digital "fine" art.
Cynth_3D
current regard (or lack thereof) for digital art was compared to the
lack of regard for photography in its early years.
I (yikes, allow me to show my lack of knowledge) hadn't fully realized
that photography went through a period at its inception where it
wasn't considered "art".
I carefully consider pallete, composition, and concept, regardless of
the media I use. In my experience, fine photographers utilize these
basic tenets of quality artwork too.
I have read many diatribes on why it is short sighted to not consider
digital a valid media, but what, in your opinion, can bring about the
acceptance of good digital art as fine art? Is it's inherent ability
to be reproduced killing its chances to carry value?
Thanks for your thoughts on this...
-Cynthia
Cynth_3D
_________________________
http://www.curious3d.com
Ali Yupe
synt...@curious3d.com says...
>Is it's inherent ability
>to be reproduced killing its chances to carry value?
What do you mean by "its inherent ability?"
I know of nothing that makes the way a
digital image is reproduced problematic.
I know you're probably referring to the
fugitive inks that are most commonly used
for inkjet prints, but there are other
ways to print out digital images in
addition to inkjet printing. And like
photographic imagery, digital can be
considered a 'reference' for paintings in
other mediums. Photographs have been used
as references for paintings since the
early days of photography. Digital imagery
can be used the same way.
Andrew Werby
"Cynth_3D" <synt...@curious3d.com> wrote in message
news:8b15bd5c.02100...@posting.google.com...
> I'm a digital artist. I was having a conversation recently wherein the
> current regard (or lack thereof) for digital art was compared to the
> lack of regard for photography in its early years.
>
> I (yikes, allow me to show my lack of knowledge) hadn't fully realized
> that photography went through a period at its inception where it
> wasn't considered "art".
[That didn't stop it from becoming very popular, and spawning a
multi-billion-dollar industry. From the earliest years, practitioners were
making their livings producing photographic images. Now that it's officially
recognized as "art", surviving by doing photography has not become less
difficult. Digital art is in a similar position now as photography at its
inception; some people are doing very well with it without the burden of
self-consciousness that creating Fine Art seems to bring. So just keep
having fun and don't worry about your place in History quite yet. The art
that is remembered is usually the most popular, not the "highest" form of
its time anyway.]
>
> I carefully consider pallete, composition, and concept, regardless of
> the media I use. In my experience, fine photographers utilize these
> basic tenets of quality artwork too.
>
> I have read many diatribes on why it is short sighted to not consider
> digital a valid media, but what, in your opinion, can bring about the
> acceptance of good digital art as fine art? Is it's inherent ability
> to be reproduced killing its chances to carry value?
[Well, it shares that inherent ability with photography. Photographers see
digital work as encroachment on their turf, and react defensively- many
photo shows prohibit digitally-manipulated work, even if it is photo-based,
while art shows often try to exclude it as well. However, there is a fair
amount of interest in it on the part of the public; perhaps more than in
most forms of contemporary art, which has generally worn out its welcome.
There are starting to be exhibition opportunities specifically for digital
art, although much of it is presented on a monitor.]
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this...
>
> -Cynthia
> Cynth_3D
> _________________________
> http://www.curious3d.com
[I'd certainly agree that the use of a computer in the process of making it
doesn't disqualify something from being a work of art, but I'm not sure
there's a big payoff that will come from this attitude becoming more
generally accepted. While art itself is held in such low esteem, digital
work might be better off remaining outside the mainstream, at least for the
time being.]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
WoN ereH
Andrew, why do you feel this is the case?
Deb
Mani Deli
skills and traditions of painting in prior centuries and then ignore
the fact that these very same skills had reached their peak by the
mid-eighteen-hundreds. The focus instead, for them, is on a
sensibility they cannot comprehend because of their ingrained
prejudices. They miss the point -- that many of the great paintings of
this period were both revolutionary in their subject matter and
painted like no else had ever painted before. This of course includes
a broader range of work than the present show at the Brooklyn Museum
could possibly encompass. I think the very fact that this pinnacle of
skill lay so close to the 20th century's deliberate philosophical
destruction of those very skills, brought the greatest fury from
modern critics on these highly trained artists. It is safe to see the
value of masterly painting in other centuries, but a threat to see it
so close to home. After all, there are very few today who call
themselves artists who can truly paint. Quite frankly, most can't even
draw. That must be quite a blow to one's ego if one calls himself or
herself an artist. A child would expect an artist to be able to draw.
But oh, excuse me, he or she is a child, not a sophisticated adult
brainwashed in 20th century rhetoric. But it is now the 21st century,
and a newer generation is beginning to view of 19th century and
academic art with a fresh and appreciative eye. The Brooklyn Museum
should take pride in participating in the reeducation of a new and
growing audience."
