Computers
mdeli
The most important new technique today is via computer. A good fractal
is more visually interesting in color composition surface texture etc.
than any AE masterpiece. The computer is the best critique of
abstraction. It can outdo any abstract painter.
Most art is neither pure abstraction or realism. It is a fusion of
both. Some of the most interesting images today involve computers. The
best computer artists understand rote, Those who can draw, understand
color , composition and perspective will always outdo those who lack
this knowledge.
THE COMPUTER IS TO ABSTRACTION WHAT THE CAMARA WAS TO ART IN THE 19TH
CENTURY. Art is at a crossroads.
From now on, artificial intelligence vs. natural stupidity.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Thomas Ziorjen
mdeli wrote:
> Technique is something which evolves.
>
> The most important new technique today is via computer. A good fractal
> is more visually interesting in color composition surface texture etc.
> than any AE masterpiece. The computer is the best critique of
> abstraction. It can outdo any abstract painter.
>
> Most art is neither pure abstraction or realism. It is a fusion of
> both. Some of the most interesting images today involve computers. The
> best computer artists understand rote, Those who can draw, understand
> color , composition and perspective will always outdo those who lack
> this knowledge.
>
> THE COMPUTER IS TO ABSTRACTION WHAT THE CAMARA WAS TO ART IN THE 19TH
> CENTURY. Art is at a crossroads.
>
> From now on, artificial intelligence vs. natural stupidity.
>
If you prefer fractal eye candy to AbEx masterpieces, then by all means
go enjoy your eye candy - you don't have demean painting or painters to
do that.
and as for artificial intelligence and natural stupidity, there seems to
be plenty of both here to go around.
Thomas
Erik A. Mattila
Corel bought Bryce, Painter and the KPT plugins. There's some real
skepticism about Corel's ability to upgrade these products to the next
level, but Corel has hired some of the original developers. On the other
hand, the Corp seems to be on the edge of bankruptcy.
Adobe bought Carmona and Carrera, putting them into the 3D market.
On thing that is interesting -- Mark Zimmer, Tom Hedges and John Derry,
the original "Fractal Design" painter developers, and who are under
contract with Corel right now to develop Painter, have formed their own
company, "Fractal.com." ( http://www.fractal.com) in California. Not
much on the web site now, but once the contract with Corel expires,
they're going to create some surprises. Could be very interesting -- I
mean this could be where the 'real' next-step for Painter could happen,
under another title.
Also, egi.sys (California & Germany) have bought Poser. (
http://www.egisys.com/ ) Don't know what to make of this - egi-sys is up
to it's ears in e-commerce software, so it could mean that Poser could
devolve to product display - but not necessarily. Wait and see, eh?
Erik Mattila
mdeli wrote:
> Technique is something which evolves.
>
> The most important new technique today is via computer. A good fractal
> is more visually interesting in color composition surface texture etc.
> than any AE masterpiece. The computer is the best critique of
> abstraction. It can outdo any abstract painter.
>
> Most art is neither pure abstraction or realism. It is a fusion of
> both. Some of the most interesting images today involve computers. The
> best computer artists understand rote, Those who can draw, understand
> color , composition and perspective will always outdo those who lack
> this knowledge.
>
> THE COMPUTER IS TO ABSTRACTION WHAT THE CAMARA WAS TO ART IN THE 19TH
> CENTURY. Art is at a crossroads.
>
> From now on, artificial intelligence vs. natural stupidity.
>
James W. Foster
computer-aided visual art on the web? Occasionally you'll get something
really good but usually stuff out there is just wank, no better than the
'Fan Art' pages you get on some webcam sites and several steps below the
awful blandness of clipart. I know, because I've produced some atrociously
bad computer art in my time (I'm still learning so inevitably I'm not going
to be that great just yet). I'm studying the history of photography and its
struggle to be recognised as an art form at the moment. Computer art, web
design, video etc. had it easy in comparison.
-james
"I've found you can't cheat with computer graphics- it's like that old
saying, garbage in, garbage out." - Buggy G. Riphead 1996
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:391dc61c...@news.psi.ca...
Chris
One aspect of computer art that rather bothers me is that it really
doesn't take much advantage of what the computer can really do - even
now, at it's rather primitive state a good part of the computer
advantage generally goes unused. (I figure any technology is primitive
as long as Moore's law, or the equivalent, still holds..). Most of the
computer art I've seen is either static, or a repetition of what's
already been done in animation or on the old optical printers.
