Is digital animation art?
garfangle
proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just coding
and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
art must be "hand" drawn?
Ciao.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Danger X
garfangle <garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0414999c...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> This is not a joke, but a serious query into with the
> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just coding
> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> art must be "hand" drawn?
>
> Ciao.
Whooa... I haven't given this much thought, (as my reply may show ^_^), but
IMHO... Well first before we get to my $0.02, are you talking "art" as an
"art-piece" (meaning something physical you can actually hold in your hands
or put on display in a museum)? or as an "art-form" (in the way ballet
dancers, musicians, actors consider themselves artists)?
A still image from Dinosaur is (IMHO) not art, as it could be considered to
be just like a photo one snaps of a car-accident one happens on. (or a
wedding or whatever)... However, the "emoting" of a digital character
(haven't seen Dinosaur yet) is (again IMO) acting which definitely makes it
an "art-form".
When computers start writing entire stories and "acting" them out, then the
real confusing debate will begin!
I must go have jello now...
Kyle
Sweet Zombie Jesus
> This is not a joke, but a serious query into with the
> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just coding
> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> art must be "hand" drawn?
Of course it's art! Think of it as a stop motion cartoon...building a CG
model is almost like building an armature character....creating texture
maps is like painting or making clothes for the armature...just because
it's not entirely tangible, doesn't mean that it's not art. As long as
creative, talented individuals create something unique and pleasing to the
senses, it's art.
Greg
=====================================================================
AOL Instant Messenger Handle: Parodius
=====================================================================
"Shut your wang-sucker!!!!"
- ICP to Sharon Osbourne on the Howard Stern Show
=====================================================================
Daniel McKay
On Wed, 31 May 2000, garfangle wrote:
> This is not a joke, but a serious query into with the
> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just coding
> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> art must be "hand" drawn?
>
Your question strikes me as being kind of retarded. Cinema in general is
art. Photography is a form of art. The theatre is art. Animation is
art. Paintings are art. Fiction in general is art. Dance can be
art. Computers can create art. Music is art. Sculptures are art. Art
is ultimately undefinable, though there are certain things that are
generally accepted as art and certain things that aren't as widely
accepted, but everything listed above are pretty much thought of as art,
and to me are undeniably so. My sister is an artist, and my mother is an
artist, but even without those things influencing me I doubt I could
conceive of the restrained definition of art you are implying, and if you
have not figured it out already, Dinosaur is art.
-Dannymon, venting
Steve M
would imply that just anyone could walk up to 3D Studio Max or Maya and come
up with Dinosaur in their spare time. Believe me, I work with a lot of CGI
artists, and they are ARTISTS. It takes a tremendous amount of creative
talent to create 3D models, design and apply the textures and colors, and
animate them convincingly. And most programmers are decidedly *NOT* up to
the task. They're completely different disciplines.
The CGI tools -- 3DS Max, Maya, Photoshop, etc -- are tools in the exact
same sense that a canvas, brushes and paints are. Just because you're
working on an electronic medium does NOT make it any less art than if you
were working on a physical medium.
"garfangle" <garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0414999c...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
> This is not a joke, but a serious query into with the
> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just coding
> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> art must be "hand" drawn?
>
garfangle
you could just say that those who design the latest Boeing plane
on a SGI machine are artists. I would call them computer design
engineers. Moreover, to your point, a computer program that
produces a fractal design routine would be considered an
artist. As for art in the animation style, I feel it requires
more than just skill, but original flair/creativity that is
inherent in the medium. For example, a recognized style of
drawing by Disney or Hanna-Barbara or Stan Lee that lends itself
to the animation in its distinctiveness is artistry. I regard
those who mimic them, not artists, but reproducers. Likewise,
as for GCI the true "artists" if you could are not those who
design Woody or Buzz Lightyear on the program, but those
individuals who've come up with the concept, usually on paper
first. Even for those who produce original "work" on CGI, I
consider them secondary principles because they are confined by
the designers/advancement of the program itself. Traditional
cell animation is not so constrained.
Ciao.
