digital art...
todd
thoughts on "digital" art: love it, hate it, media not an issue?
I went to the local community college last week to look at the student
exhibition and was appalled at the large amount of shitty work in the
digital category.
I also saw a show at a gallery consisting of 50% digital works. Again,
complete crap. I'm not going to write up a full critique but I'm not
seeing much digital work that's even somewhat decent.
Of course, I'm in backwoods/backwards USA...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Nikolaus Maack
> first off, i'm new to the group. regards to all.
>
> thoughts on "digital" art: love it, hate it, media not an issue?
The trouble with digital art is that far too many people think of it as
a shortcut to art making. They spend an hour (if that) on a work and
call it done. The results are spotty at best.
However, when the materials are treated seriously, and genuine effort is
put into the work, the results can be fantastic.
Paul Mesken
>first off, i'm new to the group. regards to all.
>
>thoughts on "digital" art: love it, hate it, media not an issue?
>
>I went to the local community college last week to look at the student
>exhibition and was appalled at the large amount of shitty work in the
>digital category.
>
There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
Ofcourse the problem with digital art is that it typically is a copy,
there's no original (I'm talking now of the typical form which is
something you see on a monitor, not of a unique piece of machinery). A
painting might be a piece of crap but at least it is a unique piece of
crap.
Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
speed).
The above doesn't mean that it is not possible to make art with a
computer which is clearly made by human effort :
http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
(don't forget the links in the upper left corner, it shows the
process).
I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
Furthermore we must not forget digital art can do far more than just
being a replacement for paintings. Sound, movement, interaction are
other interesting things that can be accomplished with digital art but
I hardly have seen anything interesting in that respect.
Dr. Slick
> first off, i'm new to the group. regards to all.
>
> thoughts on "digital" art: love it, hate it, media not an issue?
>
> I went to the local community college last week to look at the student
> exhibition and was appalled at the large amount of shitty work in the
> digital category.
>
> I also saw a show at a gallery consisting of 50% digital works. Again,
> complete crap. I'm not going to write up a full critique but I'm not
> seeing much digital work that's even somewhat decent.
>
Me neither. Most digital art is more a form of digital
manipulation of photographs. But there are plenty of photographers
out there who don't know how to compose a picture. Ansel Adam's work
definitely leans photography into the art world in my opinion, but few
are at this level.
So with digital art comes plenty of people who can afford to do
it. Anyone can and does push pixels around. But like most art
fields, few do it really well.
Dr. Slick
Erik A. Mattila
> There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
Not in mine ;-0
>
> Ofcourse the problem with digital art is that it typically is a copy,
> there's no original (I'm talking now of the typical form which is
> something you see on a monitor, not of a unique piece of machinery). A
> painting might be a piece of crap but at least it is a unique piece of
> crap.
"Simulacra" - the endless repetition of something that has no original.
Years ago I was running a 36" Harris (what a machine?) for a company
in San Francisco, and on one weekend I came in to run some prints for an
artst named "Satie." He had a bunch of negatives of old media
engravings, blown up, and we worked in the plate making department and
on the press, dividing each stack of printed sheets up in different ways
and overprinting them randomly in different colors, until by Sunday
night we had about 1500 "unique" prints. Some of them were pretty nice,
too. This was in 1972BC (before computers).
> Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
> computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
> of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
> distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
> now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
> stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
> are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
> speed).
But the trick of the trickery is to use PS filters skillfully, without
being obvious. I see a lot of work on TV these days that fall short of
the mark. "Hey, that's the KPT lens flare!"
But try to build an Escher waterfall tower in Maya or Form.Z.
> The above doesn't mean that it is not possible to make art with a
> computer which is clearly made by human effort :
>
> http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
>
> (don't forget the links in the upper left corner, it shows the
> process).
Also look at Siggraph - they've been around for years.
http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/
Link to their newsletters back to 99 or so.
> I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
> skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
> advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
> work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
Well, in some cases it is, Paul (not overall, though). I remember back
in the rubber cement/exacto knife era making brochures for electronic
firms that wanted that sharp, clean look. So the way to make a
rectangle was to outline it in india ink, but let each edge extend out a
bit, then go back with an exacto knife and cut a clean corner and scrape
the excess away. It took some skill - you had to do it just right to
not leave marks on the carrier that the camera would pick up.