Some one mentioned the Nam June Paik restrospective (was that you?) -
anyway, I came across his work while visiting friends at Cal Arts in
1970, when he was working with Shuya Abe, applying synthesizers and
feedback loops - essentially analog computing - to video signals. They
even rewound the yoke on some of the TVs, so the scan was no longer left
to right & up/down, but circular. It was quite exciting then, and there
really isn't a whole lot that surpasses it now.
At least on the pure arts side - I understand (though I haven't seen)
that there has been some intriguing work done in displaying the dynamics
of real-time market behaviour on large screens; I am familiar with some
very elegant visual work that has been done in support of naval sonar
operations. Neither, though, is truly interactively adaptive - that's a
big problem in itself. OTOH, if you are somewhat techno-literate you
might want to look up Berndt Fritzke's work; I personally think it holds
one of the keys to creating truly interactive (and engaging) computer
art.
Cheers;
Chris
"James W. Foster" wrote:
>
> This is true. Has anyone spent a while looking through the vast amount of
> computer-aided visual art on the web? Occasionally you'll get something
> really good but usually stuff out there is just wank, no better than the
> 'Fan Art' pages you get on some webcam sites and several steps below the
> awful blandness of clipart. I know, because I've produced some atrociously
> bad computer art in my time (I'm still learning so inevitably I'm not going
> to be that great just yet). I'm studying the history of photography and its
> struggle to be recognised as an art form at the moment. Computer art, web
> design, video etc. had it easy in comparison.
>
> -james
>
> "I've found you can't cheat with computer graphics- it's like that old
> saying, garbage in, garbage out." - Buggy G. Riphead 1996
>
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
http://www.gammarat.com
Oliver Gili
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39201C01...@ns.sympatico.ca...
The question of interactivity in art (of all forms) is an interesting one...
I for one would prefer to read Crime and Punishment than an 'interactive
novel' where I could choose the ending, or whilst I like playing around with
the audio mixing tools available, I would still prefer to listen to Derrick
May or LTJ Bukem.....
I use the computer in conjunction with 'traditional' painting, because there
are things that one can do that the other can't and viesa versa. But I
produce (and sell) static images.... (examples on www.donarcher.com/moca)
however I'm getting into various animation packages, but the results will be
harder to sell, and I do need to eat....
I've just discovered that they can print 4 cel animations on a sheet....
just think of the posibilities......
Oliver
One day all us dyslexics will UNTIE.
Chris
I've just started poking around on the MOCA site, there's some
interesting work there...
But on to your note:
Oliver Gili wrote:
>
>
> The question of interactivity in art (of all forms) is an interesting one...
> I for one would prefer to read Crime and Punishment than an 'interactive
> novel' where I could choose the ending, or whilst I like playing around with
> the audio mixing tools available, I would still prefer to listen to Derrick
> May or LTJ Bukem.....
>
Oh, I agree with you here, though the music that's getting played the
most these days around this house is Carmina Burana (now that's a work
to talk about, if one is interested in the effect of subject & context
on appreciation.).
But the reason I agree is that our relationship to those forms has
co-developed over centuries. But I see the relationship to the computer
as pretty raw; still undefined. Most of the technical advances that have
changed various art forms pretty much maintained the separation of
artist and viewer: the artist created his work; the viewer (largely)
passively received it.
But it is easy to conceive of slightly futuristic applications - even if
only at the level of techno-drugs - where the viewer actively (though
perhaps subconsciously) manipulates a technically controlled environment
- rather like the old alpha/beta wave machines on steroids - to achieve
a specific state.
The odd thing is that I see that as mostly opening a return to (the
somewhat mythologic) tribal behaviour - you know the cartoonish image of
primitive peoples wildly dancing to sensual asynchronous drumming with
flames leaping all around...Now imagine the 2050 version - a rave where
the participants are hooked by small broadband monitors to a computing
center that in turn manipulates the sound & light environment to get
that maximal unity of the mob and erasure of individual
sensibility....not a pleasant thought....
> I use the computer in conjunction with 'traditional' painting, because there
> are things that one can do that the other can't and viesa versa. But I
> produce (and sell) static images.... (examples on www.donarcher.com/moca)
> however I'm getting into various animation packages, but the results will be
> harder to sell, and I do need to eat....
