, Herts, England |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jfaris
(James Hastings-Trew) wrote:
(some body copy deleted)
> None of the proposed definitions of art that I have heard mention the tools
> required to produce that art as part of the criteria. The tool is
> irrelevant. A photographic camera is just as capable of reproducing "neat
> surfaces and textures" as is a piece of computer software. The tool does
> not define what it produces... the artist does.
I agree that the artist defines what the tool produces. But, the tool is
by no means irrelevant. The artist's choice of the tool has everything to
do with it.
> Esthetic choice is something fundamental to humanity. When you buy a tie,
> you are making esthetic choices. When you select a font to use in your web
> browser you are making an esthetic choice. Which cool texture to use, on
> what objects, at what level of detail, with what colour, with what lighting
> setup, from what camera angle, in what composition, etc. etc. embody a
> multitude of esthetic choices, which, when their sum is greater than their
> parts, transform from garbage, to illustration, to pure art. This is not
> controlled by software... but by the esthetic sensibilities of the artist
> using that software.
I couldn't agree more. Well stated.
> Those of you who are producing art on computer (at whatever level on the
> scale from garbage to art) who have not been exposed to the history of the
> visual arts may be in for a shock. Concepts such as "abstract
> expressionism" which eliminated the requirement of technical skill (i.e.
> the ability to draw a straight line or any recognizable shape), or "found
> art" which eliminated even the need to create the artifact at all, all
> point to the inevitable conclusion that art is simply about esthetic
> choices, nothing more. Exposure to different forms of art is fundamental to
> your own growth... to your own ability to make these esthetic choices... to
> where on the continuum from garbage to art your particular output can
> aspire.
Yes, but I still disagree -- "art is simply about aesthetic choices,
nothing more". Maybe to an illustrator, who only renders reality, art is
only about this. I would be extremely disappointed if this was all there
was. What about passion?
I am only speaking for myself here: Any of my work that was based solely
on aesthetics alone are usually just spit-outs (produced quickly with fast
decisions due to a strict deadline). I am not at all proud of that work.
Aesthetics are always a large part of the decision;However, concept,
emotions, associations, etc. are just as important.
Bill Newkirk
>>>>of Art (I think that was it's name) that was a huge canvass with three
>>>>vertical stripes of red and green. Any art student with any whit of
>
>appropriately titled, considering the public response after its purchase.
>i can't be bothered with this kinda stuff. and here i am, slaving away
>at my highly detailed technical illustrations... barely earning enough
>to feed my family <bitterness mode off>.
well, it sounds like the painting was around $150-200 with an additional
$1.7998 mill in shipping and handling. didn't want such a masterpiece to be
damaged in transit, now, right?
(and the arts people wonder why folks are pressing their government reps to
cut funding for "The Arts" here, there and everywhere...)
Oblivion
Hastings-Trew) wrote:
> While there are some art theories that go so far as to say that the medium
> is as important as the content (imagery, composition, colour, space) this
> is a particularly modern theory. It goes against the bulk of art history
> where the medium used was irrelevant to the presentation of the
> art/image/idea. Does it matter if the painting you are looking at was done
> in egg tempra vs. oils vs. acrylic? Would the content of the painting
> dictate to a degree the media used? Some artists would state emphatically,
> "Yes!" However, I have travelled in art circles, and know that those who
> make these statements are usually ignorant of any medium other than the one
> they chose/stumbled onto -- the "perfect" medium for their work is the one
> they have always/will always use -- how convenient. How many current art
> school graduates have even used oil paints or egg tempra, now that the
> horrid and flat acrylic has all but taken over?
>
> Choice of media certainly is one of the esthetic choices I alluded to in my
> eariler arguments. Why choose the computer to convey a certain content --
> i.e. is it the most appropriate medium for a particular purpose? As in all
> arts, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it is important, and sometimes
> it isn't. I would be suspicious of a digital artist who always uses the
> same tool, no matter what the content or message of the work is. As the old
> saying goes, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
> nail." This is how bad art often gets created, digital or not.
>
> Certainly as a media the computer is more suited to the art of animation
> than any other media -- it is the right esthetic choice in the overwhelming
> majority of cases. What example of animation art couldn't be done better on
> the computer now than with crude cells and paint. Precious little I'd
> wager.
>
> As a work of art, have a look at Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas"
> -- the use of the computer in various segments of this masterpiece is
> perfect -- the ultimate choice of media perfectly joined with the content
> of the piece, while the other techniques used are also perfect esthetic
> choices. This film would not have been the same had it been done entirely
> with stop motion/claymation or entirely with computers, or entirely with
> cell animation. In this film the right tools were used for the right
> things, and it all works so beautifully. Digital artists sometimes get so
> caught up in bashing everthing with the same computer hammer they forget
> that there are sometimes better tools to achieve a better end. After "Toy
> Story" could "Nightmare" have been done in the same way, or will there now
> be pressure to do these kinds of films in a purely digital way?