And then there was the ultra close photos of electronic components,
which were always badly distorted by lens parallax. We would cut a very
narrow pie section down through the middle on the verticle axis, and
rotate both sides to meet. Then burnish the seam (very carefully, with
an agate) and airbrush the image so it looked contiguous. Took about 4
or 5 hours. Photoshop will do this in a couple of seconds, and do a
better job.
> Furthermore we must not forget digital art can do far more than just
> being a replacement for paintings. Sound, movement, interaction are
> other interesting things that can be accomplished with digital art but
> I hardly have seen anything interesting in that respect.
Yeah, that's pretty tempting. I've been envisioning a field of
squirming maggots. Maybe a .gif animation. I'm just waiting for Plasma
flat panel displays to get dirt cheap. (come to think of that, I should
do the maggots for my web site. It already has flies.
Erik
>
Dr. Slick
>
> There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
>
> computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
> of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
> distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
> now in less than a second.
Personally, I have never seen anything done by photoshop that
even comes close to the genius of Escher. Having a Stratocaster
guitar does not make one a Jimi Hendrix.
There is a book out that shows Eschers initial sketches for his
work, "divisions of a plane" etc. Incredible stuff.
>
> http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
>
>
Paul, thanks for the link! Great stuff! Was not aware of this
guy. You can see the Frazetta influence. His nude women are
especially well done. :)
I've got some nudes i'll be putting up soon, stay tuned.
Bookmarked!
Dr. Slick
todd
> However, when the materials are treated seriously, and genuine effort is
> put into the work, the results can be fantastic.
Good points... although time does not equal art :)
todd
> There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
> Ofcourse the problem with digital art is that it typically is a copy,
> there's no original (I'm talking now of the typical form which is
> something you see on a monitor, not of a unique piece of machinery). A
> painting might be a piece of crap but at least it is a unique piece of
> crap.
Very valid point. I've always made the point that it's not a finished piece
unless it's "presentable" or ready to be shown. That goes for all media. If
digital, it should be printed and framed/presented in some manner. Photos
should be matted,what have you, etc.
> Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
> computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
> of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
> distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
> now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
> stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
> are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
> speed).
snip
> I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
> skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
> advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
> work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
>
> Furthermore we must not forget digital art can do far more than just
> being a replacement for paintings. Sound, movement, interaction are
> other interesting things that can be accomplished with digital art but
> I hardly have seen anything interesting in that respect.
Again valid points. The reason I use the computer (I confess, I do a lot
of digital work) is that it frees me to do things I couldn't possibly do.
ie: layering, transparencies, switching canvas size on the fly, saving
multiple copies, etc. In art school I took an early liking to montage and
collage, it came to me (fairly) easily. It didn't take me too long to
discover the computer as a new way to create montages and collages.
Half of my work time is in collecting and categorizing elements for my
work. I sample everything. I steal from the internet and I steal from
myself, scanning in my paintings, photographs and drawings. I take it as a
high compliment when I'm told my prints don't look like digital art. I'll
be posting some of my work to the group shortly.
todd
snip
> come to think of that, I should
> do the maggots for my web site. It already has flies.
Erik, what's your web address?
todd
> manipulation of photographs. But there are plenty of photographers
> out there who don't know how to compose a picture. Ansel Adam's work
> definitely leans photography into the art world in my opinion, but few
> are at this level.
>
> So with digital art comes plenty of people who can afford to do
> it. Anyone can and does push pixels around. But like most art
> fields, few do it really well.
>
>
> Dr. Slick
One thing that has occured to me is the similarities between the beginnings
of photography and digital work.
For anyone that hasn't taken any History of Photography there was a period
when cameras from Kodak first reached the mass consumer pricepoint and
everyone became a "photographer". Galleries were full of crap because of
newness and availability of the new medium.
I think we're going through the same growing pains with digital work.
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<es8p9vgolgujgk2o3...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
>>
>> Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
>> computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
>> of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
>> distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
>> now in less than a second.
>
>
> Personally, I have never seen anything done by photoshop that
>even comes close to the genius of Escher. Having a Stratocaster
>guitar does not make one a Jimi Hendrix.