>
Well, personally, I love static images; I don't think the market for
them will die because of the advent of computers. Obviously in your own
work, and in the work of the others showing at MOCA, this new suite of
tools is paying off in updating the classic approach to art. But I also
think that computers will allow much more freedom to people who are
interested in manipulating the aesthetic environment (I am trying to
avoid saying 'fine art' here..). And I don't know if it will be a
deadening or enlightening effect, but it will be interesting.
Regards;
Chris
Oliver Gili
> Hi Oliver;
>
> I've just started poking around on the MOCA site, there's some
> interesting work there...
>
> But on to your note:
>
> Oliver Gili wrote:
> >
> >
> > The question of interactivity in art (of all forms) is an interesting
one...
> > I for one would prefer to read Crime and Punishment than an 'interactive
> > novel' where I could choose the ending, or whilst I like playing around
with
> > the audio mixing tools available, I would still prefer to listen to
Derrick
> > May or LTJ Bukem.....
> >
>
> Oh, I agree with you here, though the music that's getting played the
> most these days around this house is Carmina Burana (now that's a work
> to talk about, if one is interested in the effect of subject & context
> on appreciation.).
>
> But the reason I agree is that our relationship to those forms has
> co-developed over centuries. But I see the relationship to the computer
> as pretty raw; still undefined. Most of the technical advances that have
> changed various art forms pretty much maintained the separation of
> artist and viewer: the artist created his work; the viewer (largely)
> passively received it.
agreed, and I think that interactive 'art' will emerge sooner or later, we
as a species are still coming to terms with what the computer, as a tool, is
able to offer
>
> But it is easy to conceive of slightly futuristic applications - even if
> only at the level of techno-drugs - where the viewer actively (though
> perhaps subconsciously) manipulates a technically controlled environment
> - rather like the old alpha/beta wave machines on steroids - to achieve
> a specific state.
have you seen the app thats been doing the e-mail rounds (someing like
pinwheel.exe) which is a Riley esq interlocing circles which spin round, you
stare into the centre for about 20 seconds and look away and for a time
afterwards you get a very noticable visual distortion. It is not an
impossible leap of logic to imagine being presented with
(subconsious/consious) imagery and sounds in an immersive environment which
would produce an animal fight or flee response and thus flood the brain with
adrenaline (essentaily what amphetamines do).... Electronic Orange?
>
> The odd thing is that I see that as mostly opening a return to (the
> somewhat mythologic) tribal behaviour - you know the cartoonish image of
> primitive peoples wildly dancing to sensual asynchronous drumming with
> flames leaping all around...Now imagine the 2050 version - a rave where
> the participants are hooked by small broadband monitors to a computing
> center that in turn manipulates the sound & light environment to get
> that maximal unity of the mob and erasure of individual
> sensibility....not a pleasant thought....
Indeed, I remember 'raving' in '91 and it was akin to a primitive extactic
pseudo religious thing (everyone dancing towards the DJ for example), and
the chemical stimuili did seem to lead to a unity thing, even if completely
false. What you describe is very possible and disturbing, sort of like an
electronic Soma.
>
>
> > I use the computer in conjunction with 'traditional' painting, because
there
> > are things that one can do that the other can't and viesa versa. But I
> > produce (and sell) static images.... (examples on
www.donarcher.com/moca)
> > however I'm getting into various animation packages, but the results
will be
> > harder to sell, and I do need to eat....
> >
>
> Well, personally, I love static images; I don't think the market for
> them will die because of the advent of computers. Obviously in your own
> work, and in the work of the others showing at MOCA, this new suite of
> tools is paying off in updating the classic approach to art. But I also
> think that computers will allow much more freedom to people who are
> interested in manipulating the aesthetic environment (I am trying to
> avoid saying 'fine art' here..). And I don't know if it will be a
> deadening or enlightening effect, but it will be interesting.
