The work of Art in the age of digital repoduction
Oliver Gili
Mike Stengl
> http://www.internationaldigitalart.com/articles/mutch.html
>
> Oliver
This is an important topic. Especially as it touches upon the success
of certain art medias (book, film, music) while describing the demise
of 2d art as a dinosaur in the modern world. I didn't exactly get what
the supposed solution of digital art was although I understand the
potential of a vast and immediate audience. Myself, I find the forms
of digital art that I have seen for the most part to be cold even if
visually arresting. The textureless quality is not pleasent to me and
there is something about the "uniqueness" of an original or limited
addition qaulity print that is comforting. I also see where this same
mind set of limited additions is basicly limiting the potential of an
image and perhaps an art form. It seems what ever breakthroughs
digital art could make within the computor culture paintings could
also follow as digital images of paintings are widely used. But how to
turn this into anything like a dollar I did not get from this article.
Thoughts?
G*rd*n
> > http://www.internationaldigitalart.com/articles/mutch.html
eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl):
> This is an important topic. Especially as it touches upon the success
> of certain art medias (book, film, music) while describing the demise
> of 2d art as a dinosaur in the modern world. I didn't exactly get what
> the supposed solution of digital art was although I understand the
> potential of a vast and immediate audience. Myself, I find the forms
> of digital art that I have seen for the most part to be cold even if
> visually arresting. The textureless quality is not pleasent to me and
> there is something about the "uniqueness" of an original or limited
> addition qaulity print that is comforting. I also see where this same
> mind set of limited additions is basicly limiting the potential of an
> image and perhaps an art form. It seems what ever breakthroughs
> digital art could make within the computor culture paintings could
> also follow as digital images of paintings are widely used. But how to
> turn this into anything like a dollar I did not get from this article.
> Thoughts?
Mutch says that the forms of live performance are dead. This
is a rather odd thing to say in view of such events as music
concerts, festivals, and raves, and of massive religious
performances. These are not productions of wealthy elites in
big cities, but of the people in general.
In the realm of the plastic arts, there is as yet no sort of
readily available digital art which is comparable to sculpture,
painting, drawing, and the like. Without extremely expensive
equipment, digital art can be viewed only on a computer screen,
a television, or printed in a magazine. Except for the said
wealthy elites, then, it is on the same level of physical
presence as a print, a magazine illustration, or a home movie
regardless of its uniqueness or originality. To say that in
its present form it will displace the materially present
plastic arts is analogous to saying (as some once did) that
photography would entirely replace painting and drawing. It
seems like a misunderstanding of what art is about.
It seems much more likely that, as with other new media,
digital art will become a parallel channel for artistic work
of its own kind, influencing, rather than obsoleting, the
older forms.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Andrew Werby
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bbqdno$mpg$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk>:
> > > http://www.internationaldigitalart.com/articles/mutch.html
>
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl):
> > This is an important topic. Especially as it touches upon the success
> > of certain art medias (book, film, music) while describing the demise
> > of 2d art as a dinosaur in the modern world. I didn't exactly get what
> > the supposed solution of digital art was although I understand the
> > potential of a vast and immediate audience. Myself, I find the forms
> > of digital art that I have seen for the most part to be cold even if
> > visually arresting. The textureless quality is not pleasent to me and
> > there is something about the "uniqueness" of an original or limited
> > addition qaulity print that is comforting.
[I don't see how you can accuse digital art as a whole of being
"textureless". What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the smooth
surface of inkjet prints as opposed to an oil impasto? Or the lack of
texture in art viewed through a monitor?
The problem addressed in this article (which was short and pretty much to
the point) was how to reclaim art from its "dinosaur" status, to which it
has been relegated by newer mass-marketable artforms that don't rely on
uniqueness to give them worth. While it may be comforting to own a unique
art object, most people have learned to live without this form of comfort,
and spend their money on replicated types of art (movies, music, books)
instead, leaving artists wedded to the production of unique objects high and
dry.]