In article <8h5kkf$6hg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Steve M"
Enrique Conty
Most of his questions usually are. He's either trying to
get some conversation going on just about *anything*, or he's
really clueless. I don't think he's a troll, though, he lacks the
antagonistic edge.
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
co...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~conty/
"I hate anime." - Yoshiyuki Tomino
Mozeman
constraints.
You state, first of all, that the animation and models are "coding" in
Photoshop or SGI's, which displays a depth of ignorance that I wouldn't
expect from someone posing this kind of philosophical question. The
programs are designed to used by artists, who use the TOOLS, whether paper
and pencil or a mouse and tablet, to create animation and/or images.
Dinosaur consisted of creatures that act, emote, and move with
believability. They act just as any other animated character would. And
it's not because Maya or Alias is a really good program. Animators
instilled those digital creatures with life after modellers sculpted them
from points and polygons (or nurbs) just as any sculptor creates a model
from clay and wire.
There are many, many techinicians involved with making that kind of film,
yes. They create the software and maintain the machines. But do not
confuse that with the artists involved with using the tools to create the
films.
The guy who makes the paintbrush isn't the artist. It's the guy who uses
it.
--
Mozeman
*******************************
tmo...@moserbrothers.com
*******************************
"garfangle" <garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:09313332...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
garfangle
$Bc3....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Mozeman"
<tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote:
>What about using paint? What about using a pencil? Those are
tools with
>constraints.
>
>You state, first of all, that the animation and models
are "coding" in
>Photoshop or SGI's, which displays a depth of ignorance that I
wouldn't
>expect from someone posing this kind of philosophical
question.
No, I said coding "and" Photo/SGI meaning, yes graphic artists
work w/ illustrator tools, but to put the film together requires
programming.
I'm not saying that the use of different medium, in this case
CG, does not render form similar to trad. cell animation, but
asking whether the result is art per se as traditionally
understood. Asthetics aside, people do value and collect art,
cell being among them, but what I asked was whether CG fit into
this standard, and if not, could those designers be
called "artists"? Or should the definition be expanded?
garfangle
(Enrique Conty) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.10006010247060.24288482-
100...@mail1.ats.rochester.edu>,
>Daniel McKay <dk0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
>>Your question strikes me as being kind of retarded.
>
>Most of his questions usually are. He's either trying to
>get some conversation going on just about *anything*, or he's
>really clueless. I don't think he's a troll, though, he lacks
the
>antagonistic edge.
>
But my questions are soooo...evocative...that I must post them
for all the world to see...
garfangle
100...@mail1.ats.rochester.edu>, Daniel McKay
<dk0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
>> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just
coding
>> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
>> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
>> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
>> art must be "hand" drawn?
>>
general is
>art. Photography is a form of art. The theatre is art.
Animation is
>art. Paintings are art. Fiction in general is art. Dance can
be
>art. Computers can create art. Music is art. Sculptures are
art. Art
>is ultimately undefinable, though there are certain things that
are
>generally accepted as art and certain things that aren't as
widely
>accepted, but everything listed above are pretty much thought
of as art,
Exactly, my point. Art-animation art here-has been traditional
been under the medium of cell-based work, and which up until a
decade or so ago, did not involve computers in its
production/design. Now, with the advent of CG and tools w/
which to produce CG w/ trad. animation has the line blurred?
Meaning is CG just derivative special effects or more
encompassing? While special effects are nice touches, I do not
categorize them as "art," but production techniques whereas
trad. animation is a category unto itself as an artistic medium.
Mozeman
because you can't "collect" physical art from the film? I don't think I
understand what you're asking.
If that is indeed the question, then collectibility or physical
manifestations of the medium do not constitute art. Art is the expression
of the idea, whether it's performance, paint, or celluloid.
Of course, there are some who consider programming to be an art, and in a
lot of ways I agree.
--
Mozeman
*******************************
tmo...@moserbrothers.com
*******************************
"garfangle" <garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17a61aa1...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com...
Invid Fan
<garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Talent does not imply "artistry" however, that's just skill. Or
> you could just say that those who design the latest Boeing plane
> on a SGI machine are artists. I would call them computer design
> engineers.