I'm trying to find 3d artists, and animators to work with. I'm a much better
painter/still image manipulator (and I love painting) than 3d artist or
animator, but I'm facsinated by the posibilities offered by the modern
computer graphics.... I'm waiting for the first abstract quake etal level
(not alien, but as abstract as possible)
Oliver
James W. Foster
> Hi James;
>
> One aspect of computer art that rather bothers me is that it really
> doesn't take much advantage of what the computer can really do - even
> now, at it's rather primitive state a good part of the computer
> advantage generally goes unused. (I figure any technology is primitive
> as long as Moore's law, or the equivalent, still holds..). Most of the
> computer art I've seen is either static, or a repetition of what's
> already been done in animation or on the old optical printers.
I know what you mean. I think it's because people see someone's work and
think 'I want to be like that' and then go to great lengths to produce work
just like them. I did it it school with various painters both famous &
those who were just older students. Plus there's the commercial safety in
producing stuff that's not too different from the norm, like your average
teenybop boy band. With a bit of surgery, Backstreet Boys would be almost
indistinguishable to New Kids On The Block to all but the most obsessed fan.
>
> Some one mentioned the Nam June Paik restrospective (was that you?) -
> anyway, I came across his work while visiting friends at Cal Arts in
> 1970, when he was working with Shuya Abe, applying synthesizers and
> feedback loops - essentially analog computing - to video signals. They
> even rewound the yoke on some of the TVs, so the scan was no longer left
> to right & up/down, but circular. It was quite exciting then, and there
> really isn't a whole lot that surpasses it now.
I was looking around going 'wow, this is like MTV visuals, or such &
such...' but then I looked at the dates and realised most of the video art
I've seen from a later time are just pale imitations. This is a guy who
took the technology and totally pushed the limits of what was possible. Bit
like ILM really. I read an article before The Phantom Menace was released
about the effects etc. and the SGI machine that did the effects in
Terminator 2 had just been taken out of service. - It was being used solely
for the company's email and couldn't cope under the demand any more!
>
> At least on the pure arts side - I understand (though I haven't seen)
> that there has been some intriguing work done in displaying the dynamics
> of real-time market behaviour on large screens; I am familiar with some
> very elegant visual work that has been done in support of naval sonar
> operations. Neither, though, is truly interactively adaptive - that's a
> big problem in itself. OTOH, if you are somewhat techno-literate you
> might want to look up Berndt Fritzke's work; I personally think it holds
> one of the keys to creating truly interactive (and engaging) computer
> art.
>
I liked 'Technosphere' the other year, although it wasn't very hands-on.
All you did was create a lifeform and it emailed you every so often to let
you know how it was getting on. Mine died after a week of starvation, which
was sad.
Does anyone know what Stelarc is up to these days? He's probably managed to
upload himself and is floating around the system like Lawnmower Man by
now...
-james
lake
form of art. They are much more closely related to a telephone than to
a canvas. Technological wizardry and digital manipulation aside, the
fact remains that an LCD monitor will always be only that. "Aida" over
the phone?
Computers are more like a super-avanced Post Office. Many exciting
possibilities therin, but none directly related to art. MP3 will never
significantly affect the essentials of a guitar solo.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Oliver Gili
"lake" <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:18dae34d...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com...
> Computers are primarily a medium of communication, rather than a new
> form of art. They are much more closely related to a telephone than to
> a canvas. Technological wizardry and digital manipulation aside, the
> fact remains that an LCD monitor will always be only that. "Aida" over
> the phone?
I think your wrong :-) They are a medium, but to call the computer (rather
than the internet) 'primarily a medium of communication' is somewhat to
ignore the basis for the developement of the computer, the need for the
species for a better tool to sort, analyse and manipulate information, which
can be graphical/textual/fiscal/aural/etc. A canvas and paints together
become a tool to manipulate graphical information....
>
> Computers are more like a super-avanced Post Office. Many exciting
> possibilities therin, but none directly related to art. MP3 will never
> significantly affect the essentials of a guitar solo.
No but the sampler and sequencing program, for example, HAS significantly
affected the essentials/relevance of the guitar/guitar solo in modern music.
To use a format created and distributed on computers, as analogous with
computers as a whole is wrong.
The internet is more like a super-advanced Post Office. I think we have only
seen the beginning of what computers can do, so to say that there will be NO
computer based developements directly related to art, is to underestimate
our species' versility.
Oliver
Sharon Barcone
*possibilities therin, but none directly related to art. MP3 will never
*significantly affect the essentials of a guitar solo.
*- Lake
I would have to disagree with that. Just log on to the Corel Draw site and
check out the annual art competition work. There is some very remarkable
output there. But I believe bringing cameras and computers into the art
process has some potential to minimize the value of the work.