I also see where this same
> > mind set of limited additions is basicly limiting the potential of an
> > image and perhaps an art form. It seems what ever breakthroughs
> > digital art could make within the computor culture paintings could
> > also follow as digital images of paintings are widely used. But how to
> > turn this into anything like a dollar I did not get from this article.
> > Thoughts?
[I didn't see much room for hope here either. Instead of visual art getting
a place at the table, it seems more like the other arts will get the same
treatment that it has got heretofore. MP3 downloads have hollowed out the
music industry, and it's just a matter of time before this happens with
films and books as well. Digitizable information, which broadly considered
includes content-types like visual art, is something that is getting
cheaper and cheaper, and for which people are expecting to pay less and
less. In this atmosphere, I'm not forseeing a big market in digital images
saving many artists from starvation.]
>
> Mutch says that the forms of live performance are dead. This
> is a rather odd thing to say in view of such events as music
> concerts, festivals, and raves, and of massive religious
> performances. These are not productions of wealthy elites in
> big cities, but of the people in general.
[Music concerts generally aren't big money-makers for the performers. They
are more of a "loss-leader", done to promote the sales of recordings that
are their bread and butter. In economic terms, live performance (like visual
art) is a fairly marginal activity, supported mostly by other sources of
income.]
>
> In the realm of the plastic arts, there is as yet no sort of
> readily available digital art which is comparable to sculpture,
> painting, drawing, and the like.
["Readily available" is a condition that's subject to change, but it's
subject to economic forces. It is certainly possible to make sculpture using
digital methods (see my site for details), but distributing it to the masses
is a different matter. If there were a mass market for it, you'd see it on
QVC, and you could buy it for yourself.]
Without extremely expensive
> equipment, digital art can be viewed only on a computer screen,
> a television, or printed in a magazine. Except for the said
> wealthy elites, then, it is on the same level of physical
> presence as a print, a magazine illustration, or a home movie
> regardless of its uniqueness or originality. To say that in
> its present form it will displace the materially present
> plastic arts is analogous to saying (as some once did) that
> photography would entirely replace painting and drawing. It
> seems like a misunderstanding of what art is about.
[Photography has replaced painting and drawing as a way of conveying
information about existing objects and events. Unless photographers are
specifically excluded from an event (like a trial) you won't see any
drawings in the newspapers. And, as was pointed out in the article, it also
has invaded the galleries, challenging the plastic arts in their last
redoubt. While people still like to make art, hardly anybody sees the need
to buy other's art for themselves. While it may not disappear completely, it
has certainly been eclipsed as an economically viable product. But what, in
your opinion, is art about?]
> It seems much more likely that, as with other new media,
> digital art will become a parallel channel for artistic work
> of its own kind, influencing, rather than obsoleting, the
> older forms.
>
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
[When, then, would you be willing to declare something obsolete? When nobody
pays it any attention but its practitioners? When even the best
practitioners have to find alternate means of financial support? There are
still people, for instance, who weave shawls on hand-looms from hand-spun
yarn- would you consider that an obsolete form, or just a "parallel
channel", influenced but not superseded by the forms of Lycra Spandex and
the like?]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
Erik A. Mattila
But there's always the chance that the Phone Company will implant us and
all the above will change.
Erik
Oliver Gili
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:h25Ea.595512$Si4.5...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:bbqdno$mpg$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> > "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk>:
> > > > http://www.internationaldigitalart.com/articles/mutch.html
> >
> > eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl):
> > > This is an important topic. Especially as it touches upon the success
> > > of certain art medias (book, film, music) while describing the demise
> > > of 2d art as a dinosaur in the modern world. I didn't exactly get what
> > > the supposed solution of digital art was although I understand the
> > > potential of a vast and immediate audience. Myself, I find the forms
> > > of digital art that I have seen for the most part to be cold even if
> > > visually arresting. The textureless quality is not pleasent to me and
> > > there is something about the "uniqueness" of an original or limited
> > > addition qaulity print that is comforting.