I'm painfully aware of that ;-)
> There is a book out that shows Eschers initial sketches for his
>work, "divisions of a plane" etc. Incredible stuff.
Yes, he was a civil engineer and very interested in crystallography.
He worked out amazing systems for his drawings, etches, etc.
>
>>
>> http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
>>
>>
>
> Paul, thanks for the link! Great stuff! Was not aware of this
>guy. You can see the Frazetta influence. His nude women are
>especially well done. :)
If you want to see an artist who is enormously influenced by Frazetta
then you should check out Simon Bisley. In his comics he sometimes
pays hommage to Frazetta by copying a certain composition of him.
http://members.tripod.com/~Revenant_2/bisley.htm
There's a lot more ofcourse (just check him out with Google)
> I've got some nudes i'll be putting up soon, stay tuned.
I'm looking forward to it :-)
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
>> computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
>> of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
>> distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
>> now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
>> stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
>> are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
>> speed).
>
>But the trick of the trickery is to use PS filters skillfully, without
>being obvious. I see a lot of work on TV these days that fall short of
>the mark. "Hey, that's the KPT lens flare!"
>
>But try to build an Escher waterfall tower in Maya or Form.Z.
This is a very valid point. Two dimensional art is not necessarily a
valid projection of a 3D scene (Escher's waterfall tower and
"Ascending and Descending" are simply impossible). Quite a lot
animation movies made with programs like Maya simply lack the
effectiveness of the old fashioned hand drawn animation which is not
bound to projections.
Paul Mesken
> So with digital art comes plenty of people who can afford to do
>it. Anyone can and does push pixels around. But like most art
>fields, few do it really well.
I think that's pretty much what it all boils down to. Digital art is
done with a medium which is as valid as anything else. It's not the
medium which is questionable but the skills of the artists working
with it. I've seen some pretty good stuff done with the computer (a
lot of comics nowadays are done with it and ofcourse movies) but the
stuff shown in museums often fails to impress me, the same goes for so
called "video art".
Digital art in museums and galleries seem to me like boring gadgets
while digital art is firmly entrenched in movies, posters, the web and
comics. I think museums and galleries are struggling with this. With
digital art there isn't an original work of art so it's hard to
showcase or sell it as such and this is what museums and galleries are
all about : showing or selling original works of art.
todd
> With
> digital art there isn't an original work of art so it's hard to
> showcase or sell it as such and this is what museums and galleries are
> all about : showing or selling original works of art.
see my above post about digital working needing to be printed. I see the
digital file as an extension of the negative or a plate in printing. I
wouldn't buy a .jpg but I would purchase a nice 3'x4' print on archival
paper.
Digital artists would be doing themselves a favor if they promoted their
work in that manner.
Paul Mesken
>snip
>> With
>> digital art there isn't an original work of art so it's hard to
>> showcase or sell it as such and this is what museums and galleries are
>> all about : showing or selling original works of art.
>
>see my above post about digital working needing to be printed. I see the
>digital file as an extension of the negative or a plate in printing. I
>wouldn't buy a .jpg but I would purchase a nice 3'x4' print on archival
>paper.
>
>Digital artists would be doing themselves a favor if they promoted their
>work in that manner.
Yes, that's ofcourse true. One could also think of doing a limited
serie, numbering them and having them signed by the artist. This is
ofcourse not new.
Dr. Slick
> >>
> >> http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Paul, thanks for the link! Great stuff! Was not aware of this
> >guy. You can see the Frazetta influence. His nude women are
> >especially well done. :)
>
> If you want to see an artist who is enormously influenced by Frazetta
> then you should check out Simon Bisley. In his comics he sometimes
> pays hommage to Frazetta by copying a certain composition of him.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Revenant_2/bisley.htm
>
I'm aware of Bisley, and all the other wanna-be Frazettas out
there. Bisley is obviously technically talented, but copies Frazettas
style a bit too much (texturally). And then he blows the subjects way
out of proportion, in typical Heavy Metal Artist fashion. Gigantic
biceps, huge guns, impossible women.
It's too much for me, as he goes beyond a certain
believability. Which is not to say that Frazetta's world is
realistic: it obviously is not, but stays within the realm of a
maybe-possible fantasy.