I suspect future art collectors will buy paintings with evidence of the
human factor. You know something a bit askew or as Dali would say a little
"radical perspective". This only to prove it is not a canvas printed with a
photo and painted over. Or some proof that it is not mass produced by
computer. Strathmore makes acid-free paper for computer and Hewlett-Packard
Design series inks claim to be light fast. Pen and ink is an ideal medium to
go computer. Scan in an original drawing and print it out on computer. You
are not limited to size either, depending on how much you want to pay there
are also oversize printers.
Not my cup of tea personally but maybe a potential for art for the masses
and maybe a future impact on modern art from the graphic element.
sharon
Dik F. Liu
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes:
>Computers are primarily a medium of communication, rather than a new form of
art.<
So were pencils. But that didn't stop artists like Ingres, Cezanne, and Rodin
from drawing with them.
Dik
Erik A. Mattila
Nor did it stop G. Gordon Liddy from killing with them!
Erik
lake
But I maintain that sensuality is an essential ingredient in art. And
computer art, so-called, lacks it. Computer art is visual ideas robbed
of their tactility. The camera also does this, to a lesser extent,
being representation through a mechanical, rather than a gestural
procedure.
Gestural integrity lies at the very heart of all the arts - and by that
I mean the physical actions of the human body.
lake
completely different. Apples and oranges. The fact that so many
creative people want to be "artists" on the computer doesn't
significantly affect art one way or the other. Art is not concerned
with the analysis, sorting and manipulation of information, art IS
information.
Your example of sampler and sequencing programs is a good one. They
have shown that the guitar is manipulable, but they have not changed
its essential nature or requirements or relevance one iota. Musicians
can still get along well without computers thank you, but I think
computers would be considerably lessened without musicians.
Of course artists have always used the latest technology whenever it's
been applicable to their purposes, & often help to create and define
new technologies. Like the electric guitar for example, where
technology augments an already well- established tradition. Art has
deep cultural and sensual roots - computers don't.
Oliver Gili
"lake" <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
> Painting and sculpture are one thing, computers are something
> completely different. Apples and oranges. The fact that so many
> creative people want to be "artists" on the computer doesn't
> significantly affect art one way or the other. Art is not concerned
> with the analysis, sorting and manipulation of information, art IS
> information.
>
> Your example of sampler and sequencing programs is a good one. They
> have shown that the guitar is manipulable, but they have not changed
> its essential nature or requirements or relevance one iota. Musicians
> can still get along well without computers thank you, but I think
> computers would be considerably lessened without musicians.
>
> Of course artists have always used the latest technology whenever it's
> been applicable to their purposes, & often help to create and define
> new technologies. Like the electric guitar for example, where
> technology augments an already well- established tradition. Art has
> deep cultural and sensual roots - computers don't.
>
I think that it is a false opposition, computers versus art/music. The
Computer is only a tool, no more, no less. Art and music are things done
mostly with tools, it would be better to compare the guitar to the
sequencer, or the paint brush and Adobe PhotoShop, or even the computer and
the camera. The point is that the same impulse that made humankind pick up a
burnt stick and draw with it, is the same impulse that made humankind pick
up a mouse and manipulate pixels. Computers are not a threat to art, just as
photography was not a threat to art, it is just a new medium.
Oliver
Oliver Gili
"lake" <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
> Touche.
>
> But I maintain that sensuality is an essential ingredient in art. And
> computer art, so-called, lacks it. Computer art is visual ideas robbed
> of their tactility. The camera also does this, to a lesser extent,
> being representation through a mechanical, rather than a gestural
> procedure.
>
> Gestural integrity lies at the very heart of all the arts - and by that
> I mean the physical actions of the human body.
>
> - Lake
But whose to say that in 5-10 years time, you won't be able to don a pair of
VR gloves, load up the latest version of 3D Studio Max and actually create
3d structures in much the same way that we manipulate clay.....
Oliver
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3928CBC3...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes:
>
> > I had to look-up 'prolix', and yes, it makes you look smarter, Dik,
> although not 'miraculously.' Why didn't you just say 'verbosity' or
> 'wordiness?'<
>
> It is because I opted the shorter word. You had to look up prolix?! May be I
> erred. You aren't a charlatan, just an ignoramus.