The complete review can be found At
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/Exposed_Victorian_Nude/sherry1.asp
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Andrew Werby
"WoN ereH" <won...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021002151544...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >While art itself is held in such low esteem
>
> Andrew, why do you feel this is the case?
>
> Deb
[It's essentially payback for the low esteem that contemporary artists have
had for the majority of their viewers. People are tired of the "put-ons",
the attitude, the academic afflatus that seems a neccessary accompaniment to
every tiny variation on the same old stuff (that desperately wants to be
seen as something startling and new.) After going to galleries and museums
and being sorely disappointed time and time again, one can't really blame
people for giving up on contemporary art in general, or at least the
examples of it that are currently touted as the highest and finest.
While I don't agree with those who consider all non-realistic art to be a
dead end and call for a return to the artistic practices of the 19th
century, I can understand how they have come to feel that way. I think there
is some exciting new art simmering under the surface, but it's difficult to
find and is not exactly being encouraged to "emerge". In the meantime, the
image of us artists hovers somewhere between that of lunatics and bums,
depending on whether our motivations or our socio-economic status is being
considered. Courses in art are being rooted out of our schools as a
consequence of this, the result being that younger generations have even
less grounding in the techniques, issues, and accomplishments of visual art,
and less regard for it when they encounter it.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Mani Deli
will probably add you to his dreaded Kook list.
>[It's essentially payback for the low esteem that contemporary artists have
>had for the majority of their viewers. People are tired of the "put-ons",
>the attitude, the academic afflatus that seems a neccessary accompaniment to
>every tiny variation on the same old stuff (that desperately wants to be
>seen as something startling and new.) After going to galleries and museums
>and being sorely disappointed time and time again, one can't really blame
>people for giving up on contemporary art in general, or at least the
>examples of it that are currently touted as the highest and finest.
>
>While I don't agree with those who consider all non-realistic art to be a
>dead end and call for a return to the artistic practices of the 19th
>century, I can understand how they have come to feel that way. I think there
>is some exciting new art simmering under the surface, but it's difficult to
>find and is not exactly being encouraged to "emerge". In the meantime, the
>image of us artists hovers somewhere between that of lunatics and bums,
>depending on whether our motivations or our socio-economic status is being
>considered. Courses in art are being rooted out of our schools as a
>consequence of this, the result being that younger generations have even
>less grounding in the techniques, issues, and accomplishments of visual art,
>and less regard for it when they encounter it.]
>
>Andrew Werby
>http://unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
>
...no skill no art!
Andrew Werby
"WoN ereH" <won...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021002151544...@mb-mu.aol.com...
>
> Andrew, why do you feel this is the case?
>
> Deb
[It's essentially payback for the low esteem that contemporary artists have
Andrew Werby
"WoN ereH" <won...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021002151544...@mb-mu.aol.com...
>
> Andrew, why do you feel this is the case?
>
> Deb
[It's essentially payback for the low esteem that contemporary artists have
Andrew Werby
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:k1eppucs0erc83onn...@4ax.com...
> Andrew if you keep writing this sort of stuff in clear English Fox
> will probably add you to his dreaded Kook list.
[Oh no! Reading this over, I realize I am starting to sound like you- scary.
However, there's still a lot about contemporary art that I enjoy, and it's
not restricted to neo-realism. The best legacy of the last hundred years or
so of art history is the freedom to experiment, and the opening of the art
field to different sorts of talents, beyond that of draftsmanship. While
many experiments end in failure, that's not a reason to ban them. And while
draftsmanship is certainly a useful thing, it's not the be-all and end-all
of art. I guess that's where we part company, though...
(Sorry about the repeated messages, by the way, it must be Parkinson's
disease infecting my posting finger.) ]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Fred Mason
Fred
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:cY0n9.27209$xI5.5581@sccrnsc02...
Mani Deli
the suppressed art of the 19th Century which present day art
historians and critics consider artistic evil to be ignored and never
again mentioned other than with a brief word of derision. ARC is the
best web site which exposes the fictitious baloney which is presently
passed off as 19th C. art history.
ARC supersedes all books on this subject. It has allowed us to see the
work of many fine artists most have never heard of. It has superb,
truthful clear, non Artspeak essays on subjects available no place
else. Especially important is that it fills what is failing in the
reproductions one sees in most art books namely detail which shows the
painterly skills and complexity as executed by the best of these
artists.