But it's great that he never tries to hide the influence. Like
Prince saying the only similarity between him and Hendrix is that they
are/were both black men. There are so many Frazetta wanna-bes out
there, which is really a testament to his influence, and perhaps one
of the reasons i stay away from barbarians as subject manner. ha.
Most "Fine Art" elitists would laugh at this anyhow, lumping
fantasy art and comic books into one convenient trash heap.
Oh well, to each their own.
Slick
Andrew Werby
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3E9CDD88...@oco.net...
> Paul Mesken wrote:
>
> > There's shitty work in every category ofcourse :-)
>
> Not in mine ;-0
>
> >
> > Ofcourse the problem with digital art is that it typically is a copy,
> > there's no original (I'm talking now of the typical form which is
> > something you see on a monitor, not of a unique piece of machinery). A
> > painting might be a piece of crap but at least it is a unique piece of
> > crap.
[Yes, but who buys unique work any more? The only way an artist can survive
these days is by making reproductions that are cheap enough for people to
afford. I'm talking about multiples, editions, prints, cards, books,
posters, etc. Digital graphics are used for all the above. ]
> "Simulacra" - the endless repetition of something that has no original.
> Years ago I was running a 36" Harris (what a machine?) for a company
> in San Francisco, and on one weekend I came in to run some prints for an
> artst named "Satie." He had a bunch of negatives of old media
> engravings, blown up, and we worked in the plate making department and
> on the press, dividing each stack of printed sheets up in different ways
> and overprinting them randomly in different colors, until by Sunday
> night we had about 1500 "unique" prints. Some of them were pretty nice,
> too. This was in 1972BC (before computers).
[I remember meeting him. (I think his name was spelled "Satty", with an
umlaut over the "a".) He made collages from the old engravings, working the
images together so they'd become a new composition; much like Bruce Connor's
work in the same vein. He put out a few books, including an illustrated
version of Ludlow's "The Hasheesh Eater"- those were the days of psychedelic
art, after all. I think he's dead now.]
>
> > Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
> > computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
> > of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
> > distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
> > now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
> > stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
> > are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
> > speed).
>
> But the trick of the trickery is to use PS filters skillfully, without
> being obvious. I see a lot of work on TV these days that fall short of
> the mark. "Hey, that's the KPT lens flare!"
[It's hard to be amazed by Photoshop filters anymore, but there is some
interesting digital art being done. ]
>
> But try to build an Escher waterfall tower in Maya or Form.Z.
>
> > The above doesn't mean that it is not possible to make art with a
> > computer which is clearly made by human effort :
> >
> > http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
> >
> > (don't forget the links in the upper left corner, it shows the
> > process).
>
> Also look at Siggraph - they've been around for years.
> http://www.siggraph.org/publications/newsletter/
> Link to their newsletters back to 99 or so.
[Here's a digital graphic artist - Ken Huff- whose work I like a lot:
http://www.itgoesboing.com/index.html He also exhibits at Siggraph.]
>
> > I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
> > skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
> > advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
> > work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
[This fetishization of the "original" has nothing to do with art. In many
processes, even traditional ones like bronze casting or lithography, there
is no original left at the end. This doesn't devalue the art that results,
in my opinion anyway. ]
>
[snip]
> > Furthermore we must not forget digital art can do far more than just
> > being a replacement for paintings. Sound, movement, interaction are
> > other interesting things that can be accomplished with digital art but
> > I hardly have seen anything interesting in that respect.
[And don't forget that digital art isn't all 2d. Sculpture is starting to be
affected by the digital revolution, along with product design.]
>
> Yeah, that's pretty tempting. I've been envisioning a field of
> squirming maggots. Maybe a .gif animation. I'm just waiting for Plasma
> flat panel displays to get dirt cheap. (come to think of that, I should
> do the maggots for my web site. It already has flies.
>
> Erik
[Where is this crawly site of yours, Erik? ]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
>
> >
>
Erik A. Mattila
todd wrote:
> snip
>
>>come to think of that, I should
>>do the maggots for my web site. It already has flies.
>
>
>
> Erik, what's your web address?
Erik A. Mattila
todd wrote:
> snip
>
>>come to think of that, I should
>>do the maggots for my web site. It already has flies.