>
> This explains everything.
>
> Dik
Wait a minute, let me get this right. You thought I was a charlatan because I
wrote "technology develops geometrically rather than arithmetically" instead of
'technology is accelerating?" Acceleration can happen either geometrically or
arithmetically, and I wished to make a distinction, as that was the whole sense
of what I was saying to James. The language "increases geometrically rather
than aritmetically" does just that, and I don't know how else you could say it,
or why you would say it differently. In the long run, it is a trope anyway,
and only paints a picture of technology accumulating and advancing more rapidly
with time (I guess I could have wrote that, but it seems clunky). I mean it's
not the sort of thing you could put a stop-watch to and measure.
Why do you say this is "one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or
ability" (charlatan)? It appears pretty straight-forward to me.
As to your opting for a shorter word, it doesn't make sense. If brevity was
your guiding light, you wouldn't have followed it with the redundant
'gobbledygook' In fact, you were being (egad) wordy. No, what makes sense is
that you have a good vocabulary, and that you use it when and how it pleases
you.
Sure, I'm an ignoramus. There's an abundance of things I don't know. But
there's strength in numbers. Go out on the street and take a suvey, and you'll
find that barely one person in twenty knows the word "prolix," if that many.
But this doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. Anyone has the same option I had,
to look it up. It's a nifty word, nice to learn.
Frankly, I think you're pissing up a rope.
Best,
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>Sure, I'm an ignoramus. There's an abundance of things I don't know. But
>there's strength in numbers. Go out on the street and take a suvey, and you'll
>find that barely one person in twenty knows the word "prolix," if that many.
>But this doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. Anyone has the same option I had,
>to look it up. It's a nifty word, nice to learn.
Yeah, I noticed how thick you are, Erik ;-) But make that one in a
hundred on the word prolix, I reckon. I couldn't find suvey in the
dictionary, btw !
Anyway, its interesting seeing the objections to lengthy writing here.
As I have said many times before, it takes a lot of work to be able to
say things in a very few words. I would suspect a lot of lurkers here
don't contribute because they don't have the necessary writing skills to
do so. They may well have the knowledge though. Look around here and see
how many people think they are being clever by trying to write in a few
words, but don't show any knowledge of what they are actually saying.
Its the same in art - its always transparent when people produce a piece
of minimal art without the knowledge.
My lengthy post are, in actual fact, just laziness. Its kind of like
writing notes as you think. If I was ever to write a paper, then I would
take all those notes, make some more notes and digest the thing to a
fraction of what it was. Do you ever save your posts ? Well that's
called WORK and I have enough of that to do in the studio. Writing here
is an automatic response and I think its important that the words and
thoughts are spontaneous. It widens the scope for debate and allows some
interesting trains of thought to emerge. Diverging from the subject is
an added bonus. And anyway, can you imagine what it would be like here
if people like you didn't contribute ? Everyone would be reduced to
listing their *favourite* artists time after time after time - that is
the level of intelligence that this group stoops to when there is no one
to maintain the status quo. Favourite artists ! Next they will be
forming a Top Ten ...... oh I think they already did that one ! Keep
posting, Erik. They need you here !
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
http://www.egroups/groups/artlives
Chris
You forgot to look at the context in which this discussion originated -
"geometric" and "arithmetic" were being used in a precise, mathematical
way. It's rather like the flak that flies around here from time to time
here over the word "formal". "Formal" has one somewhat loose (but
generally well understood) meaning in common usage, and a very precise
one in certain schools of artistic analysis. "Accelerate" is similar. In
the context it was used, it can be either be precise (e.g.. following a
time squared rule); or it can be vague, requiring modification by an
adjective such as "exponential" in order to be as precise as Erik's
"geometric". The former - by virtue of the demonstrations of Moore's law
- is clearly wrong; the latter is certainly wordier.
You'll also note that "acceleration" - in many of the interpretations
you kindly listed below - often carries connotations of expectation
(e.g. "faster than expected", "faster than usual"). But the developers
of most of the technology I'm familiar with have built the concept of
geometric progression into their development schedule. The geometric
progression is both expected, and usual.