>
> This does not cut any ice with me. I got my fine-arts degree in
> printmaking, a set of media that is by its very nature a
> reproductive/replicative one. Is a Durher etching any less of a work of art
> than a DaVinci drawing, even though multiple copies exist of one, while
> only one exists of the other? It also raises an interesting point -- is art
> reproduced in coffee-table and text-books not "art" simply because the
> content is conveyed by a different media? Is the tangible, unique piece of
> workmanship the art, or is the image/idea conveyed the art? Is music on a
> CD, or is music only to be found in the concert hall? I wonder, because
> your choices here do have ramifications for art which is by its very nature
> replicated -- all digitial art, all performance art, all recorded music.
>
> You have not surfed far or deep enough. There is some very tragic material
> on the web, some of it intentional.
>
>
> James Hastings-Trew
> System Administrator
> Mister Print Productions Ltd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada
>
Couldn't have said it any better myself!
Art is whats perceived in the mind and not the tools to create it. What was
concidered in the past to be mistakes are now considered methods! The problem
with old-school artists is the fact that they, without the willingness to take
the time to continually learn new mediums, make statments about a medium not
being considered art because of all the money they see themselves losing in the
future. Art is what you make of it. The comment made in the above quote about
"those who make these statements are usually ignorant of any medium other than
the one they chose/stumbled onto" is very true. You may not consider those
little 3d sterio posters art, but do you think the guy creating them cares with
all the money he's making?
Art has to be something you enjoy doing and not what you "HAVE" to be doing. If
artists in the 18th century had the technology of the 90's, you would probably
never have heard of a thing called "PAINT".
In another 100 years, people will be going to museum's to laughing at what we
considered to be computers. Its called evolution! Sarcasm will never make anyone
money.
It's better to enjoy making money at what you do, then it is to cry about not
being able to afford the tools to fulfill your enjoyment.
"Damn-it, this thing isn't fast enough!" - VanGogh in the 90's
--
"Art is not the method used to create it, but the mind to perceive it"
-R. Sabin
"Art is only as good as your Imagination"
-H. Graham
*********************************************************************
/ --==The Graphic Artist Guild==-- \
/ --==The Hollywood Artist Association==-- \
/ Part of the Graphic Arts and Advertising Industry since 1986 \
/ Oblivion Grafix located in Southern California \
/ Send comments to: mailto:obli...@primenet.com \
/ Artist's Portfolio: http://www.primenet.com/~oblivion \
********************************************************************
Walter (Jay) Turberville
[SNIP]
>Yes, but I still disagree -- "art is simply about aesthetic choices,
>nothing more". Maybe to an illustrator, who only renders reality, art is
>only about this. I would be extremely disappointed if this was all there
>was. What about passion?
> I am only speaking for myself here: Any of my work that was based solely
>on aesthetics alone are usually just spit-outs (produced quickly with fast
>decisions due to a strict deadline). I am not at all proud of that work.
>Aesthetics are always a large part of the decision;However, concept,
>emotions, associations, etc. are just as important.
Maybe your definition of aesthetics is too narrow. One definition in my
dictionary says, "concerned with emotion and sensation as opposed to
intellectuality."
I think art is important in what it can evoke in in the "recipient" of the
art. It may be trying to communicate and idea, and emotion, a relationship, a
point of view - and the list goes on. Good art is art that communicates
something well. Thats pretty open ended, but that is as close as I have com to
pinning it down.
So tools don't matter except in that they help or hinder the artist to
send the "message."
Walter (Jay) Turberville |wtu...@primenet.com wtu...@aol.com
Studio 522 Productions |http://www.primenet.com/~wturber
http://www.getnet.com/studio522/ |ftp.primenet.com/users/w/wturber
Phoenix, Arizona .......................................................
Edward Smith
technique? I just waded through 6 of your posts in which you qoute the
entire previous 20 plus lines of the previous post and add a couple of
your own. Perhaps if you just picked the couple of lines of the
previous post that was relevant to you statement, that might be
better...
Thanks.
--
Edward Smith
candyman
>tech
doh! apologies..