>
>
>
> Erik, what's your web address?
Oh, if you visit impix.com, and try out the NeoBoho blog, please cut me
some slack. I'm using a Mac, and Blogger is kind of Mac unfriendly (I
have to hand code links, formatting etc.) So there's nothing there.
When I did the first blog, which took me a couple of hours, I hit the
"publish" button and it disappeared into another cyberdimension or
something. Grrrrr -
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> One thing that has occured to me is the similarities between the beginnings
> of photography and digital work.
>
> For anyone that hasn't taken any History of Photography there was a period
> when cameras from Kodak first reached the mass consumer pricepoint and
> everyone became a "photographer". Galleries were full of crap because of
> newness and availability of the new medium.
>
> I think we're going through the same growing pains with digital work.
On a personal level as well. It's relatively to learn the fundamentals
of photography, and produce good photos and competence in the darkroom.
But then, when you look at Bresson or Adams work (honestly), you can
see an astronomical distance between where you are art and where you
want to go. Photoshop, Painter, Illustrator etc. work the same way,
although the "masters" haven't been defined all that well.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Hey, you're a programmer. Maybe this could be your magnum opus - a 3-d
application that would have sliders for "irony" "paradox" and "opitcal
illusion" ;-)
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
You can thank Walter Lippman for that, Slick. He's the one who first
popularized the idea of the "stereotype" being a low, unsophisticated,
and "dumbed down" trope, or "form." Comic art is the "art of the
stereotype" - not that other forms of pop culture aren't always
challenging the king.
I'm not a Franzetta fan by a long shot, but what the hell, he's got the
numbers to make him a top dog. Personally, I think that Rick Griffin
holds the undisputed title - but I'm a little loose in catagorizing
Franzetta with Griffin, admittedly.
Here's some Griffin links, and it's really sad that he died so young.
But I think in the "fine art" subsection, Victor Moscoso takes Griffin
down. But then, Victor taught painting at SFAI for a number of years,
and it shows in his work.
Griffin:
http://www.thinker.org/
This is the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. At the bottom of the
page there is an image base search form. Type in "rick griffin". These
are really nice "zoom in" displays, so you can see his work in detail.
http://www.myraltis.co.uk/rickgriffin/
Moscoso:
http://www.victormoscoso.com/
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>"Simulacra" - the endless repetition of something that has no original.
>> Years ago I was running a 36" Harris (what a machine?) for a company
>>in San Francisco, and on one weekend I came in to run some prints for an
>>artst named "Satie." He had a bunch of negatives of old media
>>engravings, blown up, and we worked in the plate making department and
>>on the press, dividing each stack of printed sheets up in different ways
>>and overprinting them randomly in different colors, until by Sunday
>>night we had about 1500 "unique" prints. Some of them were pretty nice,
>>too. This was in 1972BC (before computers).
>
>
> [I remember meeting him. (I think his name was spelled "Satty", with an
> umlaut over the "a".) He made collages from the old engravings, working the
> images together so they'd become a new composition; much like Bruce Connor's
> work in the same vein. He put out a few books, including an illustrated
> version of Ludlow's "The Hasheesh Eater"- those were the days of psychedelic
> art, after all. I think he's dead now.]
Yes, you're right. I just looked on the web and he died in 1982. I
liked the guy, even though he was a little on the Andy Warhol
impersonation side.
> [Here's a digital graphic artist - Ken Huff- whose work I like a lot:
> http://www.itgoesboing.com/index.html He also exhibits at Siggraph.]
Very nice work, IMO. But I'm surprised you're linking to a Non-Rhino
arist, Andrew, and a Macophile at that! (Just Kidding)
>
>>>I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
>>>skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
>>>advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
>>>work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
>>
>
> [This fetishization of the "original" has nothing to do with art. In many
> processes, even traditional ones like bronze casting or lithography, there
> is no original left at the end. This doesn't devalue the art that results,
> in my opinion anyway. ]
It depends how you define "art" I guess. Walter Benjamin used the
concept of the "original" to define the "art" that was being challenged
by "mechanical reproduction."
> [Where is this crawly site of yours, Erik? ]
www.impix.com A project that is never done, always in development, the
cobbler's children have no shoes.