Regards,
Chris
"Dik F. Liu" wrote:
>
> In article <3928AE0F...@ns.sympatico.ca>, Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>
> writes:
>
> >>Because if technology was simply accelerating, it would be following
> something like a time squared law - eg
>
> 1,4,9,16,25,36,...<
>
> accelerate
>
> accelerate (àk-sèl´e-rât´) verb
> accelerated, accelerating, accelerates verb, transitive
> 1. To increase the speed of.
> 2. To cause to occur sooner than expected.
> 3. To cause to develop or progress more quickly: a substance used to
> accelerate a fire.
> 4. a. To speed up (an academic course, for example). b. To make it
> possible for (a student) to finish an academic course faster than usual.
> 5. Physics. To cause a change of velocity.
>
> verb, intransitive
> 1. To move or act faster. See Synonyms at SPEED.
> 2. To engage in an academic program that progresses faster than usual.
> [Latin accelerâre, accelerât- : ad-, intensive pref.. See AD- + celerâre, to
> quicken (from celer, swift).]
> - accel´era´tive adjective
>
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
> copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
> InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Dik
Lauri Levanto
If that is true, I'm scared of the idea that computers
begin to create art.
A world where computers have intentions and meanings
I hope I don't have to see it.
- lauri
Oliver Gili wrote:
>
> "lake" <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:21a2fc87...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com...
> > VR gloves, studio 3D Max.......ah, the FUTURE! Reminds me of that
> > phrase from the early 50's, "better living through chemistry", a lovely
> > pie in the sky. (Sorry, Alison)
> >
> > So you say the computer is "a tool, no more, no less" thereby lumping
> > all into the same category fire, the paintbrush, the screwdriver, the
> > printing press, the telephone and the I.U.D.
>
> yup, exactly.
>
> >
> > "Computers are a tool, therefor computers can create art" - is that
> > what you're saying? Correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm saying is that a
> > burnt stick grasped in the hand can create art. A keyboard full of
> > pixels creates nothing but a monitor full of pixels.
>
> To put it short and sweet, all I am saying is "computers are a tool,
> therefore humans with computers can create art"... or is it "give peace a
> chance" :-)
>
> Oliver
lake
and so on. Even car repair. Why not computers? If that's how people
choose to define art, who am I to disagree?
I'm just a painter, in touch more or less with a long line of painters,
drawers with dirty hands. But I think that we will be painting and
drawing long after the last computer is resting peacefully in a
landfill somewhere.
Ender
Oliver,
Amen man. I totally 100% agree with that.
This competition and resentment that artists feel towards technology
is absolutly absurd. It's almost as if they feel angry that there is an
artistic medium that they are not masters in, and rather than welcome
the new expressionistic talents, they discredit them with every chance they
get.
Art is all about communicating the ideas in our minds. The fact is that
there are many that are just impossible to explain through words, so
we turn to imagery.
It doesn't matter if you create your art by spitting in a pattern on your
driveway, or making a smoke trail in a 3D computer program. As long
as yourself and others can find the truth of what you are trying to say in
your expression, it should be welcomed among artists everywhere.
I love oil on canvas
I love watercolor
I love pencil on paper
and *gasp* I love Computer Graphics.
lake
monitors. I'm delighted sometimes. In a similar way, a hundred years
ago, I would have welcomed progressive newspapers, or eighty years ago,
progressive radio, or fifty years ago, progressive TV.
But I don't believe that art is primarily about technology. Neither
dependent upon it, nor particularly interested in it. That's why I said
that a man with a burnt stick was more apt to create art than a nerd at
a console.
It's not a matter of competition or resentment - programmers and
web-designers are going to make money, while by and large, artists will
not. This is obvious, and I am not resentful about it, it's just the
way things are. I don't begrudge any computer-artists their success.
What I question is the sensual relevance of their efforts. Whatever
they do, they are stuck inside a monitor! The monitor is their sensual
interface with reality, just like the reciever is the telephone's
sensual interface with reality.And you simply cannot (or, I don't see
how) create art with such a ridiculously abbreviated sensual interface.
As you say, it's like a man spitting in the driveway - it's creative,
but it's not art.
You say, "art is all about communicating the ideas in our minds". I
disagree. That is merely the surface of art, and more often than not,
it's irrelevant. Art is about what causes the ideas in our minds to
occur, and about the effects those ideas produce.
I'm not against creative spitting, nor against self-expression through
a variety of media - I find this all very healthy. But it's not art.