However, it might surprise many here that I find much 19th C. subject
matter dull repetitive and poorly executed. To its credit however, ARC
shows the best along with the worst which allows the viewer to decide
what value this artwork has in comparison to the 20th C. abstract
design posing as masterpieces while competing with bath towels and
floor covering
The main problem I see with ARC is that it infers a revival of 19th
Century subject matter. It is revealed in most of the contemporary
work shown. I find much 20th C. artwork of the style that ARC favors
as an example of technically superior execution of uninteresting
subject matter. I am fully aware that this subject matter interests
many, myself included, if only for its technical excellence. However
most Arc style modern realism is in my opinion as uninteresting as
uninteresting photos. ARC at least for the moment ignores 20th C.
illustrators and other artists who are certainly on a technical level
they approve of but of whose subject matter, at least as far as I can
tell, they seem to disapprove.
For the moment I find ARC, not art renewal but art revival. Perhaps
this will change with time.
John Ng
> ARC at least for the moment ignores 20th C.
> illustrators and other artists who are certainly on a technical level
> they approve of but of whose subject matter, at least as far as I can
> tell, they seem to disapprove.
Can you show me a painting which fits this category... ie technically
good but non-ARC approved subject? It would clear up a lot.
> However, it might surprise many here that I find much 19th C. subject
> matter dull repetitive and poorly executed.
Whether 19C, 20C or before, every era has to have dull repetitive and
poorly executed works. Your statement seems to suggest that there was
a period with a majority of good interesting paintings. 19C has much
more than any other period.
John
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>> ARC at least for the moment ignores 20th C.
>> illustrators and other artists who are certainly on a technical level
>> they approve of but of whose subject matter, at least as far as I can
>> tell, they seem to disapprove.
>
>Can you show me a painting which fits this category... ie technically
>good but non-ARC approved subject? It would clear up a lot.
>
Just to name perhaps the most important of the lot, Dali.
Most of the nitwits here imagine all he does is empty deserts and
melting watches. All his large religious works, his portraits (Check
his Portrait of Gala in the MOMA which conforms well to the portraits
they like) and most of his 1930's works have the finest classical
technique. Added to this are his double images which are unequaled in
subject matter or technique. Check out his handling of detail, the
balance between fine blending and the discontinuim and the originality
of his lighting not to mention his drawing.
One might also look at the early work of Vargas and I don't see any
mention of Rockwell.
>> However, it might surprise many here that I find much 19th C. subject
>> matter dull repetitive and poorly executed.
>
>Whether 19C, 20C or before, every era has to have dull repetitive and
>poorly executed works.
Never denied it. I made a point of it because many there think that
most all 19th C. academic work has good drawing and technique.
>Your statement seems to suggest that there was
>a period with a majority of good interesting paintings.
Where?
> 19C has much
>more than any other period.
Well that's a matter of opinion. It isn't mine, however I wouldn't
like to be pressed into supporting it.
Richard
On 10 Oct 2002 18:58:59 -0700, pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>Whether 19C, 20C or before, every era has to have dull repetitive and
>poorly executed works. Your statement seems to suggest that there was
>a period with a majority of good interesting paintings. 19C has much
>more than any other period.
I like the subject matter of 19C paintings better than that from any
other era. I think there are more exciting & thrilling paintings from
that era than any other. I also LOVE victorian homes, victorian
furniture, victorian antiques, victorian novels, victorian
sentimentality, victorian era illustrations, and many other victorian
things. It's my favorite time of history. I just read a book that said
Victorians had bad taste in furniture. I felt like slapping the author
hard.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
wrote:
>I like the subject matter of 19C paintings better than that from any
>other era.
This is understandable. We each have taste in this matter. I prefer
still life combined with figure and landscape in a surreal context. I
don't expect all others to like it. That includes painting from all
periods.
All I expect from artwork is the combination of ideas, refined skill
and craftsmanship. This has always been present in fine work during
all times, now included.
John Ng
> Just to name perhaps the most important of the lot, Dali.
Ok, Dali and Rockwell... they are just a few (two) missing. I feel
that the exclusion is probably because they are so famous and don't
need much air-time until Fred finds the manpower. It will probably
slowly come in just like Vincent Van Gogh did (don't know why though).
> >Your statement seems to suggest that there was
> >a period with a majority of good interesting paintings.
>
> Where?
>
> > 19C has much
> >more than any other period.
>
> Well that's a matter of opinion. It isn't mine, however I wouldn't
> like to be pressed into supporting it.
Where? In the words, "it might surprise many here that I find much
19th C. subject matter dull repetitive and poorly executed". By
specifying "19C", you suggested it. I won't pick on your statement
overtones but I the words "It isn't mine" now echos this. Which
period is richer... especially technically?