>
> [I don't see how you can accuse digital art as a whole of being
> "textureless". What do you mean by that? Are you talking about the smooth
> surface of inkjet prints as opposed to an oil impasto? Or the lack of
> texture in art viewed through a monitor?
exactly.... my digital work relies upon the illusion of texture... .
>
> The problem addressed in this article (which was short and pretty much to
> the point) was how to reclaim art from its "dinosaur" status, to which it
> has been relegated by newer mass-marketable artforms that don't rely on
> uniqueness to give them worth. While it may be comforting to own a unique
> art object, most people have learned to live without this form of comfort,
> and spend their money on replicated types of art (movies, music, books)
> instead, leaving artists wedded to the production of unique objects high
and
> dry.]
I dunno.... Artists can nick methods of distribution from other media....
after all no one turns their nose up at an album becuase they are not being
offered the master tapes of the recording, or the 'original' ... why can't
artists sell their prints that way, . Art should be in peoples homes, in
peoples lives.... and the (rightful) high prices of non reproductable work
like paintings acts as an economic barrier to this, with the digital and its
infinite reproductableness can get around this.
>
> I also see where this same
> > > mind set of limited additions is basicly limiting the potential of an
> > > image and perhaps an art form. It seems what ever breakthroughs
> > > digital art could make within the computor culture paintings could
> > > also follow as digital images of paintings are widely used. But how to
> > > turn this into anything like a dollar I did not get from this article.
> > > Thoughts?
>
> [I didn't see much room for hope here either. Instead of visual art
getting
> a place at the table, it seems more like the other arts will get the same
> treatment that it has got heretofore. MP3 downloads have hollowed out the
> music industry, and it's just a matter of time before this happens with
> films and books as well. Digitizable information, which broadly considered
> includes content-types like visual art, is something that is getting
> cheaper and cheaper, and for which people are expecting to pay less and
> less. In this atmosphere, I'm not forseeing a big market in digital images
> saving many artists from starvation.]
>
Mp3 downloads actually have helped sell records, not of the manufactured pop
(which has been directly hit by mp3s) granted..... but look at the sucess of
say Nora Jones which has been relient on mp3 downloads, and word of
mouth/email. I know that having sent various friends of mine to
www.lauracantrell.com and instructing them to download the sample tracks...
they without exception brought her album.
> >
> > Mutch says that the forms of live performance are dead. This
> > is a rather odd thing to say in view of such events as music
> > concerts, festivals, and raves, and of massive religious
> > performances. These are not productions of wealthy elites in
> > big cities, but of the people in general.
>
> [Music concerts generally aren't big money-makers for the performers. They
> are more of a "loss-leader", done to promote the sales of recordings that
> are their bread and butter. In economic terms, live performance (like
visual
> art) is a fairly marginal activity, supported mostly by other sources of
> income.]
actually most bands these days make far more from their concerts and sales
of things like t-shirts than the deristory cut they get from their own
records (which is about one dollar an album according to Chuck D of Public
Enemy who sold his last album on the 'net for a dollar for the whole
download, in a sort of cutting the (presumably pony tailed, coke snorting)
middleman out of the equasion)
actually with the rise of photoshop and the essentual mutability of the
photograph... news agencies are starting to use illustrators because, while
a photograph is easily modified in a fairly indetectable way an illustration
isn't.... having said that I did read this in an illustrators magazine a
couple of years ago... but I've not actually seen the evidence of this.
>
> > It seems much more likely that, as with other new media,
> > digital art will become a parallel channel for artistic work
> > of its own kind, influencing, rather than obsoleting, the
> > older forms.
> >
> > --
> >
> > (<><>) /*/
> > }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> > { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
>
> [When, then, would you be willing to declare something obsolete? When
nobody
> pays it any attention but its practitioners? When even the best
> practitioners have to find alternate means of financial support? There are
> still people, for instance, who weave shawls on hand-looms from hand-spun
> yarn- would you consider that an obsolete form, or just a "parallel
> channel", influenced but not superseded by the forms of Lycra Spandex and
> the like?]
>
> Andrew Werby
> www.computersculpture.com
>
>
>
Oliver