Jeffrey Kurland
>In article <ACC6EE8F...@dial197231.wbm.ca>, jhas...@eagle.wbm.ca (James
>Hastings-Trew) wrote:
>
>> While there are some art theories that go so far as to say that the medium
>> is as important as the content (imagery, composition, colour, space) this
>> is a particularly modern theory. It goes against the bulk of art history
>> where the medium used was irrelevant to the presentation of the
>> art/image/idea. Does it matter if the painting you are looking at was done
>> in egg tempra vs. oils vs. acrylic? Would the content of the painting
>> dictate to a degree the media used? Some artists would state emphatically,
>> "Yes!"
The medium is crucial. Period. If it doesn't matter what medium is being used, why paint? It's anacronistic. Western Union (or the
Internet) is more efficent.
>>However, I have travelled in art circles, and know that those who
>> make these statements are usually ignorant of any medium other than the one
>> they chose/stumbled onto -- the "perfect" medium for their work is the one
>> they have always/will always use -- how convenient. How many current art
>> school graduates have even used oil paints or egg tempra, now that the
>> horrid and flat acrylic has all but taken over?
>>
You've either been looking at a lot of bad student art or those artists have been using cheepo acrylics. Acrylic technology has advanced
(since you last looked) and is now capable of a greater range of painterly surfaces than oil. Oil painting, however, still gets top billing in
most places. This is like arguing the merits of Steinway pianos over Casios.
>> Choice of media certainly is one of the esthetic choices I alluded to in my
>> eariler arguments. Why choose the computer to convey a certain content --
>> i.e. is it the most appropriate medium for a particular purpose? As in all
>> arts, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it is important, and sometimes
>> it isn't. I would be suspicious of a digital artist who always uses the
>> same tool, no matter what the content or message of the work is. As the old
>> saying goes, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
>> nail." This is how bad art often gets created, digital or not.
The confusion here is whether the computer is a tool or a medium. I think this is the crux of the issue. As a tool, the computer is a
marvelous and versitile instrument for making art. As a medium it offers a very limited aesthetic experience. It's little better than the
phone as a medium for art. (Remember the answering-machine-messages-as-art craze?)
>>
>> This does not cut any ice with me. I got my fine-arts degree in
>> printmaking, a set of media that is by its very nature a
>> reproductive/replicative one. Is a Durher etching any less of a work of art
>> than a DaVinci drawing, even though multiple copies exist of one, while
>> only one exists of the other? It also raises an interesting point -- is art
>> reproduced in coffee-table and text-books not "art" simply because the
>> content is conveyed by a different media? Is the tangible, unique piece of
>> workmanship the art, or is the image/idea conveyed the art? Is music on a
>> CD, or is music only to be found in the concert hall? I wonder, because
>> your choices here do have ramifications for art which is by its very nature
>> replicated -- all digitial art, all performance art, all recorded music.
I realize that the art reproduction issue was oversimplified. Yea the coffee table book can show you the idea of the sculpture (in a
severely limited way) but cannot very well convey the aesthetic EXPERIENCE of art which is sensual and immediate in the presence of the
thing.
I have no problem with art multiples. It's that art loses something in the translation (from one medium to another). Again, the medium
is crucial. It's what embodies form and conveys the idea.
>>
>
>Couldn't have said it any better myself!
>
>Art is whats perceived in the mind and not the tools to create it. What was
>concidered in the past to be mistakes are now considered methods! The problem
>with old-school artists is the fact that they, without the willingness to take
>the time to continually learn new mediums, make statments about a medium not
>being considered art because of all the money they see themselves losing in the
>future. Art is what you make of it. The comment made in the above quote about
>"those who make these statements are usually ignorant of any medium other than
>the one they chose/stumbled onto" is very true. You may not consider those
>little 3d sterio posters art, but do you think the guy creating them cares with
>all the money he's making?
>Art has to be something you enjoy doing and not what you "HAVE" to be doing. If
>artists in the 18th century had the technology of the 90's, you would probably
>never have heard of a thing called "PAINT".
>In another 100 years, people will be going to museum's to laughing at what we
>considered to be computers. Its called evolution! Sarcasm will never make anyone
>money.
>
What's money got to do with it? This discussion ought to be carried on it the Newsgroup ''rec. fine arts''. I'm going to post it there.
Brion Sohn
the full alias package, It is a given that the computer can make anything
look good, however if you look past the medium (which is all the computer
is) the basics of Drawing, Proportion, Composition, Design, ect... must be
there otherwise the art will be bad just as there are bad paintings, so in
computer art there are going to be vering(sp?) degrees of quality as there
art in painting, a 14 year old on a computer will never be as good as
DiVinci on a computer with the same knowlege of the computer.
So In the question is computer art cheating, No it's not, It's just
another Paint Brush.
Thanks,
Brion
ao...@lafn.org
bs...@artcenter.com