John
John Ng
> I like the subject matter of 19C paintings better than that from any
> other era. I think there are more exciting & thrilling paintings from
> that era than any other. I also LOVE victorian homes, victorian
> furniture, victorian antiques, victorian novels, victorian
> sentimentality, victorian era illustrations, and many other victorian
> things. It's my favorite time of history.
Seems like your taste is exactly mine. I think the Victorian era is
the ultimate in taste. There are earlier period with exquisite taste
too but it was only reserved for the very rich. However, in the 19C,
it came down to the middle class and then down to the lower class. I
think that is the problem for the shift to Modernism. There was a
glut and everything began to look similar. Sellers were just
imitating and copying exquisite stuff in a poor shoddy manner and
before you know it, people begin to become tired and think that
Victorian things are old fashion.
However, after 80 years of Modernism, there are signs that
times-are-a-changing. However, it is very slow and will probably run
into decades before the taste goes back on the right track. There are
pioneers and avant-gardes leading the way out of Modernism but they
face a rough journey. I wish to have a "21C Victorian-like" decor for
my house but I am into the sixth year of decoration and still can't
find enough nice things (I live in Australia). Things these days are
shoddy... Modern Art is to be blamed because it does not stress
details or craftsmanship.
John
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>> Just to name perhaps the most important of the lot, Dali.
>
>Ok, Dali and Rockwell... they are just a few (two) missing. I feel
>that the exclusion is probably because they are so famous and don't
>need much air-time until Fred finds the manpower. It will probably
>slowly come in just like Vincent Van Gogh did (don't know why though).
Hope you are right
>> >Your statement seems to suggest that there was
>> >a period with a majority of good interesting paintings.
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> > 19C has much
>> >more than any other period.
It is a matter of opinion. I think you might agree that no argument
will invalidate either opinion.
Go to any major museum and look at the paintings from the mid 13
hundreds on. The styles vary greatly over time and place but the major
factors of what is considered the finest artwork remain throughout.
A lot of students who never look in libraries think that the finest
artwork of these centuries is confined to the few names they learn in
art school. These students rarely look further. I believe this is the
case because most art students aren't really interested in art.
Go to an art library and take a look at the number of artists named in
an artist dictionary. Some of these are about five volumes.
> Which period is richer... especially technically?
>
I have no set opinion on this.
I don't think there is a richer technique as such in the best work of
any period. Is the technique of Bouguereau any richer than Van Eyck,
Vermeer? I don't think so, it is different.
When I look at Bouguereau, Dali and later at Breughel, Holbein, Dutch
still life, Hudson River landscapes, the finest Flemish work for
example that thought doesn't cross my mind. I recognize the great
technique in all of these.
Those who have reached the heights in this category are all a quite
different. Technique in itself is a creative act.
Andrew Werby
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02101...@posting.google.com...
> John
[I think you're incorrect here. There are plenty of decorative items being
made these days with the highest standards of craftsmanship, in a variety of
artistic styles, few of which owe much to High Modernism, a style which
itself is rather dated, although it gives people like you a convenient straw
man to assault. Look in Crafts magazine (or its Australian equivalent) and
you'll find many beautiful things- whether you can afford them is another
matter. I hardly think the ideals of Modernism are to blame for the
shoddyness of today's consumer goods. More likely culprits are
mass-marketing, high labor rates (or oppressed 3rd-world laborers), inferior
materials, and a public which neither knows nor cares how things are made,
but just wants something that appears to fulfill a certain function at the
lowest possible price.
If you're willing to pay for attention to detail and craftsmanship you can
still find it. But if what you're mostly looking for is the stuff that
furnished your grandmother's house, don't be surprised if all you find are
cheap imitations. People who dedicate themselves to craftsmanship rarely do
this in order to copy the aesthetically depleted examples you favor, but
generally wish to put their skills to work in the service of their own
aesthetic vision. It's the manufacturers who have no particular aethetic
considerations to get in the way of profit who tend to take advantage of
culturally retrograde people like yourself. I'd suggest you figure out a way
to make enough money to be able to afford to collect the early-Victorian
antiques you fancy, instead of complaining about the quality of cheap
imitations.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
>
>
John Ng
> Go to any major museum and look at the paintings from the mid 13
> hundreds on. The styles vary greatly over time and place but the major
> factors of what is considered the finest artwork remain throughout.
Could the reason be because only the best paintings survived in
museums as opposed to the fact that the bulk of 19C works, good or
bad, survived. Look at the religious icons of yore and you find that
many are technically poor as well and never got anywhere.
John