Erik
>
> Andrew Werby
> www.computersculpture.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Most "Fine Art" elitists would laugh at this anyhow, lumping
> > fantasy art and comic books into one convenient trash heap.
> >
> > Oh well, to each their own.
>
> You can thank Walter Lippman for that, Slick. He's the one who first
> popularized the idea of the "stereotype" being a low, unsophisticated,
> and "dumbed down" trope, or "form." Comic art is the "art of the
> stereotype" - not that other forms of pop culture aren't always
> challenging the king.
>
That's just his opinion, whoever he is. Wonder what he thought
of Lichtenstein or Warhol. I'm somewhat of a Wharhol fan, but mainly
because he changed the status quo of what is considered art.
Commercial art as fine art?
Sacreligious!
> I'm not a Franzetta fan by a long shot, but what the hell, he's got the
> numbers to make him a top dog. Personally, I think that Rick Griffin
> holds the undisputed title - but I'm a little loose in catagorizing
> Franzetta with Griffin, admittedly.
>
Undesputed title of what? Fantasy art? I would put Frazetta
there. And NOT because he's got big numbers, but because his art
moves me.
> Here's some Griffin links, and it's really sad that he died so young.
> But I think in the "fine art" subsection, Victor Moscoso takes Griffin
> down. But then, Victor taught painting at SFAI for a number of years,
> and it shows in his work.
>
Rick Griffin is a fantastic artist, and i like Kelly and Mouse's
work too (definite contemporaries). However, just because he is in
the fine art section of some museum and Frazetta isn't doesn't mean
much to me.
If some stoner, trippy-letters poster artist can make it into a
fine art section of a big time gallery, then why not a paperback
Fantasy artist? I'm glad you have pointed this out to me, because it
really shows some art director likes Griffin, and it may be only a
matter of time before Frazetta is liked by someone big.
I ain't holding my breath, and neither is Frazetta. I'm gonna
visit the museum he opened himself in Florida.
Hey, i've put new stuff on my website!
Check it out...
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3E9DFF96...@oco.net>...
>
>>> Most "Fine Art" elitists would laugh at this anyhow, lumping
>>>fantasy art and comic books into one convenient trash heap.
>>>
>>> Oh well, to each their own.
>>
>>You can thank Walter Lippman for that, Slick. He's the one who first
>>popularized the idea of the "stereotype" being a low, unsophisticated,
>>and "dumbed down" trope, or "form." Comic art is the "art of the
>>stereotype" - not that other forms of pop culture aren't always
>>challenging the king.
>>
>
>
> That's just his opinion, whoever he is. Wonder what he thought
> of Lichtenstein or Warhol. I'm somewhat of a Wharhol fan, but mainly
> because he changed the status quo of what is considered art.
> Commercial art as fine art?
> Sacreligious!
Lippman was a very influencial journalist in the mid 20th century. It
may have been his opinion, but the point is that he had a broad audiance
and people took him seriously. So his "opinion" about the stereotype
shaped a much broader opinion about the same in this country. He died
in 1974, and I'm not sure he ever commented on Lichtenstein of Warhol.
>>I'm not a Franzetta fan by a long shot, but what the hell, he's got the
>>numbers to make him a top dog. Personally, I think that Rick Griffin
>>holds the undisputed title - but I'm a little loose in catagorizing
>>Franzetta with Griffin, admittedly.
>>
> Undesputed title of what? Fantasy art? I would put Frazetta
> there. And NOT because he's got big numbers, but because his art
> moves me.
It's a broad category - "popular art" - not to be confused with "Pop Art."
>>Here's some Griffin links, and it's really sad that he died so young.
>>But I think in the "fine art" subsection, Victor Moscoso takes Griffin
>>down. But then, Victor taught painting at SFAI for a number of years,
>>and it shows in his work.
>>
> Rick Griffin is a fantastic artist, and i like Kelly and Mouse's
> work too (definite contemporaries). However, just because he is in
> the fine art section of some museum and Frazetta isn't doesn't mean
> much to me.
Well it should matter if you're wondering why such a thing happens. San
Francisco has collected Rock Posters and Underground Comix because it is
part of the culture history of the Bay Area. I would be surprised if
Frazetta's work hasn't ended up in Art Museums. If not now, then maybe
soon. (Hey, a good investment opportunity, maybe.)