I'd say that a plane can be a work of art. The B2 is beautiful to look
at. Which brings up the question as to what makes someone an artist: is
it someone who has created a work of art, or someone who sets out to
create art?
--
Chris Mack "Never let two artists marry! Always push the
'Invid Fan' painter down the well! GRR! I CAN'T FORGET!"
-Quinton, 'Thieves & Kings'
In...@localnet.com
Danger X
Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:010620001858503150%in...@localnet.com...
> In article <09313332...@usw-ex0103-018.remarq.com>, garfangle
> <garfangl...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Talent does not imply "artistry" however, that's just skill. Or
> > you could just say that those who design the latest Boeing plane
> > on a SGI machine are artists. I would call them computer design
> > engineers.
>
> I'd say that a plane can be a work of art. The B2 is beautiful to look
> at. Which brings up the question as to what makes someone an artist: is
> it someone who has created a work of art, or someone who sets out to
> create art?
I'd say in the end "art" is in the eye of the beholder, and will probably be
(and IMHO this is a good-thing) debated for ages to come.
Personally I lean more towards the "intention" of the person to create art
as being more important. But that's difficult to say as who can really know
the innermind of another person? So again, the debate begins...
All day on the superstation...
Kyle
Daniel McKay
Look, I'll reitterate what I said: just because something was created on a
computer, doesn't mean it isn't art. To me, the son and brother of two
artists, that is retarded. There are classes taught on how to create
computer art in colleges across the country. The Corcoran School of Art,
for instance, has a $200,000 printer just for printing some of this art on
whatever materials available. What's more, cinema in general is "art."
City of the Lost Children is a good example. Just because it had special
effects does not mean it is not art, as the special effects as a film
technique will often enhance an artistic film, and therefore contribute to
it as "art." Cinema in general is art, an artistic medium. Not all film
is art, but art is not restricted to any genre or medium, including the
realm of science. If you mean to ask whether or not computer animation is
a different form of art than hand drawn animation, than sure, I suppose it
is. But saying something isn't art just because of the medium, especially
when it falls under a broader medium (i.e. cinema, fiction), is retarded.
I don't know how to spell it out more clearly.
-Dannymon
Richard Llewellyn
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, garfangle wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.10006010247060.24288482-
> > 100...@mail1.ats.rochester.edu>, Daniel McKay
> > <dk0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 31 May 2000, garfangle wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is not a joke, but a serious query into with the
> > >> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> > >> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just
> > coding
> > >> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> > >> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> > >> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> > >> art must be "hand" drawn?
> > >>
Does that mean that Wallace and Gromit, Gumby, the California Raisins, the
Nightmare Before Chrismas, and all of the other clay and puppet animated films
are not art (or animation) because you can't buy cels of them either? Computer
animated imagery is not the first type of animation that lacked cels.
Yours in the diversity of animation,
Richard Llewellyn
Richard's Animated Divots at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rllew/andivots.html
Daniel McKay
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, garfangle wrote:
> In article <8h5r4p$2910$1...@news.enteract.com>, co...@enteract.com
> (Enrique Conty) wrote:
> >In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.10006010247060.24288482-
> 100...@mail1.ats.rochester.edu>,
> >Daniel McKay <dk0...@mail.rochester.edu> wrote:
> >>Your question strikes me as being kind of retarded.
> >
> >Most of his questions usually are. He's either trying to
> >get some conversation going on just about *anything*, or he's
> >really clueless. I don't think he's a troll, though, he lacks
> the
> >antagonistic edge.
> >
>
> But my questions are soooo...evocative...that I must post them
> for all the world to see...
>
> Ciao.
Should I plonk him now, or wait...?
-Dannymon
John S.
> > >> proliferation of digital animation, Dinosaur being the most
> > >> recent ex., it could be argued that its not art, but just
> > coding
> > >> and Photoshop/Silicon G. work. Moreover, I do not think that
> > >> anyone could buy a "cell" of Dinosaur and presume its
> > >> originality. Further, does this imply that animation as ture
> > >> art must be "hand" drawn?
I've seen cels of TOY STORY. Of course, DINOSAUR is part live action
(on a bigger extent than ROGER RABBIT)...
--
Visit my web page http://quotesillustrated.homepage.com