> If some stoner, trippy-letters poster artist can make it into a
> fine art section of a big time gallery, then why not a paperback
> Fantasy artist? I'm glad you have pointed this out to me, because it
> really shows some art director likes Griffin, and it may be only a
> matter of time before Frazetta is liked by someone big.
There are plenty of illustrators represented in Art Museums.
> I ain't holding my breath, and neither is Frazetta. I'm gonna
> visit the museum he opened himself in Florida.
Well, he made the "Society of Illustrator's" Hall of Fame. I don't
you'll find Griffin, Mouse or Kelley there.
http://www.societyillustrators.org/permanent_collection/frazetta.html
>
>
> Hey, i've put new stuff on my website!
> Check it out...
I like "Ramin" and "Ass One." Some of the others are interesting...made
me think "where is he going to go with this?"
Erik
Hans Summ
>www.impix.com A project that is never done, always in development, the
>cobbler's children have no shoes.
>
>Erik
I tried to visit your site but was warned
off by a succession of warning boxes advising
me of great danger should I open or save the
files. All I got in the long run was a very
small graphic with a fly image, and the
warning message boxes endlessly popping up.
Dr. Slick
>
> Lippman was a very influencial journalist in the mid 20th century. It
> may have been his opinion, but the point is that he had a broad audiance
> and people took him seriously. So his "opinion" about the stereotype
> shaped a much broader opinion about the same in this country. He died
> in 1974, and I'm not sure he ever commented on Lichtenstein of Warhol.
>
Unfortunately, his opinion didn't die with him immeditately.
It's the elitism that bugs me i guess, which actually makes me lean
towards more "popular" art, that the masses enjoy.
> >>
> > Undesputed title of what? Fantasy art? I would put Frazetta
> > there. And NOT because he's got big numbers, but because his art
> > moves me.
>
> It's a broad category - "popular art" - not to be confused with "Pop Art."
>
And your definition is? Everyone has one.
>
> Well it should matter if you're wondering why such a thing happens. San
> Francisco has collected Rock Posters and Underground Comix because it is
> part of the culture history of the Bay Area. I would be surprised if
> Frazetta's work hasn't ended up in Art Museums. If not now, then maybe
> soon. (Hey, a good investment opportunity, maybe.)
>
Not necessarily a good investment, considering an original
Frazetta is gonna fetch quite a bit even right now. I believe he is
selling his sketches on his website.
On second thought, you may be right in the sense that Frank is
getting up there in age, and it's only a matter of time before the
real "Death Dealer" pays him a visit. (I only type this because i
think he would laugh at this! ha!) And we all know what happens to
an artists work after he/she kicks the bucket.
The original "Death Dealer" would be quite a painting to have in
one's living room.
>
> There are plenty of illustrators represented in Art Museums.
>
It's only a matter of time before some brave art director decides
to put original comic art in a fine art gallery.
>
> Well, he made the "Society of Illustrator's" Hall of Fame. I don't
> you'll find Griffin, Mouse or Kelley there.
> http://www.societyillustrators.org/permanent_collection/frazetta.html
>
My point is that it doesn't matter to me how many awards or
accolades or galleries an artist has under his belt. If the art moves
me emotionally, then that's it, Louvre or no Louvre. MOMA or not.
I have a right as an individual to disagree with large
institutional bodies.
> >
> >
> > Hey, i've put new stuff on my website!
> > Check it out...
>
> I like "Ramin" and "Ass One." Some of the others are interesting...made
> me think "where is he going to go with this?"
>
Is this a nice way of saying, "What's the point?"
:)
Dr. Slick
Erik A. Mattila
That's all I have. The fly took me 5 years to render. Just kidding. I
had a "buzz" soundfile linked to the fly that I couldn't get to work
right. I just checked with IE, and it brought up a Quicktime bar
instead of just playing. I had been previewing with Netscape, and it
worked fine (but it didn't play the sound).
So I disunlinked to the sound file, and it should work ok now.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
>>There are plenty of illustrators represented in Art Museums.
>>
>
>
> It's only a matter of time before some brave art director decides
> to put original comic art in a fine art gallery.
That was done a long time ago, Slick, in several museums and galleries.
As a matter of fact, some of the standard art history texts I've seen
have Walt Disney listed under "Dada."
>>Well, he made the "Society of Illustrator's" Hall of Fame. I don't
>>you'll find Griffin, Mouse or Kelley there.
>>http://www.societyillustrators.org/permanent_collection/frazetta.html
>>
> My point is that it doesn't matter to me how many awards or
> accolades or galleries an artist has under his belt. If the art moves
> me emotionally, then that's it, Louvre or no Louvre. MOMA or not.
>
> I have a right as an individual to disagree with large
> institutional bodies.
Yes you do. But I'll tell you what...when I was going to do a Master's
Thesis on Underground Comix the entrenched faculty made sure that I
didn't stay in their Master's program. It's ironic, too, since the core
idea of a "thesis" or "dissertation" is to do something that hadn't been
done before.
>>>
>>>Hey, i've put new stuff on my website!
>>>Check it out...
>>
>>I like "Ramin" and "Ass One." Some of the others are interesting...made
>>me think "where is he going to go with this?"
>>
>
>
> Is this a nice way of saying, "What's the point?"
Oh, no, that would be pointless;-) Actually it a way of saying "there's
some really good ideas here that needs to be developed" but there's
really no way of knowing how the artist will develop the ideas.
BTW, in arttalk "ideas" are "graphic ideas" and not necessarily verbal
(although they can be.)
Erik
Hans Summ
>So I disunlinked to the sound file, and it should work ok now.
>
>Erik
It did. Now I look forward to the day (soon?)
when you have a complexed site to entertain
us-all with. Promises promises...
Hans Summ
I can't believe how much younger and
better looking than me you are, to say
nothing of SMARTER!
Erik A. Mattila
Well, that pix was taken....let's see, about ten years ago.
>
Dr. Slick
> >
> > It's only a matter of time before some brave art director decides
> > to put original comic art in a fine art gallery.
>
> That was done a long time ago, Slick, in several museums and galleries.
> As a matter of fact, some of the standard art history texts I've seen
> have Walt Disney listed under "Dada."
>
Well then i was more right than i even knew! That's quite a
step, although Disney is some of the more family-orientated,
digestable "animation". What about Chuck Jones and the Warner Bros.
folks?
>
> Yes you do. But I'll tell you what...when I was going to do a Master's
> Thesis on Underground Comix the entrenched faculty made sure that I
> didn't stay in their Master's program. It's ironic, too, since the core
> idea of a "thesis" or "dissertation" is to do something that hadn't been
> done before.
>
How close-minded. What did you do? I guess not much else to do
but change your thesis to something else, unless you wanted to drop
out. Sad story.
>
> Oh, no, that would be pointless;-) Actually it a way of saying "there's
> some really good ideas here that needs to be developed" but there's
> really no way of knowing how the artist will develop the ideas.
>
Oh, yeah, lots of this stuff are really just sketches and ideas.
Some may make it to the painting stage, i dunno.
Slick
Hans Summ
>Well, that pix was taken....let's see, about ten years ago.
You coulda fooled me!
Paul Mesken
You all hear that group? Now be extra nice to Erik for statistics
indicate he probably won't be with us anymore next year ;-)
frankvo...@web.de
wrote:
...
>Furthermore, a lot of bad digital art relies merely on trickery of the
>computer program (like photo shop, maya, or whatever) instead of skill
>of the artist. Escher, for instance, did some interesting optical
>distortions which were quite hard to pull off but photo shop can do it
>now in less than a second. A large part of the appreciation of art
>stems from seeing "tricks" from the artist, not from some machine (we
>are amazed by a human running 30 mph, not by a car doing the same
>speed).
>
>The above doesn't mean that it is not possible to make art with a
>computer which is clearly made by human effort :
>
>http://www.segrelles.com/works/computer2.htm
>
>(don't forget the links in the upper left corner, it shows the
>process).
>
>I agree with Segrelles here, the computer is not a subtitute for
>skill, it's just another medium which has some very desirable
>advantages. A drawback remains ofcourse the absence of an original
>work of art but that doesn't matter when reproduction is the aim.
...
If you like to see another type of using a computer to make
interactive art then have a look at:
Frank